Your mental failing is a lack of common sense due to brainwashing or you'd instantly realise labour is the only productive human behaviour.
I know the propaganda definition of capitalism that have become popular recently,but I use the old fashioned definition as this system we live in,it is the general definition used by leftists.
I have nothing against completely free exchanges or completely free markets(I was a mutualist/individual free market anarchist.) but to me that is not capitalism,capitalism is this system.
Now we can argue over definitions,but it will get us nowhere
if you are for completely free markets and realise what that actually means ie corporations would not exist etc,then I have no quarrel with you.
You keep using terms to slander arguments without actually refuting them. It does not matter if its capitalism to you, what matters is that it employs the same ideas of free exchange and voluntary action. Capitalism essentially works under the same system. We have a mixed economy as any scholar, the Oxford Dictionary of Economics and nearly everyone else will tell you. What logically makes us a completely capitalist system, wherein transactions are voluntary and coercive actions are not commited by any state? Provide logic rather than your labeling.I know the propaganda definition of capitalism that have become popular recently,but I use the old fashioned definition as this system we live in,it is the general definition used by leftists.
I have nothing against completely free exchanges or completely free markets(I was a mutualist/individual free market anarchist.) but to me that is not capitalism,capitalism is this system.
Now we can argue over definitions,but it will get us nowhere,if you are for completely free markets and realise what that actually means ie corporations would not exist etc,then I have no quarrel with you.
Please cite a society that has actually done this and grown into a society where the quality of life of each succcessive generation is better than the last. You know, littl ethings like clean water, medical advances, wide-spread employment, the availabilty of increasing educational opportunities. My guess is that you can't because your idealistic fantasy world simply cannot provide these benefits. It is, by it's very definition, self-limiting. Great advances and great acheivements are not accomplished by some smelly hippy spinning milkweed into ill-fitting clothes. They are accomplished by people who know how to utilize the efforts of large groups of people to accomplish far more than they could accomplish as individuals. Take something as simple as digging a well. A single person can do this, but it's very risky, very slow and not very effective. However, if someone was willing to pay a group of people out thier own pocket (or excess grain that they've saved up over the last 3 years), they could asemble a team of people who dig that well faster, better and safer. The guy who hired the people to dig the well would then charge for the water since without his contribution, discipline and vision the well would have never existed. The guy could then use the excess grain to hire more guys to dig more wells at neighboring villages, raisingthe quality of life for everyone. In your scenario, everyone just gets together and digs a well, but while they're digging the well, no one's raising the grain. Additionally, there's no motivation to expand the technology you have to other villages. In fact, there's a distinct motivation to do just the opposite. If your neighbor is weaker than you are, then you have an advantage over them that can be used to your advantage. Yeah, I know, in your fantastland scenario, no one actually acts like a real person, they all act like the most and righteous people ever born. But here in the real world, people have other motivations and drives. I'll take those drives pushing the human race ever higher and better over those which would leave society at something only slightly higher than hunter/gatherer.That is a tautology,anarchism is anti-capitalist.
:rofl
Long live utilitarian,exchange oriented economics ay,if we take property distribution as given then say that all choices are free then by definition everyone benefits in capitalism.
Give me a break.
politicomind said:Rich people as a group in the United States are self-made.
politicomind said:70% of the current billionaires were created by themselves within their own lifetime.
politicomind said:This means that the rich tend to be more disciplined, less addicted to something or anything, more dedicated to education
politicomind said:and simply more virtuous.
politicomind said:Now the poor on the other hand, are less intelligent, less disciplined, more likely to be addicted to something, more likely to go to prison, more likely to not invest in education, invest a lower percentage of their income in anything, and tend to have almost twice as many children as wealthy people.
politicomind said:Thus, the poor are less disciplined and have more children that they cannot afford, let only barely being able to support themselves, as well they tend to have less healthcare. All of these things tend to make them perpetually poor. A stint in prison would prevent their abiltity to gain high paying jobs, a life long addiction drains their income. Having too many children which saps their time away from getting an education, sap their time away from working overtimes, saps their finances away from investing. All these things make them poorer, which is why they are poor in the first place. They tend to be poor decision makers, more impulsive, and less disciplined and then produced more of themselves, because they cannot resist their sexual impulses, and/or in their drunk cocain stupors they breed with people they never met before, thus producing a child with a father she does not remember so that she cannot get child support from him, let alone even marry him because she doesn't know who he is.
politicomind said:So the rich have two disciplined children, who study, avoid drugs, avoid jail, abstain from sex, grow up get good jobs and have two kids themselves.
