Considerations on Capitalism

[Counterbalance]

"Poor expression?" Hey, it happens to all of us. Nevertheless...

it would be well enough to let some of her words speak for me, but it's always worth it to throw a little direction on that. Why hide the agenda behind a novelist's lofty vision and not discuss the realities of it?

~~~

As for me, I'm not hiding anything here. (the opposite, actually) I don't see it as my duty to "teach" Rand to others. And as I've written more than once, I don't have a desire to. I'm being honest. Those who actually ARE interested will check her out if they want.

Generally speaking, whatever it is we really want, or whatever it is we really want to know, that's the thing in which we'll invest time, energy, or money. Not that we'll all invest wisely, but where and how we invest is pretty telling, imo.

Valued-based decisions: We don't all hold the same values.
We don't all see (or seem to see) how telling our actions or choices actually are--be they the actions of a Capitalist or the actions of a sciforums member. (Yes. Rand goes into all of that as well. And that brief Rand bit is worth my mentioning it. It's not worth my time however to spend 30 minutes giving everyone my "subjective" opinion on what they need to sort out for themselves.)

You've invested considerable time posting on the subject of Capitalism. You've read the works of other knowledgeable and gifted authors. You've done some research on the Internet. You've now come across a website that has obviously caught your attention. You've formed and expressed opinions about it, but also on Rand; opinions based, at least in part, on what you've read at this site. Okay, have at it. (Btw... don't know how much you're aware of this, but there are quite a number of political-philosophical organizations that have somewhat aligned themselves, or tried to, with Rand's notions since her death, not all of whom Rand would endorse herself. The Libertarians are one such group.)

And sure, if you want to read Rand later, then "do as thou wilt." Just don't be surprised or confounded if, in the meantime, (while you continue to "talk" about or explore Capitalism) that you also continue to encounter Rand quotes and people pointing you in her direction. Maybe there's a good reason for this?

Very few folk I've encountered can explain or "share" Rand better than Rand herself. Me, personally, I'd rather go straight for the source, or to the "fountainhead," if you will. It's a waste of time for me to seriously seek answers--or to seek serious answers--from a forum full of hundreds of conflicting subjective opinions. But to each his own.

In other words, when I do actively seek... when I'm truly interested in learning about something... I prefer not to have to sort through just anyone's 'kitchen sink' full of presuppositions, accusations, challenges for proof...etc. Hey, they're free to come at it from any direction they like, and sometimes in the give-and-take we do learn something worthwhile, but I like to take a more direct route. Maybe I'm just more result-oriented. I definitely place a high value on my time.

Why would I take the time to even say all of this? I mean, it's not like you don't already know this stuff, right?

I do it, tiassa, because you have shown that you have a well-developed mind, and because you've demonstrated more than once that you can back off and look at what you've proposed without substantial fear. There is then, at times, a seemingly real objectivity in tiassa. These, among other things, are qualities that I value. If by spending a little time in brief discussions with you supports something I value, then I'm satisfied. If you also gain value from it--now or later--then that's a bonus for both of us. By some people's standards, it's a great bonus.

What all have I really said here?

Probably more than some might guess after a first, or even a second reading. My way tends naturally to be one of making it so simple or understated that those who read/approach my posts with their own (even fairly soft-set ) presuppositions or assumptions will tend to discount .. "the stuff they already know." --or thought they knew -- or thought they understood pretty well -- or maybe they hadn't really connected some of those dots, but yeah ... it sorta seems like there should be a connection...

~~~

So, as always,

For what it's worth... (even if only eventually)

Counterbalance

 

[Tiassa]

Question of application

Valued-based decisions: We don't all hold the same values.
We don't all see (or seem to see) how telling our actions or choices actually are--be they the actions of a Capitalist or the actions of a sciforums member

I'm curious about something. Looking at a Rand-capitalist concept regarding religion:

Isn't Capitalism opposed to freedom of religion?
No. Capitalism is the only system that allows freedom of religion, including freedom from it. Or, in the words of James Madison,

"While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the religion which we believe to be of a divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us."

Thus, capitalism neither supports nor opposes religion, as long as those religious practices do not violate the rights of others. Or. in the words of Thomas Jefferson,

"The legitimate powers of government tend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

There's more on that page about religion, but since rights are the centerpiece of this particular capitalism: What happens when the religion runs counter to Capitalism? What this capitalism proposes equals nothing more or less than the extinction of current religions, and while I'm not going to cry over that loss, one might wonder about the practical application of a capitalist principle that seems in the individual mind to oppose what God instructs. The reason the United States is not purely capitalist is that nobody really wants it; nobody can stomach the idea--the religious conscience compels them toward socialist ideas. Which is an interesting notion in itself; the .org notes that religion is a perfect base for socialism,

Religion--a pre-philosophical outlook--is a perfect philosophical base for socialism. The philosophical essentials of religion are as follows: in metaphysics religion holds to the supernatural and miracles (as opposed to reality and causality), in epistemology religion holds that the means of knowledge is revelation and faith (as opposed to reason and logic), in ethics religion holds to self-sacrifice or altruism (as opposed to self-interest and the pursuit of happiness)

Please note that after making the assertion, there is little connection drawn. It would appear, then, that in addition to altruism, Socialism finds its roots in supernatural miracles, and revelation and faith. Someone please show me the supernatural miracle alleged in socialism. These politically-crafted characterizations lend toward the ongoing idea that, in lieu of anything other than greed to justify capitalism, the capitalists are resorting to demonization of their chosen opponents. Once again, we see capitalism as a comparison to religions: it relies not on practical data but lofty assertions and slanderous characterizations. Don't get me wrong: that's the way of faith--whether Capitalist, Communist, Christian, or whatnot, such is the product of faith. So much for reality and causality.

