What is capitalism ?

[amadeus]

I'm not opposed to corparations in theory, it's in pratice the way they are run at current that I see the problem. When companies like McDonalds and Nike have profit as the number one goal individuals will get stamped over for the good of the company.

What is wrong with profit? That's the sign of success, to have your revenues exceed your expenses. There's no incentive to run a business if the profit motive is removed.

Capitalism is global - many people in jobs do not get paid enough, have few rights and can be sacked at any given time. This is an example of capitalism at the expense of the individual.

People in the free market are paid what they are worth. Aside from that, the concept of "rights" is being stretched out to mean just about anything here. Right to what?

As for an example, well it works the other way also Even in America there are many people for whom the world's current form of capitalism means poverty and unemployement, as jobs move elsewhere and companies relocate.

When we pile on restriction after restriction and make laws that are counterproductive to economic development, who can blame them for moving certain occupations overseas?

I don't see Capitalism in it's current form as benificial to the individual, free trade isn't really free when countries put tarrifs on foriegn goods.

Not beneficial to the individual? What are you smoking? Oh, right, pot.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Corporations are organizations of people, Davo. A majro corporation is not run, owned, or operated by a single individiaul. It takes thousands, sometimes tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

Corporations are hierarchical in structure, and highly un-democratic. A small minority has the power of decision within it; a small minority benefits from the wealth produced by the many. Any idea what we would call a political system organized likewise?
To top it, they are also stuffed with tax-payer's money.

All of those people have jobs, something they wouldn't have if your flimsy economic "theories" were in place

Yes, it goes without saying that everybody employed are employed. But quite a lot of people in societies dominated by corporations are unemployed. And those employed are not necessarily so richly rewarded for the wealth they create for the owners either.Ever heard the term "working poor"?

Show me a place where people are truly "better off" because of a lack in economic freedom. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. If you have the nerve to cite quasi-socialist economies like Sweden or such, they are anomalies and nothing more. The rest of the world can afford to support their burdens.

Economic freedom for whom?
It is only too easy to find places better off; most if not all industrialized first-world countries has less poverty and less economical inequality than the US.
Regarding anomalies, I think a society that mostly seems to be beefing up the military and throwing money after the super-rich would more suitably deserve such a description, at least in a normal world.

 

[ComradeDavo]

What is wrong with profit? That's the sign of success, to have your revenues exceed your expenses. There's no incentive to run a business if the profit motive is removed.:

There's nothing wrong with profit, what is wrong in my eyes is profit at other people's expense.

People in the free market are paid what they are worth. Aside from that, the concept of "rights" is being stretched out to mean just about anything here. Right to what?

They are not paid what thay are worth, that is clearly wrong. African kids getting paid 3p a minute to sow Nike footballs is hardly 'what they are worth'. Even in countries like the UK and the US their are many people are not paid what they are 'worth'. Cleaning toilets is just a worthy job as a bank manager, yet the first is on £5 an hour and the 2nd on more like £20 an hour.

And rights to a decent wage, a decent pension, decent holiday leave, decent working conditions....

When we pile on restriction after restriction and make laws that are counterproductive to economic development, who can blame them for moving certain occupations overseas?

Well, for a start I didn't jsut mean overseas. Ever heard of a city named Detriot? Big car boom, lots of companies move there. Rescesion, companies move out and leave many people unemployed.

Not beneficial to the individual? What are you smoking? Oh, right, pot.

No pot today. Haven't had any for quite a while.

And your idea of the individual is select people who do well. My idea of the individual is every single person in this world, for they are all individuals, and if capitalism really was benificial to the individual then everyone would be earning a decent wage.

 

[amadeus]

The very same thing can be said about governments, tirannical or not. Every system, even "evil marxism", are pretty much "individual systems" as well, Sharpe, what shatters the point of your retort completely.

Break it down to the lowest common denominator. Of course Castro or the Ayatollah couldn't run a country by themselves individually, but they still maintain absolute control over every aspect of society through proxies and puppets. Steve Ballmer certainly doesn't have as much power as someone like Castro.

