AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → A price worth paying?

54 7305
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Capitalism is just one of many economic systems. The form we in the West live under today is a curious mix of Keynesianism and the Chicago School, although mostly the latter. This shift away from Keynesianism to Chicago School economics has had many implications, although now, let's just focus on the distribution of wealth. It was a system put in place and championed by the Thatcher and Reagan administrations in the mid 1980s, and has survived today with few challenges to monetarism, despite the fact that both the UK and the USA have experienced steady rises in levels of inequality since its implementation.

I'd like to veer the discussion away from the tired and tried debate of capitalism vs communism, and shift the focus to the deficiencies of capitalism in terms of wealth distribution. Capitalism was a system championed by liberals on the philosophical basis of equality of opportunity. However, as the role of government has been steadily eroded since the end of WW2 through the shift of focus from unemployment to inflation, coupled with mass deregulation and privatisation, the defeat of democratic socialism is abject, and the victory of the free market is absolute. However disturbing trends showing the failure of the free market to even gaurantee equality of participation, let alone equality of opportunity indicate that it is far from the allocatively efficient invisible hand Smith spoke of in the 18th century.

Thus, what I must ask to those who would defend such a system, do you really believe in the free market? And if so why. If you don't, and would like to change anything about it, what single aspect would you concentrate upon?

(I understand there are far lefties who'd like to get their views in here, but please try and keep it restricted to capitalism for the moment, as you'll have a chance to discuss fundamentally different systems in the second half of the thread)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts and stats
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The wealthiest 1% of adults alone had 40% of all global assets in 2000, and the wealthiest 10% of adults owned 85% of the world total. Study

Simultaneously, nearly 1/3rd of the earth lives on less than 3$ per day. 2001 figures

As a silver lining, ''The proportion of the developing world's population living in extreme economic poverty - defined as living on less than $1.25 per day (at 2005 prices, adjusted to account for the most recent differences in purchasing power across countries) - has fallen from 52 percent in 1981 to 26 percent in 2005.''

Nevertheless, wealth disparities continue to increase:

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/1999/0999collins.gif

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/Wealth83_04.gif
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/wealth.jpg
http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/eliten/Robber%20Barons-Dateien/image21.gif

What (if anything) needs to be done about this? You should be able to deduce from the first half of the OP where my economic sympathies lie, but for those who have been unable to do so, I support immediate social justice.

(For all those far lefties, here's your chance to get involved.)

Oh. Also I realise that any jacka** can criticise, but rest assured I'll happily flesh out my proposals later, but I'd like to get some replies before I do.

  • 54 Replies
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

He still has to manage his business. Bill Gates started from the ground to get to were he is, so it's not like he inherited his wealth. I believe that when you create a company, you should be rewarded with the profits that the company makes. Microsoft is a multi billion dollar business.


Managing a company isn't so strenuous of a work to earn him 300 grand an hour.
Managing could be done cooperatively by the workers and society as well too.

Just as a slave owner isn't justified for owning slaves just because he has to do the job of management, a capitalist like Gates doesn't deserve profit off his workers just because he manages them.

You somewhat ignored the exploitative part of the manufacturing process.

The labor is done by the workers. The whole of the computers that are built, are done by workers, not Gates. Why does he earn profit from their labor? The only labor he has done is come up with the idea.

Also, its not as if we wouldn't have computers without Gates. There were others who were working on a similar platform. Linux for example was constructed by a group of individuals and its still distributed for free.

But most capitalists don't aren't even responsible for any technological advancement. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people need food, clothes, etc. Much of what is produced is straightforward and simple and capitalists only profit because they were wealthy enough to own the factories, the farms and the machinery.

In fact, competition led to weapons such as the atomic bomb, which you can't say that competition only exists when it comes to weapons, it exists everywhere.


The creation of the atomic bomb was a competition between countries struggling for hegemony, it is nothing related to the market forces, namely profit. So that's completely irrelevant.

Scientists aren't businessman. They do what they do, without any relation to profit.

