Which is better? Cap or Com.? (1 Viewer)

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

"In my English class, we had to read The Good Earth (which is really boring IMO). One thing that came up was that the protagonist who was a poor man was debating himself whether he wanted to sell his daughter so he can go back to his land (he's really homesick). Then, a mob comes and raids a rich man's house. When the mob leaves, he sees a rich man with a girl (obviously a prostitute) and the rich man is startled. He believes that the protagonist has a knife, and will kill him if he doesn't give him money. At first, the rich man offers the protagonist gold, but then the protagonist's impulse tells him to demand more. Eventually, the rich man said he doesn't have anymore, and runs out.

Our class debated the legitimacy of this: was that a justified action? Communists say yes: Capitalists say no. Now I am here to bash communism, simply because I'm pretty fed-up with the idea that economic equality brings peace upon us all, (not to mention that I've never heard a single capitalism = good argument from anyone yet) and offer a much more substantive and meaningful solution to make more people happy.

First of all, the idea that everyone is equal is completely false. However, I'll take a different tact in this argument, and turn the notion of equality onto itself. We all have different capabilities, (although I don't believe equality is completely worthless) and although the idea that we all start out equal is legitimate enough, forcing the equality upon others ironically creates the exact same tyranny communism was designed to avoid I'll grant that current capitalist societies have moderate inequalities that are unnecessary and can be solved, but the idea people who work for more get equal to people who work less creates another unequal scenario. This is the first inequality that communism creates, and thus inequality can never be truly avoided. It just matters which system can minimize it.

Secondly, I will analyze capitalism empirically. Capitalist societies may actually treat its constituents more equally. It seems fair enough that person A works more hours that person B, so person A receives a better salary. The problem lies within the quality of the work. Person A can work a lot longer than Person B, but if person B has a "better" job, then Person B still retains his/her economic advantage over person A. Therefore, capitalism is essentially a "qualitative reciprocity" of work, rather than quantitative.

Many people deem this as unfair. For example, chefs work really hard and must undergo lots of years of training, only to end up with a really mediocre salary (unless you're an expert). On the other hand, engineers can undergo less years of training and end up with a better salary. Therefore, this imbalance creates a very common "unjust" scenario, where people are forced to labor in an area that they may not like. If they don't like it, discontent arises. This problem will be addressed in the solutions part.

Thirdly, I will argue why reciprocity should be accepted rather than equality, when the 2 conflict. Capitalism does not deny many kinds of equality, such as moral egalitarianism. We must have X number of investors, Y number of engineers, Z number of doctors, and everything links together to form a successful society. Therefore, it naturally balances out, rather than the need of state intervention to force this balance. Make no mistake about equality within capitalism; it does in fact guarantee some equalities.

The right of everyone to pursue their dreams is of paramount importance to acheive the best standard of justice. For example, person A may be in a lower class now but if person A works hard then he/she can move up. Likewise, if person B slacks off after winning the lottery and loses all the techniques he/she knows and fails to contribute to society, person B will eventually suffer the decline of his/her economic status. Therefore, we have a fluid society of balance where no matter how unstable situations are, one end will balance out the other end.

The only way this is unjust is if there can be no movement within a capitalist society.

The "so-called-equal-treatment" set forth by communism is unjust. First of all, I have no motivation to acheive more. If person C works harder and works in a more qualititative job than person D, they still get paid the same. Therefore, why should person C have the motive to work harder than person D? Additionally, equality at an extreme will harm rights. I will lose my property (because the state will have to confiscate it along with everyone elses) and also, empirically it can be proven that equality can harm social rights, which ensures a decent standard of living, because the scale of "equal" is determined by an external mechanism.

Lastly, communism will never work. Humans will never accept the convention that everyone must be equal at all costs in order to have a "utopia," which means there must be an external mechanism to force this equality. Likewise, a totalitarian state arises to impose its dictatorship upon everyone's daily lives. This harms the exact foundation for the idea of equality, since the state exercises excessive power. Equality must be rejected at this level.

Now to offer solutions: the blame shouldn't lie within capitalism; rather it should lie within our own education and the lack of reform. People should be taught more often to be philanthropists, and to respect each other.