While, the poor, have four undisciplined children, who don't study, experiment with drugs, go to jail, have kids they don't know of, or kids without fathers, struggle to find good jobs because of their criminal record, or struggle to keep jobs because of their drug addictions.
Generation one had two weatlhy and two poor. Generation two has two wealthy but four poor. Generation three has two wealthy, but eight poor.
politicomind said:If your wondering why you don't have 8 million dollars its because you didn't work hard enough to go to oxford
politicomind said:and if you say your not smart enough, its because you didn't study hard enough or your parents didn't give you bright enough genes.
politicomind said:So stop boo hoo ing about the rich man keepin you down. Blamd yourself for being dull and undiscplined. And let the rest of us perceive the truth while you languish in squalor and self pity.
What are you talking about,I just told you that I use the traditional definition of capitalism rather than some propaganda definition like voluntary exchanges.You keep using terms to slander arguments without actually refuting them. It does not matter if its capitalism to you, what matters is that it employs the same ideas of free exchange and voluntary action. Capitalism essentially works under the same system. We have a mixed economy as any scholar, the Oxford Dictionary of Economics and nearly everyone else will tell you. What logically makes us a completely capitalist system, wherein transactions are voluntary and coercive actions are not commited by any state? Provide logic rather than your labeling.
What are you talking about when ever did I mention anything about my "idealistic fantasy world" please actually check your facts before you begin your tirades.Please cite a society that has actually done this and grown into a society where the quality of life of each succcessive generation is better than the last. You know, littl ethings like clean water, medical advances, wide-spread employment, the availabilty of increasing educational opportunities. My guess is that you can't because your idealistic fantasy world simply cannot provide these benefits. It is, by it's very definition, self-limiting. Great advances and great acheivements are not accomplished by some smelly hippy spinning milkweed into ill-fitting clothes. They are accomplished by people who know how to utilize the efforts of large groups of people to accomplish far more than they could accomplish as individuals. Take something as simple as digging a well. A single person can do this, but it's very risky, very slow and not very effective. However, if someone was willing to pay a group of people out thier own pocket (or excess grain that they've saved up over the last 3 years), they could asemble a team of people who dig that well faster, better and safer. The guy who hired the people to dig the well would then charge for the water since without his contribution, discipline and vision the well would have never existed. The guy could then use the excess grain to hire more guys to dig more wells at neighboring villages, raisingthe quality of life for everyone. In your scenario, everyone just gets together and digs a well, but while they're digging the well, no one's raising the grain. Additionally, there's no motivation to expand the technology you have to other villages. In fact, there's a distinct motivation to do just the opposite. If your neighbor is weaker than you are, then you have an advantage over them that can be used to your advantage. Yeah, I know, in your fantastland scenario, no one actually acts like a real person, they all act like the most and righteous people ever born. But here in the real world, people have other motivations and drives. I'll take those drives pushing the human race ever higher and better over those which would leave society at something only slightly higher than hunter/gatherer.
Virtuous according to whom?
These unsubstantiated anecdotes serve no purpose and are both outlandish and worthless, you should try harder.1) I know a couple drug dealers that are pretty rich.
2) I hire people with master's degrees from good colleges all day long at ten bucks an hour.
3) I know a guy who graduated with a J.D. from a well-known state university, 3rd in his class, that can barely make ends meet. He's got a good track record as a trial lawyer, but thanks to some nasty politics he unknowingly got involved in, he's simply not ever going to be able to make it practicing law.
4) I know another guy who dropped out of college and who can barely speak english (it's his native language--his IQ's something like 70) that makes a couple million annually working only 9 months out of the year. And he doesn't do anything illegal.
5) IIRC, there are plenty of pretty rich admitted drug users in this country. And not all of them are rock-stars either.