See, this whole Rand thing is strange to me: I've known that many philosophies look to Rand for years, notable among them are Satanists and Capitalists. (Objectivists of course, Libertarians, Individualists, Natural Law philosophy, &c., among others.) But to see a wholesale abandonment of the founding principles and devices leading to the capitalist era (Machiavelli, Smith, &c.) is a little puzzling. Hirschmann's The Passions and the Interests even explores the question of how something so disapproved of in Jefferson's time as commercial banking could become the respectable centerpiece of a modern economy. And not a whit on this powerful, pro-capitalist result at all.

You've now come across a website that has obviously caught your attention.

Well, to be honest, I'd have thought this site crackers if it wasn't for the number of people excerpting the same bits from Rand in this debate. I don't disapprove of it in any moral sense; I just find it interesting that the Capitalism being defended is a different one from that presented in the topic post (this is not problematic; after all, any considerations on Capitalism seems to be the point, eh?) and that the Capitalism being considered is a lofty assertion that ignores the historical result of certain of its precepts in order to make the idea sound politically appealing. It's broader in some respects than the Communist Manifesto, which is an interesting point to consider. A theory with no historical precedent criticizing another theory with no historical precedent. Doctrinal socialism or communism are as impossible to compare objectively as this idyllic Capitalism.

As for me, I'm not hiding anything here. (the opposite, actually) I don't see it as my duty to "teach" Rand to others.

I'm sorry if you feel I've been pressing you unduly; it's just that with three Rand advocates here presenting this version of Capitalism (you, Godless, and the dot-org) I really do wonder why we invest in this unrealized Capitalist idyll instead of considering the state of the current Capitalist idea. It all sounds nice and lovely, but it includes similar obstacles to that which it opposes and, in its political form, bears a sense of integrity that is so foreign to me I'm having a hard time seeing it.

The question of Anarchism is simple: How, once people shake off the fetters of government, do they get along peacefully? (Simply, how do they avoid stealing and fighting and taking advantage of one another in lieu of no regulation on conduct.)

The question of Communism is simple: How, in a from-each/to-each idea, do the people avoid reduction of contribution in response to interpersonal jealousy or other issues? (It's one I heard all over the place as a kid: If you're getting paid X to do a job, and the guy next to you gets paid the same for not doing his job, what incentive is there to do well? Russian industrial products usually served as a striking example.)

The question of Capitalism is simple: How does one educate in the principles of Capitalism (e.g. profit without harm) if education is a capitalist device seeking profit? (In other words, if the assertion of profit without harm is something that can be realized, can it be maintained? Diverse values are certainly one thing, but how do those values reflect on profit and harm? Think of it this way: my high school education in 1988-91 cost $3,800 a year, and my school was both the lowest tuition and the best educational result in the state. Does this point toward a capital success? No, but being located in Tacoma (western Washington, cosmopolitan) and not in Spokane (eastern Washington, cities on a desert plateau), we managed a better charitable endowment to cover the expenses of jacking up that educational standard. It's not that the eastern-state parochial schools suck, by any means: being in the more cosmopolitan part of the state, we just got a lot more endowment money. But, more to the point, how does making education a for-profit enterprise improve education? Take a look at how many companies increase profitability by cutting into necessary expenses: my company is doing that very thing right now. Put it this way: across the aisle from me are two guys whose duties surround accommodating the needs of 460+ people; I did this very job, too. When the positions were created, the two were expected to accommodate the needs of less than 150 people; the office has tripled in population, and the same labor effort is expected to handle this increase without faltering. As it is, a full-service department has stripped itself down to basic functions, and those are even inadequately executed most days. Considering also that my company, in its quest for profitability, pays below the market average, I'm suddenly frightened for the challenges facing teachers in a for-profit enterprise: 120 students and 1 kindergarten teacher? It's possible. Out-of-date textbooks due to replacement expense? It's possible; we've used inadequate textbooks and justified it by racial arguments before, so I'm happy we're at least considering finance instead of race, but still ...

Do you really think that a Capitalism that relies on the best potential of a well-educated human individual has any better chance of success when that very education is a profit device? Currently, the profits of education come in reduced crime, greater productivity, civil peace (relatively), and increased understanding of one another. To the Capitalists I can only say, "I'm sorry that capital profit isn't the first concern of the public education; I know how worthless intangible profits are in the marketplace."

We profit greatly from education; demanding a financial profit is possible--we're just selling out the more vital and demonstrable "intangible" profits of education in the process.

It's pretty much like Anarchism: once everyone's agreed to get along, how do you prevent people taking advantage of the peace, which ends up causing the very governmental conventions Anarchism despises? Of Capitalism: once everyone is getting along, how do you indoctrinate the next generation in order to maintain the Capitalist convention?

Strangely, this started out as a short note on values-based decisions ... but that's how interconnected it seems to be. Where do those values come from? How are they communicated? What happens when one portion of the Capitalists don't want to play by the Capitalist rules (e.g. profit without harm)?

It's a lofty vision, this Rand capitalism. And it's the one the Capitalists seem to prefer to employ in both the advocation and defense of Capitalism. It does not, however, reflect the Capitalist experience in the world, and I'm curious why that is.

