Anti or Pro-capitalist?

[zaibatsu]

Through the "poor chickens" thread I've come to realise there are some real divisions between the way people think on RogueSci. I always previously assumed that people "sang from the same songsheet" on most topics - gun control, political bias, animal rights etc, although that seems to be confounded now! So, I was wanting to know where the members of RogueSci stood on capitalism.

I believe that capitalism is the only and best way to make things work. You work hard, you get money. You don't work, you don't get anything. Directors of companies should only be accountable to their shareholders, and not the general public. Businesses should only take into account profits when making decisions, not public costs. The market should therefore decide whether they agree with a companies actions, and support companies accordingly. There should be no "safety net" for people. Health care should be provided by private companies and that the rich should have tax cuts, rather than tax increases. I also believe in the removal of subsidies such as CAP and import/export tariffs and therefore freemarket policies.

What about you lot then?

[knowledgehungry]

I'm fiercely pro, and am fiercely against communism, as Combat 84 said" when your on your knees with a gun to your head its better to be dead than fucking red" capitilism gives competition and choice. Communism fights against human nature(selfishness and lazyness) and there fore cannot work cuz no one wants it too .

[Nihilist]

I'm definitely pro-capitalism. Communism is a good idea on the surface, but of course then good 'ol human nature comes along and straightens that out nicely =p. I believe that businesses should keep all of their earnings, and not be responsible to the public except of course for things like pharmaceuticals where the company needs to make sure their product is safe, since people can't do that on their own. I believe there should be limits though, I believe huge monopolies should be illegal, and other such cheating of the marketplace.

[Tuatara]

Ooooo! Another nice juicy discussion!

Well, I'm somewhere in the middle on this one. I don't think pure capitalism works, with money as the only scorekeeper. What use is being the richest guy on a dead planet?
Communism sounds good in theory, but in practise it falls down because of human nature, so thats no good.

I'm all in favour of free trade and competition etc, but I think the capitalist model needs to take into account such things as social and enviromental costs.

There is too much money poured into social welfare (well, in NZ anyway) - lots of useless individuals living off the backs of others. Those folks should be giving back, in community service.

So, I'm going to plunk for 'Green Capitalism' :) I suppose you could have guessed that already from my statements in the chicken thread :D

[Kid Orgo]

Communism, even as an idea, is broken. Dictatorship of the "proletariat"? Communist Party (a new upper class) holding power until "world communism" is achieved? These are simply not good ideas. Ironically, communism is just another way to hold down the working men and women who would put in place.

I'm a civil libertarian, personally. Capitalism is good, but the minimum government necessary, in my view, needs to keep big business from fucking the working man. America works, but it would work better without so many fucking bureaucrats.

To misquote that old adage, "Capitalism (the economic system of a democracy) is the worst form of economy out there, except for every other form"

[vulture]

If you're really rich, you're a criminal. There is NO way to get really rich legally.
Before anyone asks, yes, Bill Gates is a criminal, he invented windows!

I'm pro tax increases for rich people. They tend to use their influence to steer politics, so why don't make em pay for their own decisions? Not more than reasonable. Otherwise they not only get richer by exploiting other people, they also wast tax money of people who could put it to much better use.

[zaibatsu]

Tuatare:
I'm all in favour of free trade and competition etc, but I think the capitalist model needs to take into account such things as social and enviromental costs
This is the beauty of using a market to motivate companies! If the environment is important to people, they won't buy from companies who ruin it. Therefore, companies will adjust their activities to suit the moral stance of consumers.

Nihilist:
Yes, I agree, you must have some form of Competition Commission to make sure there is enough competition, while keeping a balance between big and small businesses. You need big business to provide investment etc, and you also need Patents and copyright, so they can recoup costs from R&D, which don't help competition.

Vulture:
They justify everyone paying a % of their income because "we're all people" - so I have to pay more? Why is that, am I more of a person? Is a person that pays less less of a person? I saw a program on a couple who reinvested all their money in buy-to-let properties, and were worth over 100million legally. Although if I could influence government to run how I like, I'd happily pay more tax.

[John Ashcroft]

I'm a libertarian socialist, like Noam Chomsky.

Capitalism (the economic system of a democracy)

That's not the case. There's been plenty of democratic socialist states in the past, and some still exist. It's a popular misconception, especially among libertarians in America, that capitalism is an element of democracy.

[Kid Orgo]

Well, I've been on the hardcore environmental/chemistry/math thing lately. Not much time for politics and gov't. You are probably right, other democratic systems could work.

I've read some of Chomsky, he's got some really good poinrs.

Murray Bookchin is a pretty interesting read, too. A little bit of anarchist, a little bit of Marx. He wrote a great paper about social ecology vs. "deep ecology". He's one vitrolic man. Which is all the better, because I can't stand deep ecology.

[zeocrash]

i'm very republican. i'm pro capitalist, pro american, anti comunist, anti liberal, anti religious (not very republican i know, but what the hell). so i'm pretty much the opposite of your average "non conformism is cool" teenager. i put non conformist in quotes because so many teenagers do it now days that it's no longer non conformist.

[A43tg37]

I'm basically pro-free market (which can mean pro-capitalist, I guess, but I also wouldn't be averse to a system of market socialism where most companies were worker-owned or cooperatives, but the free market still set prices, determined what should be produced, and provided services like health care instead of the government providing them).

