Does capitalism work?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
=TruthSeeker]No, that's not true at all. Who said we need to work to survive?
We have to work to get into space and improve quality and quantity of life. How exactly will we make it to mars if we don't work to get there?
Look at the trends. With feudalism, people used to work pretty much non-stop.
Bullshit, people worked less during fuedalism, you are talking about the slaves, and slaves could buy freedom.
More then 80 hours per week. With the industrial revolution, the average went down to about 60 hours per week. Then came Fordism and the average went down to 40. Now, in Europe, where the trend is still going, the average is in between 20 and 30 hours a week.
That is ridiculous, show me a country where people work only 20 hours a week so I can leave and move there.
We didn;t use to have weekends, you know? Study some history. Weekends were invented only a few decades ago.
Why would we need weekends? We don't. We should have 24/7 workdays and let people make money whenever they need money on a walk-in-walk-out basis.
Now in Europe, many people have 3 day or even 4 day weekends.
What country in Europe? I've been to Europe and I did not see any of this. Tell me where this is.
In America, by contrast, everyone is going nuts because they don;t want to lose their jobs. Jobs are disappearing all the time. Whenever a company creates more leverage, thousands of people are laid off. Why do you think the service industry is booming? But still, the service industry cannot provide enough job for every american. You got some research to do, pal. Start by googling "outsourcing", "leverage", "re-engineering" and "automation"...
Globalization is good for capitalism, it's efficient, perhaps we arent in the efficiency phase. Efficiency could be improved, but in order to make these improvements it still takes work. So trying to talk about a no work utopia, 4 words, not in our lifetime.
Oh and of course, the problem with that is the wages.
We decide our wages, not the God of money.
Yes. And the trend is more and more jobs like that. Companies love computers. Why? Because they can speed up all their processes with them, cutting costs and increasing efficiency and quality.
If there are too many companies and not enough jobs, start more companies, and you'll have more jobs.
So we are going to spend all our resources and our lives fixing the mess we did?
We are already bankrupt, if you didn't notice, we are in debt, we, the great American super economy is in debt, and getting deeper. This is not going to change anytime soon and so we won't have a work free world in our lifetime because we have to pay the debt.
No. New industries mean new products, more overconsumption, more pollution, more waste of energy, more environmental damage...
You are an idiot. Start the industry to clean up pollution. What exactly is wasted energy? Energy exists to be used, so how are you going to keep the environment clean if you don't dedicate any energy to this? How are you going to repair environmental damage? Over-consumption isn't the problem, the problem is what people are choosing to consume.
You see... the main problems with the world today are rooted in american overconsumption of goods.
What kind of energy jobs? What do you propose aside from oil?
Industries won't solve the crisis. We cannot create goods without hurting the environment. You cannot reconcile sustainability with consumption- specially overconsumption.
Actually you can create eco-friendly goods. What do you think clean energy is all about? You are correct, the environment is messed up, but it can only be cleaned up by creating new cleanup industries.
True, that's the leading problem today. Hence the Middle East mess.
I have a 6 month old child. I can tell you very easily- this is more then enough purpose!
You'll need to learn about economics. Industries are how we organize the masses to clean up the environment, you think it will all happen on its own?
Who talked about partying? I'm talking about thinking!
True. If you look at the economic equation you will see 3 components- capital, land and labour. We are dealing with labour right now. When we eliminate labour, we will be able to concentrate on eliminating the "scarcity" of land by expanding into space.
You are stuck in your ideology. How exactly can you get into space without labor? Sure it's possible, but how do you keep 6 billion people busy?
The computers will do that thinking for us...
The day the computers do the thinking for us, is the day we all commit ritual suicide, because what exactly are humans useful for if not doing the thinking?
Quantity? I have the impression we have enough. Quality? How about less jobs and more time for our familes, decreased stress, more trees, better air quality, less garbage...
Quantity, yes quantity. Your opinion does not matter, the market decides. Some people with a lot of money might think differently. Quality? Look, your ideas are never going to happen in this lifetime, NEVER. Why? Because there are no industries behind your ideas, you arent going to get anything done without inceased labor.
Again- we cannot overconsume!
What else are consumers good for? Consumers will consumer, and how exactly are industries supposed to profit if people don't over-consume? how exactly will you make your money from your stocks? don't tell me that we will not have to work because thats utter BS and you know it. We aren't in space yet, we don't have houses under water, under ground, or in the north and south poles in mass. It's simple, less work means less people, less labor means less people, if theres less work to do, then theres no reason to have so many people.
