Why capitalism doesn't work

[xul]

But sometimes I think one of kuzzd's touch is right---any system around the world, whether it call itself capitalism or socialism, needs a class of poor. Lets assume Mr. Harry Potter kindly turned every WalMart factory's labour worker to be the one as smart as his CEO or MBAs by only a wave of his wand, but obviously there dose not need so many CEOs or MBAs in the world and if there was a guy who ever worked in Microsoft headquarter, he might tell us that a man as "up" as Mr.Bill Gates also need have a lowpaying guy worked 3 doors next his office, there was supposed as a bathroom, to keep this room clean.

Perhaps one day, those top scientists and engineers would invent a way to make billions of robots as smart as WalMart's labour workers replacing them, then each man could get a job of foreman something that made our system better and more equal. But the next moral problem we need to worry about is----if robots were as smart as a man, would man treat them equal?

Edited February 26, 2008 by xul

[Pliny]

But sometimes I think one of kuzzd's touch is right---any system around the world, whether it call itself capitalism or socialism, needs a class of poor. Lets assume Mr. Harry Potter kindly turned every WalMart factory's labour worker to be the one as smart as his CEO or MBAs by only a wave of his wand, but obviously there dose not need so many CEOs or MBAs in the world and if there was a guy who ever worked in Microsoft headquarter, he might tell us that a man as "up" as Mr.Bill Gates also need have a lowpaying guy worked 3 doors next his office, there was supposed as a bathroom, to keep this room clean.

Perhaps one day, those top scientists and engineers would invent a way to make billions of robots as smart as WalMart's labour workers replacing them, then each man could get a job of foreman something that made our system better and more equal. But the next moral problem we need to worry about is----if robots were as smart as a man, would man treat them equal?

Well, Xul. I can't agree that that "any" system needs a class of poor. There always will be a class of poor unless they can be provided with everything and if that is done they will have no sense of self-worth. I think socialism needs the poor to justify the States thievery of production and Capitalism just charitably tolerates or ignores the poor.

Nor do I agree that everyone would like to be a "foreman" Some people do not desire responsibility and some are incapable of it. Some make the preferential choice of immediate gratification over future or long term benefit some prefer the reverse and shades in between. It is not the desire of everyone to have money in the bank, to save, some prefer to spend it all some hoard and all the shades in between. Not everyone needs a car, some prefer a bike, some prefer to walk or take a bus, some don't desire to go anywhere and some like to travel. Not everyone needs indoor plumbing, heating and electrical, northern climates and western societies find them necessary, some equatorial climates consider them an unnecessary luxury. Not everyone needs or wants to live in the engineered society of the State and have State issued food, clothing and shelter. Some feel it necessary, some don't and there are all degrees of variety in between.

Should we work toward the single, structured choice the State will offer or the chaotic world of anarchy?

Some would say why not the middle of the road - a healthy mix, curbing both the excesses of anarchy and the single-mindedness and iron-fist of the dictatorial State.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Taxpayers will bail the banks out. Cause that's the free markets!

I sure hope so....the "Taxpayers" already bail out the stiffs who contribute far less to economic development. Thank you for worshipping our bastion.

[Pliny]

I understand capitalism to be whatever is the flavour of the day.

Then it cannot be defined by you. I understand your confusion. The attempt to redefine it over time, mostly by socialists and monopolists, has introduced some confusion.

Because it certainly has nothing to do with the free exchange of goods and sevices.

By "free" is meant unhindered by taxes and tariffs or State regulation.

Or the US wouldn't have invaded another nation , Iraq, to enable to set up new laws that benefitted western business interests, and change the entire structure of the country, to the benefit again of business interests.

No if an actual free market reigned with free exchange of goods and services, that would have been done, sans warfare.

personally speaking I would prefer less of both.

