Einherjar86
Active Member
Indeed, it does. I don't completely agree, but I think we can leave it, civilly, at that.
Capitalism vs Communism
- Thread starter Norsemaiden
- Start date
Indeed, it does. I don't completely agree, but I think we can leave it, civilly, at that.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
The much touted claim that capitalism exploits the poor to serve the interests of the rich is historically backward. In the alleged good ol' days of Medieval Europe(idealized by thinkers like John Ruskin and Hillaire Belloc), the overwhelming majority of people either toiled in the fields to which they were bound or they worked at a craft heavily regulated by a guild. All the while, the elite aristocracy had a virtual monopoly on luxury goods.
This all changed with the rise of modern capitalism. Instead of trying to entice a few rich clients, emerging businessmen catered to the newly empowered working class. Think about it, it's silly to build a factory unless you plan on having thousands of customers. The huge increase in production allowed more and more families the luxury of keeping their kids out of the labor force. During this "terrible" transition into the capitalist era, infant mortality dropped and life expectancy rose. An average blue collar worker under capitalism was/is immensely wealthy compared to the kings of the feudal period.
Another source for major economic confusion in many people's minds is the difference between correlation and causation. Like, many of you think that because the standard of living improved for the workers at the same time that gov't interventions have multiplied, you assume that labor unions and gov't regulations are the source of the improvement- mainly because labor unions and big government, and all their fans, relentlessly tell you so. But this is wrong, it is the triumph of capitalism that improved living and economic conditions.
Take child labor, for instance. This is probably the best example of the confusion over correlation and causation. Yeah, kids worked in factories. Many people think the gov't stepped in and mercifully spared future generations of kiddies the grime and misery of grinding as a cog in the capitalist machine.
But does this even make sense? Think about it. If child labor was legalized tomorrow, would you send your 7 year old to the factories to bring home an extra $200 or so a month(after taxes)? No way. If a country becomes wealthy enough that it is "obvious" that kids don't need to work, then parents don't need to elect officials to tell them this. And if a country isn't that wealthy like in many other places in the world- then government bans simply force the children into illegal operations(like prostitution) so their families won't starve.
Yeah, unions were historically among those urging for restrictions on child labor, but their motives were far from benevolent. Concern for their paychecks rather than for the poor kids drove their agitation.
Then of course there is the Law Of Unintended Consequences aka side effects when gov't steps in to solve problems through coercion:
-Welfare benefits may encourage out-of-wedlock births and therefore increase poverty and crime.
-Rent control may make it difficult for poor people to find decent housing
-Laws requiring child-resistant packaging for medicine may cause the elderly to store pills in unmarked containers, leading to more overdoses.
-Curfews may reduce petty crime but increase violent crime as cops are diverted and a large number of eyewitnesses are off the streets at night.
The worst economic depression happened in the 1930's and not in the mid or late 1800's. And capitalism didn't cause it; The Federal Reserve and government mismanagement did. This isn't The Grapes Of Wrath, this is real life.
So you guys think the "robber barons" under unchecked capitalism ran rampant eh? That is also a fallacy. Entrepreneurs like John D. Rockefeller and Charles Schwab achieved their dominance through cutting costs and pleasing customers- like all successful capitalists do. Like Vanderbilt for example, who first achieved notoriety when he (illegally) challenged the monopoly on New York State steamboat traffic that the government had granted to Robert Fulton.
Again, true monopolists must rely on government privilege. In a truly free market, producers cannot force customers to buy their products or prevent others from competing for their business.
Under pure capitalism, a producer can only "control" a market only if he provides a better product at a lower cost and they must constantly improve quality, adjust for variations, and watch expenses lest outsiders enter the market and steal customers away. By contrast, producers who turn to the government for special privileges and regulations, have no incentive for efficiency or customer service. The only thing government was ever good at was being a killjoy.
Now so many people always ask, "So you are saying that if a person arrived in this country, didn't speak english, thought $5 was a lot of money, and got a job picking grapes, bosses would pay them an equal wage?"
To which my reply always is- yes.
That wouldn't matter as competition would prevent this dismal outcome that you imply. If workers were being paid significanltly less than what they added to the bottom line- in economics this is called their marginal revenue product- then outsiders would earn huge profits by jumping into the business and hiring away some of those workers with slightly higher pay. This process would continue until the workers were paid what they were generally worth.
And finally, as for some of you guys' gripes about Big Oil, I know that many Americans were very understandably shocked at the sharp rise in gas prices in the mid-2000's and considered the gains of oil companies to be unfair(especially in a downwardly spiraling economy). Even though prices eventually dropped, politicans and pundits constantly clamored for a windfall profits tax on oil companies or outright price controls. They justified these proposals by claiming the federal gov't has to protect the average car-dependent citizen from the monstrously vicious multinational oil companies.
