Can we Create an America that can Lead the World - Page 11

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 14:25

He's right, Duncan. That IS capitalism, whether you choose to open your eyes to the fact or not.

And one of the outgrowths OF those small businesses is that they combine into bigger businesses.

But what difference does it make? They're all evil capitalist exploitive dogs who sit on their butts and don't ever do anything but think up new ways to exploit their workers.

Shouldn't matter how big the companies are.

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 12, 2003, 14:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

You generalize entirely too much. We are not a bunch of small business owners who simply work for ourselves. You maybe, but the bulk of us aren't. Furthermore, its a fanatasy to picture capitalism in that way. You're talking precommercial revolution. Capitalism will never go back to those early stages.

errr.. pre-industrial revolution i think

No, the bulk of people are employees of the small business owner who took the risks and accepted the responsibility of building up the business, and hiring the employees when it grew large enough. Believe it or not Duncan, small to medium sized businesses are responsible for something like 60% of the jobs in our societies. And it's not fantasy, it's reality.

Ned · February 12, 2003, 14:31

Do I understand you correctly, Duncan? If a widget sells for $10, each laborer who provided input to making the widget, or the tools or the know how or the pipelines, is entiled to $5 or he or she is "exploited?"

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 14:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

No, the bulk of people are employees of the small business owner who took the risks and accepted the responsibility of building up the business, and hiring the employees when it grew large enough. Believe it or not Duncan, small to medium sized businesses are responsible for something like 60% of the jobs in our societies. And it's not fantasy, it's reality.

When we start talking about small businesses who have employees we are moving into a grey area. Maybe they aren't capitalists if they don't make an unreasonable amount of money.

I'm not interested in pointing fingers at who exactly the capitalists are like in the movie, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." It's the system taken as a whole that I believe is inferior and exploitive.

Willem · February 12, 2003, 14:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

When we start talking about small businesses who have employees we are moving into a grey area. Maybe they aren't capitalists if they don't make an unreasonable amount of money.

I'm not interested in pointing fingers at who exactly the capitalists are like in the movie, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." It's the system taken as a whole that I believe is inferior and exploitive.

You're evading again. Which is it to be, the state controls everything, or the people make the choice? It can't work both ways.

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 14:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Do I understand you correctly, Duncan? If a widget sells for $10, each laborer who provided input to making the widget, or the tools or the know how or the pipelines, is entiled to $5 or he or she is "exploited?"

It's difficult to explain when you have division of labor. Consider the rare case where there is one capitalist and one worker. The worker does all the work. The capitalist sells the produce for $100, but the worker only gets paid $50. That's what I'm talking about. It's better for the worker to get $100. Then the capitalist can also work and that too will be better for the economy.

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 14:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

You're evading again. Which is it to be, the state controls everything, or the people make the choice? It can't work both ways.

I'm not evading that question at all. It's quite obvious that I believe in community ownership

Willem · February 12, 2003, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

It's better for the worker to get $100. Then the capitalist can also work and that too will be better for the economy.

How exploitative, the worker gets all the money even though the capitalist spent all that time selling the product. I suppose the fact that maybe he has a family to feed as well is irrelevant.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 14:47

The point you miss is that the worker does NOT do "all the work."

He may do all the work directly related to creating the widget, but if you do not believe that marketing, advertising, and forging partnerships with other businesses to make sure your widgets have a market (else you'll be making them, but no one will buy them)? What then?

Nahhh, but the evil dog is not "really" working, is he?

Willem · February 12, 2003, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

I'm not evading that question at all. It's quite obvious that I believe in community ownership

Then how do you reconcile that view with this statement:

"When we start talking about small businesses who have employees we are moving into a grey area. Maybe they aren't capitalists if they don't make an unreasonable amount of money."

How can there be any small businesses at all, if the state owns everything? Your view of communism is either flawed or incomplete.

Az · February 12, 2003, 14:52

ok, I seem to loose the point where I parted the thread. Could you please reintroduce me?

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 14:52

Good point, Willem, and I have a question about that statement, too.

Who "decides" what that fair level of compensation should be?

If it is, as you say, a grey area, then what is the determining factor? Where is the line between "exploitation" and "reasonable profit."

Capitalism would contend it is whatever the market will bear. If that is wrong, what is it?

-=Vel=-

Arrian · February 12, 2003, 14:54

Quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Arrian

Yeah, I'm sure you work 500x as hard as Gates. Sure.

But even if you did, "hard work" isn't the only thing of value in the world. "Bright ideas" should be rewarded too.

Your assertion that rich people sit on their asses all day is starting to make sense to me. If that was true (ha!), then the only way they could get rich is by exploiting people. Ergo, rich people are exploiting you!

Ya.

Gotta go get lunch, bbl.

-Arrian

I have no idea why you don't believe that rich people don't work as hard as poor people, I sort of think that you might have a lot of money. I think if you tried to support yourself and a family with an unskilled labor job then you would understand that better.

I have no idea why YOU think that rich people sit on their asses all day. The rich people we have been discussing primarily are business owners. If a business owner doesn't work hard, that business is gonna go under, sooner rather than later.

