Is capitalism the best model?

[manatee]

What would that be?

Private ownership with first-user principle.

I wonder why civilization has to crumble, what's wrong with it? And so far my conclusion is that it seems to operate with a model that was suited for completely different economic reality - based on labor (that applies to communism, as well, or at least the past applications) - while the reality today is that human labor, in the old understanding of it, becomes more and more undesirable for the economy. And the new kinds of labor, based on exchange of ideas and methods, become harder to evaluate and privatize, as we did with tomatoes.

Oh, I'm not a primitivist, don't know where you got that from.

Communism does assume a labor-intensive capital structure, since it bases a lot of its theory on the labor theory of value. But yeah, our on-marching capital accumulation and technological advancements do make labor-intensive production more costly than capital-intensive, which is cool, since people are freed up to do other stuff instead. In principle, this isn't that different from when, say, agriculture was developed. Suddenly, a lot less work was needed for a greater product due to the improved capital equipment. Based on what a lot of people today seem to think of robots making cars, the dawn of agriculture was a horrible event that brought massive unemployment and misery. Of course, what it really meant was that the entire structure of production could be reorganized in such a way as to allow much higher levels of wealth, since those unemployed could spend their time on alternative production. I mean, it's not as if there's a limited amount of jobs. Our desires as humans are endless, and since this is so, the same is true for jobs. Meh, I'm blabbing.

You have a tomato, I have a dollar. You value the dollar higher than the tomato, I value the tomato higher than the dollar. We trade.
You have information, I have a dollar, and you see where I am going with this.
Whats' the problem?

Note, though, that the product that you're selling in the second example is not the information in itself; I don't own the information. (Trying to claim ownership in non-scarce infinitely reproducible resources such as ideas is just plain silly. Is this what you meant when you said it's hard to privatize?) No, what I'm buying is your service of, you know, telling me what it is that you tell me. Ehrm. anywaybye

 

[Aleksei]

Even labor-intensive economies (and Marx's economy was anything but -- he wrote Kapital in the midst of the industrial revolution) need capital. Marx just didn't understand how capital investment operates.

Though to be fair, he didn't come up with LTV -- Adam Smith did, and it was the in thing in his time.

 

[enfp can be shy]

The problem is that you can't package and sell-buy ideas/methods, the way you do with tomatoes. They can't be evaluated, and can't even be properly identified/separated uniquely. Their impact is very complex and over large period of time; even beyond your own lifetime.

And why keep looking at all useful human activities as jobs, when it's clear that they haven't been that for a long time now. Most discoveries were made by people whose official job was something else. A job is a very linear A->B transaction between seller and buyer of work, and that's okay for farmers or hairdressers, but not for most modern activities.

I really can't see the notion of job as relevant much past the 19th century. It has been quite speculative since then; more of a role-playing, which always remains vague and ill-defined.

 

[manatee]

The problem is that you can't package and sell-buy ideas/methods, the way you do with tomatoes. They can't be evaluated, and can't even be properly identified/separated uniquely. Their impact is very complex and over large period of time; even beyond your own lifetime.

I'm still not sure what your actual point is.

And why keep looking at all useful human activities as jobs, when it's clear that they haven't been that for a long time now. Most discoveries were made by people whose official job was something else. A job is a very linear A->B transaction between seller and buyer of work, and that's okay for farmers or hairdressers, but not for most modern activities.

I strongly doubt the discovery thing, but I guess that's more romantic than thinking that most advances are achieved by regular, slowly progressing work spanning years of time by a vast collection of different people in the same field all contributing small straws.

Which modern activities do you mean, exactly, and how should they be handled? I don't have any idea what you're actually saying, lol, I'm just arguing for the heck of it xD!

 

[enfp can be shy]

I agree with the small steps, wholeheartedly, actually. That's part of the problem - it seems impossible to try to evaluate all contributions that make some important invention possible. In the end we reward sellers and packagers.

Take any idea that is more complex, or is a method - say, the theory of relativity. It's not just a craft tool to buy, like a hammer. It has such a long-term complicated impact in all kinds of areas of life that it cannot have a price at any given moment, and is never really bought and sold, by anyone. Moreover, it doesn't have to be, it becomes counter-intuitive and counter-productive to attempt such thing.