Security smurity! There's no need for security if everyone is happy!
We don't do that, eh?
Everything you have said, came from outdated text. I understand where you come from, I used to read that stuff too.
The problem is, it's impossible. You have two options, either we need less people, or we need more jobs, pick. If you think we need less people, well who is going to build all the stuff you talk about? It means you'll have to work more hours. If you need more people then you might be able to work less hours, but you will work, because the corporate masters say you will.
You have no power, you have no money, your decisions, your opinions, your thoughts and ideas are worthless unless you have power and influence. People who have power and influence, don't worry about these things because they'll gain no matter what happens or how many people are around. If theres more people and a more efficient consumer based society, they'll sell you your tabacco, they'll sell you the McDonalds, the donuts, they'll sell you the alcohol to drink, they will sell you the car to drive in, and the clothes on your back, they will even sell you your food. You are like a pet in the big scheme, so as a pet you arent in a position of authority to decide not work.
You WILL work, and the only option you get is to decide where, why and how. People get paid through your tax dollars, there is a lot of money at stake. People also get paid through over consumption. You WILL work. You ARE a pet, a SHEEP, and until you create industries of your own, you will forever be a SHEEP.
The best you can do, is buy stock, invest, start a business, or work for one, and if you really want to be useful, figure out how to create new industries because there is no way you'll ever change anything. Why? Because the bankers decided already.
What system works any better?
Reminds me of Churchill's quote on Democracy. He said that Democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the other forms.
I feel the same way about Capitalism. Does it have its flaws? Absolutely. But any system that has human beings in it is going to have flaws. Humans are just untrustworthy and selfish, and require motivation of some sort to get them to do anything. Capitalism is the best system so far for doing this.
Planned economies are destined to fail because nobody, and no collection of people, are smart enough to hold the reins.
I see Capitalism as the polar opposite of Communism (even though Marx and Engels saw one as a stepping-stone to the other). On the one side, you have private ownership and as little regulation as possible. On the other side, you have group ownership, and heavy regulation (almost full regulation). One is chaos, the other is planned in detail.
What is the result? The chaotic system leads to cultures that are ridiculed for being "too fat". The planned economies lead to starvation. 100 million last century by a few estimates.
One russian leader in the Cold War came to America and visited one of the new-fangled "supermarkets". What he saw depressed him, as he realized just how deeply the economic system of Russia had failed a once-proud people.
Reminds me of Churchill's quote on Democracy. He said that Democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the other forms.
I feel the same way about Capitalism. Does it have its flaws? Absolutely. But any system that has human beings in it is going to have flaws. Humans are just untrustworthy and selfish, and require motivation of some sort to get them to do anything. Capitalism is the best system so far for doing this.
Planned economies are destined to fail because nobody, and no collection of people, are smart enough to hold the reins.
I see Capitalism as the polar opposite of Communism (even though Marx and Engels saw one as a stepping-stone to the other). On the one side, you have private ownership and as little regulation as possible. On the other side, you have group ownership, and heavy regulation (almost full regulation). One is chaos, the other is planned in detail.
What is the result? The chaotic system leads to cultures that are ridiculed for being "too fat". The planned economies lead to starvation. 100 million last century by a few estimates.
One russian leader in the Cold War came to America and visited one of the new-fangled "supermarkets". What he saw depressed him, as he realized just how deeply the economic system of Russia had failed a once-proud people.
What would be so good about full employment? You state this without any justification or explanation, as though it is self-evident. Frankly, I think that full employment would be a bad thing and would not be possible without some coersive measures.TimeTraveler said:
-Dale
DaleSpam said:
Full employement is efficient. It should be self evident. Everyone who is not in school, or not in the military, should work a job and should have a job. We should have a job for every human on planet earth, and then still have jobs for robots and kids to do. Anything else would be wasteful and inefficient.
It is not self evident at all. Please explain.TimeTraveler said:
My view is that full employment would be bad. It would mean that there is a shortage of labor. In other words, say I have a great new idea, I need people to work on it, but there is nobody looking for a job because of full employment, then my idea fails regardless of how great it is. An economy like that could not progress at all because of the labor shortage, it would be far worse than an energy shortage.
I can explain my view. Can you explain yours? If you can't even explain your idea then chances are that you have not thought it through carefully. One thing I am interested in is how you would make full employment happen; I cannot think of any way to do it without using coersion. What makes you think that coerced labor is efficient?