6) In general, it's my experience that education helps, but it isn't the decisive factor. Neither is drug use, personal discipline, or anything else.
Virtue measured by their success in an free yet regulated (as in a sense that business contracts are enforced) market.Virtuous according to whom?
I suggest you pick up a book on evolution, it's far more complex than your utterly misconstrued statement.Given that a species not interested in procreation is a species without a future, why would we think it a good arrangement to punish someone for procreation qua procreation?
The American Dream is about opportunity yes, but the actions you suggest we must take go directly against it. The gap in the poor and the rich does not suggest there are any less opportunities, without substantial net migration society becomes less volatile as people of different intelligence and other capabilities find their equilibrium in society, The American Dream is about the brilliant "serf" being able to become successful in society, not the retarded "stable boy" who gets to live a comfortable life.The American Dream is supposed to do away with this arrangement. It is supposed to provide a formulaic way to wealth, or at least financial security. It is supposed to be the case that if you play by the rules, work hard, etc. etc. you improve yourself. But that is simply no longer the reality. We are drifting back more and more to the old stratification that primarily benefits the wealthy. No one (least of all me) is going to argue that you can do what you want and get rich. Hard work and education certainly help, and I'm a believer in personal discipline. But they are not the primary determining factors they once were, and the overall velocity of the economy seems to be making them less so.
There are four other peculiar features of your position:
1) It ignores the fact that wealth tends to create more wealth in a finance-capitalism system. The more money one has, the easier it is to live strictly off of low-risk investments.
2) It assumes a clear causal chain where, if anything, the evidence has shown the reverse to be the case. You are assuming that, for instance, drug use and promiscuity cause poverty. But living in poverty, growing up in poverty, being surrounded by poverty, teaches that behavior to the poor, and thus through no fault of their own they perpetuate that system.
3) It ignores the fact that the rich need the poor. If everyone became a top-flight CEO, CEO's would be cleaning their own toilets and pumping their own gas, and they frankly don't want to do that.
4) It seems to assume that there's some moral dimension to getting wealthy--that the wealthy are in fact more moral than the poor. But as I asked above--more moral according to whom? There is something to be said for someone who recognizes that work is necessary, but is not the all-consuming drive in life. It is important to make friends, to spend some time in contemplation, to have hobbies, to travel and drink good wine, etc. etc. But you seem to emphasize working hard as the primary virtue. There was a study done some years ago by a group of psychologists who studied the behavior of top-flight CEO's and they concluded (unanimously, I might add) that if it weren't for the fact that their behavior was normative, they'd all be classed as sociopaths. Yet, you are grandstanding for a system that rewards that kind of behavior.
National Review 1997 said:Test scores and grades for blacks in integrated urban neighborhoods aren't any better than those in predominantly minority ghetto areas. Some affluent suburbs did no better than nearby urban areas, and even at the best suburban schools blacks on average lagged behind their white classmates. But a bigger secret is that even the poorest Asians tended to get better grades -- if not test scores -- than more affluent whites. Asians from poorer suburbs consistently outscored Euro-Americans in nearby more affluent suburbs. For all the talk about the superiority of schools in Japan or Korea, Asian-Americans are also nearly two years ahead in math, just as far ahead of their classmates as students in their ancestral lands are, even when they go to the same schools that fail other American minorities.
Not true at all, there's the field of Utilitarianism and Entitlement Theory that both have strong correlations with the field of economics.Well as you can see economics is a value-free science.:lol:
No you have offered nothing but sophistry to try and refute the fact that production.Oh suprise suprise, in your series of responses, you failed to address the point that you have not provided a single thing to back up your wild claims. :2wave:
Listen, if you're gonna call my Dad a thief, you're gonna have to give me something more than the claim.
Utilitarianism is not a subfield it is at the heart of neoclassical(and Austrian.) economics.Not true at all, there's the field of Utilitarianism and Entitlement Theory that both have strong correlations with the field of economics.
Wrong. You spewed a lot of anti-business agitprop. Such as:What are you talking about when ever did I mention anything about my "idealistic fantasy world" please actually check your facts before you begin your tirades.
I just pointed out the obvious truism that production is a social process.