However, when I say pro-free market, I mean a TRULY free market system. What this essentially translates out to is free enterprise, but with none of the current restrictions and unfair favoritism by the government of some economic groups over others. It means few or no taxes (fund gov't services with user fees or contract insurance), no patents or copyrights, no minimum wage (but no damn Taft-Hartley Act or right to work laws either, and the refusal of Federal and state governments to get involved in policing or stopping strikes..with strong unions, we wouldn't really need a minimum wage), no gov't provided welfare (but also, no corporate welfare..aka farm subsidies, industrial subsidies, overly complex tariffs, and wasteful defense contracts), no eminent domain laws (if the government wants to build a highway on your land, they can pay you full value or find somewhere else to build it...this would also prevent people like Warren Buffet, and corporations like Wal-Mart, from using city gov'ts to seize people's land so they can build casinos, malls, and stores), no corporate limited liability, abolish the legal fiction of corporate personhood, easy bankruptcy laws (for individuals and small proprietorships only; not for corporations) to "prime the pump" by allowing small businesses to start-up without their owners worrying about having what they've worked for all their lives sold to pay creditors if their business fails, an end to fractional reserve banking (which is the moral and financial equivalent of check kiting, but it's legal since banks and the Federal Reserve do it) and a return to hard currency, and an active and aggressive lawyer's bar (and NO tort limits for corporations) to sue the hell out of businesses who cheat, lie, steal, harm, or defraud their customers and employees (with an agressive bar, we wouldn't need so many regulatory agencies..fear of lawsuits would keep businesses frrm doing unethical and harmful things).

Zaibatsu, when a company is an oligopoly (like more than 3/4 of American big businesses), you often don't have a choice but to buy from them, or from one of their (few) competitors who are probably doing the same thing to the environment. Plus, many corporations "greenwash" their image through PR campaigns and lie through their greedy little teeth about what they do to the environment. We don't necessarily need an EPA like we have now, but if we don't have one, it'd better be common knowledge by every company that polluting will get them sued for quite a bit of money, and they wil have to pay restitution to those whose property/water/land they polluted (not like today, where, for example, PG&E and some of their Arizona subsidiaries have had no less than 14 lawsuits filed against them in Federal court for air pollution, water pollution, devaluing people's property, and causing health and respiratory problems-all these suits were simply seeking damages and orders to make the companies cease and desist polluting-or keep paying damages, and the government keeps tossing the suits out to protect the power companies, who give lots of campaign contributions in return).

Oh, and big business is NOT needed to provide investment capital. Just because it's that way in most of America and Europe today, doesn't mean that that's the only way it could work. Personal savings, bank loans, mutual banks, credit unions, cooperatives, venture capitalists (both individual ones, and those where groups of fifty to a thousand people pool some money and go looking for venture cap deals to finance), IPOs of stock, bonds (which can be issued by small businesses and joint-stock companies as well as big corporations), government financing and loans (hey, I'm not in favor of it, but it IS a method), money pooling (much like the Korean immigrants' system of ten families each pooling money for ten months, and a different one of them gets it each month), HYIPs, and even high-profit illegal businesses like dope sales or prostitution (both of which should be legalized) or fraud (which obviously shouldn't be), can serve to provide investment capital and "seed money" for new businesses.

[zaibatsu]

A43tg37:
Interesting points. But explain this to me - would there be any pharmaceutical companies? If so, why? There's little motivation, as the high R&D costs would not be paid for the government, and it wouldn't even give them a large advantage over competitors, because as soon as they release the new drug, people can simply make generic copies of it. This will make companies more reluctant to invest in research into new cures, which will slow down the progress of science.

Also, how can unions contribute to a more free market? That to me is absurd, as all unions do is bully companies while not taking into account the effect on other people. In my world, the government would have the ability to break up union demonstrations by whatever means possible. No-one has a right to a job, if they don't like the job they've got then leave.

"easy bankruptcy laws"? Wouldn't that affect the banking corporations - something you cited as necessary for investment?

What about economies of scale? Business should work at their most efficient level, and for some businesses that is at a very large scale of production. So you would be prepared to waste limited resources for the sake of having smaller companies?

[John Ashcroft]

Pure capitalism is economic chaos. It a system where many forms of organized crime are legal.

[David 314]

Neo-conservatives are always talking about how much they like natural selection, but then they throw huge ammounts of money at pharmaceutical companies. Nazis were NOT natural selectionists. Concentration camps dont grow out of the ground. If you dont want a clogged gene pool, get rid of medication and let the weak die.

[Tuatara]

This is what I mean by 'green capitalism'
bsr.org (http://www.bsr.org/Meta/About/index.cfm)

I don't think market response is fast enough to keep companies in line.

Joe Public: " I'm not buying any more power from you because you dumped 10 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel in the harbour"
Power Co.: " Oh! Sorry Joe, we won't do that any more."

But the nuclear waste is still there ...


In NZ the biggest mistake in recent history was de-regulating the electricity market. The result? Power shortages through winter, because the generating companies used up all the cheap hydropower first - so we were left with insufficient generating capacity, with just coal and oil. Also big power cuts in Auckland because routine maintenance on cables wasn't done - no profit in it see?

This is why I feel profit needs to be balanced against social responsiblity. Emphasis on 'balance'!


Unions are a neccessary balancing force in the workplace, the trouble comes when they get out of hand and greed takes over. Otherwise we'd all still be working 80+ hours a week from the age of 10.

[A43tg37]

Zaibatsu, as long as there's SOME profit to be made, there will be pharmaceutical companies...there may be less profit, but as long as even a small profit margin exists, there will be those who fill the market's desire for such a product. And while it may be true that not having patents would mean that almost as soon as a new drug was developed, there would be generics copies of it; this could also be a GOOD thing, and one which would serve to spur MORE research and development. If companies knew that their drug formulas could legally be easily copied when they came out, they would be forced by the competitive pressures of the free market to develop new drugs a lot more quickly if they wanted to stay #1 in the market; this is the exact opposite of what sometimes (most of the time, actually) happens in today's pharmaceutical markets. Companies like Pfizer and GlaxoWellcome know that because their products have a guaranteed market hammerlock for a period varying from 3-20 years, they don't have to do too much R&D of new drugs to stay competitive.