 

[bickelz]

Bickelz, the problem w communism is that it concentrates POWER into the hands of a very few. Liberal capitalism allows for freedom of markets and freedom of information. These are both better than when one group controls the markets or the media. In Cuba you can't have a computer unless you're a party member. If you're a party member and you go outside the major websites that the party has said are ok, you face a five-year prison sentence. Similar protocols are in place in North Korea and in Red China and in Myanmar. You don't want to go to prison in places like that because the survival rates are very low. Liberal capitalism does reward a few, and those of us who are prone to envy might want that to stop. But the wealth also really does trickle down. Bill Gates is giving away most of his money. After about a hundred grand a year most wealth is superfluous anyways. People figure that out. But it's fun to make it, and then give it away. If everybody has the right to make great wealth then it diversifies the power structure. Being able to write very well is another form of wealth. You can have a big influence if you write well. Communist systems tend to kill people who can write well, since they too often vie with the power system already in place.

Socialist systems such as the European systems are not as draconian as the ones in place in Asia and in Africa and in South America, where the political leaders try to kill off all their opponents.

Perhaps in America we would be more like the Europeans. We already do have giant socialist systems in place such as welfare, social security, and Medicaid which use up well over 50% of the national budget. We're not a totally capitalist system. Most people think that we are, but we are actually quite on par with the Europeans, and yet we don't pay such heavy taxes as they do. This country is just fine, although the current guy has run up the debt to 14 trillion dollars, which is hurting young people's chances of getting started.

[MENTION=4235]problemz[/MENTION] So you're saying that power in this country is not concentrated into the hands of few? It all depends on how you set the system up.

And btw, we're nothing like the European systems. We outspend the rest of the world on our military, yet still want our taxes cut. Also, some people think that medicare is a private system.

The trickle down effect is also bs. Just look at wealth distribution in this country since Regan took office. Sure, the GDP has grown but the cost of living has gone up faster than wages have gone up and most of the wealth is owned by 1% of the country.

As far as the media goes, every major outlet is owned by or is a subsidiary of like 6 companies. No lies.

As for your comments on how over 100 grand is superfluous, I agree. We should tax those people more, it's the only way. Unless, you cut teachers, cops, medicare, firemen, subsidized college loans, infrastructure, the military, medicare (again), the military (again), the FDA, the EPA, the FBI, the CIA, homeland security, college funding, unemployment, subsidized corn, subsidized everything else and the parks department.

 

[Billy]

What good could possibly come out of mentioning what country I reside in?

Well it backs up your erroneous claim for one.

 

[problemz]

Bickels I've been taming lawns. I think power is concentrated into the hands of a few in capitalist societies but others can join this. Either by working on your education (writing is VERY powerful), or by getting a huge amount of money. Herman Cain for instance worked his way up, as did Obama. Neither one was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. In a communist system, the power structure is totally closed to outsiders. In capitalist systems you can move into powerful positions. Lincoln did. It's still possible. Look at Obama. Look at Clinton. Look at Reagan. None of them started out with much, but were at least briefly the most powerful person in the world and all have done a lot of good. I think the system should be open to new talent. Communism is autocratic and isn't open to outsiders and often destroys talent (Khmer Rouge destroyed everyone who could read, Mao destroyed all his rivals, as did Stalin).

Capitalism has developed a pretty decent legal system.

Communism destroyed the Aral Sea and gave us Chernobyl.

Capitalism has done things like this, but communism is demonstrably worse in every instance. We should be terrified of it, and of everyone who says they want it. We have to be gentle with those people, though -- they are living in a world of illusions and have to be treated with enormous kindness and care.

 

[bickelz]

Bickels I've been taming lawns. I think power is concentrated into the hands of a few in capitalist societies but others can join this. Either by working on your education (writing is VERY powerful), or by getting a huge amount of money. Herman Cain for instance worked his way up, as did Obama. Neither one was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. In a communist system, the power structure is totally closed to outsiders. In capitalist systems you can move into powerful positions. Lincoln did. It's still possible. Look at Obama. Look at Clinton. Look at Reagan. None of them started out with much, but were at least briefly the most powerful person in the world and all have done a lot of good. I think the system should be open to new talent. Communism is autocratic and isn't open to outsiders and often destroys talent (Khmer Rouge destroyed everyone who could read, Mao destroyed all his rivals, as did Stalin).

Capitalism has developed a pretty decent legal system.

Communism destroyed the Aral Sea and gave us Chernobyl.