American cars used to guzzle a bunch of gas. The reason why American cars get such great gas mileage is because everyone started buying imported cars. If you look at Microsoft and Apple, every time one company comes out with something, the other company comes out with the same product with even more features. Video games are very competative as well.


All this competition did was to have business owners invest money into scientific research. Does this mean these capitalists are responsible for technological advancements?

The common interest for more energy efficient cars itself in a communist society could fuel the same research.

But it certainly doesn't justify capitalists being millionaires off the labor of their workers, be it factory workers, janitors, salesman, or scientists.

John Nash came up with game theory and won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He didn't earn such award simply because he was innovative, but because he was competative. He was competing with every other mathmatician, and it was his goal to obtain such an award.


Like I said, I think people should be awarded for such advancements, but what does relation does this competition have to the market?

I can compete with my friend in basketball and that will drive me to be get better, but how does that justify a capitalists position of supreme wealth?

Btw, source?

Innovation comes from creative minds of people, but competition drives those people to actually work. Sometimes competition drives people to create things they never even thought of creating.


No, competition drives those ideas to be used in the market. You take the idea of Windows, and a rich capitalist invests the wealth to create a factory, hire workers to do the labor, and churns the butter...taking the product.

And technological advancements have existed much before capitalist competition anyway.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Managing a company isn't so strenuous of a work to earn him 300 grand an hour.
Managing could be done cooperatively by the workers and society as well too.


Does this mean people who own small businesses should make less than the people working for them?

Just as a slave owner isn't justified for owning slaves just because he has to do the job of management, a capitalist like Gates doesn't deserve profit off his workers just because he manages them.


Did you just compare business owners with slave owners? With capitalism, you choose who you work for. If you don't like your boss, you can find a new job. Someone will always be in charge. If it's not another regular person, it's the government. Then whoever works for the government profits. Rather than Bill Gates being rich out his bumb, it would be the government.

You somewhat ignored the exploitative part of the manufacturing process.


People who work for Microsoft are payed very well! Those who are being payed the least would be those in an assembly line. Those working in an assembly line are generally high school drop outs or people who are too lazy to work at a real job. But the peopel designing the software are payed very well. I haven't heard anybody working for Microsoft complain.

The labor is done by the workers. The whole of the computers that are built, are done by workers, not Gates. Why does he earn profit from their labor? The only labor he has done is come up with the idea.


Because without Gates, there would be no computers for the workers to build.

Also, its not as if we wouldn't have computers without Gates.


Without Gates, we would have another rich CEO that you would be complaining about. The man behind Apple is also filthy rich.

But most capitalists don't aren't even responsible for any technological advancement. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people need food, clothes, etc. Much of what is produced is straightforward and simple and capitalists only profit because they were wealthy enough to own the factories, the farms and the machinery.


I dissagree with the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph is true. It's what makes capitalism awesome. People making money instead of the state. Hoorah!

Scientists aren't businessman. They do what they do, without any relation to profit.


Scientists do profit. Trust me. Scientists are funded for their research, and often these scientists will make quite the living. Scientists aren't as competative as those in marketing. Scientists do compete with each other.

All this competition did was to have business owners invest money into scientific research. Does this mean these capitalists are responsible for technological advancements?


Yes, yes it does. This is how marketing works.

But it certainly doesn't justify capitalists being millionaires off the labor of their workers, be it factory workers, janitors, salesman, or scientists.


Remember, the workers are also capitalist. Those who profit off the blue collar workers run a business. Sure, they may not have to work as hard to make more money, but often these people have a much greater responsibility of holding their company together. What's the point of being the boss for a company if your workers are making more money than you?

I know a lot of people who work in machine shops and other dirty, sweaty, hard jobs. These blue collar workers NEVER complain about how much money their bosses are making. They complain when their bosses give family members raises when the family members don't even do their jobs. They complain when the boss makes mistakes that result in people losing their jobs. If the boss has it easy, but the workers are happy, then who cares how much money he is making?