Now, you may think that what I'm saying about forcing Big Pharma to be more competitive and develop new drugs sooner may be work to achieve that objective, but it would do so at a cost of not letting drug companies make enough profits to fund R&D. This might be a valid argument if it wasn't for the fact that drug companies spend twice as much (or more) on advertising and promotion as they do on actual R&D, especially since the regulations on drug advertising were relaxed by the FDA in 1997; furthermore, almost ALL drug R&D costs are tax deductible (name ANY other industry, besides ones that supply the government directly, like defense contractors, that gets that kind of tax write-off on research and development expenses. Finally, the advertising vs. R&D figure I reported is actually quite skewered in favor of the drug companies; between 75-80% of "R&D" monies expended by pharmaceutical companies are actually spent to produce modified versions of the same drug, produce a slightly chemically different drug (to have something else to patent and sell when the patent on the original drug runs out), to try and produce similar drugs with similar effects that are chemically dissimilar enough to get around other companies' patents, so as not to get sued for patent infringement (a complete waste of funds that wouldn't happen if drugs weren't patented), or to test already developed drugs for new uses (like the anti-depressant bupropion for smoking cessation) in search of greater profits. And before you decide that no matter what I say, a system with no patents would STILL discourage R&D, ask yourself this: is our CURRENT system encouraging very much R&D (by that I mean true basic research on entirely new drugs, not "R&D" of the varieties mentioned above)? We do have a few new drugs (mostly for heart conditons..however, many of these are simply outgrowths of research done in the 80's), but we still use cancer drugs from the 70's and 80's (taxol and its derivatives, and most other chemo drugs)...we still use AZT (developed in the 80's) for AIDS; some of the newest AIDS drugs are modified protease inhibitors developed almost ten years ago. Most of our current anti-depressants (of the MAOI and Tricyclic variety anyhow) were developed back in the 60's ; SSRIs in some form or another have been around since the 80's....how many TRULY new drugs does are current system encourage research and development of? Damn few.

A classic example of this is what happened with Prilosec and Nexium. For those of you who don't know what those two pills are (and how could you not, what with them being on TV ads all the time), they are drugs that shut off some of the HCl gastric acid pumps in the stomach; they're used for treating gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), severe heartburn, and some forms of ulcers. What happened in regards to these two drugs was this: Prilosec (omeprazole) was developed in the mid-1990's (it wasn't marketed until a bit later) by the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. It worked well as an anti-reflux and anti-heartburn drug, but didn't perform as well as the company's trials had shown as an anti-ulcer drug. On top of that, it caused side effects like diarrhea and severe abdominal/stomach/intestinal cramps in many of those who took it. Now, AstraZeneca had developed a newer and slightly chemically different drug (I think it was an optical isomer of omeprazole; I could be wrong on that though), esomeprazole, that worked as well as Prilosec for heartburn and GERD, worked better as an anti-ulcer drug, and while it did have some of the same side effects as Prilosec, far fewer of those who took it in clinical trials experienced these side effects. This drug was developed in the late 1990's, circa 1999. However, since AstraZeneca had a patent on Prilosec, and this drug accounted for the lion's share of anti-GERD drugs sold, they saw no need to market esomeprazole (I don't think anyone else could have marketed esomeprazole under our current system either, even if they had developed it independently....being so chemically similar to omeprazole, AstraZeneca could have said it was too similar to the "prior art" patent-wise and sued for infringement)....UNTIL, that is, their patents were about to expire in 2002; this meant that other companies could make generic Prilosec, and AstraZeneca would either have to cut its prices (and consequently its profit margin) on Prilosec, or lose market share. In 2002, they began fully marketing esomeprazole as Nexium, and many doctors won't even prescribe Prilosec anymore unless the patient's symptoms show no response to Nexium. What we have here, then, is an excellent example of how the patent system's interference and overprotection in the free market brought about a serious distortion by allowing AstraZeneca to sell Prilosec at more than its true market equilibrium price, and keeping a superior drug off the market for at least four years.

Sources:

1. Lind T, Rydberg L, Kyleback A, Jonsson A, Andersson T, Hasselgren G, Holmberg J, Rohss K . Esomeprazole provides improved acid control vs. omeprazole in patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000;14:861-867.

2. Kahrilas PJ, Falk GW, Johnson DA, et al. Esomeprazole improves healing and symptom resolution as compared with omeprazole in reflux oesophagitis patients: a randomised controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000;14:1249-1258.

3. Richter JE, Kahrilas PJ, Johnson J, et al. Efficacy and safety of esomeprazole compared with omeprazole in GERD patients with erosive esophagitis: a randomized controlled trial. Am Journal of Gastroenterology. 2001;96(3):656-665.

4. The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers
Katharine Greider
PublicAffairs Ltd.
2003

5. Reuters report on Families USA's 2002 study on drug R&D, promotion, and advertising costs
www.rxcansave.com/docs/Report%20attacks%20drug%20companies%20ad%20spendin g.pdf


Now, on to some of the other things you mentioned. Unions contribute to a freer market by negotiating with employers directly for higher wages, instead of having the government set what wages should be (and really, which would YOU rather see: wages determined by collective bargaining and discussions between unions, workers, and businesses, or the government setting a minimum wage? Which one is truly more "free market"?) Granted, many unions today support the minimum wage laws, although it's not because many of their members make minimum wage (how many union guys have you heard of that made only five bucks an hour); rather, it's because the minimum wage provides a scale to bargain up from; i.e. "well, your lowest paid workers are making $5.15 an hour, therefore, since we want $12.15 an hour; if his wages go up by a dollar, ours should too". If unions were as strong as they are in Switzerland and Germany, they probably could set a wage floor on their own, without government help. Whether current unions would do this is debatable, but I never really liked the AFL-CIO and their "top-down, no direct democracy by members, let the government and the union bureaucracy decide everything, to hell with the rank and file" mentality anyway, and I would hope that in a really free market, some directly democratic rank-and-file led unions (like the UMW kind of still is) would realce or supplant the AFL-CIO. Also, I fail to see how asking for higher wages and going on strikes is "bullying" anyone; it seems that with all the wage givebacks, contracts that accept more layoffs, and workers being cheated out of their pensions recently, the companies are doing most of the bullying, not the unions. And I find your policy of "break up union demonstrations by whatever means possible" completely reeks of Fascism, pure and simple. I agree that no one has a right to a job, but demonstrations are a form of FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY, which we DO have a right to. Frankly, it's somewhat sad, and more than a little disturbing, that anyone, on this board of ALL places, would stand for the suppression of free speech by "whatever means possible".