-Dale
TT,
"The industrial revolution made it easier to find work year-round, since this labor was not tied to the season, and artificial lighting made work possible for the greater part of the day. Peasants, often manipulated into positions of debt and disadvantage by individuals of higher social class, moved from the farms to the factories to work at labor that was tedious and dangerous, for long periods of time. Technological advances during early capitalism made it possible to extract upwards of seventy hours per week of working time from a person. Before collective bargaining and worker protection laws, there was a financial incentive for a company to maximize the return on expensive machinery in spite of the suffering of workers. Records indicate that work schedules as arduous as twelve to sixteen hours per day, six to seven days per week, were demanded of wage earners. This nineteenth century work schedule was the most intense work effort in the history of labor.
Over the twentieth century, work hours declined by almost half, mostly because of rising wages brought by economic growth, with a supporting role from trade unions and collective bargaining, and progressive legislation. The workweek, in most of the industrialized world, dropped steadily, to about forty hours after World War II. The decline has continued at a slower pace in Europe - for example, France adopted a 35-hour workweek in 2000 - but not in North America. Working hours in industrializing economies like South Korea, though still much higher than the leading industrial countries, are also declining steadily."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hours
Idiot.
"The industrial revolution made it easier to find work year-round, since this labor was not tied to the season, and artificial lighting made work possible for the greater part of the day. Peasants, often manipulated into positions of debt and disadvantage by individuals of higher social class, moved from the farms to the factories to work at labor that was tedious and dangerous, for long periods of time. Technological advances during early capitalism made it possible to extract upwards of seventy hours per week of working time from a person. Before collective bargaining and worker protection laws, there was a financial incentive for a company to maximize the return on expensive machinery in spite of the suffering of workers. Records indicate that work schedules as arduous as twelve to sixteen hours per day, six to seven days per week, were demanded of wage earners. This nineteenth century work schedule was the most intense work effort in the history of labor.
Over the twentieth century, work hours declined by almost half, mostly because of rising wages brought by economic growth, with a supporting role from trade unions and collective bargaining, and progressive legislation. The workweek, in most of the industrialized world, dropped steadily, to about forty hours after World War II. The decline has continued at a slower pace in Europe - for example, France adopted a 35-hour workweek in 2000 - but not in North America. Working hours in industrializing economies like South Korea, though still much higher than the leading industrial countries, are also declining steadily."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hours
Idiot.
TT,
The book I'm reading now...
http://www.amazon.ca/End-Work-Jeremy-Rifkin/dp/1585423130
Search inside for a little preview...
And...
http://www.foet.org/books/end-work.html
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?show=Trade Paper:Sale:1585423130:7.98
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Rifkin
http://faculty.washington.edu/~krumme/readings/rifkin.html
The book I'm reading now...
http://www.amazon.ca/End-Work-Jeremy-Rifkin/dp/1585423130
Search inside for a little preview...
And...
http://www.foet.org/books/end-work.html
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?show=Trade Paper:Sale:1585423130:7.98
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Rifkin
http://faculty.washington.edu/~krumme/readings/rifkin.html
kingcarrot
Registered Senior Member
capitalism is man taking advantage of other men, communism is man taking advantage of other men. of course the real difference here is how fast you do it. change in your bills for electricty!!
You mean just like this?: If you had not "taken advantage" of your family as a baby, you'd be dead.wesmorris said:
The purpose of the institution is to support humanity and the environment. In effect, humanity is and should be dependent on the institution. We taker advantage of the institution effectively.
You are twisting meanings of "take advantage".
There is a difference:
1. Child taking advantage of parental support. Something is given to us, we take advantage effectively.
2. Taking advantage of others through unethical exploit.
You conveniently twisted the meaning in your response. Try coming up with an intelligent response that actually addresses what rude boy was talking about.
So if the lawful means to a billion dollars is available to me, is it okay to take advantage of it? Or is it unethical exploitation? If the latter, who am I exploiting?
SOURCE OF REVENUE:
Sale of product X.
You buy a piece of land for $100,000.
You purchase all the necessary equipment for $100,000.
This equipment lasts 10 years.
You purchase supplies at totaling: $10,000 per year.
You pay land taxes and corporate fees totaling: $5,000 per year.
You pay utilities totaling: $10,000 per year.
You pay for the materials needed to produce product X totaling: $75,000 per year.
You pay the salary of the employees working on your land totaling: $100,000 per year.
Each month, a total of 100,000 units of Product X are produced.
January 1: Set everything up.
February 1: Begin production.