Tell that to the million of unemployed people in the world. Disregarding the capitalism where it is unsucessful is a tremendous fallacy. You can't overlook what you don't like and consider only the sucessful aspects when judging a certain theory.

Show me a system that guarantees full productive employment.

So one can point them, but they are "no more than anormalities".

Pffff... considering that the number of people who are poor is much, much higher than the number of rich people - and in fact, the number of people in the world which are below the line of poverty is several times larger than the number of really rich people - one could make a strong argument that sucess is as much an aberration to capitalism as the "quasi-socialist" nations that you mentioned (and these are nowhere near quasi-socialists, they are capitalist all the way, but that is another story).

If you look at the countries themselves, poor countries are poor not because they are the martyrs of capitalism but because of corruption, red tape, and internal political strife.

I can't explain why individuals are "poor," which is in itself a relative term anyway.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

There's nothing wrong with profit, what is wrong in my eyes is profit at other people's expense.

One does not ingage in trade unless he hopes to obtain some sort of gain from it. For the worker his working hours is worth less than the money he gets for it. For the employer, his money he pays are worth less than the labour of the employed. They both gain as a consequence of the trade. Nobody is robbing noone.

They are not paid what thay are worth, that is clearly wrong. African kids getting paid 3p a minute to sow Nike footballs is hardly 'what they are worth'. Even in countries like the UK and the US their are many people are not paid what they are 'worth'. Cleaning toilets is just a worthy job as a bank manager, yet the first is on £5 an hour and the 2nd on more like £20 an hour.

By what measure can you grade the "worthiness" of certain kinds of work? What is it in the structure of "work" that gives it such an objective value, clearly there for all to see?

Well, for a start I didn't jsut mean overseas. Ever heard of a city named Detriot? Big car boom, lots of companies move there. Rescesion, companies move out and leave many people unemployed.

Note that those people would not have been employed in the first place had the companies not moved in there. They don't have a duty to provide labour as it is not a duty of the employer to accept it.

 

[amadeus]

There's nothing wrong with profit, what is wrong in my eyes is profit at other people's expense.

Who's expense does McDonald's profit come from? I'd like to know what you mean by all of these conditions you set.

They are not paid what thay are worth, that is clearly wrong. African kids getting paid 3p a minute to sow Nike footballs is hardly 'what they are worth'.

Is sewing cheap rubber footballs really a highly developed skill that takes time and precision? What of the government in Africa that endorses this practice? Their is no mention made of them. Nobody here supports serfdom.

Even in countries like the UK and the US their are many people are not paid what they are 'worth'. Cleaning toilets is just a worthy job as a bank manager, yet the first is on £5 an hour and the 2nd on more like £20 an hour.

I'll doubt that the custodian has a master's degree in accounting and business administration. Anyone who isn't allergic to toilet scrubbing soap can pretty much be hired as custodial staff, but it takes more effort to become a manager of a bank.

And rights to a decent wage, a decent pension, decent holiday leave, decent working conditions....

I think you're seeing rights where they don't exist.

Well, for a start I didn't jsut mean overseas. Ever heard of a city named Detriot? Big car boom, lots of companies move there. Rescesion, companies move out and leave many people unemployed.

The reason Detroit is a mess is because of Japanese imported cars. They can build them faster and cheaper than American laborers.

No pot today. Haven't had any for quite a while.

Hey, I was kidding. It was a line from the Simpsons (Otto.)

And your idea of the individual is select people who do well. My idea of the individual is every single person in this world, for they are all individuals, and if capitalism really was benificial to the individual then everyone would be earning a decent wage.

There's no kind of system could exist and sustain itself by doing that as of yet. It'll take a while as production efficiency increases.

 

[ComradeDavo]

One does not ingage in trade unless he hopes to obtain some sort of gain from it. For the worker his working hours is worth less than the money he gets for it. For the employer, his money he pays are worth less than the labour of the employed. They both gain as a consequence of the trade. Nobody is robbing noone.

I think you are under the illusion that people only do jobs they want to.

When there are job shortages and you are desperate for cash you are forced into doing any job available.