But this explanation really makes no sense. If the spike in gas prices was due entirely to the greediness of the oil tycoons and the helplessness of the customer, why weren't oil tycoons so greedy and drivers so dependent on gasoline when prices were lower?
Probably because oil company greed and car driver dependence didn't change that much between 2004 and 2005. What changed was supply and demand.
As more countries change and reform their institutions in a free market direction and experience significant economic growth, their demand for oil goes up. Strife and turmoil in the Middle East(along briefly with Hurricane Katrina) led to supply interruptions and the fear of more interruptions in the future. All these factors combined in 2005 and 2006 to push up the price of oil. The price was simply a reflection of economic reality. Taxing "windfall profits" won't repair a pipeline damaged by Iraqi saboteurs; it would actually have the opposite effect. Why the hell would an oil company spend millions of dollars protecting and repairing its supply lines if the government is just going to tax away its profits?
Again, it makes no sense.
Oil companies are in it for the long term. Unlike burger flippers or hair stylists, the people in the oil industry make investments(in drilling, equipment, exploration, etc.) that can take decades to pay off. They justify their investments by making forecasts about the future price of oil. When the prices are high, yes, they will earn high profits, because their infrastructure is already in place. But these are the profitable periods that offset the early years of "losses" when the company pumped money into setting up such an operation.
If the critics truly think this is evil, then they should just start drilling the dirt.
This all changed with the rise of modern capitalism. Instead of trying to entice a few rich clients, emerging businessmen catered to the newly empowered working class. Think about it, it's silly to build a factory unless you plan on having thousands of customers. The huge increase in production allowed more and more families the luxury of keeping their kids out of the labor force. During this "terrible" transition into the capitalist era, infant mortality dropped and life expectancy rose. An average blue collar worker under capitalism was/is immensely wealthy compared to the kings of the feudal period.
Another source for major economic confusion in many people's minds is the difference between correlation and causation. Like, many of you think that because the standard of living improved for the workers at the same time that gov't interventions have multiplied, you assume that labor unions and gov't regulations are the source of the improvement- mainly because labor unions and big government, and all their fans, relentlessly tell you so. But this is wrong, it is the triumph of capitalism that improved living and economic conditions.
Take child labor, for instance. This is probably the best example of the confusion over correlation and causation. Yeah, kids worked in factories. Many people think the gov't stepped in and mercifully spared future generations of kiddies the grime and misery of grinding as a cog in the capitalist machine.
But does this even make sense? Think about it. If child labor was legalized tomorrow, would you send your 7 year old to the factories to bring home an extra $200 or so a month(after taxes)? No way. If a country becomes wealthy enough that it is "obvious" that kids don't need to work, then parents don't need to elect officials to tell them this. And if a country isn't that wealthy like in many other places in the world- then government bans simply force the children into illegal operations(like prostitution) so their families won't starve.
Yeah, unions were historically among those urging for restrictions on child labor, but their motives were far from benevolent. Concern for their paychecks rather than for the poor kids drove their agitation.
Then of course there is the Law Of Unintended Consequences aka side effects when gov't steps in to solve problems through coercion:
-Welfare benefits may encourage out-of-wedlock births and therefore increase poverty and crime.
-Rent control may make it difficult for poor people to find decent housing
-Laws requiring child-resistant packaging for medicine may cause the elderly to store pills in unmarked containers, leading to more overdoses.
-Curfews may reduce petty crime but increase violent crime as cops are diverted and a large number of eyewitnesses are off the streets at night.
The worst economic depression happened in the 1930's and not in the mid or late 1800's. And capitalism didn't cause it; The Federal Reserve and government mismanagement did. This isn't The Grapes Of Wrath, this is real life.
So you guys think the "robber barons" under unchecked capitalism ran rampant eh? That is also a fallacy. Entrepreneurs like John D. Rockefeller and Charles Schwab achieved their dominance through cutting costs and pleasing customers- like all successful capitalists do. Like Vanderbilt for example, who first achieved notoriety when he (illegally) challenged the monopoly on New York State steamboat traffic that the government had granted to Robert Fulton.
Again, true monopolists must rely on government privilege. In a truly free market, producers cannot force customers to buy their products or prevent others from competing for their business.
Under pure capitalism, a producer can only "control" a market only if he provides a better product at a lower cost and they must constantly improve quality, adjust for variations, and watch expenses lest outsiders enter the market and steal customers away. By contrast, producers who turn to the government for special privileges and regulations, have no incentive for efficiency or customer service. The only thing government was ever good at was being a killjoy.
Now so many people always ask, "So you are saying that if a person arrived in this country, didn't speak english, thought $5 was a lot of money, and got a job picking grapes, bosses would pay them an equal wage?"
To which my reply always is- yes.