March 1: Batch 1 of 100,000 units ready to be sold.
April 1: Batch 1 sold. Batch 2 of 100,000 units ready to be sold.
By January 1 of year 2, you have a total of 1,000,000 million units sold.
Each unit is sold at $100 per unit.
Total revenue is $100,000,000 for the first year.
Total expenses: $400,000 for the first year.
Profit: $99,600,000.
Year 1 expenses: $400,000.
Year 1 units sold: 1,000,000
Year 1 revenue: $100,000,000
Year 1 profit: $99,600,000
Year 2-10 expenses: $200,000 per year.
Year 2-10 units sold: 1,200,000 per year.
Year 2-10 income: $120,000,000 per year.
Year 2-10 profit: $118,800,000 per year.
By the end of the 10th year, you have: $1,069,299,600.
Now if I create 2 of these businesses simultaneously, I could profit this much in about 5 years. Quick. Somebody give me $800,000.
Sale of product X.
You buy a piece of land for $100,000.
You purchase all the necessary equipment for $100,000.
This equipment lasts 10 years.
You purchase supplies at totaling: $10,000 per year.
You pay land taxes and corporate fees totaling: $5,000 per year.
You pay utilities totaling: $10,000 per year.
You pay for the materials needed to produce product X totaling: $75,000 per year.
You pay the salary of the employees working on your land totaling: $100,000 per year.
Each month, a total of 100,000 units of Product X are produced.
January 1: Set everything up.
February 1: Begin production.
March 1: Batch 1 of 100,000 units ready to be sold.
April 1: Batch 1 sold. Batch 2 of 100,000 units ready to be sold.
By January 1 of year 2, you have a total of 1,000,000 million units sold.
Each unit is sold at $100 per unit.
Total revenue is $100,000,000 for the first year.
Total expenses: $400,000 for the first year.
Profit: $99,600,000.
Year 1 expenses: $400,000.
Year 1 units sold: 1,000,000
Year 1 revenue: $100,000,000
Year 1 profit: $99,600,000
Year 2-10 expenses: $200,000 per year.
Year 2-10 units sold: 1,200,000 per year.
Year 2-10 income: $120,000,000 per year.
Year 2-10 profit: $118,800,000 per year.
By the end of the 10th year, you have: $1,069,299,600.
Now if I create 2 of these businesses simultaneously, I could profit this much in about 5 years. Quick. Somebody give me $800,000.
How does that answer the question?
The question is illogical. Consider the following:
If X is lawful, is X ethical?
The answer to this question is no. Ethics are not based on law. X is either ethical or unethical. Whether or not it is lawful will not change the ethics of X.
First of all, a billion dollars is based on pure faith. If minimum wage was a million dollars per hour, the question would not apply.
Considering minimum wage at $6.50 per hour versus a single individual having a billion dollars. It is completely ethical for an individual to make as much money as they want.
Money does not fall under ethics. Money is an aspect of temporality institution. For the sake of a progressive society, the institution should very well be structured to prevent such stratification from occuring. Just as it is fully ethical for you to make as much money as you want to make, it is also ethical to intentionally prevent such stratification from occuring.
Excessive disfunction is when one person has a billion dollars while another person has minimum wage.
Nobody has the ethical right to money. The have the ethical right to be free from physical harm and to say whatever they want. Money is simply a format that humans use to conduct trade. Those that made the rules for this game, made the rules so that they could win the game. They did not make the rules so that everybody could win.
If X is lawful, is X ethical?
The answer to this question is no. Ethics are not based on law. X is either ethical or unethical. Whether or not it is lawful will not change the ethics of X.
First of all, a billion dollars is based on pure faith. If minimum wage was a million dollars per hour, the question would not apply.
Considering minimum wage at $6.50 per hour versus a single individual having a billion dollars. It is completely ethical for an individual to make as much money as they want.
Money does not fall under ethics. Money is an aspect of temporality institution. For the sake of a progressive society, the institution should very well be structured to prevent such stratification from occuring. Just as it is fully ethical for you to make as much money as you want to make, it is also ethical to intentionally prevent such stratification from occuring.
Excessive disfunction is when one person has a billion dollars while another person has minimum wage.
Nobody has the ethical right to money. The have the ethical right to be free from physical harm and to say whatever they want. Money is simply a format that humans use to conduct trade. Those that made the rules for this game, made the rules so that they could win the game. They did not make the rules so that everybody could win.
The question you answered is not the question I asked. Read it again and see if you can grasp it.