Actually that would be Anarchy = Self Discipline, Capitalism = No Discipline For Those Who Control the Capital. Remember: Anarchy is not Chaos, but Capitalism is!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugitive
Printable View
Actually that would be Anarchy = Self Discipline, Capitalism = No Discipline For Those Who Control the Capital. Remember: Anarchy is not Chaos, but Capitalism is!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugitive
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness do not add up to just capitalism. That is a ludicrous assumption that stems from the anti-communist, anti-socialist propaganda that defined the Cold War. Socialism allows for just as much liberty and happiness as free market society. Americans, in general, tend to have a "Fuck you, we're the best on the planet" attitude, which not only keeps us from even giving other systems a good look, but is eating away at the foundations of our nation.
None of the founding fathers would be proud of a race of ignorant, selfish, entitled assholes who think that economically dominating the world is the best way to spread equality and freedom, or would go to war just because a country disagrees with our way of thinking.
"Brought tears to me eyes did that guv'ner" (said in a mock cockney* accent)Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
All joking aside though , I think you put that extremely well. :thumbsup:
*cockney - definition of cockney by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has nothing to do with capitalism. it is nothing more than a statement of intent, emphasizing the importance of the individual over the needs of government or the so-called best interests of the people as a whole. it stems from the simple belief that no man or organization has the right to infringe upon the freedoms of any individual. this includes all freedoms, even those that might be labeled as greed or callousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
though capitalism is never prescribed in any of our founding documents, it is the natural choice for a nation whose creed is the protection of the individuality of all its citizens. with centralized socialist controls the individual is placed secondary to the will of the government and personal success is subject to the whims of a group with the power of life and death over the population. it is a small step to the totalitarian measures that this country was founded to escape from.
with the freedom to prosper must come the freedom to fail, only a fool or a politician could ever believe otherwise. the equality that that declaration spoke of was not the tawdry materialism of a roof over your head and shoes on your feet, but the much more fundamental equality of each man's right to exist without the fear of unwarranted persecution and the opportunity to freely make a better life for himself.
what capitalism offers that socialism can never equal is the opportunity to thrive beyond the constraints of a self-serving government. socialism's downfall is and always has been the naive belief that governments can be trusted. government already has control of military force and the power of the judicial and legislative systems. to allow them to totally dominate the labor and materials of commerce leaves the people at the mercy of an uncaring bureaucracy, with no power of their own.Quote:
Socialism allows for just as much liberty and happiness as free market society.
the failures of both systems are the failures of the people themselves. avarice and an unquenchable thirst for power are the faults of humanity, not of economic ideologies. in an enlightened population any economic system could be made to work, but we are far from such goals. the free markets of capitalism avoid the problems of the consolidation of all the different forms of power that socialism can only aggravate.
such generalizations may seem cool and they may even get you laid, but they are as disingenuous as any such statements are bound to be. the abuses you rail against are not the sole domain of this country, rabid nationalism rears its ugly head in every corner of the world. the real cancers eating away at the soul of this country are the total lack of personal responsibility that is engendered by our growing cult of entitlement and the petty envies of those who fear the power of the individual.Quote:
Americans, in general, tend to have a "Fuck you, we're the best on the planet" attitude, which not only keeps us from even giving other systems a good look, but is eating away at the foundations of our nation.
i don't doubt that our founders would be appalled at the current state of the experiment they began. our species began as creatures of the herd, huddled together for safety. this country would seem to be an attempt to move past this existence of apathetic bovine meanderings and cease our dependence on the mediocrity of the mob. instead of following their lead and embracing the concept of the superiority of the individual, we have merely lapsed back into the primitive habits of our ancestors and created ever larger herds to graze over the dwindling countryside.Quote:
None of the founding fathers would be proud of a race of ignorant, selfish, entitled assholes who think that economically dominating the world is the best way to spread equality and freedom, or would go to war just because a country disagrees with our way of thinking.
delusions- I agree with parts of your arguement and disagree with others, as is expected.
