Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That's why che hates it . However, I think the real reason was a compromise between left and right, and because the left was growing and wanted reforms (without revolution).

It doesn't work anyway. All that happened in the end was that the capitalists moved their factories offshore where they wouldn't be bothered by pesky things like human rights and unions. For the last 20 years they've been trying to persuade us to work part-time at McDonalds.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Agathon
How long do people think that the environment and the world's dispossessed are going to put up with the current system of consumer capitalism? It's a totally nutty system - much of our economy is based on producing trivial things which nobody really needs and trashy crap which breaks after a couple of years so you have to buy a new one.

There were consumer goods in America before MultiNationalCorporations started exploiting cheaper foreign labor.

If you ever watch the "Antiques Roadshow" you can see what is wrong with consumer capitalism. Most of that old stuff is well made and that's why it has lasted so well - there's no reason that couldn't be done now other than that it would destroy our silly economy. Same goes for fashions and trends - it's all smoke and mirrors - the wonder is that anyone falls for it.

Some people like new things, especially shiny objects.

I mean look at the pop charts as an example of mass stupidity. These measure sales rather than what people are actually listening to, so of course they are subject to rapid change. However, much of the public has managed to be persuaded that sales = popularity, so you get this continual urge to buy the latest thing.

Sure it's stupidm but you don't have any right to tell people what they can and can't enjoy.

Consumer capitalism is irrational, silly and destructive of the environment and other people. We could feed everyone in the world right now, but we don't because our system of distribution is so stupid that fat Americans are falling over from heart attacks whilst Africans starve by the thousands.

It might be silly, but as Americans, we can do what we want with our money and labor. Where is it written that Americans have to slave to feed an African population that expanded beyond its capabilities. Sure, we should help out, but it's not our fault they aren't independent. Why should America use it's resources just to feed a world. We're not the mother nipple of the world. We should help impoverished nations to become self-sufficient. We shouldn't, however, be forced to support them.

When you evaluate a system, evaluate it on the global scale.

I agree. If some regional areas have outgrown their capacity to feed their populations, we shouldn't support the overgrowth. Sure, starvation sucks, but maybe if Africa didn't have such enormous birth-rates, this wouldn't be a problem. I don't see why we should punish Americans for their mistakes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It doesn't work anyway. All that happened in the end was that the capitalists moved their factories offshore where they wouldn't be bothered by pesky things like human rights and unions. For the last 20 years they've been trying to persuade us to work part-time at McDonalds.

Wow... I didn't know Europe and the US are in poverty because corporations have all moved away.

[Sava]

It doesn't work anyway. All that happened in the end was that the capitalists moved their factories offshore where they wouldn't be bothered by pesky things like human rights and unions. For the last 20 years they've been trying to persuade us to work part-time at McDonalds.

It's our fault that other countries don't have human rights and labor laws?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

It doesn't work anyway. All that happened in the end was that the capitalists moved their factories offshore where they wouldn't be bothered by pesky things like human rights and unions. For the last 20 years they've been trying to persuade us to work part-time at McDonalds.

Wow... I didn't know Europe and the US are in poverty because corporations have all moved away.

Get your head out of the sand

[Sava]

There is significant poverty in the US, but not because corporations are moving away.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Sava
There is significant poverty in the US, but not because corporations are moving away.

The trade deficit and automation combined are causing joblessness and poverty. Joblessness is the leading cause of poverty. So do you have a better theory about how jobs are lost?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Get your head out of the sand

This makes you seems fairly ignorant. Almost Fez or Sava-esque.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This makes you seems fairly ignorant. Almost Fez or Sava-esque.

All you do is spam like that DD. I find it interesting that you complain when others do it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sava
There were consumer goods in America before MultiNationalCorporations started exploiting cheaper foreign labor.

That's a non-sequitur.

Some people like new things, especially shiny objects.

So what, it doesn't mean they get to have them.

Sure it's stupidm but you don't have any right to tell people what they can and can't enjoy.

The state does this all the time when their enjoyment of it significantly disadvantages others. e.g. kiddie porn.

It might be silly, but as Americans, we can do what we want with our money and labor. Where is it written that Americans have to slave to feed an African population that expanded beyond its capabilities.

This is the usual lie brought out to explain why these people are poor. It's all their fault. BS Sava, we use 80% of the world's resources - you aren't going to tell me that 80% of the world's resources are contained within the borders of industrialised nations are you?