Rather than pay attention to the distribution of wealth, why not pay attention to the actual workers? Why not listen to them complain? Then you will learn what the working class really wants. It's not money, but security from being laid off, or that the raise they deserve doesn't go to someone else just because they are a family member.

Like I said, I think people should be awarded for such advancements, but what does relation does this competition have to the market?


I was giving examples of how your statement is not intirely true. I wasn't listing the effects of competition on marketing.

Watch this documentry on John Nash and you will learn how competitive Mathmaticians can become. The documentry is on focused on Nash's life, rather than his acheivements. Nash suffered from schizophrenia and fell apart later in life.

Innovation comes from creative minds of the individual not competition.


Yes, innovation comes from creative minds, but competition often drives these people. Not always, but quite often.

Competition and marking: read what I said about American cars. The reason why American cars became so much better was to compete with with Japan and other foreign cars. When American cars started to pass up foreign cars, foreign car businesses began making their cars better. The result? We have a wide variety of cars to choose from, everything from cheap cars to the most luxurious of cars.

No, competition drives those ideas to be used in the market.


You think competition is slowing down the progresion of technology? Just because ideas are being used in the market doesn't mean they are focused on making money alone. Look at your cell phone. If one company owned them, it would probably be nothing more than a phone with a clock on it. But because we have multipled companies creating phones, we notice that every time one company adds a perk to a phone, another one takes the idea and adds even more perks.

And technological advancements have existed much before capitalist competition anyway.


I never said capitalist competition. Capitalist competition has only been around for as long as capitalism. Competition, however, has always been around. If people weren't weren't competing with other businesses, they were competing to gain good favor from those higher than them.

Marketing has changed drastically over the past 100 years. 100 years ago, what you needed, you would get from the nearest person. Ever since cars were introduced to the public, people began one upping each other. Take a look at the most popular chip companies. They create new flavors not because they can, but because they are trying to grab more profit from competing businesses. This means us consumers have more options to pick from when it comes to choosing a nice snack.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Let me ask you this. We all know that lately, the American government has been trying to pass some pretty stupid laws. Even though rich CEOs often abuse the way they spend money, do you honestly think the government will handle the money any better?

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

In your graphs, it is rather unfair to include the entire world in that yes? We are focusing on the american system of goverment, and wealth distrobution.


Since capitalism is a globalised system, and since it is one of the key reasons third world countries are so poor, then no it's not unfair to include them.

While yes, people are starving there, well if they would stop having kids, when they can't eat them selfs, this problem would cease to exist.


If you look at Rowntree reports on poverty, having children in the long term actually increases your family income above the poverty line, because if you send your kids off to work at a young age, your family gets in injection of income.

This goes back to Darwinism. The idea that we should do nothing to intervin in the lifes of others. It's like nature, survival of the fitest.


Survival of the fittest wasn't even a term coined by Darwin, even though it's always mistakenly associated with him. It was coined by an ultra rich classical liberal Herbert Spencer to justify the massive inequalities which existed in industrial Britain. History and economics has proven him wrong.

I also take issue with the use of such a phrase, as it seems to imply people from poor backgrounds are either lazy or feckless, which is simply not the case, especially in the third world where conditions are created by TNCs, where employment at wage slave labour levels, and starvation are the only options open to you.

True, not every scientific discovery is due to ocompetition, however scientists do compete all the time.


Just look at scientists pre the 20th century in the Enlightenment period. The vast majority of them were misfits from very rich backgrounds, which enabled them to spend time and resources on empirical study. There was no real personal gain for them. They were just naturally inquisitive people, wanting to better understand the world around them.

Now that our understanding of the world has reached a point where scientists are able to manipulate it, they do so for the betterment of all, and not themselves. Just look at the invention of aspirin or the internet. Both inventors chose not to patent them, because they knew that having a 15 year monopoly on it would prevent the beneficiary effects it could have on all society.

I honestly don't think the government should be allowed to tell us how we spend out money.