However, I think the real problem begins with the Constitution, if it is in fact how most people here are understanding it, to put the individual first, to desire personal satisfaction over the benefit of all. If this is true, we have a fundamental problem with our country. Also, our country doesn't advocate the personal freedom of the masses, to make each individual more free. It's based off the simple majority rule, regardless if its only by one percent, regardless of right and wrong. This is also a major problem.
before responding i should probably remind any interested party that i am the patient anarchist. i see government as a necessary evil (for the moment) and regard the ideals of the american system as the surest path to regaining the freedom to which we are all born. when faced with a choice between injustice and slavery, i believe we should remember that injustice is an inherent flaw of humanity while slavery is a choice we make to bow down to tyrants.
the bill of rights is meant to define and restrict government's role in society, not the people's. it is designed as a leash on tyranny, not a moral code. we have asked far too much of such a basic document and our refusal to take control of our own lives has handed over the responsibility of molding the nation's ethos to governmental bodies that are wholly unsuited to the task.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
the "fundamental problem" lies not with the nation, but with ourselves. instead of cultivating the finer aspects of our humanity such as charity and empathy, we demand that government take care of the duties that we ourselves should be responsible for.
it is not government's job to "make each individual more free", but to limit the freedoms to which we were all born. there is nothing godlike in our system that enables it to hand out freedom, that is the spark that resides solely in the people themselves.Quote:
Also, our country doesn't advocate the personal freedom of the masses, to make each individual more free.
an independent judiciary was designed to offset what would later be termed "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and to see to it that mob rule did not infringe on the rights of the individual. it has always been a balancing act between the needs of the masses and the rights of the individual and it would seem that the individual is quickly losing his rights to the overwhelming tide of the mob.Quote:
It's based off the simple majority rule, regardless if its only by one percent, regardless of right and wrong. This is also a major problem.
The constitution was set up to avoid a situation where the majority ruled the minority with absolute power. This is why we have a Bill of Rights, to guarantee no government powered majority could remove your liberty.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
Our Union was created to protect the rights of its citizens first and foremost. What we do with our freedom is our choice. Rational beings desire to prosper, which is also known as acting upon self interests.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism is based on competition. Socialism is based on equity. Socialism < Capitalism because not everybody is equal in terms of ability. Until we genetically modify all humans to be the same, socialism will continue to fail when allowed to compete with capitalism.
Humbly, I disagree. I think every human being is as capable as the next. I do not subscribe to the theory that our abilities and talents are set in stone from the moment we're born. We pick up almost every aspect of our beings as we going on, and thus I believe everyone IS equal in ability, the difference is their motive to use their abilities and the drive to always hone them.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
My two cents, anyway.
And I do have a compromise between the two, if anyone's interested.
universal equality of talent is one of the myths that fuel the socialist agenda. they tell us that if wealth were only shared equally we would all be capable of greatness, but we know that just isn't so. there will always be those who excel and those who are doomed to failure. we may provide aid to those failures, but we cannot force them to succeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
if you are talking about a compromise between capitalism and socialism, i doubt you will find a workable model. temporary measures may hold for a while, but the freedom of the individual and slavery to the state are incompatible ideas.Quote:
And I do have a compromise between the two, if anyone's interested.
This is where I stopped listening. There is nothing good about anarchy, not one thing. I'm sorry, there just isn't. There's nothing good about a world where people are free to rape, murder and pillage at will with little to no consequences, as most people can't/won't/don't know how to defend themselves or others. Ever play Fallout 3? Yeah, no thanks. There might not be a nuclear holocaust where everything you touch is irradiated, but it's largely the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
You are absolutely wrong! Not everyone is capable as the next to be an NBA basketball player, let alone a superstar. Not everyone can handle a 22 credit hour course load, let alone get straight A's.Quote:
I think every human being is as capable as the next. I do not subscribe to the theory that our abilities and talents are set in stone from the moment we're born.