Just don't be surprised or confounded if, in the meantime, (while you continue to "talk" about or explore Capitalism) that you also continue to encounter Rand quotes and people pointing you in her direction. Maybe there's a good reason for this?

The same reasons we see in any Communism debate: the Communists want to hold up the paper idyll, the Critics want to examine the practical downfalls.

There is a good reason, I believe, why Capitalists, when assessing what capitalism is, point to an idyll that is not and possibly cannot be actualized: denial.

Capitalism sounds good: conventionally-accepted greed is what everyone wants in some form or another. But it doesn't work, and we have a plethora of human history to demonstrate that. Throughout the entire development of capitalism, the philosophies have always placed the self above the community, and resulted in a widespread sense of greed. Of course it does: the individual is the centerpiece and capital the object. And that's it's major downfall, and that downfall is what the Rand capitalists are trying to work around without ever acknowledging the fault in the first place.

You've been most kind throughout this debate, and I thank you for your warm words. I don't mean to press you, but we've got an interesting dialogue going on here, and it's a great chance to figure out why the Capitalists think they can ignore the same thing their predecessors and their opposition failed to work around

I don't understand how a society centered around individual greed can work. It seems that the society, then, is a combat arena for the individuals to hammer it out for the abstraction of money. That is, society exists so that we can carry out a fiction by which we might compare ourselves against each other.

Anyone who ever did any time in the retail sector knows: everyone is a potential customer; in other words, everyone who walks into the store has money, and it's your job to get it from them come hell or high water. Do that for even a short period of less than a year or so: you'll notice that the people around you start to look at all of life in that sense. And that's how we get to the idea that we raise children for the profit of their labors on our behalf (e.g.--"Earn your keep", "Carry your weight", &c), for instance.

It sounds like a nice philosophy, but what does it really describe?

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[mrk]

Tiassa,

I'm suddenly frightened for the challenges facing teachers in a for-profit enterprise: 120 students and 1 kindergarten teacher? It's possible. Out-of-date textbooks due to replacement expense? It's possible; we've used inadequate textbooks and justified it by racial arguments before, so I'm happy we're at least considering finance instead of race, but still ...

Only with K classes from 6 am to 10pm and the broken down teacher teaching all of them. What does, for the love of Mike, RACE have to do with capitalistic education?

For the Record, I'm a Randian, too. Not a cultist, just someone who appreciates she was both an atheist, and wrote with élan and perspicuity. She as many other philosophers (especially the sophists whom she admired greatly) used fiction to make her points. RTM

There are many businesses that manage to survive for decades at or near break-even. If the business exists (eg: primary purpose) to educate, then the "profit" return expectations would be minimal of the capitalists, which in the event of a secondary school would be the local indigenous denizens, as it was until the '60s when the fed started truly intervening in our lives with LBJs WONDERFUL Great Society, which failed abysmally. They want their money back, with a reasonable profit (not the 500 per cent in five years like the venture caps financers want). Then the tuitions are expected to cover operating costs, and fees. Yes, buying books is a requirement there are ways of minimizing this. One or them is the FOCUS of your school.

ONE of the justifications of using books in secondary schools which are decades out of date is that the fundamentals (which should be IMHO the primary focus in a secondary school not horse manure golbal studies or warming) for the sake of argument, when you add oil of vitriol to sea water, you are ALWAYS going to get chlorine gas. Now does it really matter that oil of vitriol is NOW called sulfuric acid, and the sea water has been replaced with a sterile saline solution? OF course not. Would it matter in that particular case whether that laboratory experiment came out of a book written in 1830, or 2001? Not at all. The same exercise can be accomplished a tactile method of demonstrating the precision of chemistry. I should like to have a grammar book with dosen't like the idea of people interchanging the verbs "to say" and "to go", constantly, but that just me. I want to understand people, and I don't much care for want the inclusive lexicographers have to say.

Now we are back to purpose. THE purpose of secondary schools was to provide sufficient grounding in basic subjects, so that the colleges had something to work with. That's why there USED to be true entrance examinations which were replaced with these ridiculous SAT/ACT tests. Purportedly in a college lit courses, the student should already know how to write a book report, term paper, and an essay properly. He should also, know how to read critically; unfortunately, this falls to the colleges, because the public schools are too busy dealing with hopped up kids shooting the hell out of the place with stolen guns, instead of TEACHING, because the TV told the parents to abdicate all parental responsibility to the gov't. OR they are pursuing the American Nightmare so fully they don't understand that there are something which cannot replace parents being in control of their children. (I realize you have some issues in this regard, but I submit that they are YOUR issues).

Instead, of REJECTING unacceptable applicants, now the colleges are wasting two years of the students time to bring them up to necessary standards, when possible (review the college entrance vs. graduation figures), so they can actually study their course majors. The colleges have also been dumbed down to accommodate the "traditional" four year standard as many of them ARE for profit institutions who have Tax exemptions-the distinction is considerable..

However your post was about how CAPTITALISM cannot be applied to everything in society. I would have to agree. It cannot. There are issues which may well, even in an "idyllic" capitalistic economy, have to remain somewhat socialistic.