No one has suggested that would happen. Also you are confusing what the government takes from you in tax, and choosing how you spend your income. You don't choose how your taxes are spent now, and you wouldn't under my system either.

Big governments are those taht have a lot of power of their people, small governments have less power of their people.


Larger fiscal spending on education would not be enhancing the role of the state, merely improving already existing institutions.

Even though any government can be evil, it's easier for people to revolt against smaller governments.


I really don't see how you could ever viably revolt against your government in the current system, even in countries like America where they have the right to bear arms, so that's a moot point.

I have the feeling many people would say the same thing.


Mathematically far more people lose out than benefit from the current system. If information assymetry was addressed in those demographics, I highly doubt they would oppose my scheme.

I don't want the government to pick for me!


It's not the government picking a business for you, but the education system, which would allocate occupations based on merit, and so you have the knowledge that the person who succeeds you as the head of the business you started will be the most able and competent person for the job.

As to why you would do it in the first place? To make money to live a comfortable life. If we assume human nature is egocentric, without the safety net of living off inheritance, the incentive to be successful and work hard to achieve this increases.

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.


Let's not confuse quotation as argument. It's an opinion, and innapropriately used I might add. Under my system the government doesn't administer to anyone's needs. People have to do taht themselves through their talents and abilities. Since anyone can become a success, liberty in the sense John Rawls uses it, increases.

We all know that lately, the American government has been trying to pass some pretty stupid laws.


Which laws specifically?

Even though rich CEOs often abuse the way they spend money, do you honestly think the government will handle the money any better?


I believe a large part of the problem is that the state is not a neutral arbiter between competing interests. The key reason they spend money innapropriately is because they do so in the interests of concentrated manufacturing capital and the financial markets. If state bodies were not bound by the table pounding CEOs of companies who demand friendly legislation, they would allocate resources much more cost efficiently, which would benefit everyone in the end, by lowering the need for tax revenue.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Does this mean people who own small businesses should make less than the people working for them?


No, it means workers should own the buisnessess.

Did you just compare business owners with slave owners?


They are both owners of the means of productions and employ others to do their labor for them while taking the surplus value.

People who work for Microsoft are payed very well! Those who are being payed the least would be those in an assembly line. Those working in an assembly line are generally high school drop outs or people who are too lazy to work at a real job. But the peopel designing the software are payed very well. I haven't heard anybody working for Microsoft complain.


Assembly line workers and janitors and all that are all very important jobs. I don't know why capitalism has demoralized them just as "high school dropouts". Most of the jobs are in this sector. Look around you, any product you see...shirt, clothes, your computer, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc are made by these "high school dropouts".

It does not mean the capitalist has the right to take the surplus value of their products.

Because without Gates, there would be no computers for the workers to build.


I already mentioned this. And Gates came up with Windows really, not computers. As I said, there were other platforms being developed. And Linux was a great one, but Windows has gotten a monopoly over it.

And regardless, it doesn't mean Gates should profit off the workers.

Remember, the workers are also capitalist.


??????????????????????????????????????????????????

I know a lot of people who work in machine shops and other dirty, sweaty, hard jobs. These blue collar workers NEVER complain about how much money their bosses are making. They complain when their bosses give family members raises when the family members don't even do their jobs. They complain when the boss makes mistakes that result in people losing their jobs. If the boss has it easy, but the workers are happy, then who cares how much money he is making?


Bullshit, no worker ever complained that his boss exploits them? Might want to look at the gruesome labor union history.
And you know, because 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth?

The slave shouldn't care how much his master makes as long as his well fed right?
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Since capitalism is a globalised system, and since it is one of the key reasons third world countries are so poor, then no it's not unfair to include them.


No, crooked leaders are. Capitalism is still capitalism without crooked sweatshops. Sweatshops, however, provide jobs. Without them the people would still work for nothing, except they would be doing more dangerous work. By taking away sweatshops, you hurt the government and the people by making them chop wood out in the hot sun. I'm not saying people who work in sweatshops are lucky, just luckier than what their alternatives would offer.