In my example, I clearly counter this argument. The rich in my example vastl improved thier society by providing clean water. He compensated the people who dug his wells according to what they would accept and he could afford. He re-invested his profits to expand the societal improvements to other societies. He stole nothing, he forced no one to work for him and he is far from being a parasite. In fact, his contributions provide vast benefits to his society.The rich are rich because they steal value from the real producers,thet earn money through gov't protected property rights while most are kept propertyless by past and present state intervention forcing the majority to work for the rich.
Simple property ownership creates nothing,labour harnessing nature is the only productive human behaviour,the rich are a parasitic,idle rentier class and deserve to be treated like the scum,thieves and oppressors they are.
No. Because this forces a very poor production model to exist. One person cannot effectively dig a well, whereas half a dozen can. Cooperative effort, with compensation for that effort provided by someone who has the ability to provide that compensation.And when started this new company did he design and build it himself?Does he fill all the positions? And when he drives to work or gets the train did he design and build the car or train and the railroad or road system he travelled on? When he writes documents for the comanpy does he make the paper or computer and word processing program himself and did he discover how to make paper or computers and how about the language he uses did he invent the english language? And when he is travelling to a business meeting in other parts of the country or world does he design and build the planes he travels in and did he discover all the laws of flight? And these people who buy insurance off him are they made and controlled by him and the objects they insure,did he make them?
You're 'utilitarian, exchange oriented economics" is a method by which no man profits by any labor other than his own direct effort. It's also called stone-age living.Long live utilitarian,exchange oriented economics ay,if we take property distribution as given then say that all choices are free then by definition everyone benefits in capitalism.
Again, you try to paint this picture of a place where nothing a man profits from is the result of anything other than his own direct labor.The very name suggests he has millions of dollors, and unless he invented the concept of money,printed the money after designing and building the mint himself and he had complete control over the system by which he got the money back again,I fail to see how he is self-made.
If my company paid me for the value I create, they'd be out of business in short order. I've saved my employer over $500,000 a year by my efforts. Other people (who's jobs are critical, but create nothing) would be being paid nothing. Even if my employer paid all of us equally, my employer would be braoke in less five years because there would be no reinvestment capital to keep up with the competition. The very same competition that makes production methods faster, more effective, cleaner and more profitable.He owns the means of production because the state has stolen the means of production from most and maintains this situatione centralsing the means of production in the hands of the captialists,hence most must work for less than the value they create.
synch said:The value of something is it's marginal market value
synch said:due to Globalization the management skills at the top are more useful than ever
synch said:combined with free market policies executive pay are much higher than before, and the poor in rich countries are falling towards equilibrium, getting what they deserve on the world market.
synch said:Billionaires: Nature, Nurture or Innovation?
60% of America's billionaires are self made according to a report in 2001 by the Calgary Herald
synch said:Of the self-made billionaires, some (such as Warren Buffett - a US investor) got on the list because they are astute investors. But the vast majority get there because they pioneered something new and useful, in other words, because they were innovators. Of the ten richest people, eight indisputably got there because of an innovation, a new product or service that met people's needs better then what went before. Three of these were "high tech" - Bill Gates and Paul Allen from Microsoft, and Larry Ellison from Oracle, but interestingly five were from retailing - four members of the Walton family whose wealth came from Wal-Mart, and two brothers who founded the Aldi discount store. The remaining two were Warren Buffet, whose wealth came from investing, and a Saudi Prince who inherited money. The innovators represent all sectors of the economy - and are certainly not just in the "high tech" area. Creative risk takers seem to be rewarded.
Calgary Herald said:The distribution of billionaires around the world seems to reflect the underlying economic, social and cultural characteristics of different countries, rather than a random scattering of exceptional genes. Countries that have a relatively open social structure and that accept and reward enterprising behaviour seem to produce more rich people. So where you happen to be born plays a big part in determining success. Some billionaires recognise this in their more humble moments. Bill Gates was quoted recently as saying that he had been lucky, not in the sense of finding something, but in the sense of being born in a time and place that allowed him to exercise his talents to the full.
synch said:These unsubstantiated anecdotes serve no purpose and are both outlandish and worthless, you should try harder.