However, I don't care to support ALL of society, most, nor even some. I, personally, nor generally, am NOT required by ANY standard to provide the produce of MY labor for YOUR groceries/healthcare/nor educating YOUR children. I may well be complled by law, but not by moral, nor ethical standard. Christianity is a belief system, not a moral standard, btw. I can refuse, and I do. Selfish, yes, and it's rational. I work for ME. I may well CHOOSE to include others e.g.: wife and ubiquitous rug rat curtain climbing yard apes, however I work for ME and NO one else unless I choose it. Yes and if they won't toe the mark, well, that is their challenge (and for the sake of obfuscation, I can choose death rather than slavery)

However in YOUR socialism, or communism, you'll find that I shall be "sentenced" to perform OVERTIME, just because I am the MOST efficient at my work. Well, IF I am the best, WHY ain't I got the MOST? IF I am TRULY the best, I end up OWNING the thing by virtue of reward in a capitalistic economy, but in a socialist one the state owns EVERYTHING, I think I"ll "opt out" as I do with the 14 gazillion advertisers of EVERY web based email. Somebody has to pay the freight; and in the case of the web based email providers, that's the advertisers, not the end user, but I'll opt out, just the same (and use my ad blocker, thank you very much). Now, if they would just come up with the same thing for cable TV... hehe

Tiassa, uh Rand was an atheist, so in her version of captialism there was NO religion. When you are in conflict, you are struggling with emotive vs. rational issues. Rand claimed to respond ONLY rationally--she lied. Ref: Nathanial & Barbra Brandon

 

[Tiassa]

What does, for the love of Mike, RACE have to do with capitalistic education?

It's a fair question. Quite simply, it used to be a practice in the United States to segregate schools according to color; the "colored" schools generally received hand-me-down books and equipment. I do, actually, much prefer the admission that education doesn't give enough of a capital return to racial justifications for bad education. It's a catch-22 that we have to solve before we can have the harmonious, harm-reduction society advocated by Rand capitalism. Proper capitalism, that is, an economic theory without a full-blown political platform, makes no such considerations. None of it, however, excuses the state of public education.

There are many businesses that manage to survive for decades at or near break-even. If the business exists (eg: primary purpose) to educate, then the "profit" return expectations would be minimal of the capitalists, which in the event of a secondary school would be the local indigenous denizens, as it was until the '60s when the fed started truly intervening in our lives with LBJs WONDERFUL Great Society, which failed abysmally. They want their money back, with a reasonable profit (not the 500 per cent in five years like the venture caps financers want). Then the tuitions are expected to cover operating costs, and fees. Yes, buying books is a requirement there are ways of minimizing this. One or them is the FOCUS of your school.

Who wants their money back? The businesses? If we look at the present corporate-welfare state of the US, we might wonder what the point of hiring someone for paid labor is if the government is supposed to take the laborers' money and give it back to the companies.

There are two primary reasons why companies not breaking even survive: government assistance and idiot investors. Remember TV Nation? Michael Moore got thrown out of a Giuliani press conference for asking him about city money given to a company. The money was given to prevent layoffs; the company took the money and laid off the employees anyway, giving the benefits of public money to the investors. Or we might point out the company I work for, an insurance company that is coming apart at the seams. What happened? Well, a few years ago, the board and the investors got together and decided to buy a vulnerable insurance company. The investors, though, were worried that they would lose the customer base when the policy books rolled together, so what they did was elect to leave the newly-acquired policies at their old rate. For two years, we lost money on those policies until the company raised the policy rate. The hike was pretty steep, and we lost a whole lot of those customers anyway. The only reason we're in business is because as one investor sold off, another idiot bought in. Just a couple of examples that spring to mind.

ONE of the justifications of using books in secondary schools which are decades out of date is that the fundamentals (which should be IMHO the primary focus in a secondary school not horse manure golbal studies or warming) for the sake of argument, when you add oil of vitriol to sea water, you are ALWAYS going to get chlorine gas. Now does it really matter that oil of vitriol is NOW called sulfuric acid, and the sea water has been replaced with a sterile saline solution? OF course not. Would it matter in that particular case whether that laboratory experiment came out of a book written in 1830, or 2001? Not at all. The same exercise can be accomplished a tactile method of demonstrating the precision of chemistry. I should like to have a grammar book with dosen't like the idea of people interchanging the verbs "to say" and "to go", constantly, but that just me. I want to understand people, and I don't much care for want the inclusive lexicographers have to say.

Can you imagine teaching geography with a ten-year-old map? How about a health class based on 1980's market-determined ideas of healthy? The FBI, in the late 80's or 90's, finally released to the public evidence of the Rosenbergs' guilt; in the space of a year or two, the Rosenberg history resolved from a debate of the ethics of guilt to being a non-issue to be recounted among the other names, dates, and events of history. 1830-2001? Okay, I'll grant a facetious envelope there, but it's worth pointing to Nag Hammadi, which changed the way we look at certain parts of history. "Missing" documents were suddenly available, and eighteen-hundred year-old speculations suddenly resolved: we had manuscripts that were, thitherto, merely rumors. Mathematics? I'd rather my child have a current textbook; certainly the basic functions of algebra remain unchanged, but how we prepare students for the next step changes. And that affects the outcome of the educational process, doesn't it? Oil of vitriol? A strange suggestion: watch The Simpsons; Monty Burns has some just amazing lines in there, such as the episode where Marge acquires a Chanel suit: You, fill up the tank with petroleum distillate and vulcanize these tires post-haste! What mixes poorly with oil of vitriol? Can you imagine a kid killing himself because he didn't know not to mix "oil of vitriol" with another compound? Why? Because he thought he was mixing "oil of vitriol", and not "sulphuric acid".

Just a note about the lexicographers: Lemme axe you a kestchin ....

Transition is not like lasso. Yet "transition" has become a verb.

Disorientated ...?