By what measure can you grade the "worthiness" of certain kinds of work? What is it in the structure of "work" that gives it such an objective value, clearly there for all to see?

Well, the amount of effort required. Of course it is difficult to rate how much worth doing a job is, but balance can be achieved with taxation and good public services.

Note that those people would not have been employed in the first place had the companies not moved in there. They don't have a duty to provide labour as it is not a duty of the employer to accept it.

Note that had they not been tehre to do the work then those companies would not have made any money. You seem to be placing companys above individuals - my exact point that capitalism is about corparations not individuals.

 

[Akka]

You shouldn't waste your breath like that, Davo.
There is about as much point to this, than to try to explain Evolution to a Creationist.

Waste of time to try to explain something to a faith fanatic.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Who's expense does McDonald's profit come from? I'd like to know what you mean by all of these conditions you set.

Well, in regards to McDonalds, their profit comes at the expense of other fast food companies who can not compete with them (big buisness is by nature anti-small buisness) and noteably where they have mistreated workers (there have been many cases) and also in reards to their quite ruthless farming (e.g. in South America) at the expense of local eco-systems.

Is sewing cheap rubber footballs really a highly developed skill that takes time and precision? What of the government in Africa that endorses this practice? Their is no mention made of them. Nobody here supports serfdom.

If you don't support serfdom then you woudl want to see a change in the system to force the multi-nationals to pay decent wages. Sure, governments in Africa are corrupt and blame does need to be put on them, buts that no excuse for exploiting workers.

I'll doubt that the custodian has a master's degree in accounting and business administration. Anyone who isn't allergic to toilet scrubbing soap can pretty much be hired as custodial staff, but it takes more effort to become a manager of a bank.

Maybe so, but there are a whole host of 'what ifs'. Example - what if the toilet cleaner couldn't go to a decent uni because they couldn't afford it? Whilst the bank manager's parents paid their way?

I think you're seeing rights where they don't exist.

I'm saying they should exist.

The reason Detroit is a mess is because of Japanese imported cars. They can build them faster and cheaper than American laborers.

Maybe so, and there you have capitalism in action, ruthless in the way it casts asides it's workers when goods can be made cheaper elsewhere.

Hey, I was kidding. It was a line from the Simpsons (Otto.)

There's no kind of system could exist and sustain itself by doing that as of yet. It'll take a while as production efficiency increases.

Well of course.

 

[ComradeDavo]

You shouldn't waste your breath like that, Davo.
There is about as much point to this, than to try to explain Evolution to a Creationist.

Waste of time to try to explain something to a faith fanatic.

Maybe so, but 'know your enemy' as they say It is good to find out the otehr sides logic, and sometimes this helps you to elvolve yours!

 

[Mise]

Then go ahead and define it

I've been through this before and I don't think much will come of it, but essentially, if someone is taken advantage of because of their ignorance, desperate circumstances, or some other "unfair" practice, it is exploitation.

 

[amadeus]

Corporations are hierarchical in structure, and highly un-democratic. A small minority has the power of decision within it; a small minority benefits from the wealth produced by the many. Any idea what we would call a political system organized likewise?
To top it, they are also stuffed with tax-payer's money.

It's misleading to state that a small minoritiy of individuals benefit when those people supposedly being trampled on are given many of the success enjoyed by the corporation. The average salary for a CEO of a major corporation is $11.8 million. Last year Toys 'R' Us had revenues of $11.8 billion.

Yes, it goes without saying that everybody employed are employed. But quite a lot of people in societies dominated by corporations are unemployed. And those employed are not necessarily so richly rewarded for the wealth they create for the owners either.

When you consider the opportunities of even the lowest wage earners today with that of the average person 50 or 100 years ago, you're talking about living in a dream world. Now I'm talking just about the U.S. here, global economics is another issue. Of course nobody wants to work for minimum wage, but how many people actally do? It's actually more lucrative to apply for welfare, which about 15 million Americans receive as a source of income, either through welfare or unemployment benefits. Half of people earning the minimum wage are under the age of 25. Half of that half are under 19.

