Does capitalism work?

[iceaura]

Don't even try to defend its backwards ass economy, because I have many contacts in Cuba, none of whom have ever sung its praises.

You miss the point: bad as Cuba may be, Haiti is worse - and so are several other nearby Caribbean islands. Capitalist islands. Failed states and miserable poverty created by capitalism as defended by the US.

the U.S. was doing better on a GDP per capita basis than every E.U. country and Japan, with the exception of Luxembourg, and the growth of our GDP per capita was higher then all of them save three or four (including Luxembourg, and I believe Finland). Since all of the EU is more socialist than the U.S., and while Finland's high growth rate may be the basis of your point, I am not sure that in the long term what you say is correct, at least historically. Certainly, taking the EU in the aggregate, it's well known that the U.S. standard of living has historically swamped theirs, as has our aggregate growth rate, and as has U.S. worker productivity (which drives the growth). (On the latter, the U.S. was the most productive per person as of 2006.)

GDP is a very dubious stat (it increases when roads are not maintained, for example), and GDP per capita doesn't really matter unless the capitas have a shot at actually getting their hands on some of it. The median citizen of the US economy has by many ordinary measures a similar or lower standard of living than the median citizen of several European counties now, and it's dropping. The increase in US wealth has been almost entirely confined to the upper 20% of the economy for going on thirty years.

Meanwhile: in the normal standard of worker productivity, output per manhour, the US has been overtaken and is now being surpassed by, again, several European countries - and the US started with a huge lead, after WWII, with all that government - supplied educational and technological head start from the socialized economy of the war effort and postwar welfare programs (the GI Bill, etc).

Notice the US is being overtaken and surpassed by the EU, on the productivity and living standards front, after leaching the best and the brightest from the superior European secondary schools for US colleges and employment, despite having excellent fundamentals in resource supply and environment, and in spite of favorable demographics and other advantages.

That is without taking into account the greater frequency, in the US, of two or more jobs held per family, and other detractions from what most people regard as good living circumstances.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html news article, 2006.

http://www.banquedefrance.fr/gb/publications/telechar/seminaires/2008/G.Cette.pdf France and US directly compared

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1153/is_n7_v118/ai_17397051 from '95, with Germany etc. - the trends have accellerated since then.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-09/01/content_260191.htm

``In terms of output per person employed, the US is on top,'' said Dorothea Schmidt, an economist on the team that produced the 855-page report.

``In terms of output per hour we have three European countries doing better than the US _ that's Belgium, Norway and France, and they have done so ever since the mid-80s,'' Schmidt said.

Norwegians lead the league, with an output of US$38 per hour worked last year.

French workers were in second place, with an average of US$35 an hour, the report said. Belgians were third at US$34. US workers were in fourth place at US$32 per hour worked.

If you can find the numbers on the standards of living that contradict me, I could be wrong and so would like to know.

I can't even find a decent definition or evaluation of standard of living. But I note that families who have twice as much leisure time during the year per employed person, good food and clothing on one job per household, a good likelihood of owning their dwelling, and universal health care at first world standards (Irish, French, Belgians, Norwegians, etc) are likely to have a high one, by any reasonable definition.

 

[2inquisitive]

Billy T,

As you later admit, there are not enough nice high-rise apartments in the city

As I later admitt??? It was your suggestion that the wealthy should all live in fancy high-rise apartments, I pointed out there was no room to build those fancy apartments unless low-rent apartments were torn down.

This is just one example of how the tax laws are hidden "central planning" that distorts the economy. Another would be the greater sales of riding lawn mowers vs. the reduced sale of elevators. Etc. As I said: the tax laws and local financing of schools have so greatly distorted the cities that most are essentially destroyed.

So your suggestion is that schools should be financed by the federal government with mirror copies of schools built in all locations regardless of local income? Can't say that is a bad idea other than it gives even more power to the federal government, but it still wouldn't provide local jobs for the inner city kids after graduation.

No. I am suggesting that we let Adam Smith's "invisible hand" do more and central planners do less. I suspect that the cities that hand would build would be great places to live. With luxury apartments high above offices so the wealthy living there could take the elevator down to their office, etc.

JESUS! To each his own, but that sure sounds like a dreary existance to me.

The poor, whose time was less vauable, would live in the outter parts of the suburban areas and not mind too much the hour long bus ride in to clean the offices after 5PM or early in the AM to be the maid or cook of the apartment renters.