. THE purpose of secondary schools was to provide sufficient grounding in basic subjects, so that the colleges had something to work with. That's why there USED to be true entrance examinations which were replaced with these ridiculous SAT/ACT tests

A result of capitalism: the old way wasn't economical enough. Sounds blunt, but there you go. It's too expensive to do it right.

Incidentally, public schools were also supposed to prepare students for life without college; a diploma used to be enough to give the average working man a shot at home ownership.

Purportedly in a college lit courses, the student should already know how to write a book report, term paper, and an essay properly. He should also, know how to read critically; unfortunately, this falls to the colleges, because the public schools are too busy dealing with hopped up kids shooting the hell out of the place with stolen guns, instead of TEACHING, because the TV told the parents to abdicate all parental responsibility to the gov't. OR they are pursuing the American Nightmare so fully they don't understand that there are something which cannot replace parents being in control of their children. (I realize you have some issues in this regard, but I submit that they are YOUR issues).

These are all results of capitalism. It's too expensive to run the schools properly. That's why they're always coming up short in results. I still have to blame the parents for being too lazy to raise their kids right. If the parents believe everything they see on TV, they shouldn't have had kids.

And who is pursuing the Nightmare? The parents? Isn't that part of the problem particularly capitalist? Or am I thinking of the wrong Nightmare?

Instead, of REJECTING unacceptable applicants, now the colleges are wasting two years of the students time to bring them up to necessary standards, when possible (review the college entrance vs. graduation figures), so they can actually study their course majors. The colleges have also been dumbed down to accommodate the "traditional" four year standard as many of them ARE for profit institutions who have Tax exemptions-the distinction is considerable.

Tell it to Harvard, Stanford, or Johns Hopkins. What about public Universities? There is definitely a dumbing down going on, but its all about economization. There used to be a term called "well-rounded". This does not seem to be a prominent idea anymore.

For profit? Is this a problem to a capitalist? I personally think it's what the problem of society is. Take your local capitalist institution, your bank: it used to be you got an account, paid a slight fee, and they took care of your money. They made their money from investments and interest. Now, that's not enough: every service they provide should be for profit. Hence, $3.00 to use an ATM in some cities; hence $7.00 to see a teller in some banks. My bank would prefer that I never set foot inside their bank: I can use in-branch ATM's and write checks as much as I want, and they'll even give me the checks for free, so long as I just don't set foot inside their damn bank. I was in a restaurant the other night; they were selling money in their foyer. I was in a bar, same thing. We now buy money because there's money to be made that way.

I truly feel you're slapping around capitalism with your points. You're not making it out to be a very worthwhile practice: it seems to be a contributing factor to much that you've noted as societal negatives.

However your post was about how CAPTITALISM cannot be applied to everything in society. I would have to agree. It cannot. There are issues which may well, even in an "idyllic" capitalistic economy, have to remain somewhat socialistic

Many people will admit this. I believe it capitalist to be socialist sometimes. Why do I want strong public education? Because a lesser proportion of students will grow up (or die) to be criminals. It does, in fact, hurt me and my profitability to be ducking gunfire or avoiding parts of town in order to stay safe. Why do I want publicly-financed needle exchange? Well, on the one hand, you can't do it for profit or else it won't have its intended result. To the other, no matter how many fingers one wants to point to blame something for the American drug problem, we have to start somewhere, and a for-profit needle exchange won't do a damn thing to reduce drug addiction or HIV transmission. But you have a point: you should be able to live as you want--and, presumably, treat people however you want--and not ever have to think about the responsibilities attached to those rights. Guess what? You live in society, you know, a social body? Can you tell me why we came together in the first place? I highly doubt it was to sell each other insurance.

However, I don't care to support ALL of society, most, nor even some. I, personally, nor generally, am NOT required by ANY standard to provide the produce of MY labor for YOUR groceries/healthcare/nor educating YOUR children. I may well be complled by law, but not by moral, nor ethical standard. Christianity is a belief system, not a moral standard, btw. I can refuse, and I do. Selfish, yes, and it's rational. I work for ME. I may well CHOOSE to include others e.g.: wife and ubiquitous rug rat curtain climbing yard apes, however I work for ME and NO one else unless I choose it. Yes and if they won't toe the mark, well, that is their challenge (and for the sake of obfuscation, I can choose death rather than slavery)

First, tell it to the Christians.

Secondly, you're exactly right: Me, Me, Me. All capitalism is for is to justify the self in relation to others. It's a quantitative justification, and not a qualitative one.

So figure that out: Apparently, society exists just for you. I must, at this time, invite you to get over yourself and look around at those neighbors to whom you apparently owe nothing. Without them, even capital itself disappears. Economy will remain, but the greedy fiction of capitalism disappears.

However in YOUR socialism, or communism, you'll find that I shall be "sentenced" to perform OVERTIME, just because I am the MOST efficient at my work

My socialism or communism? I think you're overstepping your underoos here.

Well, IF I am the best, WHY ain't I got the MOST?

Well, we could point to Bill Gates and tell you to ask him. To the other, what is your criteria for the best? It seems you're so focused on your profit and your labor that you're working for an idea and not yourself. Sure, I don't have to slip my close friend five bucks for a burger while he waits for yet another employer to call back, and while he files the paperwork to find out why doing his job got him fired. But that kind of self-serving crap doesn't even serve the self. What's most important to you in life, Mr K? What you have or how you feel?

IF I am TRULY the best, I end up OWNING the thing by virtue of reward in a capitalistic economy, but in a socialist one the state owns EVERYTHING, I think I"ll "opt out" as I do with the 14 gazillion advertisers of EVERY web based email.