Sure, we should help out, but it's not our fault they aren't independent. Why should America use it's resources just to feed a world.

It's resources? Their ****ing resources!

We're not the mother nipple of the world.

No just the teenage rapist.

We should help impoverished nations to become self-sufficient. We shouldn't, however, be forced to support them.

Leaving them be and not interfering might be a start. But such things are verboten.

I agree. If some regional areas have outgrown their capacity to feed their populations, we shouldn't support the overgrowth.

They haven't. The whole world could be fed very easily. You aren't telling me that you should starve just because you can't grow all the food you need in your window box.

Sure, starvation sucks, but maybe if Africa didn't have such enormous birth-rates, this wouldn't be a problem. I don't see why we should punish Americans for their mistakes.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BIRTH RATES!!!!!! We could feed all these people and more - it's the distribution system that's ****ed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is significant poverty in the US, but not because corporations are moving away.

Yeah, but compared to third world countries? Come on! Europe's and the US's GDP per capita and mean income are so high compared to those countries to claim that capitalists moved all their industries away because of better protectons and thus Europeans and Americans have to settle for McDonald's jobs is just utterly silly.

Work requiring skilled labor goes to where productivity is highest, not where wages are lowest.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
All you do is spam like that DD. I find it interesting that you complain when others do it.

I only give nonsensical rhetoric the attention it deserves.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Work requiring skilled labor goes to where productivity is highest, not where wages are lowest.

Labor mobility is not a significant factor.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who the Hell said anything about labor mobility? Industries go to countries and areas for skilled labor where productivity of the people is high. You won't see many software companies in Uganda, for example.... put plenty will exist in the US and Europe.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yeah, but compared to third world countries? Come on! Europe's and the US's GDP per capita and mean income are so high compared to those countries to claim that capitalists moved all their industries away because of better protectons and thus Europeans and Americans have to settle for McDonald's jobs is just utterly silly.

Work requiring skilled labor goes to where productivity is highest, not where wages are lowest.

So that's why loads of the people I know have been relocated to Mexico, where labour is really cheap so that they can become foreign bwanas to the cheaper Mexican labourers.

That's why, when I walk through Toronto's garment district almost all the factories are closed. Silly me...

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Who the Hell said anything about labor mobility? Industries go to countries and areas for skilled labor where productivity of the people is high. You won't see many software companies in Uganda, for example.... put plenty will exist in the US and Europe.

Oops misread. Sorry.

About your point, skilled labor jobs are more productive so not as many workers are needed. It's the unskilled jobs that are labor intensive.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
How long do people think that the environment and the world's dispossessed are going to put up with the current system of consumer capitalism? It's a totally nutty system - much of our economy is based on producing trivial things which nobody really needs and trashy crap which breaks after a couple of years so you have to buy a new one.

For fun, I used to build model tanks (WW2) I got some Soviet made models, and was amazed at the absolute **** materials - how do you make plastic that bad? So I got a bit of a hobby of looking for other Soviet made merchandise, and for the most part, it's atrocious. Quality isn't a function of the economic system, but at least in a market system, products that don't meet a minimum tradeoff of price vs. quality tend to disappear pretty fast.

If you ever watch the "Antiques Roadshow" you can see what is wrong with consumer capitalism. Most of that old stuff is well made and that's why it has lasted so well - there's no reason that couldn't be done now other than that it would destroy our silly economy.

People won't pay for it, though, unless they have a lot of money to spend. There are other tradeoffs too - take cars from the 1940's and 50's big steel days in Detroit, or something like Rolls and Bentley. Sure, they last forever, but you also have a lot of extra input materials, and fuel efficiency, emissions, etc. are atrocious. Computers are another example - technology evolves faster than useful product life. Higher priced, high quality products have a niche role in the market, but not much more. Antiques Roadshow is great, though.

Same goes for fashions and trends - it's all smoke and mirrors -the wonder is that anyone falls for it.

Human nature. Go back to Schliemann's early finds, and examples of jewelry and ornamentation in archeological finds all over the world. Demonstrating status, or pretending to have it, seem to be universal or very close to it.

We could feed everyone in the world right now, but we don't because our system of distribution is so stupid that fat Americans are falling over from heart attacks whilst Africans starve by the thousands.

When you evaluate a system, evaluate it on the global scale.