Then what purpose would the better quality education serve? If you can barely read and write, you can cook and clean. Wouldn't an isolationist policy be better, place higher tarrifs on imports so we could manufacture more of what we consume? More jobs that way. We can make more of our own shoes rather than import them from Brazil. And, yes, you can still buy made in the US dress shoes, sneakers and boots. Most of the ones I own were made in the US, but they are more expensive than the cheaper imported ones. My Italian dress shoes cost more than either pair of my US made ones though.

Billy T, there are still many manufacturing plants in the US, even though we have lost a large percentage. Electronic items and clothing seems to have suffered the most, almost totally wiped out in the US. New factorys are being built, but fewer than needed for good employment. For instance, a new Toyota assembly plant is presently under construction less than 10 miles from my house, along with supplier plants such as for plastic pieces in the vehicles. These types of plants no longer seem to be constructed in the large inner cities though, so I don't know a solution for them.

Also, NOT TRUE THAT YOUR "RENT" WILL NEVER INCREASE IF YOU OWN YOUR HOME:
Note that the schools are locally financed mainly from your state or city taxes often mainly restate taxes. - You seem to be forgetting that they are directly connected to increase in value you do conveniently remember.

No, I certainly have not forgotten that taxes go up as value (and inflation) increases. So does the cost of insurance on my home.

They only go up, rents at times come down.

You seem to conveniently forget that the owners of the rental properties have to pay real estate taxes too. That increase in the cost of taxes and insurance is passed along to the renter in the form of higher rent. I rented before I bought my house and I never saw the rent go down, only up. At an apartment I used to rent, the rent was, at the time, less than the mortgage payments on my new home purchase. At the time I made my last mortgage payment, that same apartment rented at double what my mortgage payments were. Homes are a long term investment. They will have periods of increases and decreases in value, just like the stock market. Just like the stock market, if you buy into a bubble you are subject to get stung in the short term.

 

[Billy T]

I enjoy our exchange

...As I later admitt??? It was your suggestion that the wealthy should all live in fancy high-rise apartments, I pointed out there was no room to build those fancy apartments unless low-rent apartments were torn down.

True, but if there had been no tax reduction for buying a home then more apartments of all types, especially more of the luxury types, would have been built in the cities and thus no need to tear down any low income ones as you suggest

I am not stating that the tax laws alone have destroyed the cities. IMHO that was mainly the result of a dynamic interaction between local funding of schools and the mortgage deduction. I.e. The mortgage deduction was much more valuable to the rich than the poor, so it selectively motivated them to move out to suburbs where there was land to build their expensive and highly mortgaged home. With mainly poor left in the cities, the city schools went to hell as educational institutions; (Except as educational center for things like "How to kill or avoid rat bite;" "Safer to get under age kid to deliver the drugs than do it yourself;" "Collect the money before doing the trick;" and other useful, practical knowledge, not found in the text books.)

So your suggestion is that schools should be financed by the federal government with mirror copies of schools built in all locations regardless of local income? Can't say that is a bad idea other than it gives even more power to the federal government, but it still wouldn't provide local jobs for the inner city kids after graduation.

Close, but not exactly. I certainly am not wanting the physical plants to be identical "mirror copies" (some areas are flat, some are only hills - some need AC, but not heating etc.) In fact, I would not even want equal pay for the teachers without any adjustment for the local cost of living, etc. And as I will explain more fully soon, some poor school would pay much more to their teachers.

What I would want is sort of what exists in Norway. (My first wife was a Norwegian school teacher - I only know what system was there many years ago.) I want lots of "obligation scholarship" for students studying to be teachers in that they can be assigned where to teach for a few years after graduation debt free and even paid more while in school for getting better grades. These best teachers would be assigned to the schools with the worst performing students in some national exams. - In hope that all schools would tend to produce equally well educated students on average. - Quite different from the current system, which in truth is designed to frustrate upward social mobility and continue great advantages for the already advantaged.

IMHO, much more important that the quality of the school building, is the quality of the teachers in the school. There are other things also I would do, but this would fix at least 2/3 of the problem with US schools, but again education is not an isolated system. Other things that made the rich flee US cities must be fixed also. The local funding of the educational system and unlimited mortgage deductions are two most important reasons why the US city's schools are not even equal of the city schools in most poor European countries. "Poor city schools" is not a law of nature! It is not even the norm in most of the developed world. America should be ashamed of it urban schools!