Well, I stand answered on the issue of what you have versus how you feel. As to opting out of the advertising:

* Why do you have to opt out in the first place? Is it perhaps because you are nothing more than a capital asset to them? Why should you have to agree to be put on how many advertising lists for how many companies just so the phone company can make profit from your name and address? Why, aside from the capital potential, would any company sell the names and addresses of their customers? Maybe to give the competition a shot of getting to you? Doesn't sound very capitalist.

* I doubt it was Communists who invented such a silly, harassing marketing scheme. What about you?

Somebody has to pay the freight; and in the case of the web based email providers, that's the advertisers, not the end user, but I'll opt out, just the same (and use my ad blocker, thank you very much).

Well, it could be investor money, but the investors would rather sell your personal data for capital than actually set their business up to work properly. I highly doubt it's the socialists.

Tiassa, uh Rand was an atheist, so in her version of captialism there was NO religion.

Yes, but it's covered by the political platform built around Rand's work. Check that silly capitalist website, and tell me how "capitalist" the "harm none" aspect of profit is. Tell me how capitalist a state military policy is. It has nothing to do with economy.

And since you're so kind as to refer to my communism, and my post ... would you be so kind as to comment on my topic starter? There's a great assertion about capitalism by an actual capitalist (I can't imagine an investment firm of communists, can you?)

The only reason we're focused on the joke made out of Rand at capitalism.org is that this is the capitalism that people preferred to address. You'll notice how quickly the focus was switched from the Dain-Rauscher quote to Rand capitalism.

I highly recommend that you check out the capitalism.org site if you haven't. They're wholly centered around Rand. By the time you get to the bit about profit without harm, ask yourself if this vision is any more plausible than Marxism.

I might also ask your opinion of the Enron issue. By the topic post's citation, we might conclude that the commies in the Ashcroft DoJ are trying to destroy yet another valiant American enterprise. Is that really an accurate summary?

But I think the basic difference we're experiencing is how we view ourselves in society. I think we're all part of the same endeavor, and therefore have certain responsibilities toward one another. One need not be communist to see how giving someone a sandwich might actually stop them from robbing a corner convenience store. It's all a matter of what you want. And on that point, might I ask a conscience question? So a street urchin robs the corner convenience store and in the resulting fracas the owner, a nice man you've bought from for five years, dies. Do you actually care? If so, why?

Society is an elected responsibility, not just a playground for hedonistic obsession.

thanx much,
Tiassa

(PS ... I notice there wasn't much on class size and economization; is there a point where a class is too big? After all, cramming two-hundred kids into a small room with a single teacher is, by the money issue, a better economy than twenty kids in ten classrooms with one teacher in each room.)

 

[TruthSeeker]

tiassa,

Rauscher's definition of capitalism is virtually indistinguishable from my dictionary's definition of greed ("an excessive desire to acquire or possess") and selfish ("concerned chiefly or only with oneself without regard for the well-being of others").

Makes one wonder why our nation is always so sure God is on our side.

That's it...

Capitalism is based on competitivity, materialism, selfishness, proundness, superiority/inferiority... everything that is fool and wicked. How can God be with America, if America is against God?

Look everywhere. You can see many people around you living a pretty "good" life, with lots of possessions and power. But look in Africa and tell me what you see... For Americans to be so rich, there must be other people REALLY poor, that don't have not even something to eat. And still... many Americans throw food in garbage. Actually, Americans throw everything in the garbage. Their so precious things brake and then what? Throw in the garbage eventhough it's perfectly fixable...
Some years ago you couldn't see poverty it in the big cities of the US. But now, there is already poverty in America too.

And the US do it all in the name of freedom... Which freedom are you talking about?!? You want so obsecivelly to have more and more... you can't stand without something material... Which kind of freedom is that? And the violence that frightens people and make them go home earlier? Which freedom are you talking about US?

Possession... Money... Power... Violence...
Just watch TV and you'll see it all there: the image of our society. And still, we let our children watch TV and forget that they will inherit this world...
If you Love your children, SHOUT with me...

Solution? I don't know... Perhaps Anarquism... or a society Religious-Centred. Or perhaps an Anarco-Capitalist system to begin with... Have my own ideas...

Love,
Nelson

 

[Godless]

Old dead subject....

Truth Seeker, this subject has been around quiet awhile without any responces, I was surprized to see the e-mail describing this topic...

However Capitalism is not the problem, in fact capitalism has been the solution, however with goverment interference, capitalism never did reach it's full potenctial.

America is not a capitalist state, it's a "mixed economy" capitalism with goverment intervention does not work, we can see the results just look at our economy.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Godless,

If you get out the government intervention...
You get the 1929 crisis!!!!!!!

Without the government intervention we would allways have depression...

It just doesn't work out in any way...

I can be a Christian that allways shout Love...

But to change the world, I have to know what I'm dealing with...

Love,
Nelson

 

[Godless]

Correction....

The crash of 1929 was caused by goverment intervention..

The US goverment intervene in the economy of this country when the rail road debackel happened in late 1800's they came out with the Anti-Trust Act. Which in turn it slowed the business advances of one mayor rail-road man, one who didn't use the goverment to build his rail road lines, his name: Jay Gould!.

Gould built the Northern line and ran it at a profit, when the other two lines which were largerly supported by goverment were running at a loss. Gould tried to stop the Anti-Trust Act, however he failed in his attempt to demolish this goverment act.

How did it hurt the economy?