I cannot play the guitar. I can however spar 30 rounds in a given session. Could i play the guitar if i really really wanted to? Most likely yes, but not as good as say Kayne West would be able to given the same amount of practice. With that said, even if Kayne West were to train in the gym hour for hour with me, i firmly believe i would tear him up in the ring. Not because he lacks desire, but because i am more physically blessed. Therefore people are not equal.Quote:
We pick up almost every aspect of our beings as we going on, and thus I believe everyone IS equal in ability, the difference is their motive to use their abilities and the drive to always hone them.
Are you describing the utopia created in another thread? If so, you are going to have to prove how to virtually eliminate opportunity cost.Quote:
And I do have a compromise between the two, if anyone's interested.
i can't say as i blame you. i'm sure that you, along with most everyone else, have been brainwashed into believing in the need for the massive bureaucracy that is sucking dry the citizens of this country and doing their best to enslave us as they consolidate the power we so willingly abdicate to them. i'm certain you see the concept of anarchy as a wilderness with no rules and no law but the law of the jungle (much like the streets of many of our cities after the sun goes down). i have no doubt that you find the average person incapable of governing himself. that is, after all, the only reason we should endure these uncaring bureaucracies supported by the sweat of the people they claim to represent.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
it's a pity you stop listening when you hear that someone may advocate an ideal so different from the reality you desperately cling to. it's a pity that most people refuse to listen to the idea that humanity is capable of ruling itself without the buffer of a million civil servants to water down the truth of what the people really need. if they bothered to listen and to think we might have fewer ignorant souls who cannot see beyond the mundane lies of their masters, who are capable of forming opinions based on something a bit more real than video games and the daily show.
No, it's not that "utopian" society.
I'm not even going to argue anymore. I'm sick of being talked down to from all angles when all I'm trying to do is give everyone a fighting chance at living a good life. I was hoping someone here would want to work with me to figure out something that would work better than the system we have now, but oh well.
I will say this, though. If you dig in to history, you'll find that a lot of what we know about socialism comes out of the propaganda pushed by neo-conservatives during the Cold War.
And by the way, even communist nations are still competitive, and no less capitalistic than we are. Did you think China just gave us all of the lovely little things we import from them?
Do you really think a million civil servants focus on watering the truth? That is quite delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
It's not like anarchy is a non-existant concept. There's plenty of anarchists applying their views. East Washington State is a prime example. They got their communities where they support themselves through marijuana traffiking, armed themselves to the teeth to protect themselves from the outside world. It works, it's self-sustainable for those that choose to participate in those communities.
But my question is how could you apply anarchy on a widespread scale of 300 million people and be feasible?
Oh, no I can govern myself quite well, given the resources. But can others? Fuck no! All it takes is a few people who want nothing more than what they can get for themselves while they can get it, and with no one to stop them, they WILL get it and fuck a lot of people in the process. The problem with anarchy is it focuses explicitly on the self, the individual. Watch Mad Max; anarchy in action. You're honestly going to tell me that if we did away with all laws and guide lines, even if over a 100 year period, that things will be fine and dandy? We might regress to a tribal state, but I can't say that'd be terribly fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
Given who we're talking to, I had to lol a little at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by thcbongman
A state of lawlessness would only be a good idea for those who wish to live in a world where people like me would pretty much have great fun in running rampage and having no regard for anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
If there were no punishments then there would be a lot more murders , if it is kill or be killed I would certainly not hesitate .
The whole tribal side of humanity has made it possible to enjoy the luxuries we often take for granted , without team work many of mankinds greatest achievements simply would never have happened.
Safety in numbers is also a reason for mankinds compromise toward each other that we call society , the realisation that one man can never do everything makes each person a part of the whole.
YouTube - The Cramps - People Ain't No Good
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
you say that as if people are incapable of exacting revenge WITHOUT police.