Urban US schools were not the developed world's worst before the tax deduction for homes existed. Back then it was the non-city school serving a few farm kids in a one or two room school house that were the bad schools. - In third grade, I went to a one-room dozen-kids school in western Virginia for about 10 days on horse back, but then my father agreed it was a waste of time and of the horse. So he tought me to do long division one day and gave me two books to read. - Then we jointly did educational things like construct a small dam with waterwheel to charge a car battery so we could listen to the radio most evenings. - There was no electric power line within 20 miles of the farm.

Please note that none of what I have suggested "gives the federal government control of the local schools" that you fear so much. All I have suggested is that students studying to be teachers be offered free education and even a modest salary related to their grades in teachers college if they agree to work a few years where they are Automatically (not by the government) assigned by the system. I.e. graduating teachers, who get the best grades, are assigned to the schools whose kids need the best teachers with reasonable limitations on how far they must move etc. perhaps not more than 100 miles from where their lived prior to going to teacher's college or 100 miles from where they lived when studying to become a teacher. I am not trying to write the detailed rules - only to suggest the best teachers teach where the need is greatest, if they chose to accept free education with salary while studying to become a teacher.

I admit that there are "transition problems" while transforming US's urban school system from the developed world's worst to its best, but they can be solved "By throwing money at that problem." (Probably less than the FED just threw to MS for buying Bear Sterns.) - One way would be to let entering student teachers, (before they sign up for the "obligations scholarships") chose which of the schools they will serve in after graduation and for how long. For example good school with student average grad on standard test B get 20% higher salary than paid in school with graded A. ... school with grade D- gives pay 2000% higher than post-graduation service in school with ave grade of A and requires only one year of service, but allows longer stay second year with only 1500% premium pay etc. etc. Again I am not trying to define the details, but only to show that even the transition period problems can be solved.

In this modern competitive world, where human muscle power is much less valuable than it was once, and all other nations are doing a better job of mass education at the lower levels, American cannot afford any longer to have muscle power be the most valuable talent a large fraction of its population can offer to the market place. (Nor to keep the poorly educated in prisons - an area where the US is leading the developed world - more shame, IMHO)

I would like to see America be more like Norway etc. - no poor, all well educated, free heath care, a simpler progressive tax law, respected in the world, etc. not as it is today, lacking all these things. IMHO this sad shameful condition of the richest nation on Earth fundamentally is a question of education, and then the democratic process will fix the other faults, such as a tax system so complex that no one understands it and many rich have lawyers who can exploit it to escape the progressive rate structure it claims to have. Thus I will close with one more fact about US vs. Norwegian educational system:

In the US, no identifiable person is responsible for the fact that graduating Johnny was not taught how to read well, write well, or calculate well. (The 3Rs back in my day: Reading, Righting & 'Rithmatic) If you are Johnny's second grade teacher in Norway, and he is doing poorly in the 3Rs, passing him up to the 3d grade teacher does not solve your problem - you are his 3d grade teacher too. I.e. you keep the same students until they graduate elementary school.

My ex-wife, free of debt with her teacher's certificate got her first grade students and taught them until they graduated elementary school. Only the first month of the 1st grade is wasted learning each student's unique skills and needs. So, if during the first day of fourth grade she was helping one student and another needed help with her math, she could say: "Swen your are already two grades ahead of her in math, please help her understand, but do it quietly." The teacher and the student are a team, working together to make that group of the next generation well educated. The whole community knows who is doing a good job as a teacher and respects the good teachers. - They see the exceptional progress of their kids.

Ex-wife's second group of 2nd graders came to our wedding in a 700 year old church near Oslo and sat as a group. I was taking THEIR, known-to-be-exceptionally-good, teacher away to America. They would get a new one for third grade. If looks could kill, I would never have survived that day.

More than three decades later my ex-wife still received Christmas-card "thanks 1000 times"* "I am what I am today because of you"** etc. from her first group, most of whom were then very successful business men or other leaders of their communities. In Norway everyone knows who is responsible. There is no passing of the problem kid on the next grade teacher until he is dumped unfit onto society. That is the US way.

-----------------
*Not as big a deal as it may sound - Norwegians usually say: "Thusan Tak" (but I have the 1000 spelled wrong, I bet.
**That one is now quite weathy - once offered financial help if it was needed.