Your last statement is, I think, rendered out of frustration. Understanding both capitalism and government requires an understanding of the forces that drive people to action and they are mostly tied in with economics and the persons desire to improve and sustain his life. In my estimation we cannot decide for another the importances and relevances, his education and experience, that govern his personal decision making. We would have to be that person to truly understand all the actions he makes.

May I offer that Ludwig Von Mises and the Austrian theory of economics offers a great deal toward understanding of how capitalism and government operate and explains a great deal why things are the way they are today and how they evolved that way. There is a lot of reading there.

[kuzadd]

Then it cannot be defined by you. I understand your confusion. The attempt to redefine it over time, mostly by socialists and monopolists, has introduced some confusion.

By "free" is meant unhindered by taxes and tariffs or State regulation.

Your last statement is, I think, rendered out of frustration. Understanding both capitalism and government requires an understanding of the forces that drive people to action and they are mostly tied in with economics and the persons desire to improve and sustain his life. In my estimation we cannot decide for another the importances and relevances, his education and experience, that govern his personal decision making. We would have to be that person to truly understand all the actions he makes.

May I offer that Ludwig Von Mises and the Austrian theory of economics offers a great deal toward understanding of how capitalism and government operate and explains a great deal why things are the way they are today and how they evolved that way. There is a lot of reading there.

no my last statement with re; to Iraq, has zero to do with frustration, just with the facts:

"Or the US wouldn't have invaded another nation , Iraq, to enable to set up new laws that benefitted western business interests, and change the entire structure of the country, to the benefit again of business interests."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/1...rlddispatch.usa

Spoils of war

US plans to sell off Iraqi businesses are simply the modern equivalent of pillage,

His order number 39 is also, almost certainly, illegal. The Hague regulations of 1907 spell out the obligations of an occupying power under international law.

Article 43 says that, when occupying forces take over a country, they must "ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country".

http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/

"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."

Full interview at: http://democracyrising.us/content/view/180/164/.

The result of these orders was to create an economic environment more favorable to U.S. corporations than laws in the United States. As a result Iraq corporations, and Iraqi workers have been excluded from the rebuilding of Iraq. And, the Iraq reconstruction has failed to provide adequate electricity, food, sewage treatment and even gasoline - but U.S. corporations have profited handsomely from this failed reconstruction.

therefore: war is regularily used to enrich , is this 'capitlism'? . I mean it really is, it is the realilty, of what passes for capitalism, but it is not capitalism, it is in fact imperialism.

so what do you belive in capitalism or the imperialism that is really practiced?

See capitalism, would have invested , traded and dealt with Iraq sans warfare, but not imperialism.

That type of plunder has typically been associated with imperialism or colonialism, or tyranny.

So tell me about this "capitalism"?

[kuzadd]

But sometimes I think one of kuzzd's touch is right---any system around the world, whether it call itself capitalism or socialism, needs a class of poor. Lets assume Mr. Harry Potter kindly turned every WalMart factory's labour worker to be the one as smart as his CEO or MBAs by only a wave of his wand, but obviously there dose not need so many CEOs or MBAs in the world and if there was a guy who ever worked in Microsoft headquarter, he might tell us that a man as "up" as Mr.Bill Gates also need have a lowpaying guy worked 3 doors next his office, there was supposed as a bathroom, to keep this room clean.

Perhaps one day, those top scientists and engineers would invent a way to make billions of robots as smart as WalMart's labour workers replacing them, then each man could get a job of foreman something that made our system better and more equal. But the next moral problem we need to worry about is----if robots were as smart as a man, would man treat them equal?

any system does need a poor class. If everyone, was rich and successful , there would be no one to work, no menial labourer's.

Also an unemployed class enables the capitalist to keep wages down.

Just one benefit to be named.