synch said:Virtue measured by their success in an free yet regulated (as in a sense that business contracts are enforced) market.
synch said:I suggest you pick up a book on evolution, it's far more complex than your utterly misconstrued statement.
synch said:The American Dream is about opportunity yes, but the actions you suggest we must take go directly against it.
synch said:The gap in the poor and the rich does not suggest there are any less opportunities
synch said:without substantial net migration society becomes less volatile as people of different intelligence and other capabilities find their equilibrium in society, The American Dream is about the brilliant "serf" being able to become successful in society, not the retarded "stable boy" who gets to live a comfortable life.
synch said:And that wealth must fund investments in order to maintain its value, creating more opportunties for society and for other people to get rich.
synch said:It is a combination of nature(genes) and nurture(including culture and environment). The redneck culture(commonly known as "black" culture today") plays a far more significant factor in determining the success of a child than economic factors, did you know poorer Asian students do better than richer black counterparts? In fact, they do better than richer whites in many areas.
synch said:wealth has a very limited role in determine one's social status in American Society today.
synch said:The poor need the rich far more than the rich need the poor
sycnh said:if we were to separate the top 20% in society from the very beginning of humanity in terms of intelligence, etc, and the bottom 20%, and they lived in isolated areas, let's say the upper in North America and the bottom in Europe, who would benefit more if these two societies joined?
sycnh said:The poor have skills that are far less valuable than the rich, that's a fact, it's an issue of scarcity and Marginalism.
synch said:I'd like to see that report, and even if that's true, so what?
synch said:Why must society create a totalitarian system that specifically punishes sociopaths?
sycnh said:They've shown themselves to be far more useful to society than the everyday person
synch said:is that what we should be striving for? To be average?
Wait a minute...did you just say...? It's usually considered evident that sociopaths are the ones who want to set up totalitarian systems.
I'd like to see that report too, it doesn't seem possible how these sociopaths are so successful.[SIZE=2 said:Antisocial personality disorder:Wikipedia[/SIZE]]
- failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
- deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
- impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
- irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated fights or assaults (both physically or mentally)
- reckless disregard for safety of self or others
- consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
- lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
Marx agrees with me and supports an competitive market in reasoning.Some have thought so. I disagree to an extent--and I'm not alone in that.
Marx said:For the labor spent on them(commodities) count effectively only insofar as it it spent in a form that is useful to others.
---
Whether that labor is useful for others, and its product consequently capable of satisfying the wants of others, can be proved only by the act of exchange.
---
Suppose that every piece of linen in the market contains no more labortime than is socially necessary. In spite of this, all the pieces taken as a whole may have had superfluous labor-time spent upon them. If the market cannot stomach the whole quantity at the normal price of 2 shillings a yard, this proves that too great a portion of the total labor of the community has been expended in the form of weaving. This is the same as if each weaver had expended more labor-time upon his particular product than is socially necessary.
This is a bare assertion. I don't believe it's correct, but if you've got some kind of argument for it, please state it.
A free competitive market of course.What they deserve? Who decides what someone deserves?
It depends on a multitude of factors, too many to list, but if the a person with the same congenital capabilities enters the business world with the same amount of luck the results would be the same.Or in more simplistic terms, the purported conclusion of this article answers the question of what billionaires did to get their money. It does not address the critical issue, which is whether everyone doing those same things also becomes a billionaire. It seems pretty obvious that this is not the case.
They are essential ingredients, just not all of them.Furthermore, the article itself doesn't seem to support the assertion that hard work, discipline, smarts, and innovation are the reason that rich people are rich.
It's very rare to go from dirt poor to becoming a billionaire in one generation, Sam Walton did it, his dad was a farmer.1) Doesn't really get to the heart of the matter. Warren Buffett definitely made a lot of money investing, but he came from an affluent family. His father was a stockbroker and U.S. congressman. People born into poverty tend to lack these kinds of connections. Buffet's first firm was financed by seven members of his family who together contributed a fairly substantial amount of money--poor people simply don't have that opportunity.
Bill Gates' family was wealthy and had connections that poor people wouldn't have.