 

[joepistole]

Capitalism is a good system for the production and distribution of goods. However, it does have a few flaws. First and foremost is that capital becomes very centralized...wealth tends to accumulate in just a few places. As has been pointed out, the weatlhty tend to dominate and then the system becomes inefficient. That is why, the government needs to bust up excessive accumulation of capital. Now that does not happen in the United States. A century ago, the United States effectively dealt with the problem in the form of anti-trust legislation. Now we have the problem whereby congress is owned lock stock and barrel by the wealthy. So any desired special interest legislation can be had for a price, and the system does not work.
But Capitalism is infinately better at production and distribution as compared to the communist model.

 

[kimmy]

I register to this forum due to this interesting thread. It seems I cannot actually vote. I will vote for 'NO' if I can simply because capitalism works for others but not me.

By the way, please forgive my english as it is not my native.

I was raised and educated in this extreme-capitalism city. Study hard and get into university. Study and work hard again to my bachelor degree, the tuition fee is not cheap.

What do I get after I graduate? What do I get after all those hard work?

When the economic environment is so-so, I got low paid jobs. The job actually require me to work from 8am to 11pm per day, 7 days per week. At that time, I though it is ok as I was told that this is the way for young people to ladder up the society so I keep my hard work.

Few years later, my salary stays low but everything else goes up, I finally realize that I can never ever save enough money. I can never save enough to organize my family. I can't even afford a decent ring for my girl friend, who has spends years with me.

Now that the economic collapse I suppose I will become unemployed in months.

Lets also look at other product of capitalism:
- environmental destruction
- poison milk from china
- unemployment
- poor quality goods
- economic break down
- unbalance and unstable society
- probably end of world
- and more...

You tell me again Capitalism works, huh? I believe I work for it, it does not work for me however.

I wonder when people will awake from capitalism - the biggest lie in recent centuries.

 

[ashura]

A capitalist market can't function kimmy with a government that works so hard to undermine market forces. Direct your blame to the proper place.

 

[GeoffP]

It is clear that capitalism is totally flawed, and does not work.

I agree wholeheartedly that capitalism does not work.

And neither do you.

Ergo, you must be some kind of capitalist.

 

[Pandaemoni]

The chestnut about democracy seems apt: Capitalism is the worst possible economic system a nation can adopt, except for all the others.

 

[wesmorris]

It seems I cannot actually vote. I will vote for 'NO' if I can simply because capitalism works for others but not me.

translation: I haven't figured out how to win so all you who are winning, suck.

I was raised and educated in this extreme-capitalism city. Study hard and get into university. Study and work hard again to my bachelor degree, the tuition fee is not cheap.

Then you should be winning.

What do I get after I graduate? What do I get after all those hard work?

What did you expect? You got clout. That is what a degree buys you. If you fail to utilize it, or it isn't enough to overcome your other personal short-comings, you won't benefit from it much. But you seem to think that since you thought it was a sure thing, someone owes you something because you are too stupid not to realize nothing is a sure thing.

When the economic environment is so-so, I got low paid jobs. The job actually require me to work from 8am to 11pm per day, 7 days per week. At that time, I though it is ok as I was told that this is the way for young people to ladder up the society so I keep my hard work.

Erm, well that sucks. Sounds like you're not being very creative though. Your job is not your job unless you agree to do it. Maybe if you consider your job finding a way to capitalize your situation, you might win more. It doesn't matter how educated you are if you don't understand simple economics. Nobody owes you a job because you took a risk and got an education. I salute the risk taking, but find your attitude rather disappointing.

Few years later, my salary stays low but everything else goes up, I finally realize that I can never ever save enough money. I can never save enough to organize my family. I can't even afford a decent ring for my girl friend, who has spends years with me.

THEN FIND A NEW JOB, sheezus. Do a different career, start a business, offer someone a service. Stop being pathetic or you will continue to fail. Seriously, you don't seem to understand the nature of business at all. So long as that remains to be true, people will take advantage of that fact and you will never do what's necessary to improve your economic situation.

Now that the economic collapse I suppose I will become unemployed in months

.

Well that sucks, but you have to look at it as an opportunity or you will continue to suck hind-tit.

Lets also look at other product of capitalism:
- environmental destruction
- poison milk from china
- unemployment
- poor quality goods
- economic break down
- unbalance and unstable society
- probably end of world
- and more...

That is just retarded whining. Note your list is entirely negative. Now write a list of the great things about capitalism. Are you capable? If not, then have you considered the possibility that your whiny, negative attitude is what keeps you poor? Blame everyone else, that's the ticket.

