- Joined
- May 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,250
- Reaction score
- 763
- Location
- Los Angels, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I have no problem with rich people, as long as they understand that they rely on us. I also understand that the wait staff suffer a loss when people cut back going out to eat, since we rely on each other to get by in this world. Working hard in your chosen enterprise should lend itself to rewards; whether it's a comfortable middle class environment or a mansion with lots of hired help. However, there is a need for some regulation to keep the greed in check; otherwise some people will take advantage of others.Myths About Capitalism
John Stossel : Myths About Capitalism - Townhall.com
by John Stossel
April 21, 2010
I won 19 Emmy Awards by reporting a myth: that business constantly rips us off -- that capitalism is mostly cruel and unfair.
I know that's a myth now. So I was glad to see the publication of "The 5 Big Lies About American Business" by Michael Medved.
I invite him on tomorrow's Fox Business Network show to talk about that.
"You can only make a profit in this country by giving people a product or a service that they want," he says. "It's the golden rule in action."
"You can only make a profit in this country by giving people a product or a service that they want," he says. "It's the golden rule in action."
I would argue that such a rule is crucial to functioning of capitalism, but is being undermined in the current day.
We all ultimately rely on each other. Who argues otherwise? You rely on your employer too, it goes both ways. Although depending on you and your employer...you might be more easily replaced, based on market conditions right?I have no problem with rich people, as long as they understand that they rely on us.
Not necessarily. Choose the wrong enterprise and you should be free to lose it all...just as you should be free to make enormous gains. Risk reward. Most people are paralyzed when actually faced with the prospect of putting significant skin in the game. Try it, it's looking into the abyss.Working hard in your chosen enterprise should lend itself to rewards;
Absolutely. Regulation/government should set the rules of the game, and we the people should then busy ourselves pursuing our life, liberty, sex, and what not. Although I'm not worried about greed per se. It's fraud, violence, manipulation, etc., that are best to regulate against. Greed sounds like a religious term, irrelevant IMO.However, there is a need for some regulation to keep the greed in check; otherwise some people will take advantage of others.
This is faulty analysis. First off "selfishness" is nothing more than an emotional word with no quantitative value. The second flaw in your analysis is the complete omission of the supply chain, things cost money including but not limited to raw materials, distribution, labor, means of production, taxes, regulatory costs, etc. All of these things will change the final price of any good or service. The third flaw is the assumption that the market should be "made accessible" and this will increase the consumer base, this is possibly the most flawed argument because of the human condition....tastes, tolerance for price, value considerations, and other decisive factors in any given transaction.Capitalism is based on a faulty idea: that people will not allow their own selfishness to over-ride people's ability to pay for what they provide.
"But if people cant afford a service, people wont buy it and the business will go under."
You cannot simply add to a market by artificial expansion of such, see above.True, unless you have a big enough customer base and a wide enough market, then you can afford all sorts of underhanded tricks to save money and just bury any bad reports with a publicity blitz
I disagree. I think you can very adequately quantify the idea of selfishness with the conditions of self-interest violate the rights of others or cause a person to mistreat others out of self-interest.This is faulty analysis. First off "selfishness" is nothing more than an emotional word with no quantitative value.
I dont disagree, but I dont see what it has to do with the idea.The second flaw in your analysis is the complete omission of the supply chain, things cost money including but not limited to raw materials, distribution, labor, means of production, taxes, regulatory costs, etc. All of these things will change the final price of any good or service.
Im not sure what you mean.The third flaw is the assumption that the market should be "made accessible" and this will increase the consumer base, this is possibly the most flawed argument because of the human condition....tastes, tolerance for price, value considerations, and other decisive factors in any given transaction.
A base argument, I admit, but I consider it a valid one none the lessIf nothing else, this does not speak to myths of capitalism, rather a complete lack of understanding of such and too much reliance upon Keynsian economics.
You cannot quantify it because it is subjective. I have seen people saying those who want taxes to be fair and equally contributory being accused of selfishness, for the simple fact that they want to keep more of what they have earned. Then of course there are those that say people who save money are "hoarding" it, which is another way of saying "selfish". So no, there is no accurate way to quantify "selfish".I disagree. I think you can very adequately quantify the idea of selfishness with the conditions of self-interest violate the rights of others or cause a person to mistreat others out of self-interest.
It has everything to do with any monetary system, especially when the market sets the price i.e. Capitalism. To ignore these factors or not mention it is an omission and a critical error.I dont disagree, but I dont see what it has to do with the idea.
You mentioned "bringing people up" to paraphrase, and the phrasing led to the speculation that you mean through government means.....that means you have to take from others which brings them down. It is a market manipulation.Im not sure what you mean.
[/QUOTE] I disagree with the validity but do appreciate the honesty.A base argument, I admit, but I consider it a valid one none the less
Those lies are so obvious that it is amazing they need to be repeated. It seems that each generation must re-learn the very same lessons that previous generations learned at great pain and sacrifice.The 5 Big Lies About American Business" by Michael Medved.