Rich capitalists don't pay these workers, they pay the person that the workers work for. Chinese sweatshop owners are the ones who are crooked, not the Capitalist buying from them.

The vast majority of them were misfits from very rich backgrounds, which enabled them to spend time and resources on empirical study. There was no real personal gain for them.


Vast majority? Who?

No one has suggested that would happen. Also you are confusing what the government takes from you in tax, and choosing how you spend your income. You don't choose how your taxes are spent now, and you wouldn't under my system either.


People won't own businesses, the government will. The government will only pick people to play as the boss for these businesses. The government will have total control over what is and is not produced.

Don't forget that many businesses revolve around media. Do you know what the government loves? Censorship. If you give the government control over the media, you get censorship.

Mathematically far more people lose out than benefit from the current system. If information assymetry was addressed in those demographics, I highly doubt they would oppose my scheme.


Most people I know would laugh at your scheme. Sorry, but I don't know many people who want the government to own the business they work for.

It's not the government picking a business for you, but the education system, which would allocate occupations based on merit, and so you have the knowledge that the person who succeeds you as the head of the business you started will be the most able and competent person for the job.


School systems alone can't prove how smart a person is. You claim that with a better school system, your solution would work. With a better school system, the current econimic system would work!

Let's not confuse quotation as argument. It's an opinion, and innapropriately used I might add. Under my system the government doesn't administer to anyone's needs. People have to do taht themselves through their talents and abilities. Since anyone can become a success, liberty in the sense John Rawls uses it, increases.


The quote is very appropriate for this debate. By giving control of business to the government, they become the ones who supply the people with jobs.

Liberty doesn't increase when the government chooses who inherits your business!

I believe a large part of the problem is that the state is not a neutral arbiter between competing interests. The key reason they spend money innapropriately is because they do so in the interests of concentrated manufacturing capital and the financial markets. If state bodies were not bound by the table pounding CEOs of companies who demand friendly legislation, they would allocate resources much more cost efficiently, which would benefit everyone in the end, by lowering the need for tax revenue.


Large CEOs should be dealt with in a way that deals with them directly. Your system would effect owners of small businesses.

If I start a business selling boats and I die, I would rather a good friend or family member inherit my business than a stranger from Yale. It's my business, why should the government or "school" choose who inherits it? If the business is valuable, I might want my children to have it so they can put their children through college or give them a head start in life. I should be allowed to pass on a good living to my offspring, they shouldn't have to rework for something I had. If they choose to be lazy, it's MY choise to trust them with my business.

If someone owns a large company, they need to be careful. Many jobs depend on who inherits that company. However, I would rather risk a company failing (and being replaced by another) than have the government own the company.

Let's say I own a fairly big business. Let's say that I have children who are trying to start their own business or trying to buy a house. The only way they can afford the house is if I help them pay for it. I can only pay for the house as long as I am making money from my business. If I die, I could pass the business down to someone I can trust will help my children pay for their house, or my children so they can sell the business. If the business went to some stranger chosen by the government/school, then my children are going to fall into debt because they aren't making enough money to pay for the house. They could be hard workers, they just aren't making enough to pay off the house they started to buy.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Who the hell here supports government ownership of everything?

But hell, even Cuba has made that an accomplishment.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

No, it means workers should own the buisnessess.


But the government would own the business... duh. If the workers all own the business, who manages it? If 10 people who work in a machine shop own a business and most of them want to do one thing, but the one guy who knows what he's doing wants to do the other, the business falls a part.

The only way to solve the above problem is to give the business to the government.

They are both owners of the means of productions and employ others to do their labor for them while taking the surplus value.


Slaves are forced to work for nothing. Slaves aren't allowed to move away or choose who they work for. There's a huge difference.

Assembly line workers and janitors and all that are all very important jobs. I don't know why capitalism has demoralized them just as "high school dropouts". Most of the jobs are in this sector. Look around you, any product you see...shirt, clothes, your computer, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc are made by these "high school dropouts".
It does not mean the capitalist has the right to take the surplus value of their products.