The members of the Walton family are apparently listed by this author as "self-made," but if this is from the 2001 list, they can't mean Sam Walton (who wasn't four members of the Walton family anyway); ergo, they actually inherited their wealth. And so on for the others--all of whom were born with advantages that the poor do not have. That's the whole point!
He said tend to, all your examples were possible, so what? They don't detract validity from his statement.1) Are you calling me a liar? If so, on what grounds? Do you believe that the people I've described are impossible or something?
2) As to specific points--would you disagree with the statement that there are rich drug dealers? Would you disagree with the statement that there are rich people who use drugs?
I didn't read back enough, my mistake.So to you, "virtue" is defined by how successful someone is? If so, how is the position you're defending not circular?
If you had indeed read and understood what you've listed you should understand the foolishness of that statement.1) I happen to own (and have read) The Origin of Species, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Structure and Function of Evolutionary Theory. I've read, but do not own, a few others. I am reasonably conversant in evolutionary biology. Nothing I've ever read would contradict anything I said.
2) Who "utterly misconstrued" my statement? You? As the author of the statement, it couldn't have been me.
evidence?It does not necessarily suggest it, but I believe in this case it does.
Says who?1) The brilliant serf no longer has the opportunity to improve himself as he once did.
Why is he entitled a comfortable life? Why is he entitled the fruits of labors forcibly taken from others? Why must society enslave the most resourceful to appease him?2) The retarded stable boy ought not to be kicked to the ground just because he's retarded. Why set up a system that denies him a comfortable life provided we have the resources to give everyone a comfortable life, and extra to boot for those who work hard?
I'm an equal opportunist, but you're one sided focus on wealth created the image that you believe wealth is the only factor.Correct to an extent, but also incomplete. The argument isn't about whether wealth should move through an economy, but rather about who has the right and opportunity to move it, and why.
I think you're arguing for my position.
You've misunderstood my point completely, my subsequent 20% example was directly connected with my statement that the rich need the poor less than the other way around.Not correct.
You disagree with Marginalism?By your definition of value, this is obviously correct, but it's that definition that I challenge. The way you use it, this simply is the definition. It's not a new conclusion or anything, and if you're trying to say otherwise, you're begging the question.
I meant you have not been able to refute the idea production is a social function.Refute what fact? You're the one making a claim here, that our concept of ownership is wrong, and so I don't need to refute it until you give a ******* reason in need of being refuted!
Ah but you are missing the crux of the socialist argument,that the state using force,coercion and violence has centralised the means of production in the hands of a few,the capitalist classes, and maintains this situation.in response to the reading added after my response, he makes some good points, but the conclusions are nonsense, in that they are based on the exact same mistakes that socialism has always been built on, which is the mistake of believing that your labor is still yours after you choose to sell it. Everyone likes to believe that they're underpaid, but the reality is that if you were genuinely underpaid, you wouldn't work. If you are working, you are acknowledging that the price of sale is acceptable, considering the supply and demand curves.
synch said:I'd like to see that report too, it doesn't seem possible how these sociopaths are so successful.
synch said:Marx agrees with me and supports an competitive market in reasoning.
you should read what he wrote over and over again if you don't understand.
synch said:Have fun.
sycnh said:A free competitive market of course.
synch said:It depends on a multitude of factors, too many to list, but if the a person with the same congenital capabilities enters the business world with the same amount of luck the results would be the same.
synch said:They are essential ingredients, just not all of them.
synch said:It's very rare to go from dirt poor to becoming a billionaire in one generation, Sam Walton did it, his dad was a farmer.
synch said:He said tend to, all your examples were possible, so what? They don't detract validity from his statement.
synch said:I didn't read back enough, my mistake.
Virtuous according to Robert Nozick.
synch said:If you had indeed read and understood what you've listed you should understand the foolishness of that statement.
synch said:evidence?
synch said:Why is he entitled a comfortable life?
synch said:Why is he entitled the fruits of labors forcibly taken from others? Why must society enslave the most resourceful to appease him?
synch said:I'm an equal opportunist, but you're one sided focus on wealth created the image that you believe wealth is the only factor.
synch said:Let's say that in a society with free market capitalism(Let's say Hong Kong), take the top 20% wealthiest, and put them on Earth 1. Put the bottom 20% in terms of wealth on Earth 2. They're isolated for thousands of years, and must start civilization from scratch, the only thing left of their former selves are their genes. The two worlds meet after a couple of millenniums, which group would benefit more from the junction? Ceteris Paribus, which group?
synch said:You disagree with Marginalism?