You tell me again Capitalism works, huh? I believe I work for it, it does not work for me however.

Can you tell me why that is a good thing? Seriously, this isn't a trick question. It makes perfect sense and is quite natural that you work for it while thinking it isn't working for you under what conditions? You do realize capitalism is analagous to nature no?

I wonder when people will awake from capitalism - the biggest lie in recent centuries.

Lol, no - capitalism is more of an observation than an invention or a lie. Socialist / Leftist stuff is capitalism is elitist's clothing. Every system you can surmise is just a twisted form of capitalism specifically designed to benefit a particular segment of population, generally: the motherfuckers in charge.

Well maybe that's only mostly true, but regardless of the intention of the designer(s), that's what ends up happening because the human mind is a capitilistic machine. It seeks what it values, infallably.

 

[GeoffP]

The chestnut about democracy seems apt: Capitalism is the worst possible economic system a nation can adopt, except for all the others.

This might be so; but are we incapable of better? Why not at least a socialist system?

 

[kimmy]

translation: I haven't figured out how to win so all you who are winning, suck.

Why are you interpreting what I wrote in such negative ways? I don't mean that. Also, capitalism is not about win-win, most people have to lose in order to create a winner.

Then you should be winning.

Good catch. I have to become scum like richard f to win. I need to deceive ppl and the world

What did you expect? You got clout. That is what a degree buys you. If you fail to utilize it, or it isn't enough to overcome your other personal short-comings, you won't benefit from it much. But you seem to think that since you thought it was a sure thing, someone owes you something because you are too stupid not to realize nothing is a sure thing.

Do you understand how difficult now it is to turn things around now? There r no opportunities like your good old days...

Erm, well that sucks. Sounds like you're not being very creative though. Your job is not your job unless you agree to do it. Maybe if you consider your job finding a way to capitalize your situation, you might win more. It doesn't matter how educated you are if you don't understand simple economics. Nobody owes you a job because you took a risk and got an education. I salute the risk taking, but find your attitude rather disappointing.

Lets bet when u will lose ur job.

THEN FIND A NEW JOB, sheezus. Do a different career, start a business, offer someone a service. Stop being pathetic or you will continue to fail. Seriously, you don't seem to understand the nature of business at all. So long as that remains to be true, people will take advantage of that fact and you will never do what's necessary to improve your economic situation.

Right, u sure can change the world by urself. Get real.
.

Well that sucks, but you have to look at it as an opportunity or you will continue to suck hind-tit.

This world sucks even harder because of opportunist like u like richard f. lets assume u will become the next victim

That is just retarded whining. Note your list is entirely negative. Now write a list of the great things about capitalism. Are you capable? If not, then have you considered the possibility that your whiny, negative attitude is what keeps you poor? Blame everyone else, that's the ticket.

Instead of whining other peoples opinion, y don't u give some real suggestion?

Can you tell me why that is a good thing? Seriously, this isn't a trick question. It makes perfect sense and is quite natural that you work for it while thinking it isn't working for you under what conditions? You do realize capitalism is analagous to nature no?

nature? what the heck? not everyone like to lie, deceive ppl as such, so those honest ppl deserve to lose?

Lol, no - capitalism is more of an observation than an invention or a lie. Socialist / Leftist stuff is capitalism is elitist's clothing. Every system you can surmise is just a twisted form of capitalism specifically designed to benefit a particular segment of population, generally: the motherfuckers in charge.

Well maybe that's only mostly true, but regardless of the intention of the designer(s), that's what ends up happening because the human mind is a capitilistic machine. It seeks what it values, infallably.

Seems we cannot convince each other, settle it with war then

 

[wesmorris]

Why are you interpreting what I wrote in such negative ways? I don't mean that. Also, capitalism is not about win-win, most people have to lose in order to create a winner.

Incorrect. Not all people compete against each other. If you provide a valuable service at a fair price, you win, your customer wins. That is what win-win means.

Good catch. I have to become scum like richard f to win. I need to deceive ppl and the world

While the corporate world is rather disgusting along those lines, generally speaking - fuck them. Do your own thing if there's no other option you can find. Sell freaking cookies if you can figure out how to sell enough of them to make a living. I sell computer service and manage to make a living.

Do you understand how difficult now it is to turn things around now? There r no opportunities like your good old days...

? My good old days? In my "good old days" I was a whining pessimist like you.