Stereotypes and racism often arise within capitalist societies because of common comments like (Sorry if this is offending, but it's really common) "Oh my God, those people are so poor. Don't talk to them." Instead, people should be taught to integrate those aspects into their life. Part of the reason people rob and steal as well is because they believe that they are being denied their dues from society. Pouring more money in to charity donations (simply because I can reduce my taxes) doesn't help either, because once they use that money for their immediate needs, they will need more, and perpetuates a continual cycle of the gap between the rich and the poor. (This is going to digress, I know) The U.S. has a welfare system, but more changes can be made. We have a free public education system, but some teachers are not qualified to teach certain subjects, so therefore some people remain ignorant. The government keeps ignoring this problem, and the blame has pointed to capitalism, which is not the case as I have clearly proven. It is the lack of regulation and efficiency in public funds that causes this problem.

Conclusion: The solutions offered will provide a wide range of problem-solvers. Additionally, communism will never work empirically while capitalism does, and is the most successful economic system so far, despite the problems that arise from within.

Feel free to argue. If my solutions are not possible, point them out please."

author: person D

 

[Spartacus FPV]

It seems like you put alot of thought into this. I wanted to avoid this thread because I consider it to be too easy but also easy to offend as well. Ill try my best to keep it short:

We arent all equal, we arent all born equal either. Thats why we all have equal rights. I think for an economic system to be sucessful, it requires a selfish motivation for profit, privatization, and rule of law. Your engineer vs chef arguement I think boils down to issues of skilled labor and minimum wage. It is NOT illegal, or un-capitalistic for any employer to pay his employees whatever he feels they are worth. If you go to a trade school to learn a skill, it is not unfair for you to be paid more than say a teacher w/ tenure. They made their life choices based on what they valued and so would you have. If you think that the income distribution of our country is unfair, say so. You will find people who "feel" that teachers should be paid more.

You wont get much support for a forced redistribution of wealth in a "free society." You will however get very many heartfealt and thoughtless claims about "The good of the people."

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

hmmm, surprisingly, this thread isn't getting as much attention as I thought it would.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

hmmm, surprisingly, this thread isn't getting as much attention as I thought it would.

You post it on a Sunday evening, what do you expect?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Our class debated the legitimacy of this: was that a justified action?

No, of course not. He robbed someone. Of course the socialists will justify it by saying that the victim was rich, and he must have gotten rich by exploiting the poor. They always justify all forms of robbery they support with this argument.

This is the first inequality that communism creates, and thus inequality can never be truly avoided. It just matters which system can minimize it.

Oh, well, if you've managed to nail a commie/socialist down to the of getting a definition of equality from him, you deserve a medal.

Perhaps socialism really does have "equality" as a goal. It's a stupid goal, of course, since the only equals that ever have or ever will exist on this planet are the dead. Frankly, the goal of the United States, and the capitalist system that tried to evolve here was one of freedom, not equality.

Many people deem this as unfair. For example, chefs work really hard and must undergo lots of years of training, only to end up with a really mediocre salary (unless you're an expert). On the other hand, engineers can undergo less years of training and end up with a better salary. Therefore, this imbalance creates a very common "unjust" scenario, where people are forced to labor in an area that they may not like. If they don't like it, discontent arises. This problem will be addressed in the solutions part.

Markets dictate wages in free societies.

Make no mistake about equality within capitalism; it does in fact guarantee some equalities.

Okay, if you're going to speak that language, you need to define your term.

Likewise, if person B slacks off after winning the lottery and loses all the techniques he/she knows and fails to contribute to society, person B will eventually suffer the decline of his/her economic status.

You need to get rid of nonsense phrases like "contribute to society". That's a BS begging term coined by commie-socialists to heap guilt upon people who earn their money by honest work.

I "contribute" to my community by building a needed product that is sold at a profit. By doing so, I feed myself, my family, and my parrot. I clothe them (only them, I run around naked). I house them. Every purchase I make gives the seller some profit (unless they're a fool), and they take my money, satisfy their needs, and the cycle continues, creating a mutually cooperative society that doesn't need socialism to survive.

But I don't "contribute" to society simply by earning a living, not in the manner the commie-socialists try to make it mean. Any "contributions" I make are, by definition, voluntary acts of sacrifice that occur without coercion, and because it is a sacrifice, come at some cost to me.

Be careful with your words, the commie-socialist landscape is a "mind" field of verbal and ideological traps.

The only way this is unjust is if there can be no movement within a capitalist society.

A capitalist society cannot become a static society. The forces ambition and ability cause people to rise to their level of competence, or sink to their level of incompetence.

Now to offer solutions: the blame shouldn't lie within capitalism; rather it should lie within our own education and the lack of reform. People should be taught more often to be philanthropists, and to respect each other.

Actually, the blame should lie with the gutless capitalists that allowed the commie-socialists to define all the terms. A man running a business honestly is doing nothing wrong. He shouldn't feel guilty when he makes a profit, that's what a business if for. It's the only reason to run a business, so that the owners can extract as much money for themselves as their able or as they like, if that is less.