Then again, you could look at the Soviet failures of domestic processing and distribution and ask why they had to buy wheat from the US during years of record harvests.

[monkspider]

Don't worry, we all will be free from capitalism within twenty years or less.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Keep dreaming, commie.

[GePap]

These threads get less intelligent with time.

Che is right: a small busines owner is not a capitalist unless he has a lot of productive capital. Big landowners, if all thier assets are tied into thier land might be millionaries, but they are not capitalists either. In fact, I don;t think we have any "capitalists" posting here at all. At best we have profesionals in the service sector or govenrment and managers for some corporation. A capitalist is also NOT a never ending fan of the free market: the wet dream of any self-respecting capitalist is a monopoly, since that is thier best way to maximize their profits. So it hurts the customers? They aren't a cutomer, so why the hell should they care if the customer is hurt?

What is the free market? it is a means: it is a tool, the best way to maximize efficiency and the creation of capital and then wealth. What the free market is not is a religion, it is NOT and end. The question to be asked, the question society has to ask itself is what it's end is. Is the greatest possible wealth the end result we want? For a bunch of Monks the free market means nothing. It means nothing becuase their AIM is not to be wealthy, but to be faithful and fulfill their vows. Only an idiot would demand that monks be free-marketeers.


Now, if people here want to argue that the most efficient way to increase capital and build wealth invariably leads to the best society, then fine, do so.

The inherent failure of the "communist governments" went far beyond the economic realm.

[MichaeltheGreat]

There's no specific threshhold of capital required for your business (or investments) to suddenly acquire the magical mantle of being "capitalist."

If your business or investment activity is significantly dependent on capital markets, that's all it takes. Buying a bunch of real estate and holding it, or gold, and hoarding it, don't count. Nor does a ma and pa corner convenience store, or freelancing as a professional, but you don't have to raise or invest ten million, or fifty, or some arbitrary level.

"Society" can't answer a question (about ends) that is fundamentally individual in nature, as you demonstrated with your bunch of monks example. "Society" can really only answer the question about what means are available or prohibited, so that individuals are free to pursue their goals.

A self-respecting capitalist would only have wet dreams about monopolies if they are in fact the best means of maximizing profit. Short-term monopolies fit that bill, in a short time frame, but they're neither necessary nor beneficial in the long term. Monopolies breed resistance and demand for regulation, so eventually, the cost of maintaining the monopoly outweighs the benefits, or the monopoly is broken by development of direct or indirect alternatives.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
There's no specific threshhold of capital required for your business (or investments) to suddenly acquire the magical mantle of being "capitalist."
If your business or investment activity is significantly dependent on capital markets, that's all it takes. Buying a bunch of real estate and holding it, or gold, and hoarding it, don't count. Nor does a ma and pa corner convenience store, or freelancing as a professional, but you don't have to raise or invest ten million, or fifty, or some arbitrary level.

BUt your single average stockholder aint one.

"Society" can't answer a question (about ends) that is fundamentally individual in nature, as you demonstrated with your bunch of monks example. "Society" can really only answer the question about what means are available or prohibited, so that individuals are free to pursue their goals.

Not so. The very notion that it is up to individuals to chose is a modern societal decision itself. This notion of "it's up to the individual" is about 400 years old at most, out of 6000 years of human history, and much more human pre-history. Most ancient cvultures believe dthere was sucha things as "the good life", the "good individual" and a certain goal that was higher than any other. The dropping of that is a mdoern concept, and as much a human invention as anything before it.

A self-respecting capitalist would only have wet dreams about monopolies if they are in fact the best means of maximizing profit. Short-term monopolies fit that bill, in a short time frame, but they're neither necessary nor beneficial in the long term. Monopolies breed resistance and demand for regulation, so eventually, the cost of maintaining the monopoly outweighs the benefits, or the monopoly is broken by development of direct or indirect alternatives.

Demand for regulation is a political outcome, not an economic one. Now you are briging up the political power that 'customers" have and the political power of the "capitalist". That then is not an economic discussion, but a political one.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

For fun, I used to build model tanks (WW2) I got some Soviet made models, and was amazed at the absolute **** materials - how do you make plastic that bad? So I got a bit of a hobby of looking for other Soviet made merchandise, and for the most part, it's atrocious. Quality isn't a function of the economic system, but at least in a market system, products that don't meet a minimum tradeoff of price vs. quality tend to disappear pretty fast.

