Misunderstanding Capitalism

[NWRatCon]

Sure. With results like that people get talc in the cocaine they shoot up and end up with strokes. The free market at work, right?

I rest my case.

No one prefers to be lied to in the marketing materials.

You may have found the exception.

 

[ataraxia]

I rest my case.

What do you mean? The free market is not self-correcting that problem.

 

[ataraxia]

You may have found the exception.

Not at all. There are numerous examples.

Here's another one: as you may be aware, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) fought to get rid of regulations on the over-the-counter drug market. The idea was that the free market would be self-correcting.

The actual result? What's on the bottle on the label of the stuff you buy these days often has very little to do with what's actually inside the bottle. It's a very big problem for doctors these days.

"Her study concluded that 60% of prescription drug ads and 80% of over-the-counter drug ads were either misleading or false. "

Can Drug Companies Get Away with False Advertising?

How accurate are drug advertisements and are their misleading claims illegal? The FDA does not block or grant permission to drug companies to air ads, but they are responsible for reviewing them once they go live. Click to read our full blog and learn more.

www.spanglaw.com

So this idea that the free market is all that self-correcting seems to be based on wishful thinking rather than what actually happens in the real world. It's like thinking if everyone is left free, they will all behave, LOL.

 

[Crovax]

Or some folks may have to accept lower profits. That’s the other angle of attack.

If a job dies not provide enough value for a full wage it will be eliminated. Guess what? that's cart pushing

 

[NWRatCon]

What do you mean?

Your post proved my previous one. "You have a much chance of him understanding basic economics as you have of teaching a 10-year-old differential calculus when they can't comprehend arithmetic"

 

[Dans La Lune]

People are greedy - but government regulators are people too. If human beings are as awful as you are implying they are, then giving a tiny handful of them political power over everyone else will make thing worse, not better.

This is the most nihilistic argument you could possible make, especially since it serves neither position. The goal isn't to remove greed from humanity, but to disincentivize it with LAWS. Regulations are another word for law.

People submit to greed when the conditions are appropriate. A society that rewards greed and removes all barriers from acting on greed is going to produce a terrible outcome for society. Conversely, a society that rewards an aversion to greed, and places a penalty on corrupt behavior is going to serve society well.

This is kind of... law fundamentals 101?

But the only way your theory works is if politicians are morally superior to the rest of us. Good luck coming up with any evidence for that.

Political life attracts the worst kind of people because the incentive structure for being a politician (lack of regulations, legality of bribery) lends itself towards greed and corruption. Not because politicians are innately corrupt. It's the same reason that the people who rise to the top of capitalism are among the worst humans on the planet.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Then they have no right to rule over other people, regardless of any idiotic popularity contest.

Their right to rule is established by the invisible hand. The US owns sovereignty rights to the land in the US. Like any organization, there is a structure by which things get done that includes management positions. People in positions of political power derive their power in the same way that a manager at any organization derivers their power over the employees that they manage. If you want the benefits of living and working in the US, you have to abide by the rules, just as someone who wants the benefits of a paycheck must abide by the rules at the company they work for. The US is a co-op, so if you don't like it, you can either vote for a board of directors with a different vision for the organization, or you can expatriate to somewhere else.

 

[NWRatCon]

Their right to rule is established by the invisible hand.

In this case the invisible hand is trying to throttle the population. Or at least that is one party's vision. Their invisible fingerprints are all over the murder weapons.

 

[The Mark]

IDK. Here in California housing costs are ridiculous but most of the land is actually empty. Just being held for future profit.

I think finite things that are part of the basic human survival need set need to be watched as points of exploitation, “rent seeking”. Dog in the manger capitalism. Don’t want the hay, but gonna charge the cows for it. Because you can.

I think cities should have requirements to use owned land, because letting it sit is a waste.

And empty apartments or offices don't count as "in use"

 

[aociswundumho]

This is the most nihilistic argument you could possible make, especially since it serves neither position. The goal isn't to remove greed from humanity, but to disincentivize it with LAWS. Regulations are another word for law.

People submit to greed when the conditions are appropriate. A society that rewards greed and removes all barriers from acting on greed is going to produce a terrible outcome for society. Conversely, a society that rewards an aversion to greed, and places a penalty on corrupt behavior is going to serve society well.

This is kind of... law fundamentals 101?

So with the bold part you are saying that socialism (which does not reward greed) would "serve society well", whereas capitalism (which does reward greed), will "produce a terrible outcome for society".

Is that what we observe in the real world? No. In fact the opposite is the case.

Political life attracts the worst kind of people because the incentive structure for being a politician (lack of regulations, legality of bribery) lends itself towards greed and corruption.

No, it is having power over other people that attracts "the worst kind of people" to politics. We would be much better off if they were just greedy for money.

Not because politicians are innately corrupt. It's the same reason that the people who rise to the top of capitalism are among the worst humans on the planet.

What nonsense. We've got a long list of politicians who have murdered, tortured, and enslaved literally millions of people.

How many people have Musk or Bezos killed? Zero. To the contrary both of them have benefited the world enormously.

 

[aociswundumho]

Their right to rule is established by the invisible hand.

Good Lord, wtf is that suppose to mean.

The US owns sovereignty rights to the land in the US. Like any organization, there is a structure by which things get done that includes management positions. People in positions of political power derive their power in the same way that a manager at any organization derivers their power over the employees that they manage.