Out of curiousity, do you consider spending time thinking up an invention to be hard work? Or does "hard work" only encompass manual labor?

-Arrian

Ned · February 12, 2003, 15:04

On the issue of who decides what is fair, this will get one back to central planning which has proven itself not to work. Workers will flee. Then comes the barbed wire, dogs, and back-shooting border guards.

Communism is paradise.

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 15:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Then how do you reconcile that view with this statement:

"When we start talking about small businesses who have employees we are moving into a grey area. Maybe they aren't capitalists if they don't make an unreasonable amount of money."

How can there be any small businesses at all, if the state owns everything? Your view of communism is either flawed or incomplete.

I'm not sure what the point is, but I better not EVADE anything.

There can be not private ownership of the means of production in communism. Does this answer you question?

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
ok, I seem to loose the point where I parted the thread. Could you please reintroduce me?

Sorry Azazel, there are two threads that have melded into a simple debate over capitalism vs. communism. Just pick up anywhere or start off on a comment of your own.

Az · February 12, 2003, 15:14

Ned, you're not making arguments. Please stop.

btw, it seems that Duncan kinda drove himself into a pit with that "all private enterprise is exploitation" reasoning.

Duncan, get out of there ,I know you can.

Willem · February 12, 2003, 15:15

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

I'm not sure what the point is, but I better not EVADE anything.

There can be not private ownership of the means of production in communism. Does this answer you question?

Then why did you say this?

"I'm not really talking about regular people who start up a small business because that's what they want to do."

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 15:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

Out of curiousity, do you consider spending time thinking up an invention to be hard work? Or does "hard work" only encompass manual labor?

-Arrian

It depends. I could innocently stuble upon some idea, or I could work hard doing experiments and such. One is hard work, the other isn't.

Willem · February 12, 2003, 15:18

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

It depends. I could innocently stuble upon some idea, or I could work hard doing experiments and such. One is hard work, the other isn't.

Ideas never just happen, they come from previous experiences and perceptions. Just because someone suddenly has an inspiration doesn't mean that they didn't work hard to get themselves to that point.

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Ned, you're not making arguments. Please stop.

btw, it seems that Duncan kinda drove himself into a pit with that "all private enterprise is exploitation" reasoning.

Duncan, get out of there ,I know you can.

I've been clear to say that all private ownership in not exploitation. But when you hire someone to use your equipment to produce profit, that is exploitaion.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 15:20

But they are both inventive....are you saying that if it happened to be easy, it is less valuable?

In that case, would it not be the natural inclination for EVERYBODY who invented to talk at length about how hard it was?

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 15:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
On the issue of who decides what is fair, this will get one back to central planning which has proven itself not to work. Workers will flee. Then comes the barbed wire, dogs, and back-shooting border guards.

Communism is paradise.

Why would they flee?

Az · February 12, 2003, 15:21

OK, here's an argument.

I am not claiming that capitalism is evil and terrible, because these things are relative.

My claim is that a socialist system will make people happier, on a general basis.

Ned, I lived in the SU, and no, I didn't see barbed wire, and no guards and dogs. Stop the crap, please.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 15:22

That's right....they should be able to just come over and use your equipment FREE to make stuff....I forgot!

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Ideas never just happen, they come from previous experiences and perceptions. Just because someone suddenly has an inspiration doesn't mean that they didn't work hard to get themselves to that point.

People do stumble upon ideas

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
But they are both inventive....are you saying that if it happened to be easy, it is less valuable?

In that case, would it not be the natural inclination for EVERYBODY who invented to talk at length about how hard it was?

-=Vel=-

You have to be mentally conditioned by a very conservative society to believe that somebody who just stumbled upon an idea should be elevated to an elite status.

Arrian · February 12, 2003, 15:28

I was watching the "wings" channel last night, and they had a program on a guy who had developed somewhere in the vicinity of 100 innovations in the area of flight safety (the best known of which is the "stall warning" indicator system that lets a pilot know that they are about to lose lift and fall out of the sky). This guy knew aviation and spent his life figuring out ways of making it safer.

Did he work hard, or did he exploit the rest of us? I'm curious, because I may have to go get myself a pitchfork and take back what he has stolen from me!

-Arrian

Willem · February 12, 2003, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

People do stumble upon ideas

Mainly because they've educated themselves enough to recognize the possibilities when it occurs.

Ned · February 12, 2003, 15:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
OK, here's an argument.

I am not claiming that capitalism is evil and terrible, because these things are relative.

My claim is that a socialist system will make people happier, on a general basis.

Ned, I lived in the SU, and no, I didn't see barbed wire, and no guards and dogs. Stop the crap, please.

The SU had travel restrictions inside the country and it was a long way from the West. The border between East and West was barbed wire, mine fields, dogs and back-shooting guards. And don't tell me that the workers were not trying to flee.

As to force - could someone own his own farm in the SU? I really don't know the answer to this question. But it was my understanding that millions were killed when they were forced to give up their own farms.