Ever heard the term "working poor"?

I'm living it and will not tell you anything further.

Economic freedom for whom?

For everyone.

It is only too easy to find places better off; most if not all industrialized first-world countries has less poverty and less economical inequality than the US.

Not by much, though. Look up the numbers.

Regarding anomalies, I think a society that mostly seems to be beefing up the military and throwing money after the super-rich would more suitably deserve such a description, at least in a normal world.

The United States is an anomaly, but not in terms of economic power. That was attained through hard work and an environment that promotes individual economic freedoms.

 

[luiz]

Well, the amount of effort required. Of course it is difficult to rate how much worth doing a job is, but balance can be achieved with taxation and good public services.

So if I start digging holes in my (hypothetical) backyard I should be rewarded handsomely?
Let's say I do it 18 hours a day, non-stop. Clearly the ammount of effort I'm putting into is bigger then the ammount of effort that 99% of the workers put in their works. Should I be payed more then 99% of the workers?

There is no inherent value in labour or effort. That's the fundamental flaw of your reasoning, and for that matter all socialistic reasoning.

The value of a certain work, as well as of anything, is purely subjective and varies from people to people, society to society. I certainly don't deny that toilet cleaning requires as much effort as bank managing. But so what? Society as whole values bank managing more, and hence are willing to pay bank managers more. You can't just say that because the toillet cleaner is putting as much effort he should have a roughly equilavent reward. Otherwise I demand money for the holes I hypothetically digged in my hypothetical backyard.

 

[ComradeDavo]

So if I start digging holes in my (hypothetical) backyard I should be rewarded handsomely?
Let's say I do it 18 hours a day, non-stop. Clearly the ammount of effort I'm putting into is bigger then the ammount of effort that 99% of the workers put in their works. Should I be payed more then 99% of the workers?

There is no inherent value in labour or effort. That's the fundamental flaw of your reasoning, and for that matter all socialistic reasoning.

The value of a certain work, as well as of anything, is purely subjective and varies from people to people, society to society. I certainly don't deny that toilet cleaning requires as much effort as bank managing. But so what? Society as whole values bank managing more, and hence are willing to pay bank managers more. You can't just say that because the toillet cleaner is putting as much effort he should have a roughly equilavent reward. Otherwise I demand money for the hole I hypothetically digged in my hypothetical backyard.

I'm not saying that they should be payed exactly the same or whatever, as i've made clear many time I believe in a tax and spend wealfare state. A mixture of capitalism and socialism.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Corporations are hierarchical in structure, and highly un-democratic. A small minority has the power of decision within it; a small minority benefits from the wealth produced by the many. Any idea what we would call a political system organized likewise?
To top it, they are also stuffed with tax-payer's money.

Not at all. One share - one vote, there's nothing undemocratic about it. If you don't like a certain corporation you are free not to buy its shares and its products. Corporate welfare is a different thing and not in accordance with what I see as free-market Capitalism.

Yes, it goes without saying that everybody employed are employed. But quite a lot of people in societies dominated by corporations are unemployed. And those employed are not necessarily so richly rewarded for the wealth they create for the owners either.Ever heard the term "working poor"?

Ask yourself this: would those people be better off if those mentioned corporations would not do business there?

Regarding anomalies, I think a society that mostly seems to be beefing up the military and throwing money after the super-rich would more suitably deserve such a description, at least in a normal world.

Real a real free market would be opposed to both militarism and statism.

 

[Mise]

So if I start digging holes in my (hypothetical) backyard I should be rewarded handsomely?
Let's say I do it 18 hours a day, non-stop. Clearly the ammount of effort I'm putting into is bigger then the ammount of effort that 99% of the workers put in their works. Should I be payed more then 99% of the workers?

There is no inherent value in labour or effort. That's the fundamental flaw of your reasoning, and for that matter all socialistic reasoning.