Lets bet when u will lose ur job.

Well I doubt I fire me, and my customers generally like me. In fact because of that, two of the biggest opportuties in my life have sprung up within the last year. Both are just at the ground floor of development, but I'm quite excited at the potential.

Right, u sure can change the world by urself. Get real.

I'm more real than you I'd say, as you sound like a quitter. Actually there's probably no hope for you because you've already decided everything and everyone but you sucks. People don't like people who think they suck and as such, you will continue to do so. People react to other to whom they can relate or who offer them something of value. What value do you offer? More importantly, what value could you offer (that doesn't make you feel dirty inside). I mean seriously, start a freaking landscaping business or something. Take a 'regular' job that has 'regular' hours and do something 'on your own' in the evenings until you figure out the mechanics of the whole deal, then do it switch it to your main thing.

This world sucks even harder because of opportunist like u like richard f. lets assume u will become the next victim

I hate dishonest scumbags who only want your money. They make me sick. i want to provide you a service that warrants you wanting to give me money. I don't know how I'm going to be someone's victim like you say. I'm my own ticket to goodness or failure. If i start pissign off my customers, I'll starve and be forced to find a crappy corporate gig or something, or come up with a new idea for providing service. Hopefully though, these two deals I'm starting on will make me a financially happy dude.

Instead of whining other peoples opinion, y don't u give some real suggestion?

sorry I charge for that. (lol). you've got a degree, figure it out. open your mind to the way the world IS, not the way you think it should be. if all your thoughts on the matter are death or destruction related, realize you're doing a bad job. the world is what you make of it. when you make something positive of it....

nature? what the heck? not everyone like to lie, deceive ppl as such, so those honest ppl deserve to lose?

you are really, REALLY jaded if you think the options are "lie and succeed" or "be honest and fail". that's just childish. fire yourself, then rehire the you that doesn't think all that is, sucks. seriously, you're kind of screwed up. it doesn't have to stay that way, so quit it. find a way to become positive. do not be a sink, be a source. don't rob yourself of the joy there is in life. maybe you're just in a bad situation and need to change it, so freakin change it. consider options you wouldn't normally consider. move to a new country if you have to, whatever has to be done (that doesn't hurt or rob anyone) has to be done.

one simple thing to do for instance is consider a service or product you could easily offer and then.... ADVERTISE. You'd be surprised how a simple well placed ad can change your life. I started with business personals and moved on to yellow pages and internet. it's working so far, though it took a while to build up a customer base.

 

[wesmorris]

to note: a customer of mine just bought me all the cabinets for my kitchen because I do a lot of crap for her and will continue to do so. it's one of those fabled "win-win" situations that supposedly don't exist as far as your comprehension allows.

 

[Read-Only]

There's a very clear tone coming through in this thread and all the others that relate to anti-capitalism. The VAST majority of those opposed to it are like the OP who thinks that everything should be simply handed to them.

And the underlying causes are quite clear also. Those particular people or lazy, lack the drive and ambition to succeed or are simply too dumb to know how to work within the system to make it pay for them. And I'm NOT talking about lying and/or cheating - I mean things like knowing how to recognize genuine opportunities when they arise, not being afraid to take risks when the odds are in their favor, etc.

The biggest majority of us here were not so prideful that we avoided starting to work at the minimum wage level. That's exactly how I began at age 18 and by age 52 I had made my first million - without cheating or lying in any form. I kept my eyes and options open and managed to add another eight million to my net worth in the 13 years following that.

Yes, it took a LOT of work - HARD work. But the key isn't simply hard work or long hours, it's working SMART with a goal in mind. A definite goal - not some pie-in-the-sky like so many wishful thinkers here dream of. people like the OP and others in that group are just like leaves in the wind. A ship with no rudder just floundering around in the waves and rapidly going nowhere.

 

[Billy T]

There's a very clear tone coming through in this thread and all the others that relate to anti-capitalism. ....Yes, it took a LOT of work - HARD work. But the key isn't simply hard work or long hours, it's working SMART with a goal in mind. A definite goal - not some pie-in-the-sky like so many wishful thinkers here dream of. ...

I agree with much of your post, but there may be an undercurrent in it too that seems to equate achievements with financial gains. If there is, I want to correct that.