(This is going to digress, I know) The U.S. has a welfare system, but more changes can be made.

Yeah, it has to be ended. Plenty of jobs out there for the welfare people.

 

[Volker]

Capitalism has built-in flaws which lead to inefficiencies. These flaws can not be resolved within the system. For instance, usually you have more companies to develop comparable products. The information flow between developers from competing companies is limited, because the competitors want to have an advantage at the market. This is an inefficiency. When the products are developed, the competitors have to attract the customers. They make marketing explaining the advantages of their product. This is another inefficiency.

The original argumentation is based on the assumption, that money motivates people. This assumption is debatable. Maybe you have heard about the 2- Factor-Theory by Dr. Frederick Herzberg, which is important in Human Resources sciences. It is a theory, which means, it is not proved, but it names all the factors for motivation, and it clearly doesn't classify money being one of them.

The solution offered is an approach to address the problem of unbalanced revenue distribution. This is a problem, which can be solved within the capitalist system.

 

[Kelzie]

Capitalism has built-in flaws which lead to inefficiencies. These flaws can not be resolved within the system. For instance, usually you have more companies to develop comparable products.

That is not a flaw in the system, but rather a necessary component. A variety of companies producing the same product drives innovation and help keeps cost down. A monopoly has no need to make their product better, they've already cornered their market.

The information flow between developers from competing companies is limited, because the competitors want to have an advantage at the market. This is an inefficiency.

It is not. Information is limited because it is not free. It costs money to obtain information. It is bought and sold just like any other commodity. And it's a good thing that we all don't spend the time necessary to acquire perfect information. Compare how much time you spend shopping for a car versus a new CD. The information for a car is more valuable, so you spend more time looking for it. It's there if people want to spend the time getting it. Most people just don't.

When the products are developed, the competitors have to attract the customers. They make marketing explaining the advantages of their product. This is another inefficiency.

Marketing is vastly overestimated in it's effect. Have you ever gone out and gotten a loan specifically because you heard one advertised? I'd bet not. marketing doesn't create demand. It just shapes it by providing more information. There's nothing wrong with that.

The original argumentation is based on the assumption, that money motivates people. This assumption is debatable. Maybe you have heard about the 2- Factor-Theory by Dr. Frederick Herzberg, which is important in Human Resources sciences. It is a theory, which means, it is not proved, but it names all the factors for motivation, and it clearly doesn't classify money being one of them.

Money, in and of itself motivates very few, if any people. However, the things that can be acquired with that money motivate quite a few. I can't comment more without knowing what criteria this Herzberg used to determine motivation.

The solution offered is an approach to address the problem of unbalanced revenue distribution. This is a problem, which can be solved within the capitalist system.

There is no unbalanced revenue problem. As long as people are provided an equal opportunity and certain anti-trust laws are inforced, capital is distributed to those that most desire it.

 

[millsy]

Communists and Socialists would not look at this and say the poor man is justified and that it is ok. That is smear and it is incorrect. The socialist and communist would look at this and say lets create a government spending program to make sure the man isn't that poor to begin with. Capitalists would look at this and say lets give hiring incentives so the poor man can get a better job and have more money.

This is different than a starving man stealing bread. Nobody would say this is OK unless they are nuts.

 

[Kandahar]

Communists and Socialists would not look at this and say the poor man is justified and that it is ok. That is smear and it is incorrect. The socialist and communist would look at this and say lets create a government spending program to make sure the man isn't that poor to begin with. Capitalists would look at this and say lets give hiring incentives so the poor man can get a better job and have more money.

This is different than a starving man stealing bread. Nobody would say this is OK unless they are nuts.

And what exactly is the distinction between a criminal that threatens people with weapons if they don't give their money, and this "government spending program" that threatens people with weapons if they don't give their money? The only distinction I can see is that one is (sometimes) more polite when they're taking your money.

 

[millsy]

And what exactly is the distinction between a criminal that threatens people with weapons if they don't give their money, and this "government spending program" that threatens people with weapons if they don't give their money? The only distinction I can see is that one is (sometimes) more polite when they're taking your money.

I don't believe you think it's the same thing. I don't think you believe that's the only distinction.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Communists and Socialists would not look at this and say the poor man is justified and that it is ok. That is smear and it is incorrect. The socialist and communist would look at this and say lets create a government spending program to make sure the man isn't that poor to begin with. Capitalists would look at this and say lets give hiring incentives so the poor man can get a better job and have more money.