Isnt that all the police do? legal vengeance?
you murder someone, and they will put you to death, or imprison you for life, which is the same as being put to death, it jsut takes a LOT longer. that's more like torture...
well, eliminate the police, and what REALLY changes?
more people will be policing themselves and everyone else, but not getting payed to do it, so they wouldnt be overzealous about apprehending "criminals" and more focused on keeping peace.
theft wouldnt be given much care, except between the thief and the victim. wherein the victim, if they desire justice, must seek it out htemselves, instead of being pampered little fucktard brats who can just call someone else to do it for them.
im in direct disagreement with your idea of what anarchy entails.
we'll just have to agree to disagree then. personally, I don't see society as a whole just policing itself and everyone doing the right thing without being forced to. Looking out for yourself all the time just ruins society, since no one cares about anyone else. If you want to arm everyone and say "Go nuts", you're in for a VERY rude awakening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf
And no, I don't call police legal vengeance. There's a difference between the words Justice and Vengeance for a reason. Vengeance is for personal satisfaction, to settle a score, justice is to see that those who pray on the innocent are punished. Eliminate the police, and I'll fuckin' kill you, because who's to stop me? You? Indeed, perhaps the police wouldn't have a chance to STOP me, but they have a MUCH better chance of catching me than your family and friends do. Also, god forbid we have a set of people who seek out thieves and crooks. I don't know about you, but if I get robbed at gun point by some psycho, I don't think I wanna try and get my shit back from them. Why you ask? Because I'll get fucking SHOT, and that bastard will get away with it without a team of dedicated, well equipped and well armed people to stop them. I guess my desire to NOT murder and steal makes me ill-equipped for anarchy.
People are more than capable of getting revenge without police, and that's why its wrong. If you're seeking revenge instead of justice, if you want personal satisfaction instead of benefiting your society, you need to step back and analyze your life.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
i felt a familiar dull throbbing behind my eyes as i read the rather predictable responses to my anarchistic bent. y'all have no idea how many time i have been asked to respond to those same cries of "burn the witch" or how tiresome it is to read the same "mad max" cliches and wild west stereotypes. just mentioning the term "anarchism" seems to bring to mind the image of some shadowy figure with a full shaggy beard and black stovepipe hat, skulking through gloom filled alleys to plant his bowling ball shaped bomb. it would seem that anarchists are universally despised. folks seem to pay little attention to the adjective i have painstakingly placed before that hated term or to question why such patience should be required.
we appear to exist in the realm of immediate gratification and patience is little understood. if we could take our eyes from today's concerns, we might glimpse the path we are on and what lies down it. there you would find the anarchy i advocate; not a destination, but another length of road to be traveled. taking that particular fork means accepting personal responsibility for the freedoms we take for granted and relinquishing our places in the mindless herd. it means allowing those who are willing to accept the load to shoulder the burden of aiding those in need and relieving those who are incapable of such empathy of that onus. it means not requiring anything from anyone, but simply asking that we all abide by the laws of enlightened self-interest. it means taking the leap of faith that humans are not such beasts as we have been led to believe, but that they all have a spark of kindness and generosity hidden behind the needs of surviving in this world of brutality that we have created.
after reading all that you might consider my beliefs to be childish fantasy, but what is the alternative? we now embrace the doctrine of force. forcing us to abide by the arbitrary rules of unresponsive representatives, forcing the unwilling to care for the undeserving, forcing the mediocrity of the herd on those few bright lights that emerge within our species. what i advocate is the doctrine of allowance. allowing the best of humanity to reveal itself and its worst to be burned away by the unrelenting pressure of society's version of natural selection, the choice that we all have to support the good and to refuse the evil.
what did you expect, sanity????:DQuote:
Originally Posted by thcbongman
there will always be those who cannot rise above the herd mentality, but there are also many who are capable of utilizing their individuality and embracing the responsibility of independent action. to expect the world's population to turn their backs on centuries of indoctrination overnight is lunacy. that doesn't mean we shouldn't set out on that path, but that our steps must be cautious.Quote:
But my question is how could you apply anarchy on a widespread scale of 300 million people and be feasible?