For example, Greenspan referred to a "traumatized worker" syndrome in public testimony before Congress. Janet Yellen, who was also a member of the Board of Governors of the Fed in the 1990s, made similar observations in closed meetings of the Fed Open Market Committee. If workers do indeed feel an erosion of their bargaining power, this means that, even at low unemployment, they are less willing to attempt to push for wage increases. Weaker demand for wage increases then means lower costs for businesses at low unemployment. With lower cost increases, businesses will be less inclined to raise the prices they charge to consumers, and this, finally, means less inflation at low unemployment. More generally then, the upward cost pressure that businesses will face will be diminished when unemployment is lower when workers feel "traumatized." This is the crux of what Greenspan himself has said, and I agree with him.

In his notorious comment in July 1997 in Congressional testimony, he saluted the economy's performance as "extraordinary" and "exceptional," then remarked that a major factor contributing to this achievement was "a heightened sense of job insecurity and, as a consequence, subdued wage gains."

Thus, for Greenspan, a "heightened sense of job insecurity" creating "traumatized workers" was a cause for celebration.

so the capitalist class, quite likes a traumatized worker who is simply fearful of losing a job!

sounds like a tyranny ?

rather then free exchange, which is not simply limited to a lack of taxes.

[xul]

There always will be a class of poor unless they can be provided with everything and if that is done they will have no sense of self-worth. I think socialism needs the poor to justify the States thievery of production and Capitalism just charitably tolerates or ignores the poor.

I agree all these words so this is one cause that I thinkt any system need a glass of poor just because most men, if it isn't all, are congenital lazy though each one's degree perhaps are different. And the class of poor's functions is, 1) to enforce poor to do more industriously for a better life; 2) to enforce those who are not poor to do more sedulous to avoid them fall into poor. And as all or most guys work industriously, the system will win the competation with other systems and survive.

The another cause is that even if we find a way to make everyone same as every laptop computer made by Dell to fit for the job of CEO, MBA, lawyer,etc., whatever by a wave of wand or a new powerful educated system, Obviously there also need some guys do those lowpaying job.

Nor do I agree that everyone would like to be a "foreman" Some people do not desire responsibility and some are incapable of it. Some make the preferential choice of immediate gratification over future or long term benefit some prefer the reverse and shades in between. It is not the desire of everyone to have money in the bank, to save, some prefer to spend it all some hoard and all the shades in between. Not everyone needs a car, some prefer a bike, some prefer to walk or take a bus, some don't desire to go anywhere and some like to travel. Not everyone needs indoor plumbing, heating and electrical, northern climates and western societies find them necessary, some equatorial climates consider them an unnecessary luxury. Not everyone needs or wants to live in the engineered society of the State and have State issued food, clothing and shelter. Some feel it necessary, some don't and there are all degrees of variety in between.

I agree all of these. But my statement based on two promises, 1)Harry Potter had wanded everyone to fit for the job of CEO, 2)all labour workers could be instead of robot. Of couse I knew these are not reality.

Should we work toward the single, structured choice the State will offer or the chaotic world of anarchy?

Some would say why not the middle of the road - a healthy mix, curbing both the excesses of anarchy and the single-mindedness and iron-fist of the dictatorial State.

This is not my suggestion. I just try to figure out there is not a perfect system to make everyone "equal" economically so I agree kuzadd's state of "the system need a class of poor". In deed, I think Canada's system is better, but not perfect and there are not a perfect system existed in the world.

[kuzadd]

I sure hope so....the "Taxpayers" already bail out the stiffs who contribute far less to economic development. Thank you for worshipping our bastion.

everyone contributes to economic development.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/24/bus...bail.php?page=1

After subprime debacle, U.S. wrestles with question of bank bailouts

A big change in the financial industry's laissez-faire attitude

imagine my non-surprise , at the big change in attitude

Over the past two decades, few industries have lobbied more ferociously or effectively than banks to get the government out of its business and to obtain freer rein for "financial innovation."