The goals one strives to achieve with hard work need not be money. I know a lady (wife's niece) and her husband in their 40s who often lack funds, but are very successful in the NYC performing arts (mainly based on dance often as form of political statements / satire) She also is part time lecturer at Princeton, City College, and some other universities. Her husband is also giving courses and leader of some foundation sponsored programs. This after 25 years of hard and very creative work. Both are "ego hogs" with scrap books filled with, generally favorable, newspaper review clippings etc. of their performances. For years she lived in a tiny no-elevator fourth-floor walk-up one-bedroom flat in the Soho district of NYC. Now they have an apartment in Brooklyn. Both enjoy their work and are well respected by their peers for their achievements.

I am another case, but did end up with wealth, because of my frugal nature and ability to see the economic forest, even if not recognizing all the trees in it. My goal has been to understand things -why I went into physics. I came out of the public schools of West Virginia and entered a special 5 year program at Cornell that was later dropped as too difficult. (It met all the engineering and all the liberal arts college requirements with never less than 25 credit hours / semester and one semester had 5 labs/ week.) To keep an 85 average my full scholarship required, I worked like a two dogs to get thru and also earned my food by washing dishes. Getting my Ph.D. later at Johns Hopkins was relative easy as I enjoyed being a "professional student" and took almost 7 years to do it. (Marriage made me decide to get out and take a "real job") After that it was all downhill. I was well paid for work I enjoyed and often allowed great freedom to do what interested me (mainly energy and medical projects). It was so enjoyable, I often felt a little guilty - what am I doing to earn all this?

Thus, I have always had a high opinion* of independent laborers such as Joe the Plumber and Joe American, factory worker types, who often may not enjoy their work, but do it anyway for the financial rewards it gives. They are what keep the economy going. It is in trouble now because too many of them have been screwed. The best us more academic types can claim is that we help make it function in the future. Not only do I still love to learn, I love to teach - main reason I am active here.
--------------
*I have some socially liberal leanings, especially for good eductional opportunites for all plus low cost (or even no cost if need be) preventive health care for all. Thus, I have often thought that paying people like me well and the garbage collector poorly is not correct. Job should be auctioned off to the qualified. I would have bid for mine at much lower salary than I was paid. I did work ~5 hours every Saturday for more than a year for free in a primate lab run by a neurosurgeon.

 

[matthew809]

There's a very clear tone coming through in this thread and all the others that relate to anti-capitalism. The VAST majority of those opposed to it are like the OP who thinks that everything should be simply handed to them.

And the underlying causes are quite clear also. Those particular people or lazy, lack the drive and ambition to succeed or are simply too dumb to know how to work within the system to make it pay for them. And I'm NOT talking about lying and/or cheating - I mean things like knowing how to recognize genuine opportunities when they arise, not being afraid to take risks when the odds are in their favor, etc.

The biggest majority of us here were not so prideful that we avoided starting to work at the minimum wage level. That's exactly how I began at age 18 and by age 52 I had made my first million - without cheating or lying in any form. I kept my eyes and options open and managed to add another eight million to my net worth in the 13 years following that.

Yes, it took a LOT of work - HARD work. But the key isn't simply hard work or long hours, it's working SMART with a goal in mind. A definite goal - not some pie-in-the-sky like so many wishful thinkers here dream of. people like the OP and others in that group are just like leaves in the wind. A ship with no rudder just floundering around in the waves and rapidly going nowhere.

I detect a clear tone here myself- those with success stories tend to rationalize and accept the pitfalls of capitalism. Well, to point out the obvious, we all can't be millionaires. But that's ok, because the world wouldn't work if we all had that kind of money. We all can't have heightened levels of ambition and drive, which are such important factors in being a millionaire. That's ok though, because this world can't function without the simple folk.

Most of us who oppose capitalism don't think that things should be handed to us. In fact, I'd guess that it's the exact opposite. Us lesser folk have been put down and overlooked by the upper class forever, and WE are the ones who KNOW the real value of work and quite frankly have been brainwashed to believe that we DON'T deserve more benefits for what we do.

Your aristocratic attitude towards the "dumb" and "lazy" people tells more of your value than any amount in your bank account.

 

[Read-Only]

I detect a clear tone here myself- those with success stories tend to rationalize and accept the pitfalls of capitalism. Well, to point out the obvious, we all can't be millionaires. But that's ok, because the world wouldn't work if we all had that kind of money. We all can't have heightened levels of ambition and drive, which are such important factors in being a millionaire. That's ok though, because this world can't function without the simple folk.