Capitalism has done things like this, but communism is demonstrably worse in every instance. We should be terrified of it, and of everyone who says they want it. We have to be gentle with those people, though -- they are living in a world of illusions and have to be treated with enormous kindness and care.

I'm not trying to say that communism is better. Rather I'm saying that we need a regulated system of capitalism that makes sure power isn't too concentrated (anti-trust laws).

As for the people in bold, they're needles in a stack of needles. As much as we say there is hope for the great american dream for those on the bottom, the reality of that is that it is a very rare occurrence. Sure, if you have a great idea, you can make it. But not everybody has a great idea. And so many people work so much harder than others just to make ends meet. 60, 70 hours a week and three jobs. That shouldn't happen. Yet, single mothers do that. I'm starting to get a taste of this right this summer. I just got a second job and I'll be working 7 days a week and upwards of 50-55 hours a week just so that I can pay rent for this coming school year.

 

[problemz]

I think I had it easier than many people. I didn't want much and moved to Seattle when I was twenty just when the real estate market collapsed there in the early 80s. You could find an apt. for 50 dollars a month. I could write for publication and also had secretarial skills (I could type 150 words a minute). So I was set. I worked a week a month and this gave me about 750 dollars. With this I could easily pay my rent, and then sometimes I wrote an article for a newspaper, or back then, for a porno journal. Back then I could make 3000 dollars a page for porno. I know this was wrong, but how could I resist? It took about ten minutes to write something like that, and I could live for a year off of it.

The porno market is gone, killed by the internet. But I managed to move into academia and am now a tenured professor. I still don't make much, but am about the safest person in America in terms of keeping my job.

I got very lucky. I have lots of friends who have lost their jobs or who don't have health insurance. Some of them are over 50!

But I still don't think communism is the best answer.

It's sad and strange that not everyone can make it in the economy. I see this all the time. You are paid for cleverness and maneuverability and often for quick return hilarity like acting in a sit-com and providing meaningless while other people are working at Loew's for minimum wage. A lot of people have lost their husbands or wives who used to provide the income and are now lost. I met a woman in Tractor Supply today whose husband got killed and she had to sell their farm. Some farm piece blew up and killed him instantly.

I had a friend who had a cushy situation with his ugly wife but he cheated with a pretty young woman and the rich ugly wife threw him out and he's now living in his car and has no job prospects. He's 43.

Still, we're all better off in America than are most people in N. Korea, say, or in Red China, or in Myanmar, or Zimbabwe. Capitalism is the goose that lays the golden eggs. You just have to be clever and just a tad cynical, I think, as you keep your eye on the main chance. I guess I prefer that to a monthly check guaranteed from the totalitarian state.

Mothers should be VERY VERY careful who they date. Check out the man carefully and think about whether he's going to stick with you through thick and thin. IT's very important for the children to have a lifelong father. I think churches have this kind of man more often than people who openly declare that they care only about passing kicks. Keep an eye on the values. Pick someone for life, who will stick around. Too many people live for today, and go after the passing moment. You have to think twenty or thirty years down the road and be a bit careful and choose a path that will give your grandchildren a decent start in life.

 

[MikeA]

Well it backs up your erroneous claim for one.

What a humorous claim you provide me with seeing as how you have no information for comparison that could possibly be considered erroneous. Your patriotism amuses me.

 

[aeon]

I live in a country affected by communism. We're not only richer than all the nations in North and South America combined, we also have free health care. I find it humorous when Americans speak of capitalism as if it was not a complete failure. I hear Americans are cheap and make good house pets, I was thinking about buying myself one next year. I will pet it, feed it, and let it sleep in my bed.

There would have to be a free market to know if capitalism was a failure or not, and that determination would have to be made by means of mutually agreed-upon metrics/values.

In other words, we

 

[problemz]

Has anyone read Friedrich Hayek? He was an economist at the U. of Chicago and died in about 1990. His book The Road to Serfdom was a surprise bestseller in the 1940s. He was Austrian. He claimed that it was bureaucratic networks of redistribution that allowed the Nazis to gain totalitarian control. The book is quite tough to read. It took me an entire summer to read it. But the book became a bestseller again about six months ago when Glenn Beck held it up on his show and said it was the only book that Americans needed to read. The book was number one at Amazon.com for three months after that. I couldn't believe it. One day I was checking the rating at Amazon and the book had been bumped to number two. What on earth had bumped it out, I wondered. It was a novel by Glenn Beck.

I couldn't believe that, either.