The value of a certain work, as well as of anything, is purely subjective and varies from people to people, society to society. I certainly don't deny that toilet cleaning requires as much effort as bank managing. But so what? Society as whole values bank managing more, and hence are willing to pay bank managers more. You can't just say that because the toillet cleaner is putting as much effort he should have a roughly equilavent reward. Otherwise I demand money for the holes I hypothetically digged in my hypothetical backyard.

Of course that would be rediculous. David Beckham earning whatever-the-hell-millions-of-pounds-per-year is also rediculous.

And I'm sure that, as a capitalist, you would not object to someone paying that man millions of pounds per year for digging a hole in his back garden...

 

[Richard Cribb]

Not at all. One share - one vote, there's nothing undemocratic about it. If you don't like a certain corporation you are free not to buy its shares and its products. Corporate welfare is a different thing and not in accordance with what I see as free-market Capitalism.

It is not so easy.
In a democracy the principle is one person one vote disregarding of wealth. But perhaps you will answer my question; what would you call a political system organized in this way?

Ask yourself this: would those people be better off if those mentioned corporations would not do business there?

If corporations were allowed to keep their unearned privileges no. If not, yes.

Real a real free market would be opposed to both militarism and statism.

This is not about free markets, it is about the real existing capitalism.

 

[Richard Cribb]

It's misleading to state that a small minoritiy of individuals benefit when those people supposedly being trampled on are given many of the success enjoyed by the corporation. The average salary for a CEO of a major corporation is $11.8 million. Last year Toys 'R' Us had revenues of $11.8 billion.

And how much do a normal employee earn?

When you consider the opportunities of even the lowest wage earners today with that of the average person 50 or 100 years ago, you're talking about living in a dream world. Now I'm talking just about the U.S. here, global economics is another issue. Of course nobody wants to work for minimum wage, but how many people actally do? It's actually more lucrative to apply for welfare, which about 15 million Americans receive as a source of income, either through welfare or unemployment benefits. Half of people earning the minimum wage are under the age of 25. Half of that half are under 19.

Yes I know that mainly during the struggle of organized labour against those corporations some things has changed to the better. But the fact remains that the economical differences are still enormous, which is also a democratic problem, and that many people live an undignified life.
Regarding minimum wage, if it is so low that welfare is better (which I doubt any way), then it just illuminates the ills of such a system. Why not increasing the minimum wage so people could live on it?

I'm living it and will not tell you anything further.

This seems to not be in accord with things I have read on this forum efore. Am I really getting so old?

For everyone.

If freedom means to sell your labour in a system which is favouring the buyer of labour then I guess I have to brush up my English.

Not by much, though. Look up the numbers.

Compared to the overall wealth I think I will find that it is quite substantial.

The United States is an anomaly, but not in terms of economic power. That was attained through hard work and an environment that promotes individual economic freedoms.

I am afraid it is a bit more complicated than that.

 

[luiz]

I'm not saying that they should be payed exactly the same or whatever, as i've made clear many time I believe in a tax and spend wealfare state. A mixture of capitalism and socialism.

Of course that would be rediculous. David Beckham earning whatever-the-hell-millions-of-pounds-per-year is also rediculous.

And I'm sure that, as a capitalist, you would not object to someone paying that man millions of pounds per year for digging a hole in his back garden...

I'm a bit confused here. So, in your opinions(which I assume are very similar in this issue), is there an inherent value of labour and effort or not? If not, how come you still want to dictate or interfer in one's earnings based on effort? If yes, how come I don't get paid to dig holes in my backyard?

@mise specifically: of course I'd never oppose to someone getting paid millions to dig holes in his backyard, assuming it was a consenting contract. It's just that I'd never force anyone to pay anything for someone doing that, regardless of the effort. Just like I would not force an employer to increase the wage of a toillet cleaner, regardless of the effort that such job requires.

 

[Mise]

I'm a bit confused here. So, in your opinions(which I assume are very similar in this issue), is there an inherent value of labour and effort or not? If not, how come you still want to dictate or interfer in one's earnings based on effort? If yes, how come I don't get paid to dig holes in my backyard?

There IS an inherent value in labour, or else people wouldn't shy away from digging holes for no money.

Labour may not be worth anything, but it certainly costs something.