But as losses from bad mortgages and mortgage-backed securities climb past $200 billion, talk among banking executives about a major government rescue plan is suddenly coming into fashion.

government rescue , that means taxpayers, who are already losing their shirts, their homes, their jobs

f the government pays too much for the mortgages or the market declines even more than it has already, Washington - read, taxpayers - could be stuck with hundreds of billions of dollars in defaulted loans.

read the banks could have prevented this entire debacle had they acted more prudently, but , there was so much money to be made, for a while anyway, and now the taxpayer, will bail the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

If a worker becomes unemployed that's his/her fault for being lazy and not wanting to further themselves, right?

[xul]

Also an unemployed class enables the capitalist to keep wages down.

Partly it is. Parly it is that market makes the wages down. Because not every Canada or American made products sell in they domestic market. In some poor developing country, to buy a pure American or Canadian made computer keyboard may cost a labour worker's one year's income. Just imagine, if you were the owner of a coffeebar, your bartenders' wage went up and up meanwhile your clients' income somehow dropped down and down, what would happened if you did not manage to cut down your bartenders' wage?

[kuzadd]

Partly it is. Parly it is that market makes the wages down. Because not every Canada or American made products sell in they domestic market. In some poor developing country, to buy a pure American or Canadian made computer keyboard may cost a labour worker's one year's income. Just imagine, if you were the owner of a coffeebar, your bartenders' wage went up and up meanwhile your clients' income somehow dropped down and down, what would happened if you did not manage to cut down your bartenders' wage?

unemployment is a factor in the job market.

but I do understand the point you are making.

The real point I was making was an 'underclass' is necessary for numerous reasons in a capitalist system, despite what pliny thinks.

Alan Greenspan really makes his point with the 'benefit' of the

traumatized worker.

[Pliny]

no my last statement with re; to Iraq, has zero to do with frustration, just with the facts:

"Or the US wouldn't have invaded another nation , Iraq, to enable to set up new laws that benefitted western business interests, and change the entire structure of the country, to the benefit again of business interests."

therefore: war is regularily used to enrich , is this 'capitlism'? . I mean it really is, it is the realilty, of what passes for capitalism, but it is not capitalism, it is in fact imperialism.

so what do you belive in capitalism or the imperialism that is really practiced?

See capitalism, would have invested , traded and dealt with Iraq sans warfare, but not imperialism.

That type of plunder has typically been associated with imperialism or colonialism, or tyranny.

So tell me about this "capitalism"?

Imperialism is the action of a government as government is the only agency that employs force in it's actions.

Capitalism can and does appeal to government to use force but can't itself use force except in defense of person or property.

Capitalism "capitalizes" on whatever it can. Capitalists preferring to have monopolies love it when government grants them that status or gives them privilege in a competitive market. It was JD Rockefeller that said, "Competition is the greatest sin." I do not blame capitalism for capitalizing on opportunity; that is it's nature. I do blame government for granting corporate or monopoly privilege or favour to capitalist entities.

Capitalists attempt to eliminate competition. Corporatists and monopolists have found the perfect avenue for eliminating competition and it is called socialism. So it is Capitalists, who in their desire to gain monopoly, support socialist policies and programs of government that they feel will eliminate competition for them, and since they are also advisers to government, they feel quite secure in the fact they will maintain their monopoly.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Pliny

[Pliny]

everyone contributes to economic development.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/24/bus...bail.php?page=1

After subprime debacle, U.S. wrestles with question of bank bailouts

A big change in the financial industry's laissez-faire attitude

imagine my non-surprise , at the big change in attitude

government rescue , that means taxpayers, who are already losing their shirts, their homes, their jobs

read the banks could have prevented this entire debacle had they acted more prudently, but , there was so much money to be made, for a while anyway, and now the taxpayer, will bail the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

If a worker becomes unemployed that's his/her fault for being lazy and not wanting to further themselves, right?

I need only ask two questions:

Why does the government claim responsibility for a healthy economy? Is it then not responsible for a bad economy?