J.Gould, would do buisiness in a very unique way, whith the advancing of population in the northern states, he would take families in those lands, and build lines to transport their livestock or produce into the cities, lots were done on credit, for future payment. With the Anti-Trust Act, Gould was unable to give in essence free commerce distribution of farmers produce, therefore slowing down the economy.

Gould was also doing buissness with China, by the same terms, and selling US steel to build China's rail-road, however with the Anti-Trust Act, that passed congress, Gould was unable to transport steel at his expence to China, for future profit.

It is hard to imagine, what would have happened if China would have been able to build rail-roads, at that time, perhaps China would have never became Communist, China would have been a very strong economical country, therefore rendering communism a less likely economic system for the country.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Oh... I see...

So everything that I learned about it in Brazil and Canada is just... fake??

I learned that the government didn't intervented in the economy and that caused the crisis. The government was too liberal, and people started buying actions like crazy and they had no money to pay and so on... too boring to explain...

What? Americans can't do mistakes...? Do they control what you learn there? Who knows?... They even control what you see and don't see in the TV...

Love,
Nelson

 

[Godless]

Basically!! Yea!

Unfortunately you were tought, what seems to be appropriate, however you were never really tought the truth!!.

Have you at least inquiered about Jay Gould?

Read the history of this man.

Need more resources? find it at; www.neo-tech.com

Here you will learn the kind of history that was never tought to you!!.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I can't say what's true in this whole thing...

I'm just telling what I learnt... and it seems really logical...

I'll ask my teacher tough...

Love,
Nelson

 

[Godless]

A little help....

Here follow this link, young crasshopper!!

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/g/gould-ja.asp

Others to also consider in study are Carnigie Hall, Vanderbilts,
philosopher Ayn Rand.

 

[TruthSeeker]

From the link:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/g/gould-ja.asp

Gould, Jay
1836-92, American speculator, b. Delaware co., N.Y. A country-store clerk and surveyor's assistant, he rose to control half the railroad mileage in the Southwest, New York City's elevated railroads, and the Western Union Telegraph Company. With savings of $5,000 at 21 he became a speculator, particularly in small railroads. After some years he became a director of the Erie RR. Aided by James Fisk and Daniel Drew, he defeated Cornelius Vanderbilt for control of this road and manipulated its stocks in his own interest and that of his group, including BossTweed. The Gould-Fisk scheme to corner gold in 1869 caused the Black Friday panic. Public protest forced the Gould group out of the Erie, ending with Gould's expulsion in 1872. He then bought into the Union Pacific and other western roads. He gained control of four lines that made up the Gould system. For years his name was a symbol of autocratic business practice, and he was widely disliked. After his death his estate and interests were managed by his son, George Jay Gould.

Errr....
1869 ...?
I thought the Depression was in 1929...??



Fithty years... half century of difference!!! :bugeye: :bugeye: :bugeye:


I guess they lied to you at school, Godless...

Can anyone explain this to me...?

Btw... what's crasshopper...?

Love,
Nelson

 

[Godless]

Do you remember?

You mentioned, that the collapse of 1929 market was caused by the goverment did not intervened in buissiness. I on the other hand showed you the goverment intervened in economics 50 years earlier!!.

Sorry for the confussion!.

Quote: "whats crasshopper?"

a mispelled word!!, I meant to say "grasshopper" an insect, no pun intended, it was what the teacher of Cain in Kun-Fu, called Cain when he went to the temple!!. Tv talk!!.
lol
Not that I'm the teacher, however it was a suggestion at naiveness.

Here's another link for ya!, learn about the Capitlaists, is always a good lesson, to learn about the creative minds who struggled agains oppressions, such as goverment, even our own!!.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/

 

[TruthSeeker]

Are you saying that the government interveined and fithty years later it happened all that crap? Humm... capitalism seems really weak... How could this happen...??

Love,
Nelson

 

[Godless]

No! I don't mean that!!.

Capitalism is not weak, nor strong it's not a way to view, an economical system.

*Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the goverment, in such a society, is the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's rights of self defence, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under "objective control". *(Ayn Rand)

Unfortunate this is not how the US does buissiness!!.

The US is a mixed economy, which is a mix of capitalism and statism, of freedom and controls. A mixed economy is a country in the process of disintegration, a civil war of pressure-groups looting and devouring one another.

A mixed economy is a mixture of freedom and controls--with no principles, rules, or theories to define either. Since the introduction of controls necessiates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable, explosive mixture which, ultimately, has to repeal the controls or colapse into dictatorship. A mixed economy has no principles to define its policies, its goals, its laws--no principels to limit the power of its goverment. The only principle of a mixed economy--which necessarily has to remain unnamed and unacknowledged--is that no one's interests are safe, everyone's interests are on a public auction block, and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it. Such a system--or, more precisely, anti-system--breaks up a country into an ever growing number of enemy camps, into economic groups fighting one another for self preservation in an indeterminate mixture of defence and offence, as the nature of such a jungle demands. While, politically, a mixed economy preserves the semblance of an organized society with a semblance of law and order, economically it is the equivalent of the chaos that had ruled China for centuries: a chaos of robber gangs looting--and draining the productive elements of the country.*Ayn Rand

After reading above Truthseeker, think back at the recent movements several pressure groups bringing lawsuits against Microsoft, why? cause they can't compete!!.

When US automakers were in a slump, and they couldn't compete with Japanese automakers they ran to the goverment!, the goerment responce?, was to heavily tax foreign automakers tariff tax, got so rediculous high, that Toyota built a plant in the US, in order to produce cars here and not get charged for exporting, same reason why Sony built a US production plant!.