Easy bankruptcy laws would affect banks, yes, but I believe small businesses are important job creation engines, and I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt than some big government-backed, FDIC insured, usuring, fractional-reserve-lending, fiat-money-advocating, lying SOB banker. Besides, some of the other changes I'd mentioned (namely abolishing fractional reserve banking and putting us back on a hard money standard) would rock the banks' world far more than changing the bankruptcy laws, and I didn't hear you mention anything about that. Oh, and I never said banks were necessary for investment capital; I merely cited them as one possible source of it among many.

Finally, I never said anything about economics of scale. If a big business can survive and thrive in a truly fair and honest free market...good for the big business; I have no qualms with it. However, I think that the current system gives them so many unfair supports and advantages that it's no wonder they succeed and profit at a rate far greater than small businesses. I simply want to take away those unfair advantages; and let a REAL free market decide the rest...if that is a "waste of resources", then so be it.

[nbk2000]

I believe that businesses should be free to pay their workers whatever they want, charge however much they want for their product, and do so with minimal interference from government.

I also think that workers should be free to form workers collectives (I hate the "U" word) for their own benefit, consumers can pay whatever they're willing to pay for the product/services they want, and government doesn't try to act like everyones nanny by "protecting" them with articially low prices/subsidies/tarriffs/etc.

If a person doesn't like what they're getting paid, get another job or, better yet, become independant of the wage slave mentality and become a freelancer.

This is what I've done. :)

I'm now a freeleance graphic artist at $12.5/hour, cash only. Bling, bling! :D

Since I've just started, I've only got a couple clients, one being a newspaper, so I'm not totally free of my menial wage job...yet...but I'm on my way. :)

It's scut work right now, doing business cards and calandars, but everyone starts out at the bottom, so I'm not worried about it. Hell, it's easy work really, and I got paid $25 for knocking out two business cards in two hours as my very first job. That's equal to five hours of dealing with the public at my current cashier job (after taxes), only minus the hassles/stress/boss/taxes/etc.

With enough experience, and a good rep, an artist can get work anywhere, anytime, name his own price, and doesn't have to worry about layoffs/the office/politics/being on time/ or other trival work-related crap. He can work on the beach in Tahiti, or a motel room in Rio during carnival, only needing a laptop with PS7 and 'net access to get paid.

This is the goal of the laizzese fair (hope I'm spelling it right) economic model. Everyone sets the price of their service, and everyone is free to choose amongst them, no matter how big or small the product or service may be, or where in the world it's located.

If the product/service is superior, more people will choose that provider, making them even more money. There'd be no monopolies unless the provider is so superior that no one else can even compete in quality, in which case why would anyone else want to use them?

If china can provide cheaper programming skills than silicon valley, with the same quality, guess where the money is going? This motivates the silicon geeks to either lower their prices, or increase their quality, in order to remain competitive. And if liberian programmers (yeah, right) can do both then they'd have the de facto monopoly on programming.

[vulture]

This is the goal of the laizzese fair (hope I'm spelling it right) economic model.

I assume you mean "laissez faire", market with minimal interference?

[nbk2000]

At least I had all the letters! :D

[Anthony]

Would I be right in assuming that we've got a couple of people here with business/economics qualifications?

Good to see NBK has cost-reduction mastered - no tax, no software licenses... :D

[Psymage]

Me myself I don't like capitalism because it's a systems where money is the most important thing. And money isn't the most important thing, the most important thing is Working (Arbeid). Capitalism also won't care about it's envirement because "nature is expensive". Also the working of a bank and the stock is not right, because making more money with money will lower the value of working.

I also don't like communism (also i think it's better then capitalism) because you won't have much freedom in a communism society, but i like the idea of communism because all people are equal.

the best system would be a system between them (25 old men at the top of society, but the have to live in poverty) or anarchy (I know you all don't like anarchists but i think its the best because its pure human nature to try to survive and live in freedom), but anarchy can not be used in this world because there to many people (if you had fewer people on the world it would work but now it would just be a disaster if we all would live in anarchy (in 2 days the whole world would be destroyed))

[Anthony]

People are not equal, and working is not the important thing - work is for chumps :)

25 men weilding ultimate power who live in poverty will still not understand the average person's life, just as 25 wealthy men wouldn't. Because they're piss-poor, they're likely to regard luxuries (air conditioning, non-essential surgery, cable TV, computers) as being pointless and would likely decide that for the "good" of the country, people shouldn't have them.

Also, the odds of your more unique interests being represented within the 25 aren't very good. I.e. none of them are likely to understand why you should mess with pyro.

A lot of people seem to have an opinion about how to make society better, usually they're unsuccessful people (when was the last time you heard a millionaire complaining about the unfair distribution of wealth?).

I say that society will never change and make your life magically better, YOU'VE got to make your life better within the system, play the game, and quit bitching and play the hand you've been dealt.

[Psymage]

oke my previous post was only to explain my ideas of a "perfect" (wich is impossible) society.

But for most things i agree with Anthony.

[Arkangel]

I'm part way through a book called "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser. It's a description of the way the industry developed in America and the effects it's had on every aspect of American life. I won't try and describe much of it here, but it's highly pertinent to this thread (any of my UK pals would be welcome to borrow it when I'm done)

There's a saying "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and it was often used in America and the west to describe the way things happened in Stalin's Russia, Tito's Yugoslavia, Ceacescu's Romania, and all the other supposedly communist or totalitarian states.

Trouble is, everyone sees fault everywhere but in themselves, and assume that the saying doean't apply in the land of the free. No system is without fault, and the capitalist ethos is one which taken to it's logical conclusion, would have one person more or less running the world, with all of us living on subsistence wages to ensure their personal fortune (NBK, that's probably a job you'd like:p ) You certainly see some individuals and corporations who's desire for more money and more power has no bounds.

The fact is, we live in an economic ecosystem. Just as in the rest of the natural world, incredibly complex relationships exist between every member of it, the banks, the industrials, the workers and so on. None can exist without the other, and interdependency helps fuel the development of species/businesses as they compete for survival. And that's exactly what many of you are talking about here. People SHOULD be able to get on by working hard, working smart.