Not all assemly line workers are poorly payed. This is a common misconception. Those that do work for low pay often have VERY easy jobs. Sure, they might be important, but they are very easy to replace. The machines (that the workers didn't have to buy) do most of the work.

It does not mean the capitalist has the right to take the surplus value of their products.


It's not the worker's products. If they were the worker's products, then the worker can quite the job and sell those products themselves.

I already mentioned this. And Gates came up with Windows really, not computers. As I said, there were other platforms being developed. And Linux was a great one, but Windows has gotten a monopoly over it.


I explained that other computer manufacturers that are also rich. Not as rich as Bill Gates. No matter what, someone would fill his spot as insanely rich.

Bill Gates offers jobs that offer people money so they can live while other's get cool computers. Sure those people can get Macs, but Macs suck. Insurance companies rip people off, and yet you don't care. You don't care because insurance is a white collar crime. Who cares if the white collar insurance companies are stealing from everyone? They aren't underpaying blue collar workers, so who cares?

I didn't say this.

Bull****, no worker ever complained that his boss exploits them?


I said:

I know a lot of people who work in machine shops and other dirty, sweaty, hard jobs. These blue collar workers NEVER complain about how much money their bosses are making.


Might want to look at the gruesome labor union history.


You can't compare people who were being underpayed for doing super dangerous jobs with people today who are being payed enough money to pay for school, homes, and entertainment.

Sure, I believe some people are underpayed, but the solution isn't changing the whole econimic system. Maybe making a few changes here and there, but not the whole system.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

But the government would own the business... duh. If the workers all own the business, who manages it? If 10 people who work in a machine shop own a business and most of them want to do one thing, but the one guy who knows what he's doing wants to do the other, the business falls a part.

The only way to solve the above problem is to give the business to the government.


Or you know -- democracy? Public ownership?

Slaves are forced to work for nothing. Slaves aren't allowed to move away or choose who they work for. There's a huge difference.


I am not saying capitalists are slave owners. But their method of the accumulation of wealth is both exploitative.

Not all assemly line workers are poorly payed. This is a common misconception. Those that do work for low pay often have VERY easy jobs. Sure, they might be important, but they are very easy to replace. The machines (that the workers didn't have to buy) do most of the work.


All workers are underpaid, otherwise profit would not exist.

It's not the worker's products. If they were the worker's products, then the worker can quite the job and sell those products themselves.


EXACTLY, that's the problem - the capitalist ownership of the means of productions.
Might want to start here if your gonna argue lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

I explained that other computer manufacturers that are also rich. Not as rich as Bill Gates. No matter what, someone would fill his spot as insanely rich.


In the capitalist system anyway?

Bill Gates offers jobs that offer people money so they can live while other's get cool computers. Sure those people can get Macs, but Macs suck.


Ehh no Gates is not a Saint. The machines and need for computers "offers" people jobs.

Insurance companies rip people off, and yet you don't care. You don't care because insurance is a white collar crime. Who cares if the white collar insurance companies are stealing from everyone? They aren't underpaying blue collar workers, so who cares?


What do you mean I don't care?
Insurance is the biggest scam. And what do you mean by "white collar crime"?

You can't compare people who were being underpayed for doing super dangerous jobs with people today who are being payed enough money to pay for school, homes, and entertainment.

Sure, I believe some people are underpayed, but the solution isn't changing the whole econimic system. Maybe making a few changes here and there, but not the whole system.


Some? 80% of the population is living under $10 a day, with 50% less than $2 a day.

Please, do say what reforms will change the inherent nature of capitalism - hierarchy, exploitation, poverty, inequality, profit, imperialism, globalization, mass media, government control?
Hectichermit
offline
Hectichermit
1,828 posts
Bard

All workers are underpaid, otherwise profit would not exist.