Take a look at all those corporations that are always crying foul play against one another, then letting a biased goverment which is run by the highest bitter to determine the outcome!.

 

[Tiassa]

Godless ...

Regarding the Panic of 1869--is it government intervention, or irresponsible government intervention? Would, for instance, Jay Gould have fallen so hard had his business opponents (Pierpont and Morgan, as I recall) not bribed Congress? There was a lot of greasing of palms going on; the tobacco companies handing out money on the Senate floor shouldn't have shocked anyone--it's a tradition to go down to the Capitol in order to buy the Congress. Did government intervene in business? Or did business, then, intervene in government?

Regarding Microsoft: We might ask why the others "can't compete".

And that's the issue of the lawsuits. Did you know that Microsoft is working to cut every non-IE browser out of the internet? Consider:

• Is the browser part of the operating system?
• Why, then, did Microsoft--after agreeing to a technology development deal--not write a new browser for Apple's OSX? Quite frankly, the browser sucks; it doesn't even display Sciforums correctly. Thus, if the browser is such an integral part of the OS, as Bill Gates has asserted, why is my Internet Explorer merely a port from another operating system? Perhaps because to write it in Cocoa is beyond the capabilities of Microsoft's best and brightest? Hardly. Because it's less expensive, and it damages the credibility of a competing operating system. And, yes, Internet Explorer is part of our operating system; you do not update IE through Microsoft; IE is updated as part of your operating system update through Apple. Funny; since the browser is so important to the operating system, why didn't Microsoft see fit to, oh, back that claim with actions? Microsoft's duplicity does, in fact lend toward its monopolistic image.
• Do you use QuickTime or Windows Media Player? Tell me, why is it that Microsoft will not release the codecs for WMP for Apple users? As it is, maybe half the sites using WMP will run on a Mac because Bill Gates wants it that way. Strangely, I've found that a number of QuickTime mpegs don't run on Macs. How the hell is this? We are QuickTime. Oh, could it be that these particular mpegs are encoded on a WinTel machine running a Microsoft operating system?
• Bill Gates wants to say that other operating systems exist, and therefore he doesn't have a monopoly. At the same time, he's working as hard as he can to eliminate the competition through backdoor maneuvers.
• If I recall correctly, the MS/Apple technology sharing deal expires in August. Will Steve Jobs speak out then? Many of us are expecting him to.

Could it be that the government's lawsuits against Microsoft exist because they are deserved? After all, we hear how healthy competition is. And yet, here comes Bill, doing everything he can to smile to the court and say everyone's friendly while waiting for his chance to knife everyone.

And I thought it worth mentioning that I won't argue with the dogmatic assertion that a mixed economy is a state in dissolution. But I will point out that the Rand-capitalism which has been debated at Sciforums for the last few months is as utopiate as Communism and Christianity. Captialism is an economic system, not a political platform.

If Capitalists want to be a social system based on something else, they ought not call it Capitalism. What would be the point of calling myself a Christian if the center of my vision is Shiva?

Well ... I suppose if I were in politics, I might as well try to pull off that big a lie.

just a few thoughts ...

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[esp]

Companies, corporations, limited, publicly limited, incorporated, whatever.
They can all be viewed as entities.

To expect a corporate entity not to hold its own lifeblood, money, above all else is like expecting a fish to live out of water.
Damaging to the fish.

 

[Counterbalance]

Godless, tiassa, & esp...

I’ll agree with tiassa that Microsoft is not a good example to use when exhorting the virtues of Capitalism. And after all, at this point it wouldn’t matter if Bill Gates were a paragon of virtue himself since much of the world has already been convinced otherwise.

As for the history of Capitalism (or of famous “Capitalists“)--and as far as I know--for the men and women who have attempted to practice an ideal version of Capitalism, and for those still trying today, the words “MONEY“ and “COMPETITION,” and what they represent, have been, and are, stumbling blocks to too many minds.

Esp has it right. But from his statement where will you all take it? Some will run with the notion that money is bad; money is evil! Some won’t express their thoughts and opinions carefully or clearly. (Or respectfully. ) They won’t guard against misunderstanding, inasmuch as they could. Too interested in having the world see it their own way.

Money is not evil. That notion is pure nonsense. Power or competition are not bad either. Mankind, on the whole, is not evil.

Nothing about the “questionable” aspects of Capitalism is ever going to be addressed/resolved until people learn the true value of what it is to be a human on planet Earth. Until we learn to respect ourselves and our abilities to achieve, Capitalism will flounder and so will many who live in a so-called Capitalistic society.

This thread has been an interesting one so far. Hope it remains so.

Thx,

Counterbalance

 

[TruthSeeker]

Conterbalance,

Money is not evil. That notion is pure nonsense. Power or competition are not bad either. Mankind, on the whole, is not evil.

Money in essence can be no evil. For example, if you give money to the poor really helping them, or if you use money to research a medicine (eventhough I don't like medicines, but the intention is good anyways...), then, money is even very good! But if you destroy people's lifes or even kill them for money, then, you made money evil.

Power is not bad in the same sense. The Universe is powerful. Nature is powerful. And look how much life and beauty it creates...
But you MUST have WISDOM to use power. We don't. For instance, we use nuclear power to do weapons for mass destruction, to kill many innocent. Then, money become evil.

Competition, the same thing. In sports, for example, can make people healthier. Or... you can have a violent sport like football or hockey and finish by hurting and hating people.

It's all about the way you use those things.
And the way "we" use, is not usually the best...

Love,
Nelson