But imagine the sea, where millions of years of evolution has created a distinct hierachy from sharks to the krill. Suddenly, mankind is on the scene, with his superior brain and fishing prowess. Things are fine until mechanisation appears and the industrial revolution is brought to bear. Slowly we see advanced trawls, purse-seine nets, sonar, aerial spotting, computer modelling, vacuum factory fishing ships and things are suddenly not fine anymore. Add that to the runoff from industry that's beginning to choke the sea and you find the entire ecosystem under threat at one level or another. The fishing industry has got more and more efficient, without effective checks, and now Cod, the fish that built America is an endangered species. Is that progress?

In the same way, if you allow capitalism to run away without ANY form of control then you will have de facto totalitarianism in your land. Already, three meatpacking companies control 80% of the ground beef sold in the US, and each would happily swallow all the competition if given a chance. That hasn't happened yet, but would it be a good thing? Don't fool yourselves that it's impossible.

Capitalism should be allowed to get on with it's job, BUT an independent, unbiased and honest government should lay down the regulatory framework within which ethical business practices exist, and competition is maintained.

[nbk2000]

The powerless always complain about the abuse of power by those who do have it.

Monopolies can sometimes be a good thing. When Ma Bell owned all the phones, they always worked. Now, when even cable companies can start up a baby bell, you know your in trouble, because these people can't even keep the cable up more than 99% of the time, which is not "Sigma Six" reliable like the old bell was.

Microsoft, as much as we hate it, is responsible for the popularization of the PC and the internet. If the only way people could get on the net was by learning command line *nix, there'd only be geeks and acadamia on the net. 99% of our members wouldn't even have a computer, and we wouldn't exist as a site.

Yes, I know, popularization of the net has brought the "bread and circus" masses to the 'net, but you take the bad along with the good.

But, there's also a need for a perpetual underdog as well. Without Apple to nip at Bill's heels, would he still be as interested in improving Windows as he otherwise would be? Likely not. He knows that if he starts slipping, Apple is willing (if not able) to replace him.

If anything, there should be a mandated 80/20 division of market share. The company with the 80% share provides stability and standardization for the industry. The 20% is composed of other companies that provide innovative ideas and motiviation for the Big Boy to utilize them, otherwise risking being replaced by the better mousetrap. :)

To trust an "an independent, unbiased and honest government" to do that is absurd! Tell me of ONE government on the entire planet that fits your criteria for being "an independent, unbiased and honest government". If there was such a thing, then communism would have succedded, but it never will because there's no such thing as "an independent, unbiased and honest government". How could there be, when government is ran by people, and all people are greedy and selfish, unless you had a government ran by Mother Terresa (the whore!). :p

[Arkangel]

"Should" is the problem word NBK. "Should" allows all sorts of excesses.

The example you describe of the Telco's (the business I'm in) and the original state monopoly situation is interesting. Does anyone really think the web and all the high speed data transfer systems would have been anywhere like as developed as they are without the forced introduction of competition? There wouldn't be ANY of the main transoceanic capacity if it had been left to the incumbent state carriers. Granted, lots of small telco's don't know their ass from their elbow, but we're still far better off. The wholesale price for a call between the UK and US was $0.30 ten years ago, now it's less than a cent. MORE regulation of the Telco industry is what's required

Capitalism isn't interested in competition, it is purely interested in self. Not the self as in you and me, but the self of the company/owners. McDonalds doesn't want Wendy's to exist, or BK or TB, they want it all for themselves. Without a framework of law, there is no length that they wouldn't go to in pursuit of it's goals. So SOME regulations do exist, but without ANY you wouldn't have Apple nipping at MS's heels. The only difference between our opinion on this NBK, is the degree of regulation required, and the objective of that regulation. My opinion is that more emphasis should be put on workers rights, respect for the environment and anti monopolistic practices.

But I'm a pragmatist and I do live in the real world and before you suggest I'm bitching about my powerlessness, I suspect I'm one of, if not the highest earner on the forum. I live the Capitalist dream, but I try to do so as a good human being. (Edit: I'll leave this remark as it is (sounds a bit wank) but qualify it a bit. I work in an industry where the wages are obscene, so much so that I feel guilty when I'm around a lot of the people I grew up with. True, I'm not a rockerfeller, but I am in the highest tax bracket, and I think that entitles me to bitch a bit about capitalism without my reasoning being questioned on the basis of cash or power)

[Anthony]

"I suspect I'm one of, if not the highest earner on the forum"

Lend us a tenner mate ;)

[Arkangel]

Too busy paying off my debts;)

Sorry

[knowledgehungry]

Speaking of the rockefellers, one of th rockefellers is a democratic senator, and people claim the republicans are for the rich :rolleyes: .

[nbk2000]

Funny you should mention debts.

Capitalism is fueled by debt created by consumers who buy more than they can really afford.

Debt is charged interest. Interest is money paid in addition to the original debt, meaning more work on the part of the consumer to pay for it. More work means more productivity.

Advertising creates wants for objects that are not necessities (food/shelter).

If people only bought necessities and paid only cash, then capitalism would grind to a halt, because there'd be no interest to fund capital investment and not enough productivity to create growth, since people would only work enough to pay for their needs and not their wants.

For instance, one of my former landlords had a successful business that was making about $120,000/year. After paying for his harleys (never buy one, they ALWAYS need repair), his porsche, trucks, ATV's, etc ad nauseum he was in debt for many thousands each year, and getting more and more into debt as the years passed.

And, mind you, this is even after all the scamming and schemes, for free electricity for the business (saving at least $1,000/month), paying a booster to steal expensive stuff for a fraction of their cost, check forgery, etc.

In the end, it all got him a couple years in prison, and literally EVERYTHING (even the birds) taken away by the police on flatbed trailers and sold at auction for "victim" restitution. So all his toys are gone, he's in prison, he still has this debt to pay once he's out, and now no business to pay for it. :D

I, on the other hand, had a POS car, lived in a 10x14 foot shed by the side of the business (nominally as "night watchman" :p), and worked only a couple nights a week as a clerk at the local Stop&Rob to pay for my necessities (no rent).