No not really its that the labor can produce far more then a single wage but this doesn't mean they are not underpaid, every product has to go price increases from the collection of raw materials, those materials transportation, then the production into some sort of refined product, then the transport of that product to some sort of locally based store for consumes to purchase, this process can repeat several times for complex things such as automobiles and alot of the goods in many of these retailers. And also the retailer can increase its base price which the consumer pays any where from 20% to excessively 100% or more. so in the end the consumer has to be the worker and must be able to afford the costs that go into such things otherwise the business fails it no one buys
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Or you know -- democracy? Public ownership?


If a worker has a problem with their job, they need to go to their boss. If they don't like their boss, they need to find a new job. Public ownership doesn't work unless someone is in charge, in which case public ownership doesn't work with businesses--ever.

Lets say you have 10 people. Only 2 of those people know how the business world works. A business decision comes up and the 2 people who know about business instantly recognize that the opportunity presented to them is actually a scam. Those 2 people fail to pursuade everyone else not to make the deal. The other 8 people accept the oportunity. They go out of business.

Most people know very little about business. Why should we give the majority an equal say as those who do know a thing or two about businesses (ie most bosses).

In short, public owned businesses don't work.

I am not saying capitalists are slave owners. But their method of the accumulation of wealth is both exploitative.


I won't lie. Sometimes business owners are exploitative. However, our defenitions of exploitative differ greatly.

All workers are underpaid, otherwise profit would not exist.


Profit keeps the business going. Not all business owners are millionairs. Some are rich. Some are living middle class. Some are even strugling.

It's harder to own a business than to work for one. You may not sweat as much or break your back, but you have to be on your toes far more than your employees.

EXACTLY, that's the problem - the capitalist ownership of the means of productions.


Whoever buys the goods, the business owner, owns the product. The people making the products are being payed for their service, not per product.

What do you mean I don't care? Insurance is the biggest scam.


Alright, I knew you were against insurance. I had to hear you say it. At least I know we can agree on that.

And what do you mean by "white collar crime"?


Well, it should be a crime, because technically it isn't.

Some? 80% of the population is living under $10 a day, with 50% less than $2 a day.


Where does this take place? Where did you get these numbers?
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

In short, public owned businesses don't work.


Except in anarchist Spain, primitive times, Freetown Christina, and the many other communes in the world.

I won't lie. Sometimes business owners are exploitative. However, our defenitions of exploitative differ greatly.


This isn't definition games. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation#Marxist_theory

Whoever buys the goods, the business owner, owns the product. The people making the products are being payed for their service, not per product.


This can be used to justify feudalism, monarchy, dictatorship or slavery.
The capitalist has no natural claim to own the property and have others work under him and profit off their labor.

Where does this take place? Where did you get these numbers?


The majority of the world...
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

I thought the OP made it clear with the statistics that capitalism isn't really working for the world.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

I thought the OP made it clear with the statistics that capitalism isn't really working for the world.


I don't know, the Capitalist nations seem to be doing pretty well. The third world countries are probably poor because of crooked leadership rather than capitalism.

If the Capitalist nations stopped buying from third would nations and stopped all business with them, would you feel better?
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

I don't know, the Capitalist nations seem to be doing pretty well. The third world countries are probably poor because of crooked leadership rather than capitalism.


Lol, not during the economic crisis anyway.

Greece - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXr0A9MB83w
France - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo0OsMS_NLg&feature=related
Ireland - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3dV9DXXFX8

These countries have also been the dominant ones for the whole of history, regardless of the economic system. That explains it more than crooked governments.
Those under Italy's fascist regime were probably better off than so called democracies in Latin America.

I am not even sure what you mean by crooked. Please explain.

Well so just about every government is crooked? Almost all the Latin American countries are crooked?

If the Capitalist nations stopped buying from third would nations and stopped all business with them, would you feel better?


No, trade is good. That would make things worse.
The US embargo on Cuba has been very hurtful for example.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Also on worker cooperatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

Many examples of democratically owned buisnessess.

Although communists aim for a broader interpretation of public ownership, since this thread is about capitalism reforms, I think its a great alternative.

Showing 31-45 of 54