That wouldn't matter as competition would prevent this dismal outcome that you imply. If workers were being paid significanltly less than what they added to the bottom line- in economics this is called their marginal revenue product- then outsiders would earn huge profits by jumping into the business and hiring away some of those workers with slightly higher pay. This process would continue until the workers were paid what they were generally worth.
And finally, as for some of you guys' gripes about Big Oil, I know that many Americans were very understandably shocked at the sharp rise in gas prices in the mid-2000's and considered the gains of oil companies to be unfair(especially in a downwardly spiraling economy). Even though prices eventually dropped, politicans and pundits constantly clamored for a windfall profits tax on oil companies or outright price controls. They justified these proposals by claiming the federal gov't has to protect the average car-dependent citizen from the monstrously vicious multinational oil companies.
But this explanation really makes no sense. If the spike in gas prices was due entirely to the greediness of the oil tycoons and the helplessness of the customer, why weren't oil tycoons so greedy and drivers so dependent on gasoline when prices were lower?
Probably because oil company greed and car driver dependence didn't change that much between 2004 and 2005. What changed was supply and demand.
As more countries change and reform their institutions in a free market direction and experience significant economic growth, their demand for oil goes up. Strife and turmoil in the Middle East(along briefly with Hurricane Katrina) led to supply interruptions and the fear of more interruptions in the future. All these factors combined in 2005 and 2006 to push up the price of oil. The price was simply a reflection of economic reality. Taxing "windfall profits" won't repair a pipeline damaged by Iraqi saboteurs; it would actually have the opposite effect. Why the hell would an oil company spend millions of dollars protecting and repairing its supply lines if the government is just going to tax away its profits?
Again, it makes no sense.
Oil companies are in it for the long term. Unlike burger flippers or hair stylists, the people in the oil industry make investments(in drilling, equipment, exploration, etc.) that can take decades to pay off. They justify their investments by making forecasts about the future price of oil. When the prices are high, yes, they will earn high profits, because their infrastructure is already in place. But these are the profitable periods that offset the early years of "losses" when the company pumped money into setting up such an operation.
If the critics truly think this is evil, then they should just start drilling the dirt.
Things have improved, or did improve for the working class but big deal, they should have. Just because we dont still live in a full feudal system doesnt mean a correlation cant be found. Im just saying the wide spred in annual incomes does not represent an individual true value to their society. The top needs to come down and the bottom up. Its all too late anyhow, health of a system should never have been based on spending, sooner or later everyone is going to have all they need or desire or can afford and spending will cease, that happened along time ago and was pushed into an extension by the credit fiasco. We only made it thgough the last two decades due to the "tech" industry getting people to buy computers, cell phones, cordless phones and loading cars with all kinds of weighty electronical gimickry. But guess what that has leveled and boomtown is over. Combined with your oil companies milking every last penny for work transportation.
Oil, sorry but I have been under the impression that the oil companies have been well established and running in black for many decades. I could care less what they have to invest, they had the money to do so and if not could find plenty by simply dropping thier executives wages to a cool million...... though I personally feel 100,000 should be plenty to live a good life. I could care less if Katrina ripped down refineries built in the worst possible part of the country, every business suffers losses and has funds set aside to do so, only certain industries are in the position to get what ever they ask for a product because it has become a necessary part of everyday life. The oil companies are one of them so they suffered NO losses from Katrina, exploration or sabatage... in fact they made record profits during such troubling years... the poor creatures. Wallstreet speculation trading had a huge hand in the inflation as well and many made themselves great revenue playing their little games.
You are correct that these developing countries are demanding more oil, we have "globalization" to thank for that as they now have the money from products that were once made in this country when we were productive. "Globalization" was surely capitolisms finest hour, lots of moola made at the top as they tapped these cheap starving labor resources and avoided environmental concerns.
Oil, sorry but I have been under the impression that the oil companies have been well established and running in black for many decades. I could care less what they have to invest, they had the money to do so and if not could find plenty by simply dropping thier executives wages to a cool million...... though I personally feel 100,000 should be plenty to live a good life. I could care less if Katrina ripped down refineries built in the worst possible part of the country, every business suffers losses and has funds set aside to do so, only certain industries are in the position to get what ever they ask for a product because it has become a necessary part of everyday life. The oil companies are one of them so they suffered NO losses from Katrina, exploration or sabatage... in fact they made record profits during such troubling years... the poor creatures. Wallstreet speculation trading had a huge hand in the inflation as well and many made themselves great revenue playing their little games.
You are correct that these developing countries are demanding more oil, we have "globalization" to thank for that as they now have the money from products that were once made in this country when we were productive. "Globalization" was surely capitolisms finest hour, lots of moola made at the top as they tapped these cheap starving labor resources and avoided environmental concerns.