Most of us who oppose capitalism don't think that things should be handed to us. In fact, I'd guess that it's the exact opposite. Us lesser folk have been put down and overlooked by the upper class forever, and WE are the ones who KNOW the real value of work and quite frankly have been brainwashed to believe that we DON'T deserve more benefits for what we do.

Your aristocratic attitude towards the "dumb" and "lazy" people tells more of your value than any amount in your bank account.

Not in the least. Go back through this thread and related ones and look at who is whining and crying - and what they are whining and crying about. While you may (or may not) be an exception, it's very clear that many of them DO want things handed to them. And blame those of us with a little wealth of making "slaves" out of them. A major part of what I was saying is that I actually worked - starting with minimum wages - for what I have. And the second major part is that they should do the same. IF they want to increase their financial standing. Anyone can live comfortably - IF they want to do what's necessary to attain that. It WILL require work and it may require additional education. But the whole thing is entirely up to the individual to MAKE it work out that way. And many seem to simply refuse to do what it takes.

 

[matthew809]

Not in the least. Go back through this thread and related ones and look at who is whining and crying - and what they are whining and crying about. While you may (or may not) be an exception, it's very clear that many of them DO want things handed to them. And blame those of us with a little wealth of making "slaves" out of them. A major part of what I was saying is that I actually worked - starting with minimum wages - for what I have. And the second major part is that they should do the same. IF they want to increase their financial standing. Anyone can live comfortably - IF they want to do what's necessary to attain that. It WILL require work and it may require additional education. But the whole thing is entirely up to the individual to MAKE it work out that way. And many seem to simply refuse to do what it takes.

I do not disagree with what you are saying. I don't blame anyone for taking advantage of the system. There are some who are better at it, and I commend those who put in the extra effort and risk, and I definitely think that they deserve more money than others. The question is how much exactly? In capitalism, there is no oversight on this matter- no unbiased distributor of wealth. How many people's misfortune is acceptable to support one man's success? Is collateral misery actually necessary for success to flourish, or is there a better way?

There are 3 types of people in capitalism:

1)Those who are under payed for the value of their work
2)Those who are payed equally for the value of their work
3)Those who are over payed for the value of their work

Given the free-for-all nature of capitalism, I would guess that roughly 99% of the population falls into category 1 or 3, with category 2 being achieved on rare occasion by the laws of probability- not by actual intentional fairness. Capitalism therefore devalues work by it's very nature. A fair system would have only category 2, and value would not be determined by the effected profiteers, but by an unbiased, omniscient system.

 

[Pandaemoni]

This might be so; but are we incapable of better? Why not at least a socialist system?

It depends on what you mean by your terms. Capitalism is a system of economic order. Socialism is a political system. One influences the other, but they are not opposing things. Europe is both socialist and capitalist. Capitalism has dominated western economic organization since the end of mercantilism, even before we had a name for it.

Recognizing market failures and imperfections and regulating to control their impact is completely consistent with capitalism.

With that in mind, the problem is that we are incapable of better. There just is no one and no group better at allocating assets to their highest valued use than markets, and by "value" economists mean personal satisfaction or happiness. That is not to say that it is perfect, it isn't, but from a Rawlsian perspective, if you know you were going to be dropped into a society, not knowing if you would be born privileged or poverty-stricken, I suspect most people might have a hard time deciding which capitalist country to join, but I doubt many would choose from the communist or feudal countries that have existed over the course of history.

 

[wesmorris]

There are 3 types of people in capitalism:

1)Those who are under payed for the value of their work
2)Those who are payed equally for the value of their work
3)Those who are over payed for the value of their work

Given the free-for-all nature of capitalism, I would guess that roughly 99% of the population falls into category 1 or 3, with category 2 being achieved on rare occasion by the laws of probability- not by actual intentional fairness. Capitalism therefore devalues work by it's very nature. A fair system would have only category 2, and value would not be determined by the effected profiteers, but by an unbiased, omniscient system.

How does one exactly establish the value of work?

If you are offered a wage and you accept it, you get what it's worth to the employer in exchange. That means that all work inherently falls into category 2 of your list.

By stating it as you have, you project your opinion of value onto interactions between others as a form of moral imperative or mandate. I think that's unfair. What you have decided is 'fair' isn't necessarily relevant to them.

It seems as if you've mistaken what you think is value for value in the general case. In the case of exchanging work for compensation, isn't the value established by the person offering work? If a person agrees to whatever compensation is offered, hasn't the person accepted it as fair?