So..... I'm not bashing the market for its successes, but for its failures.

Actually for fun when I was a kid, I played with six inch models of the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Prinz Eugen and Yamato.

People won't pay for it, though, unless they have a lot of money to spend. There are other tradeoffs too - take cars from the 1940's and 50's big steel days in Detroit, or something like Rolls and Bentley. Sure, they last forever, but you also have a lot of extra input materials, and fuel efficiency, emissions, etc. are atrocious. Computers are another example - technology evolves faster than useful product life. Higher priced, high quality products have a niche role in the market, but not much more.

Computers and so on aside, this is irrational behaviour (my initial suspicion is that it's one of my old faves - a collective action problem). It's irrational to buy poor quality products like alarm clocks for the simple reason that you end up paying more over time for the various clocks you buy (I know, this has happened to me).

However, on cars it's different. For years back home people found it hard to justify the cost of a new car as you could buy a second hand one and keep it in good order for years (my last car was a 1980 Corona!). Cars don't rust much in NZ and most people have cheap ways of getting mechanical work done. When I left the government was trying to crack down on old cars. My mechanic friends told me that there was no reason to do so, but that they suspected that car dealers were responsible. Structured obsolesence is a fact.

Human nature. Go back to Schliemann's early finds, and examples of jewelry and ornamentation in archeological finds all over the world. Demonstrating status, or pretending to have it, seem to be universal or very close to it.

But it's a silly and wasteful game - for the participants as much as anyone else (it's a form of race to the bottom). Besides the kind of consumer society we have has only existed for half a century or so - invoking the Mycenaean Age as a comparison is stretching it.

Then again, you could look at the Soviet failures of domestic processing and distribution and ask why they had to buy wheat from the US during years of record harvests.

What's this got to do with it? I could as easily mention the US imprisonment rate.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

"Society" can't answer a question (about ends) that is fundamentally individual in nature, as you demonstrated with your bunch of monks example. "Society" can really only answer the question about what means are available or prohibited, so that individuals are free to pursue their goals.

This is what is most dangerous about liberalism in general. We only get away with it because of the contingent fact that most people in our communities agree in broad outline about the good life and the way disputes are to be resolved. Of course we don't notice this and argue all the time, but this broad agreement is nonetheless there.

Plus the claim is false.

Any society has to answer the question about ends. Individualism is an end and requires a certain form of social organisation to promote it and prevent it being impugned. It's just that the end is autonomy in the case of individualism - and autonomy is a value, it's an end.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap


BUt your single average stockholder aint one.

Does it really matter if they're actual capitalists, or just free market fanboys? The average guy definitely isn't, but that's really that the barrier to entry is too high in the US. One of the reasons I like Mexico from an economic perspective is that the barrier to entry is much lower for a wide variety of capital market and development endeavors.

Quote:

"Society" can't answer a question (about ends) that is fundamentally individual in nature, as you demonstrated with your bunch of monks example. "Society" can really only answer the question about what means are available or prohibited, so that individuals are free to pursue their goals.

Not so. The very notion that it is up to individuals to chose is a modern societal decision itself. This notion of "it's up to the individual" is about 400 years old at most, out of 6000 years of human history, and much more human pre-history. Most ancient cvultures believe dthere was sucha things as "the good life", the "good individual" and a certain goal that was higher than any other. The dropping of that is a mdoern concept, and as much a human invention as anything before it.

Only if you take a distinctly limited view in favor of more top-down organized societies. Many indigenous cultures in North America and some other areas of the world took a more individualistic approach (even where the community had a strong voice, the individual could not be compelled to follow). Erosion of the notion of absolutist power started at least with the Magna Carta. If anything, that dropping is more of a negative response to the "a place for everyone and everyone in their place" style of rigid hierarchical power and privilege that has been the norm of most heavily organized societies throughout human history. Generally, society driven models had a three-tier hierarchy of rulers, their enforcers, and their *****es. Since there were always a lot more of the bottom tier than the top, the emergence of individualism can also be seen as rebellion against artificially and externally imposed constraints on the majority of people by an elite minority.

Demand for regulation is a political outcome, not an economic one. Now you are briging up the political power that 'customers" have and the political power of the "capitalist". That then is not an economic discussion, but a political one.