In spite of all that, it's a pretty good book. The problems that we face as a capitalist society are generally made worse by huge government networks that allow them to monitor and control us for our own good.

So, yes, I'd say that capitalism is very hard on people of various stripes. People who lack imagination, education, much of a reservoir of backup money, etc. But the alternatives really suck and we should be terrified of them. Not sure if anybody needs to read Hayek to see the problems but he articulates them in unforgettable if knotty ways. Hayek is the basis of everything that's healthy in the Republican view of things. If you read that entire book, you will see where the Republicans are coming from. Hayek makes very good sense, but it's very hard to read. I had to read every paragraph several times to get what he meant.

 

[MikeA]

@Billy
@aeon

1. The good that would come out of verifying the truth of your statement, as defined by your perspective.
2. The good that would come out of being able to engage in the kind of nation-centered condescension toward an entire populace that you willfully engaged in.

Note: #2 above was sarcastic, and in truth, I don’t think any good would come out of it, nor am I interested.

But for fun, let's do it anyway.

Let's begin with the most important one.

​

Norway's average GDP per capita has been equal to / slightly lower / higher than the United States of America ever since the mid 1970's, but have since the late 1990's / early 2000 been higher than the Unites States of America without declining once. May I remind you, Norway LAUGHED at the recession in 2008, because they were hardly if at all affected by it.

​

Norway is therefore, without a doubt, richer than the Unites States of America per capita, and as you may be aware by now, be more stable economically, otherwise the recession would've taken its toll. Nominal rates are insignificant, and you know it.

Norway has given its citizens free universal health care ever since the end of World War II. Norway have also been one of the highest quality in the medical care field ever since. Because of a number social democratic reforms aimed at flattening the income distribution, eliminating poverty, ensuring social services such as retirement, medical care, and disability benefits to all, and placing more of the capital into the public trust, the public sector grew as a percentage of the overall economy. Not to mention how being one of the largest distributors of oil lead to being one of the largest distributors of energy overall, and with it came education and science in these particular fields (and sub-fields covering) which made Norway one of the fastest growing in telecommunication > slapstick > which lead to one of the largest distributors of telecommunication all over Europe AND ASIA.

Employment rates are higher in Norway than in the United States of America:
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=LFS_SEXAGE_I_R

Education rates (Reading, Math and Science) are higher in Norway than in the United States of America:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

Crime rates are higher in the United States of America (The entire North America actually) than in Norway. There's actually less crimes per capita in South Africa than it is in the Unites States of America-- that has got to suck.

​

In Norway, police officers don't even walk around with firearms. Mainly because Norway isn't retarded enough to sell firearms to its civilian citizens like some other countries do. Nor will you ever see something as hilarious as this happen in Norway, because this shit only happens in America, in the land of the free.

I'm pretty sure there's a reason why the average Norwegian speaks over five languages fluently, while Americans can hardly speak Spanish spite all the supposed Mexicans they have been whining about for centuries.


How was that for erroneous?

Please, let me know when the American Mail Order Bride services open. I'll promise not to be picky. I might even buy me one of them American Patriots, they always seem to be the feistiest of the lot since they are so easy to irritate.

Next thing I'll hear is "America saved you in World War II! If it wasn't for America you'd all be Nazi's now. You should be thanking us," and yada-yada, which is also ludicrous, but yeah, let's feed the American delusion and say that's exactly what happened, since Americans have always limited themselves to know only their part of the story and generally only know about itself and its Capitalist Money Hungry Feed which is so much better than our Marxist Society who's ("erroneously") wealthier, healthier, more peaceful and better educated than it.


And now, NOW, you have learned about Norway, yet you're still wondering where it is on the world map.

 

[Barnabas]

@Billy
@aeon


But for fun, let's do it anyway.

Let's begin with the most important one.

​

Norway's average GDP per capita has been equal to / slightly lower / higher than the United States of America ever since the mid 1970's, but have since the late 1990's / early 2000 been higher than the Unites States of America without declining once. May I remind you, Norway LAUGHED at the recession in 2008, because they were hardly if at all affected by it.

​

Norway is therefore, without a doubt, richer than the Unites States of America per capita, and as you may be aware by now, be more stable economically, otherwise the recession would've taken its toll. Nominal rates are insignificant, and you know it.