This is different than a starving man stealing bread. Nobody would say this is OK unless they are nuts.

The socialist looks a poor man and looks around until he finds one that's not poor, and takes his money to balance things out.

The capitalist looks at a poor man and asks him if he's got skills the capitalist needs, and is he does, he's got a job paying wages that should be competitive with other men possessing the same skills.

Capitalists don't usually hire people just to give them more money. They're traders and expect value for money spent.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I don't believe you think it's the same thing. I don't think you believe that's the only distinction.

It is the only distinction. I pay taxes because there's men out there with guns and clubs willing to arrest me if I don't.

 

[millsy]

The socialist looks a poor man and looks around until he finds one that's not poor, and takes his money to balance things out.

Socialists don't look for a rich man to take money from.

It is the only distinction. I pay taxes because there's men out there with guns and clubs willing to arrest me if I don't.

Okay, well, (I can't believe I'm arguing this) a government collecting taxes and redistributing the money is not the same as an armed man robbing another. You get something for the taxes. Now if you want to debate whether or not that's worth it, be my guest, but don't be so naive as to say you are getting robbed.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Socialists don't look for a rich man to take money from.

True enough that they don't restrict their theivery to the rich, they make the poor poorer, too.

Okay, well, (I can't believe I'm arguing this) a government collecting taxes and redistributing the money is not the same as an armed man robbing another. You get something for the taxes. Now if you want to debate whether or not that's worth it, be my guest, but don't be so naive as to say you are getting robbed.

Well, someone's naive here. When money's taken from me that I don't want to surrender, it's robbery. As for the "things" I get from government, the only legitimate one is the military and the police. The rest is socialist claptrap that hasn't done me a bit of good and quite a bit of harm....after all, I'm a far better judge of what should be done with MY money than any socialist on the planet.

You don't disagree with that last, do yoU?

 

[Kandahar]

Okay, well, (I can't believe I'm arguing this) a government collecting taxes and redistributing the money is not the same as an armed man robbing another. You get something for the taxes. Now if you want to debate whether or not that's worth it, be my guest, but don't be so naive as to say you are getting robbed.

And what if the criminal who robs me on the street promises to give my money to charity, less his administrative fees? Do you then consider his actions justified?

 

[millsy]

True enough that they don't restrict their theivery to the rich, they make the poor poorer, too.



Well, someone's naive here. When money's taken from me that I don't want to surrender, it's robbery. As for the "things" I get from government, the only legitimate one is the military and the police. The rest is socialist claptrap that hasn't done me a bit of good and quite a bit of harm....after all, I'm a far better judge of what should be done with MY money than any socialist on the planet.

You don't disagree with that last, do yoU?

Socialists do not make poor poorer. That's just stupid.

You get a lot more than that for your tax dollars. Again, we could have the debate, but you would have to get past this "robbery" thing, and the idea that taxes give you a military and that's it.

 

[Kandahar]

Socialists do not make poor poorer. That's just stupid.

Would you rather be a poor American / Briton, or a poor Cuban / North Korean?

You get a lot more than that for your tax dollars. Again, we could have the debate, but you would have to get past this "robbery" thing, and the idea that taxes give you a military and that's it.

Personally I would include a few other things in the realm of legitimate taxation. But wealth redistribution for no reason is absolutely no different than a criminal robbing people on the street corner.

 

[millsy]

And what if the criminal who robs me on the street promises to give my money to charity (minus his administrative fees, of course)? Do you then consider his actions justified?

no




this question is SO intelligent that I would like to leave my response at a single word...........no............however, I'm not allowed to do that, so let me answer your unbelievable 2nd grade intelect question with two words

#%&¤ NO

 

[Kandahar]

no




this question is SO intelligent that I would like to leave my response at a single word...........no............however, I'm not allowed to do that, so let me answer your unbelievable 2nd grade intelect question with two words

#%&¤ NO

Maybe you can explain the distinction to us dummies then.

 

[millsy]

Would you rather be a poor American / Briton, or a poor Cuban / North Korean?



Personally I would include a few other things in the realm of legitimate taxation. But wealth redistribution for no reason is absolutely no different than a criminal robbing people on the street corner.

Would you rather be poor in America or be Poor in Norway or Sweden?

 

[millsy]

Maybe you can explain the distinction to us dummies then.

Do I need to go past breaking the laws of a civil society, and paying for the law enforcement of said civil society?

 

[Kandahar]

Would you rather be poor in America or be Poor in Norway or Sweden?

Those countries aren't really socialist; they're actually more capitalist than a lot of Europe, contrary to popular stereotype.