Originally Posted by politicomind
This means that the rich tend to be more disciplined, less addicted to something or anything, more dedicated to education, and simply more virtuous.
No those are utilitarian fairy tales.We are all capitalist classes. Since all classes other than those who contribute nothing and live solely on welfare participate in the system of barter with a monetary system in order to allow ease in trade (which is capitalism), we are all capitalist classes. Have you ever held a job? That was taking part in capitalism. Ever sold or bought anything? Also capitalism.
Again that is the utilitarian myth,given the current property distirubtion(and a few other variables.) then all gain by free exchange,but if you actually look at the reasons for property distribution,particularly why a few are rich and many are not,you see nothing but state coercion,violence,force and fraud.The average worker does not own fields or machines to till by himself because he hasn't done anything to merit owning the fields or machines, and instead of earning the capital neccesary to buy fields and machines, which is something anyone CAN do (considering that knowledge is in the public domain, and anyone can get a library card), but it's a lot of work that most aren't willing to do (but as it is something that we need as a society, the reward for doing the work neccesary to own fields and machines is relatively large). So your average worker, instead of doing this work, decides to instead sell his labor to someone who has done this work, in a mutually beneficial transaction.
And why aren't they?Tell me which of these is wrong
Farm land is available for purchase
Machines to aid in farming land is available for purchase
The VAST majority of people are born without having everything they'll ever need to survive already
No those are utilitarian fairy tales.
Capitalism is the system we live in,which is a market,commody producing system,where the state has centralised the means of production in the hands of a minority class and keeps it that way.
[/B][/I]
You are confusing a caste and class,I never said they are immovable,that it one of thier weaknesses,however they try and limit it, they are susceptible to competition.If this is so, if its an inmovable minority class, then why are there examples, like Oprah, who move to the very top of society despite starting in the lower rungs of society? If this class is actively opressing everyone else why do we see near guaranteed economic growth in capitalist economies? Furthermore, you are supposing that this "class" keeps capital to themselves, that they do not share it with others. This is not true, there is no incentive for that class to keep their capital, rather they benefit when they put it to use and let others employ it and make it even more profitable. If this class were really trying to hold us all down, why would they open up factories that provide employment and a means for survival for millions? They know that by employing the capital of others with their own, they can be better off and the workers are better off as well. If they were really out to get you and me how would the state have allowed the formation of unions? The simple answer is despite the rhetoric, this "class" has every incentive to share their capital so they can become even richer. But the point here, is that economics is a positive sum game.
True or false, Americans are better off after years of captialism? Tell me one example where the poorest of the poor are doing as bad as they were in the 1800's.
You are confusing a caste and class,I never said they are immovable,that it one of thier weaknesses,however they try and limit it, they are susceptible to competition.
No it doesn't and of course they try and limit competition as much as possible.Exactly, and that prevents them from using their larger amounts of capital to oppress others or to not share their capital.
In the commune it would, outside it would not.Also, what in your system would prevent the concentration of wealth by a monopoly power?
Of course not, these are state interventions, I find it hard to see why a free marketeer like yourself would bring them up.What court system would protect patents?
What country doesn't have some form of capitalism? Or at least another kind of class system.Lastly, even if we debate capitalism "as it is" then has that not proved to be an extremely successful system, what country with a per capita income of over 20,000 does not have some form of "capitalism as it is".
How do they use their capital to limit competition? Did big box retailers come in vogue because they supressed everyone else or because people choose to give them their money for their very cheap products?No it doesn't and of course they try and limit competition as much as possible.
What incentive is there for a highly skilled worker to work for another man. As was mentioned earlier, is that not also a form of exploitation?In the commune it would, outside it would not.
Of course not, these are state interventions, I find it hard to see why a free marketeer like yourself would bring them up.
What country doesn't have some form of capitalism? Or at least another kind of class system.
And who says an anarcho-communist or free market society would not create similar growth?
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?