The two can't be separated in any meaningful way, unless you want to go to the libertarian extreme, or the absolute despotic state-run economy extreme. All modern economies heavily intermix the two. For the point I was making, the only "political" aspect is that the pure monopolist can't trod with too heavy a foot, without triggering political backlash.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So that's why loads of the people I know have been relocated to Mexico, where labour is really cheap so that they can become foreign bwanas to the cheaper Mexican labourers.

That's why, when I walk through Toronto's garment district almost all the factories are closed. Silly me...

Which is why I said skilled workers . I don't think it is a bad thing to close down these unskilled factories, it makes the countries and the industries more efficient. And it also makes ordinary Mexican more wealthy (after all, these jobs will pay more than others, which is why people will work for them), which I think it is a noble goal, don't you?

And the point still stands. The US and Europe are rich countries. They are much more efficient and productive than those in other areas. We'll focus on capital intensive industries (since we are better on them) and the poorer countries can focus on labor intensive ones (which works better for them).

I think our per capita incomes are pretty high, don't you? I don't think that people working for McDonalds would be that reason. Inefficient jobs leave to be replaced by more efficient ones. A majority of Americans don't work in fast food .

A few people lose their jobs along the way. In the long run, they are necessary sacrifices.

A capitalist is also NOT a never ending fan of the free market

So then what is a fan of capitalism called (be serious)?

If that's the case, then I don't think anyone should call themself a Communist unless they live in a commune .

Sorry, I'm a capitalist... I back capitalism. That is what I choose to be called. Tough **** .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon


This is what is most dangerous about liberalism in general. We only get away with it because of the contingent fact that most people in our communities agree in broad outline about the good life and the way disputes are to be resolved. Of course we don't notice this and argue all the time, but this broad agreement is nonetheless there.

Plus the claim is false.

Any society has to answer the question about ends. Individualism is an end and requires a certain form of social organisation to promote it and prevent it being impugned. It's just that the end is autonomy in the case of individualism - and autonomy is a value, it's an end.

Let me rephrase. Society "can" attempt to answer those questions, but the more limited the choices of ends, the more at variance they are with individual desires for choice and self-determination, and the more heavily society tries to enforce conformism with it's "approved" choices, the more likely you are to trigger rebellion against those actions and against the elites and enforcers.

If "society" acts strictly with popular consent, and doesn't heavily enforce limits on those with other goals, it doesn't functionally matter that much whether you view the choice of ends as "social" or individual.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

So that's why loads of the people I know have been relocated to Mexico, where labour is really cheap so that they can become foreign bwanas to the cheaper Mexican labourers. That's why, when I walk through Toronto's garment district almost all the factories are closed. Silly me...

Which is why I said skilled workers . I don't think it is a bad thing to close down these unskilled factories, it makes the countries and the industries more efficient. And it also makes ordinary Mexican more wealthy (after all, these jobs will pay more than others, which is why people will work for them), which I think it is a noble goal, don't you?

Perhaps in Mexico, but not in countries where people regularly get shot for organising. Plus the work is likely to be dangerous since one reason companies leave is that they don't want to pay for safe workplaces. Have worldwide labour standards and I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So then what is a fan of capitalism called (be serious)?

If that's the case, then I don't think anyone should call themself a Communist unless they live in a commune .

Sorry, I'm a capitalist... I back capitalism. That is what I choose to be called. Tough **** .

All you are doing is exposing the limitations of the terms. "free market" means a market for anything. you can have a "free market" of ideas, having zip to do with capital. As for your commune statement, that only shows the limitations of the singular word "communism", which emcompasses a huge range of things. Most monastic orders used to be or are to a large degree communistic, becuase the notion of "communist" does not just mean "marxist"

Do you think John Rockefeller, or JP Morgans definitions of capitalism (and what is acceptable in it) are 100% yours?

Come on man, you are studying to be a lawyer: me more precise with words.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Let me rephrase. Society "can" attempt to answer those questions, but the more limited the choices of ends, the more at variance they are with individual desires for choice and self-determination, and the more heavily society tries to enforce conformism with it's "approved" choices, the more likely you are to trigger rebellion against those actions and against the elites and enforcers.

Societies that have enforced conformity have lasted a great deal longer than those that did not. When the history of the US is as long as that of say, the Pharaonic age of Egyt, then you can go aorund saying that a society that allows its citizens a great deal of choice in determinig what their own outcome is.