Again, I think we can come up with at least a mutually agreeable definition of selfishness using the definition of an instance whereby someone indulges their self interests purposefully to the extent that it knowingly harms someone else.You cannot quantify it because it is subjective. I have seen people saying those who want taxes to be fair and equally contributory being accused of selfishness, for the simple fact that they want to keep more of what they have earned. Then of course there are those that say people who save money are "hoarding" it, which is another way of saying "selfish". So no, there is no accurate way to quantify "selfish".
Ok, I dont see how they're being ignored.It has everything to do with any monetary system, especially when the market sets the price i.e. Capitalism. To ignore these factors or not mention it is an omission and a critical error.
I must admit I'm confused because I havent mentioned that phrase or idea in this thread.You mentioned "bringing people up" to paraphrase, and the phrasing led to the speculation that you mean through government means.....that means you have to take from others which brings them down. It is a market manipulation.
Highly unlikely. I consider the far left elitists to be among the most selfish people because they want things their way to feel better about themselves using other people's money, that is the worst and most dishonest "selfish" there is. It is subjective so I don't think two people can agree on it.Again, I think we can come up with at least a mutually agreeable definition of selfishness using the definition of an instance whereby someone indulges their self interests purposefully to the extent that it knowingly harms someone else.
Your analysis didn't include any mention of these things and appeared to blame those who sell.Ok, I dont see how they're being ignored.
Actually, you did if you read back. You just may not realize it.I must admit I'm confused because I havent mentioned that phrase or idea in this thread.
Reef; all i can say is 1) we are absolutely corrupt at the top and 2) our system minimizes corruption. when you get taken by the police here, it is assumed you will be treated in accordance with the law. no millionaire can offer a judge a free house in return for an innocent finding, nor can a poor individual be found guilty for lack of the ability to offer the same. this is not necessarily the case in other nations; only generally in what we would call "the West". having a limited, balanced government in which various powers are set in competition against each other ensures that corruption always has an enemy (Sestak's case would go away tomorrow if Republicans quit making noise about it).
corruption (desire for power and wealth irrespective of the law or justice), like greed, is part of the human condition. the answer is less to simply try to regulate it to death (those who are trying to personally profit from the system will always have greater incentive to think of ways around the regulation than those who are writng it) and instead to try to devise a system that turns these two drives towards the public good.
Very simple IMO. Under a system with too much regulation profits are lost to compliance cost increases and there are two choices 1) increase consumer base in order to absorb cost or b) increase price. When prices are increased a smaller pool of consumers either will or can participate so option b creates a problematic scenario, larger corporations can fully comply or pay fines without much budgetary damage because of their established consumer base, buying power, and good name so smaller companies must get creative.......or unethical to compete. Under a more free market the big guy and the little guy have similar lattitude and can more fairly compete, necessary regulations have demonstrable benefit and shouldn't be an undue burden so the incentive is to produce the best service possible to the public and allow for the "best man" to win. There is less reason to be corrupt when losses are minimal and honesty is truly the best business practice.I think regulate sometimes helps to create corruption.
Since greed and corruption are part of the human condition, our society will always have both. I think our system already tends to temper greed and minimize corruption. I am not clear on how it actually does this.
no it isn't. self interest, self concern. and Hoplite is absolutely correct; capitalism is the economic principle of self interest. there is nothing wrong with pursuing one's self interest, though, unless it steps on the interests of others... which capitalists are given to.You cannot quantify [selfishness] because it is subjective.
Very simple IMO. Under a system with too much regulation profits are lost to compliance cost increases and there are two choices 1) increase consumer base in order to absorb cost or b) increase price. When prices are increased a smaller pool of consumers either will or can participate so option b creates a problematic scenario, larger corporations can fully comply or pay fines without much budgetary damage because of their established consumer base, buying power, and good name so smaller companies must get creative.......or unethical to compete. Under a more free market the big guy and the little guy have similar lattitude and can more fairly compete, necessary regulations have demonstrable benefit and shouldn't be an undue burden so the incentive is to produce the best service possible to the public and allow for the "best man" to win. There is less reason to be corrupt when losses are minimal and honesty is truly the best business practice.
except that increased production equates to REDUCED value. Even simply meeting, as opposed to exceeding, supply suppresses demand.. Getting enough gas will cause gas prices to fall and reduce profits on the gas that is sold. Oil companies learned long ago that their best bet is limiting availability to drive UP prices.there are two choices 1) increase consumer base in order to absorb cost
whadda, ya? trying to save Tinker Bell? A sucker is born every minute.There is less reason to be corrupt when losses are minimal and honesty is truly the best business practice.
My main beef with capitalism right now is corporate monopolies, corporate lobbying of government in the millions of dollars, and corporate personhood. If those three things could be rectified, then I think we'd make huge progress.
Of course. The idea is to regulate that which is provably necessary using facts only. Most regulations that are problematic come from emotional or rhetorical twisting, those are the ones that must go.On the other hand too little regulation and companies quite literally get away with killing people in the name of profit. Or are you not even willing to admit that much?
Those lies are so obvious that it is amazing they need to be repeated. It seems that each generation must re-learn the very same lessons that previous generations learned at great pain and sacrifice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?