That is absolutely false, and it's a terrible analogy anyway, because your boss in the private sector doesn't extort money from you.

If you want the benefits of living and working in the US, you have to abide by the rules, just as someone who wants the benefits of a paycheck must abide by the rules at the company they work for. The US is a co-op, so if you don't like it, you can either vote for a board of directors with a different vision for the organization, or you can expatriate to somewhere else.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Good Lord, wtf is that suppose to mean.

Bosses have power over employees in the same way and for the same reasons that the State has power over its citizens. The bosses have something that the employees want, and the employees have to do what the boss says in order to get it. The State has things that its citizens want, and the citizens have to do what the State says in order to get it. The "invisible hand" refers to the way in which agents operating in their own self-interest develop interdependency and equilibrium. Politicians, like employers, gain their "right to rule" as you call it, as a consequence of this dynamic.

That is absolutely false, and it's a terrible analogy anyway, because your boss in the private sector doesn't extort money from you.

Money is just a medium of exchange. Your boss in the private sector "extorts" labour from you in exchange for a paycheck, 401k, health, dental, etc. Similarly, the State "extorts" taxes from you in exchange for a place to live and work, military protection, emergency services, Social Security, public education, etc.

If you don't think the paycheck is worth the labour, you can leave your place of employment. Likewise, if you don't think the services offered by your nation are worth the taxes you pay, you can expatriate and move somewhere more to your liking.

 

[Dans La Lune]

So with the bold part you are saying that socialism (which does not reward greed) would "serve society well", whereas capitalism (which does reward greed), will "produce a terrible outcome for society".

Is that what we observe in the real world? No. In fact the opposite is the case.

Based on what metric?

No, it is having power over other people that attracts "the worst kind of people" to politics.

Define 'power over other people'. You mean laws?

We would be much better off if they were just greedy for money.

Which would be akin to Mad Max: Fury Road. Where those with the power to accumulate the most stuff are Lords over those who have nothing. Which is, of course, the end result of capitalism before it becomes fascism.

What nonsense. We've got a long list of politicians who have murdered, tortured, and enslaved literally millions of people.

Oh, the politicians did this? This this is the case, capitalist corporations are responsible for literally millions of deaths since its been their interests that have stoked the vast majority of wars and coups. In America, politicians SERVE corporate interests. You just want to cut out the middle man.

After Bolivia, Elon Musk says capitalists can overthrow any government they want

Billionaire Tesla owner Elon Musk has come under fire after welcoming last year’s overthrow of Bolivian president Evo Morales in what was seen as a bid to obtain the country’s lithium reserves. In response to a tweet on Saturday that accused the U.S.

www.peoplesworld.org

How many people have Musk or Bezos killed? Zero. To the contrary both of them have benefited the world enormously.

How have Musk and Bezos contributed positively to the world?

 

[Dans La Lune]

That is absolutely false, and it's a terrible analogy anyway, because your boss in the private sector doesn't extort money from you.

Sure it does. That's the nature of capitalism. The very foundations. The peasant class has nothing except their labor to barter with. The capitalist offers to supply them to means of survival (a wage) in exchange for their actual worth. The surplus capital (the profit) is thus taken/extorted from the individual, in a contract where the boss has all the bargaining power.

Unions are designed to mitigate this extortion.

 

[What if...?]

If a job dies not provide enough value for a full wage it will be eliminated. Guess what? that's cart pushing

There are tons of things that absolutely must be done for our society to function that will never yield a tasty enough profit for them to be considered worth paying a living wage.

But they still need to be done.

 

[Dans La Lune]

If a job dies not provide enough value for a full wage it will be eliminated. Guess what? that's cart pushing

A McDonald's worker in Denmark makes $22 / hour, and get more paid sick and time off than the vast majority of American workers. It's not that corporations cannot provide for their workers and turn a profit, it's that the incentives in American are divorced from the reality of existence. Other countries can make it work, whereas America tries to force-feed capitalism through neoliberal policy. NO ONE WANTS IT except those in the top 1%.

 

[Crovax]

A McDonald's worker in Denmark makes $22 / hour, and get more paid sick and time off than the vast majority of American workers.

Please explain where you think a McDonald's worker pushes carts as their main job responsibility

 

[ralfy]

We owe Adam Smith an apology

Today, June 5, we celebrate the 300th anniversary of the birth of the father of modern economics. The University of Glasgow professor Adam Smith is more associated with free markets and national

opinion.inquirer.net

A common misunderstanding of Smith’s ideas lies in the narrow interpretation of “self-interest” as synonymous with profit. Smith did not advocate a single-minded pursuit of profit but rather believed that individuals, in pursuing their own self-interest, would unintentionally contribute to the greater social good of society. His “invisible hand” is the systemic unintended consequence of individual action, not as an external force, but as an inner morality within each person that aligns with their human nature.

It is crucial to recognize that his analogy of the “invisible hand,” which many economists simply identify as the invisible hand of the market, is actually not just outside of individuals but within them. Smith first used the term in his writing on astronomy to explain natural phenomena. In “The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” he employs this metaphor to describe the inner or impartial observer within each of us, guiding our moral sentiments. What is invisible is the outcome of one’s own inner nature manifested in outer self-order.