If a worker becomes unemployed it may be his/her fault for being lazy and not wanting to further themselves. You would have to find that out. You make it sound like no one should ever lose a job.

[Pliny]

I agree all these words so this is one cause that I thinkt any system need a glass of poor just because most men, if it isn't all, are congenital lazy though each one's degree perhaps are different. And the class of poor's functions is, 1) to enforce poor to do more industriously for a better life; 2) to enforce those who are not poor to do more sedulous to avoid them fall into poor. And as all or most guys work industriously, the system will win the competation with other systems and survive.

I think the general nature of anyone is to choose whatever makes life easier. You call it being lazy but I have yet to find anyone who is glad they did things the hard way when they could have gotten the same result an easier way, if the end result is indeed the same.

We do work to better our lives no one works to make themselves poorer. By better our lives I mean in a very broad sense. Each individual has a different concept of what a better life is. I think one of the more basic concepts is that helping other people makes one's life better. That is why we work.

The another cause is that even if we find a way to make everyone same as every laptop computer made by Dell to fit for the job of CEO, MBA, lawyer,etc., whatever by a wave of wand or a new powerful educated system, Obviously there also need some guys do those lowpaying job.

Everyone has a different level of responsibility they wish to assume. Not everyone is willing to take risks to keep a business running and have the very livelihood of others, with families dependent upon them and the decisions they may make regarding business.

I agree all of these. But my statement based on two promises, 1)Harry Potter had wanded everyone to fit for the job of CEO, 2)all labour workers could be instead of robot. Of couse I knew these are not reality.

This is not my suggestion. I just try to figure out there is not a perfect system to make everyone "equal" economically so I agree kuzadd's state of "the system need a class of poor". In deed, I think Canada's system is better, but not perfect and there are not a perfect system existed in the world.

What is perfect? You are talking about heaven. You will never find it here. The reality is that all things pass. The question is what is the most humane way to allow things to pass that should pass. Government tends to wish to preserve things, especially itself, it does so by making laws. When it preserves some things over others or shows favour and privilege it has become unjust. It cannot save everyone so that should not be what it attempts to do.

[xul]

I think the general nature of anyone is to choose whatever makes life easier. You call it being lazy but I have yet to find anyone who is glad they did things the hard way when they could have gotten the same result an easier way, if the end result is indeed the same.

Men like make their life easier because they are essentially lazy. Those who are glad to do things the hard way when they could have gotten the same result and easier way are just the smart ones who can anticipate the furture and know their temporary hard live will make their furture live more easer. In Canada, I guess these are the different of life between a MBA and his lowpaying labour works in their teenager.

If one day Canada or American falled into a socilism system, that means CEO or MBA would no longer gain such more form their harder way of working and pass their property to their children, you would find CEOs and MBAs would more lazy then you think---smart, but more lazy than those not smart ones, just like communist officials in China. I remember several years ago, one yong my colleague told me:"The smart guys are smart because they are more lazy so they must find a easy way to get what they want." I think his state is right.

We do work to better our lives no one works to make themselves poorer. By better our lives I mean in a very broad sense. Each individual has a different concept of what a better life is. I think one of the more basic concepts is that helping other people makes one's life better. That is why we work.

Sometimes we doing something for others are essentially equivalence doing something for ourselves. Microsoft sell their Vista only $70 in China far less $350 in Canada. Do anyone think MBAs of Microsoft like Chinese far more than like Canadian or American? Of couse they are not. They do these just because they want to seduce more Chinese to buy their legal copy of the softerware and anticipate they will gain back in the furture.

Everyone has a different level of responsibility they wish to assume. Not everyone is willing to take risks to keep a business running and have the very livelihood of others, with families dependent upon them and the decisions they may make regarding business.

What is perfect? You are talking about heaven. You will never find it here. The reality is that all things pass. The question is what is the most humane way to allow things to pass that should pass. Government tends to wish to preserve things, especially itself, it does so by making laws. When it preserves some things over others or shows favour and privilege it has become unjust. It cannot save everyone so that should not be what it attempts to do.