After a year of doing this, as well as "consulting" jobs for various ne'er-do-wells, I had quite a few thousand dollars saved up (all cash, in pipe safe, as per RTPB) and plenty of free time to work on my projects.

The landlord, on the other hand, was working pretty much every day, from 6 to 6 (sometimes later), and didn't have much time at all to enjoy his toys.

Rather ironic, was how my landlord with the porsche would come to me, the guy living in the shed, to borrow money, because he was either broke or couldn't get to it in time for a deal. :) Better than a bank I was...no questions, 24 hours, as much as you needed, and all on the condition of 20% interest per day, with the businesses Snap-On tools being the collateral.

Besides which, having butt-loads of "toys" ties you down. You become a servant of your possessions, rather the way it should be. You can't move when you want to, not without taking a substantial hit in your finances by losing everything you've paid into your toys.

When the cops came and seized the business, I was packed and gone in a couple hours. And that's the way it's been each time I've moved since then. Most of what I accumulate is expendable junk that I leave behind when I move, taking only my computer and all my data. Things are replaceable, data (once lost) is never replaceable.

So, you may be at the top of the income scale, but do you have time to enjoy it?

[Tuatara]

I don't think today's rampant consumerism is necessary for captialism to work. Wind the clock back 30 years - no credit cards, people paid cash usually, if you wanted to borrow money for a house you needed a 20 year savings record and essentially had to prove that you didn't need the money at all. Yet the capitalist machinery kept grinding along. I will freely admit that easy credit has accelerated the capitalist engine, but I don't think its a pre-requisite.

I have managed to stay clear of the 'buy now, pay forever' trap. Except for my house, of course, but even that is a reasonably modest affair so I'm not mortgaged to the eyeballs. Thats a life-style choice. My other 'toys' (and there aren't many) are all bought when I have the money in hand. I zero my credit card every month, taking advantage of the 30 day free credit (suckers!). I still recall the look on the salesmans face when I bought a TV years ago, and wrote the guy a $1000 cheque :D

[nbk2000]

Checks + Credit Cards = Banks = Government control and monitoring of your finances.

Also, was the ecomony anywhere near what it is now, back in the days before "easy credit"? Nope. The US now accounts for almost a third of the worlds total economic activity and finance. Back in the post-war days, we weren't even 10%.

[Arkangel]

I have a fairly lengthy document on the way the fed works, and the involvement of various agencies in controlling the economy. It's alarming stuff, not sure of it's veracity, but I'd be interested to post it. Is there a way I can post it here for folks to download, or anyone got a suggestion how to show you it?

BTW Credit=BAD!

[Flake2m]

NBK: I think you'd make an excellent teacher. :D

Survival is human nature. Everyone is trying to make a buck from everything else. Some people though are just better at it then others.
From how I see it Capitalism is still accepted as a better method of government because it gives people choice (or atleast makes them think they have choice) and people like choice.

[nbk2000]

Ark, how big is it? (kb or MB)

[Arkangel]

123KB

Try it here (http://www.boomspeed.com/arkangel/FinancialReality.doc)

I've uploaded it as a word document, see how you get on.

[pyromaniac_guy]

Originally posted by Arkangel
The wholesale price for a call between the UK and US was $0.30 ten years ago, now it's less than a cent.

this reduction in price might have more to do with the several orders of magnitude greater call carrying capacity of modern long hual networks, compared to what was avalible a decade or so ago
:)

[root]

I'm pro capitalist, however do believe governements should have some intervention in the market place. so i'm not entirely free market, although i have nothing against a totally free market (but let's face it, that will never happen, because if the governement doesnt get involved, other people will use force to get what they want.) but what do i know i'm canadian.

I have to disagree with NBK2000 though, well not so much disagree but respond to his ending question/comment. (hope this doesnt get me banned as its my first post :P)
I know of many entrepreneurs who get to enjoy freedom of time right now and living very well at a very young age. although the ones that do work 6 days a week may not have lots of free time to enjoy now (and pinch every penny), but they will have free time when they are older and retire much younger than i probably ever could. it all depends on the people / circumstances we're dealt, some people just get plain fucking lucky.

[grandyOse]

Pure capitalism all the way. That means NO interference from government, PRO or CON! No subsidies, no bailouts, no punitive regulation. Let the buisiness fly or fall with the will of their customer base and fair competetion. With the ONE exception of import duties and tarriffs. Which should be the federal government's ONLY source of revenue.

Slightly off-topic; It is well proven that any activity that is taxed, is an activity which is discouraged; why should the government tax (discourage) income and profit? Tax has become a method of control rather than a source of revenue. Every time there has been a substantial tax cut, government revenue has increased! If it were truely for revenue, then they would keep cutting taxes until revenue started to decrease. That would be the optimum tax rate (although still unconstitutional).

Being poor, it is tempting to say, "tax the rich". But in reality that is just class warfare, not economic sense. I've never been hired by a poor man.

[Efraim_barkbit]

I´ll give you my opinions on this subject an other time, when I have the time to write and remember to post it, but I had to say some words about grandyOse's post.

With the ONE exception of import duties and tarriffs. Which should be the federal government's ONLY source of revenue.

I don´t know, but I don´t think that would be enough to pay the things needed to succesfully run a country.
who would pay for the police, there is no profit in upholding the law outside your or your companys property, same with fire departments and a lot of reaserch and developement, actually everything where there is no, or not good enough profit margin.