Badbird
Never banned
Maybe in small countries but for the most part, it looks good on paper but bad in practice.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Badbird
Never banned
I was quoting Ein not you Progmatic Galtbeck. I would love to see what Marx thought about Communism from USSR to now. So far we've seen Soviet style communist but no Marxist Communist yet. I think the United States having a communist president won't happen in a long long time from now.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
No, Birdy/Brady(afraid to claim any legitimate individual internet identity), between Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Tito, and Castro; Communism at the end of the day has a murder-corpse bar tab of an estimated 100 million people. Yet an ex-Communist doesn't carry quite the same stigma as an ex-Nazi. Why? Because of racism? Please. Call me a my pals over starving my ass any day.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
And Obama IS a socialist under all four definitions in the dictionary. Proof? http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2008/11/barack-obama-is-socialist.html
Badbird
Never banned
I'm not defending any assholes like Pol Pot, Che, Mao and the rest of the communist leaders. I said besides a small country(and that still a tough one to work) what we seen of communist will never work because of the human factor. Everyone wants their own opinion but leaders like Mao Zedong made them starve to death and lead huge body counts. I agree that I would rather be called the n word than starve to death because I don't agree with the leader views.
I still stand that it looks good on paper but horrible in practice.
Badbird
Never banned
Obama is not a socialist. He might have some influence of it but nowhere close to one. It just name calling by the Rush/Becks/Hannitys/Coulters of the world.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Besides "the human factor", any awareness of the economic inanity in such a doctrine would lead you or anyone else with a rational brain to think otherwise.
Badbird
Never banned
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Look, since you've taken on the most singular despicable human being in history as your avatar I will only say one more thing to you; and nothing more.
There's a saying that Winston Churchill used to say(but he didn't come up with it, but nevertheless) that went something like,
"If you're under 30 and don't believe in socialism, you have no heart. If you're over 30 and still believe in socialism, you have no head".
Since you're still a kid, I know how easy it is to become misguided and cling to the most idiotic things as trends. I did that with black magic. In time, hopefully you will outgrow it. Reading Atlas Shrugged certainly couldn't hurt. You may be surprised at what unlocks in your brain.
Happy trails and tell the assholes over at joblo they can suck a cork out of my cock.
There's a saying that Winston Churchill used to say(but he didn't come up with it, but nevertheless) that went something like,
"If you're under 30 and don't believe in socialism, you have no heart. If you're over 30 and still believe in socialism, you have no head".
Since you're still a kid, I know how easy it is to become misguided and cling to the most idiotic things as trends. I did that with black magic. In time, hopefully you will outgrow it. Reading Atlas Shrugged certainly couldn't hurt. You may be surprised at what unlocks in your brain.
Happy trails and tell the assholes over at joblo they can suck a cork out of my cock.
Badbird
Never banned
Socialist isn't trendy at all. I was explaining that the theory of communist sounds good when reading it but won't work because of many factors. And Marx isn't the most despicable man in history. His ideas were copied by most of the despicable people in history(Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). And I've heard the Winston Churchill quote you posted in your post Galt before. And don't worry, me, QUENTIN, and others are having fun as assholes at Joblo.com
Badbird
Never banned
WTF. New Deal and Gold Standard? You don't know anything about socialist so far from what I've read of your posts on here and Joblo. No president so far has been a socialist and might never happen.
Silver Incubus
Dead Hands Justin
As far as I'm concerned things created out of socialism and communism are good. The main problem with it is that there seems to be an intrinsic need to have people running this Communist or Socialist government. When in fact that the idea is to have a country run by all competent people cut out for their jobs. Workers unions are a great example of a workable communist Idea. Unions have done many great things for the modern worker. Wage increases, benefits, and a way to stand up to your employer who is being unfair in their labour styles.
Nationalized healthcare is a great thing and many European countries offer free or low cost healthcare as does Canada.
The fact that Capitalism in the US seems like the tell all answer to everything makes it a big problem because it is like saying that a hammer is the best tool to fix anything. The best thing I can say about capitalism is that it works....for now... and like all political policy, they will be replaced.
Nationalized healthcare is a great thing and many European countries offer free or low cost healthcare as does Canada.
The fact that Capitalism in the US seems like the tell all answer to everything makes it a big problem because it is like saying that a hammer is the best tool to fix anything. The best thing I can say about capitalism is that it works....for now... and like all political policy, they will be replaced.
Dak
mentat
Yeah, Nationalized healthcare has done so well in European countries they are going bankrupt faster than the US. So awesome. Unions lead to workers who get paid (Well) for doing nothing, look at UAW.
Try again.
Try again.
Please stay away from the crack pipe.
Obama's administration is more right-wing than most of the right-wing governments in Europe.
Firstly, the widely attributed phrase is "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." Secondly, there's no record of him actually saying it. Lrn2history