I did not advocate people to pursue a way to live in heaven, I'm neither communist nor clergy. If there is a student who studies Sir Isaac Newton' law of object movement at science or physics class in his middle school, sometimes he needs to neglect the friction to help him comprehending how the system works. This does not mean he thinks him lives in the heaven or outer space.

Edited February 28, 2008 by xul

[Zachary Young]

Capitalism does work. If you're going to critique it, I'd probably want to source something a little bit more impressive than some movie with Marilyn Monroe.

Communism on the other hand does not work - not even in theory. Why? Because absent a price structure, rational economic calculation is impossible.

[Leafless]

Should we work toward the single, structured choice the State will offer or the chaotic world of anarchy?

Some would say why not the middle of the road - a healthy mix, curbing both the excesses of anarchy and the single-mindedness and iron-fist of the dictatorial State.

This is what we currently have in Canada a socially engineered capitalistic society that reeks of a totalitarian dictatorship.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Leafless

[eyeball]

Unfortunately, the engineering department was privatized and bought up by corporate interests.

[Pliny]

This is what we currently have in Canada a socially engineered capitalistic society that reeks of a totalitarian dictatorship.

That's definitely a mix but is it possible, let alone healthy?

"A socially engineered capitalistic society that reeks of a totalitarian dictatorship." I will have to put that in the quotes thread.

[Oleg Bach]

That's definitely a mix but is it possible, let alone healthy?

"A socially engineered capitalistic society that reeks of a totalitarian dictatorship." I will have to put that in the quotes thread.

Ontairo is just one huge totalitarian private estate. Welcome to the dark ages...if you think our institutions are actually legitimate and you can get justice...forget it - theatre..and a few old lawyers running the show..it started back in about 1957 when the early corporates started taking over every company ---then the social welfare orgainizations...then the judicary - then the government...the old guys who's fathers traded illegal booze into the states and laundered the money here - are now ruling the roost..it took fifty years but they now have total control - and run the place like fuedal lords...but Canada is polite and civil..we have the cleanest and finest slave quarters in the world and the nicest international mafia ever invented...democracy..??? Ha! Take a cause to the Supreme Court....and lay out the fact that there is crimmial activity within the courts - and behind closed doors of big buisness - legalist - etc...the Chief Justice of Canada ...really is totally dellusional..a cowardly persona....point is....maturity dictates that we now face the fact that Mafia has taken over half the planet...and that is why immoral acts are becoming exceptable---its the trickle up effect of hell.

[eyeball]

Is it just me or has the Cold War morphed into a civil war between the right and left?

If I'm expected to dig my mass grave without a coffee break you can just forget it.

[Pliny]

Ontairo is just one huge totalitarian private estate. Welcome to the dark ages...if you think our institutions are actually legitimate and you can get justice...forget it - theatre..and a few old lawyers running the show..it started back in about 1957 when the early corporates started taking over every company ---then the social welfare orgainizations...then the judicary - then the government...the old guys who's fathers traded illegal booze into the states and laundered the money here - are now ruling the roost..it took fifty years but they now have total control - and run the place like fuedal lords...but Canada is polite and civil..we have the cleanest and finest slave quarters in the world and the nicest international mafia ever invented...democracy..??? Ha! Take a cause to the Supreme Court....and lay out the fact that there is crimmial activity within the courts - and behind closed doors of big buisness - legalist - etc...the Chief Justice of Canada ...really is totally dellusional..a cowardly persona....point is....maturity dictates that we now face the fact that Mafia has taken over half the planet...and that is why immoral acts are becoming exceptable---its the trickle up effect of hell.

Yes, Oleg. They are playing their big games and we are playing our little games. Before something gets done we have to made a lot less comfortable - perhaps we will be.