But since you asked, I would rather be poor in America. The opportunity to improve my situation is much better here than in those countries (although Sweden is getting better even while the rest of Europe wallows in socialism).

 

[Kandahar]

Do I need to go past breaking the laws of a civil society, and paying for the law enforcement of said civil society?

Yes. You're claiming there's a moral distinction between a criminal stealing my money at gunpoint and promising to give it to charity, and the government stealing my money at gunpoint and promising to give it to charity. So please explain this distinction, instead of the incessant ad hominem attacks that only prove that you can't explain yourself.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Socialists do not make poor poorer. That's just stupid.

Socialists take the capital used to invest in new businesses, thus hindering the development and growth of industries, thus hindering the creation of new jobs.

Something's stupid about socialism, you're right.

You get a lot more than that for your tax dollars. Again, we could have the debate, but you would have to get past this "robbery" thing, and the idea that taxes give you a military and that's it.

I didn't say taxes gave me a military. I said tax support of the military is one of the very few proper functions of taxation.

What do I get for my tax dollars?

I'm forced to "contribute" (forced to contribute, can you sense the irony?) to a retirement ponzi scheme that will return less than 1% on the investment, when I could be buying beer with that money, or, better yet, investing in industry and getting maybe ten times as much.

I'm forced to "contribute" to the subsistence of people who think working at the jobs they have the skills for is beneath them. As far as I'm concerned, people who won't work can starve. Worked for the Pilgrims.

I'm forced to "contribute" a school system that excells in producing graduates who won't work at jobs they have the skills to do, and who don't have the skills to get better jobs, thus creating even more people I have to subsidize in one way or another.

I'm forced to "contribute" to the health care of people who think they don't have to pay for their own. As far as I'm concerned, if they get sick, were too stupid to pay for insurance, they can die.

Let's...I paid for my own education. I buy my own food. I buy my own car, and I actually insure and feed it from my paycheck, too. I pay for my housing, my utilities, my internet, and my TV. I buy my clothes, and clothes for my kids, too. I feed them, also, when I can get them to eat. And I've got my own health insurance.

Just what has the government done for me with all the money it's stolen from me over the years?

Yeah, if you want to get hung up and the word "stolen" and thus avoid arguing the issue, go ahead. Its not like your position is defendable anyway.

 

[Volker]

That is not a flaw in the system, but rather a necessary component. A variety of companies producing the same product drives innovation and help keeps cost down. A monopoly has no need to make their product better, they've already cornered their market.

I'm not talking about a monopoly, but about cooperation of companies. Admittedly, cooperation happens between competitors in the capitalist system as well, but it comes along with conflict of interests.

It is not. Information is limited because it is not free. It costs money to obtain information. It is bought and sold just like any other commodity. And it's a good thing that we all don't spend the time necessary to acquire perfect information. Compare how much time you spend shopping for a car versus a new CD. The information for a car is more valuable, so you spend more time looking for it. It's there if people want to spend the time getting it. Most people just don't.

Information is not free and there are patents and licensing systems to save ideas from copying. This is part of the capitalist system. Let's say two companies are working on a pharmaceutical product, which is not yet patented. Sure they share knowledge at medicine congresses and so, but both want to have a good market share to get the money for development back. There is information which is probably not for sale, except one company decides to buy the other. The new pharmaceutical product has to be developed in double work and tested by each company. There is inefficiency. By the way, I'm talking about inefficiancy in political economics, not about business economics.

Marketing is vastly overestimated in it's effect. Have you ever gone out and gotten a loan specifically because you heard one advertised? I'd bet not. marketing doesn't create demand. It just shapes it by providing more information. There's nothing wrong with that.

You are absolutely right here. Some marketing functions are needed in every system. But marketing costs money. And it probably costs more money in highly competitive markets. Five companies offer something to you, and in the end you pick one (or none). This looks like inefficency to me.

Money, in and of itself motivates very few, if any people. However, the things that can be acquired with that money motivate quite a few. I can't comment more without knowing what criteria this Herzberg used to determine motivation.

In this context of economical theory there is no difference between money and the things aquired with that money, I think. Frederick Herzberg's criteria to determine motivation was about what pleases a person about her or his work.

There is no unbalanced revenue problem. As long as people are provided an equal opportunity and certain anti-trust laws are inforced, capital is distributed to those that most desire it.

Revenues in capitalist systems are a result of supply and demand. By theory, you can say, hmm, someone is, who knows, an airline pilot, but pianists are more needed at the moment, so let's change. This does not work.