No police, well thats good news, no more worrying about maybee getting busted by the cops for buying the wrong chemicals or telling people about your hobby, some of you may think. but think a little bigger, without law, the civilization as we know it will soon collapse into chaos and anarchy. Man can not be relied on to follow the rules of a civilized society, if there is no one there to .
If a big city lose electricity, it won´t take long before those tendencies is shown.


in the US: "Alla Ackbar!!! KABOOOM" (On a second thought, no this would not happen, the enemy USA once was to Abdahlla and his likes has already started to fall apart)

[grandyOse]

I was refering to the federal governmnet, concerning tarriffs and import duties (states aren't allowed to do that). We don't need federal police. All crimes are commited within a county and within a state. The states should be willing to cooperate with each other for law enforcemnet. 99% of the crimes committed against the federal government are by foreiners and employees of the federal government. Let the military arrest and try them. The feds are spending about 100 times as much money as they need to. If they were to stick to their constitutionaly assigned duties, the federal government , and it's authority over the citizen, would be scaled back consideraably. In fact, the military should comprimise about 95% of government spending and employmnet. They really aren't supposed to be doing a whole lot other than that. Tarriffs can pay for that, AND keep American buisiness helthy. Planes are falling out the sky because the engines are bolted on with chinese hardware. You can't buy anything made with good American steel anymore. We need to stop subsidsing china and it's retail outlet (walmart) and allow american buisiness to thrive.

[Tuatara]

No, planes fall out of the sky because capitialism is driven by bean-counters who wont spend money on maintenance because it doesn't return a profit. Its got nothing to do with the origin of the steel. I've seen some real shit product come out of the US, and some good quality stuff come out of China. It all comes down to whether you are prepared to pay for quality.

[tmp]

NBK2000, you're a person after my own heart ! Capitalism all the way !
At one time I worked for the defense industry, then the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and
my job as a systems/programmer analyst was over. I couldn't get back in because
I had no college degree, my clearance wasn't high enough, and my skills were
dated(mostly mainframes). Despite what happened, I acquired new skills in many
areas on my way back. Learning new skills and applying old ones where applicable
are the keys to survival. People have to learn that in this world shit happens and
jobs tend to follow economic cycles. I'll never be sorry for the collapse of Communism
despite the fact that me and many other people worked our way out of our jobs.
The threat of Communism is over, at least from the former Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, new threats have emerged and until these rogues wake up and smell
the shit they're shoveling, they won't have a chance of survival in what is now a
mostly capitalistic world. Keep the faith !

[ossassin]

History has shown that capitalism is the only economic system that works. Nazi socialism didn't work, Soviet communism didn't work, and China is moving away from communism. It is far from pure communism. Capitalism works, solely because everyone has reason to be motivated. They are allowed to keep their earnings, so they can profit off of their hard work, not the government. In any other system, since it doesn't matter to them if they work hard or not, they don't! What a surprise!

In the US, our system of capitalism is limited, though. The government taxes us and gives us things like mediocre health care in return. Leave it to the liberals to change a thriving economic system.

[nuclearattack]

i am a communist and i hate what companies are doing in the world. The globalization is destroing everything, the only god is money for them! capitalism is not real freedom because companies rules and their interests are destroing a lot of people. watch this fucking world against iraq! it's only for petrol and business related on war.
don't watch old russian communism... that wasn't real communism that was only a metod like another to use the power on people!

i think that another type of communism can exist but it's a very long discussion to have it here.

i am a member of roguesci because i am interested on explosives not for talking about politics!

hi

nuclearattack

[Pyrovus]

Just because there are worse alternatives to capitalism does not justify it, any more than saying that because genocide is bad, homicide is OK. True, Soviet Communism was flawed, but it's hardly like it is the only possible alternative system. But capitalism is also heavily flawed. For starters, the focus on market forces as a means of driving an economy, often portrayed as a strength of capitalism is in fact, in the long term, a great weakness. Under market forces, decisions are made based on greed rather than intelligence. The motivation is to do anything which will make a profit in the short term, even if it has terrible consequences. For instance, suppose a company develops some extremely powerful pesticide that is more effective than any other on the market. Is it terribly likely that they will make sure that it doesn't have terrible long term consequences before they try to sell it? Of course not - by putting it on the market immediately they are guaranteed of enormous profits, and if they wait to make sure it's safe, some other company may come up with a better product in the meantime. So it's simply a matter of let's make a profit in the short term by selling this pesticide, and who cares if it'll cause a cancer epidemic in twenty years time. Market forces bring about the practice of selling the future to pay for the present.
The other major flaw in capitalism is it's heavy emphasis on the resource called money. But what actually IS money? The way in which it is continually referred to you would naturally assume that it is an incredibly valuable and useful resource, without which nothing can possibly work. As money is seemingly so important to make anything work you would assume it is the very basis of our technology. But where is it found? Easy, just grab some coins, right? But those coins aren't money, they are merely a metal representation. They are accepted as money because they are perceived to be so. The place where you find money is inside people's heads. It has no physical existance. Under the capitalist system, almost every aspect of people's lives is governed by figments of people's imagination! Money is not some miraculous driving force that gets things done - you can't use it to develop a hyperdrive in a year, even if you were to put a hundred trillion dollars into the project. Rather, it exists as an excuse for why things CAN'T be done, despite the fact that they are easily physically possible. For instance, it is physically possible for the problem of global warming to be solved within a few years, by replacing coal power with alternative means such as solar and wind power. True, this will mean a great expenditure of materials in the very short term, but will lead to a long term increase in efficiency - after all, these two methods of generating power, once established, work without any further expenditure of materials, whereas coal and nuclear power require the continual mining and consumption of coal and uranium respectively. By looking at what happens in capitalism from a resource based perspective, the absurdity of the system quickly becomes clear. For instance, as a result of market forces, there have been many cases in which farmers have been forced to destroy healthy crops, because it will cost more to harvest them than the farmer can sell them for. This happens despite the fact that half the world's population is starving, so it is obvious that there is a use for the crops. But instead, the resource is wasted.
The only issue that capitalism really appears to resolve is that of resource distribution - the theory that a person is paid proportionately to how much work they put in. But as well as making there be LESS resources to distribute, for aforementioned reasons, it isn't terribly good when subjected to scrutiny. While it is physically possible to feed everybody on Earth, we still have third world countries. Of course, most people living in rich countries selfishly don't see this, and because they benefit from the system see capitalism as good. If they lived on the other side it is unlikely they would still hold this view.
Capitalism is a system which concentrates wealth into the hands of a rich elite, ignores physical realities and as a result diminishes efficiency, and as a result it has set the human race upon an underachieving and self-destructive path.