Norway has given its citizens free universal health care ever since the end of World War II. Norway have also been one of the highest quality in the medical care field ever since. Because of a number social democratic reforms aimed at flattening the income distribution, eliminating poverty, ensuring social services such as retirement, medical care, and disability benefits to all, and placing more of the capital into the public trust, the public sector grew as a percentage of the overall economy. Not to mention how being one of the largest distributors of oil lead to being one of the largest distributors of energy overall, and with it came education and science in these particular fields (and sub-fields covering) which made Norway one of the fastest growing in telecommunication > slapstick > which lead to one of the largest distributors of telecommunication all over Europe AND ASIA.

Employment rates are higher in Norway than in the United States of America:
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=LFS_SEXAGE_I_R

Education rates (Reading, Math and Science) are higher in Norway than in the United States of America:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

Crime rates are higher in the United States of America (The entire North America actually) than in Norway. There's actually less crimes per capita in South Africa than it is in the Unites States of America-- that has got to suck.

​

In Norway, police officers don't even walk around with firearms. Mainly because Norway isn't retarded enough to sell firearms to its civilian citizens like some other countries do. Nor will you ever see something as hilarious as this happen in Norway, because this shit only happens in America, in the land of the free.

I'm pretty sure there's a reason why the average Norwegian speaks over five languages fluently, while Americans can hardly speak Spanish spite all the supposed Mexicans they have been whining about for centuries.


How was that for erroneous?

Please, let me know when the American Mail Order Bride services open. I'll promise not to be picky. I might even buy me one of them American Patriots, they always seem to be the feistiest of the lot since they are so easy to irritate.

Next thing I'll hear is "America saved you in World War II! If it wasn't for America you'd all be Nazi's now. You should be thanking us," and yada-yada, which is also ludicrous, but yeah, let's feed the American delusion and say that's exactly what happened, since Americans have always limited themselves to know only their part of the story and generally only know about itself and its Capitalist Money Hungry Feed which is so much better than our Marxist Society who's ("erroneously") wealthier, healthier, more peaceful and better educated than it.


And now, NOW, you have learned about Norway, yet you're still wondering where it is on the world map.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...&idim=country:NOR:USA:GBR:CAN:RUS&hl=en&dl=en

 

[MikeA]

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...&idim=country:NOR:USA:GBR:CAN:RUS&hl=en&dl=en

How is it that the word "nominal" and "per capita" is not understood by an American but it is understood by someone who's language isn't even English?

 

[aeon]

And now, NOW, you have learned about Norway, yet you're still wondering where it is on the world map.

I

 

[MikeA]

I

 

[problemz]

Norway isn't Marxist, it's Lutheran. Marx did get many of his ideas from Luther (Luther's fundamental opposition to the Pope was the role of payment for indulgences which transferred too much money from the Germans to the Papacy). Marx saw that that description could also be used to keep proletarian money from transferring to the bourgeoisie. However, in true Marxist societies you have a closed political party. Norway doesn't have that, so it isn't Marxist. It's socialist, but not Marxist. And it's socialism comes out of its Lutheranism, not Marxism. Luther argued that no one in a company should make more than ten times what anybody else in the company makes. Through progressive taxation, most of the Scandinavian Lutheran states have agreed with this. It is that, and high education rates, that has made that possible. But also you don't have many minorities in Scandinavia. Norwegians, Swedes, and Finns rely on an underground network of neo-Nazis to chase out minorities. If you're a minority in a country like that, better stay inside after dark. America is a true multicultural society, with lots of drag on it from within certain groups with a far higher acceptance of crime as their way of doing business. We have lots more crime because we have lots more minorities. But try a place like North Dakota, where most of the people are Scandinavian Lutherans in their background. It's almost the same thing as a Scandinavian state: no good food, no one can dance or sing, but people are relatively prosperous.

 

[~jet]

Luther argued that no one in a company should make more than ten times what anybody else in the company makes.

That's the problem with America... back during our 'golden years' we had high levels of progressive taxation (70-90%, if only on the PERSONAL income made above and beyond today's equivalent of 3.5million per year.) At that time, the average CEO was making about 30-40x more than their lowest paid janitors. A bit more extreme than Norway, but it worked for us. Janitors could raise a family, own a home, take vacation, see the doctor... people had money to spend, and spent it. Things worked. Not perfectly, but well. But, since it's obvious that a person cannot survive on a pitiful 3.5 inflation adjusted million dollars a year, a well known actor (who'd previously been paid to stump FOR workers in previous decades) was hired to stump for the