[pornopete]

http://aspin.asu.edu/hpn/archives/Jan98/0144.html I think this rounds off this discussion quite nicely. But saying that im am definantly pro capitalism, Im studying for a business degree paid from my hard earned taxed money, Im am doing something for myself so I can advance in life, while there are lazy fuckers on the dole who complain about the rich having all the money etc when it is the rich that technically is their employer..With out capitalism there would be no jobs it would be each man for themselves and the best man will win and there will only be losers. To pyrovus Money is a means of exchange and has been around since the start of man kind maybe not in the form it is today but there has always been trade offs Nothing is for free.

[Anthony]

"Capitalism...as a result it has set the human race upon an underachieving and self-destructive path"

Whereas if we had all continued just looking after ourselves, growing and gathering what we individually needed, we'd be much better off?

Money is something - a (relatively) constant value, allowing us to asses the worth of a wide range of things.

Pesticides would have to pass strict health trials before being allowed on the market - there is some rational intervention in the system!

[Pyrovus]

The point that I was making is that capitalism is inefficient, and that it is reducing mankind's capacity to advance technologically, and that it also has greatly reduced our capacity to react to things -eg we've known about global warming for ages, yet it has been virtually impossible to do anything about it under the capitalist system. Capitalism suppresses advancement by placing power into the hands of corporations for whom it is not in their interests for advancements to take place, such as the way the oil corporations are doing their best to sabotage research into superior energy sources.
As for money. It does have two uses - as a convenient means of exchange to overcome the weaknessess of the barter system, and as a "carrot" to encourage people to work. The problem with it is that it now has a life of its own, and it has assumed enough importance that it really now gets in the way of things. It is undoubtedly the most inaccurate system of measurement ever devised, and it is foolish to assume that distinctly different resources can be reduced down to a single one. Steel is only equivalent to wheat if you have a particle accelerator and a LOT of power plants. The thing is, a lot more could get done if money was simply abolished at government level, and the economy managed on the basis of physical materials actually available. After all, whenever the Budget takes place, you will always see one area sacrificed to fund another, even though those two areas may share very few common resources. By abolishing money at the government level, the limitiation on what can be done will not be how much money is available, but what is physically possible. Any system in which you can say, have all the concrete, medical equipment, staff etc, to build a hospital, but be unable to do so because you lack a certain imaginary resource is really beneath contempt, and deserves to be smashed by another system not possessing these weaknesses. Perhaps the biggest demonstration of the inefficiency of capitalism is the number of accountants, economists, etc required to make the system actually work, when they are doing nothing whatsoever to generate any real resources that anybody can actually use. Sure, people are used to money being an all-important force, but in the same way that people were once used to the notion of the earth being flat.
While capitalism was useful to get industry off of the ground, it has really outlived its usefulness. It is a sick animal that needs to be put out of its misery and replaced by a superior system.

That's all I can be bothered saying for now.

[roux]

capitalism is weak. socialism is MUCH better.

capitalism allows the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer. in many cases, i doesnt even matter how hard the poor work.

capitalism allows for the exploitation of labor(you know, the people who accualy make capitalism possible)

in capitalism, wealth is distributed less evenly. this makes things harder for the smart poor people to get the jobs they deserve and are better suited for.

soooooooo many problems can be prevented through socialism. crime, for example. what do you think the rich/poor ratio on crime is? the poor greatly outnumber the rich. many of these crimes are caused by social inequalities. poor people steal because they feel they need to(in most cases). if everyone were in the middle class, no one would feel oppressed, no one would be pissed with eachother(for the most part), and everyone wins....well....exept the rich.

and it would be sooo easy. all it would take is higher income taxation, and more social programs.

----------------------------------------
Ever heard of capitalization? Use it!

Rhadon

[pornopete]

Peoples situations are always going to be different, No regime can make any individual an equal no matter how hard they try. Why the hell should wealth be distributed evenly when not everyone works the same job or as hard as the next guy?People shouldnt get taxed differently just because they have the brains to earn a higher income. People here are making the economic term "capitalism" out to be evil. Where anyone here that is into making mostly illegal bombs etc is supporting capitalism in the sense that all individuals are indepent and should be free to persue their own interests(economic freedom an element of capitalism) Basically anyone that buys a good or service not produced by themselves is supporting capitalism, as capitalism is the selling of goods and services for a profit....

[roux]

dont get market socialism(what i am talking about) confused with communism(what you are talking about). never did i say wealth should be distributed totally equally. but you gotta realize that these days capitalism is damn near inevitable, dont think i never thought of that. i sugest you study market socialism before you start putting words into my mouth.

[keith]

Pro National Socialist.
One giant military is how a country should be.
Can you say Sparta.....

[Voyager]

On the topic of capitalism, I am a slightly more ardent fan than Adam Smith.

"The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition is so powerful that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations." -- Adam Smith


I put some other quotes on Economincs up at http://www.fortliberty.org/quotes/economics.shtml

All of you socialists should read _The Road to Serfdom_ and _Free to Choose_. Seriously.

[zyk43]

I think that neither extreme Capitalism nor extreme communism works.

The problem with extreme capitalism is that in the end corporations rule the world, money is the most important thing in a capitalist state and corporations are bexst at making that, they pay their workers the lowest wage they can get away with and they dont care what they bulldoze, kill, squash to get more money.

The issue with communism (from my point of view) is that although in principal it should give most people a reasonable level of happiness if falls down in one major area; humans just arent naturally communist. From right back in the depths of time humans have owned property, just like most other animals. Cave men had their own caves, we have our own houses, the robin that lives in the tree nearby regards the area around as his and will fight off most things that come into it. Its just not natural not to own anything and not to try and better yourself.

I think a balance has to be struck whereby corporations are prevented fromstriving for the most money possible at the expense of normal people, yet individual people can still develop themselves as they naturally would do.

The important thing from my point of view is that we should keep society serving the people who created it not faceless corporations that have grown out of greed