a sensible anarchist realizes that, for a society without formal government to work, there must be a strong ethical base on which to build. a strong central authority attempts to force a moral code on the masses through the threat of violence, a threat that is effective only with ever tightening controls on the citizens' behavior and ever more intrusive observation of their daily lives. the natural reaction to such restrictions is rebellion, the exact opposite of the desired effect. a weakened central authority leads its people by demanding that they themselves construct the ethos of their society and abide by the rules of their own making. this is the lost goal of the ideology behind democracy, to allow the people to emerge from their primitive herd mentality by handing them the power to decide their own destiny based on individual preference.
no government can stop those "few people" from striving for that sort of control. government merely gives them a platform from which to launch their schemes and the power to implement their designs.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
yes, it focuses on self-control and individual responsibility. anarchy does not negate charity or empathy, it demands acceptance of the consequences of our actions.Quote:
The problem with anarchy is it focuses explicitly on the self, the individual.
we are not children, no matter how much our governments may wish us to believe we are. there are basic laws of civilized behavior that we all know and understand to be necessary for survival. anarchy does not equal lawlessness. it demands that we pay for our freedom by accepting the responsibility for not only our own actions, but the actions of others as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
I agree to a point, so i will explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
First off, a society without government is the exact opposite of full blown socialism. In the instances of both extremes, they both ignore simple aspects of human nature such as greed, desiring, jealousy, and laziness. The anarchist ignores the fact that people are greedy and jealous, just as the socialist ignores that people are desiring and lazy. The simple act of ignoring these facts about humans beings as a whole discredits any opinion of how an authoritarian/anarchist society would be able to exist.
Any sane and prosperous society needs some sort of police force to protect the rights of a states citizens. Failure to do so opens the doors for a "mafia" style entity that will eventually gain power through organization, which undermines the whole concept of a stateless society.
Comparatively, a complete scope of state power will pave the way for sub-societies to form, or a rebel like entity to brood under the oppressions of an all powerful central authority. Authorities and supporters of a such society will view this person/group as a terrorist, much like the antagonist V from V for Vendetta.
Now, on a smaller scale as previously mentioned, communities based on such ideals can prosper. But, its only under the protection of the state, even if that state implores the majority of its powers to its citizens, that would allow for this. Otherwise, neither extreme is self sustainable, as both would require an aspect of the other to grow (not chronic).
I can't argue with you about this anymore. Sorry, law is necessary and that's all there is to it. We wouldn't have made them if they weren't (yes, I know there are some that are stupid and NOT necessary).Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
I can live with this, it's better than a world free of consequence.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
lolQuote:
as both would require an aspect of the other to grow (not chronic).
But how is my example a "wild west stereotype?" It's very real, you have anarchist enclaves all over the country. Mind you, they aren't blasting people or are some shadowy figures. They simply want to live in their self-sustainable communities in peace. You also got hippie enclaves, who are anarchists, because they live off the land and of nature. They are anarchists.Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
What you stated is very interesting. I'd just like to know how everyone would achieve "enlightened self-interest?" How would we end up in a situation where a few good but powerful souls can enforce self-awareness and respect for others in order to live in a peaceful yet economically prosperous society? Please keep in mind, I'm not opposed to any what you say, infact it has opened my mind more. It requires a huge leap of faith I agree, but there has to be some sort of controls in order to mitigate risk. Otherwise based on what you described, anyone that has this different idea can form "a group" and attack the central authority and establish themselves as the central authority. Actually I think that's the part I don't understand. It's like:
Overthrow Central Authority ---------> ????? ----------> Anarchist Society.
Anarchy would only serve to free those of us who don't much like people to do a bit of societal cleansing :D :thumbsup:
Some of us are much more capable of reverting to our most animalistic state if there were no boundaries imposed to hold us back.
socialism is bad because it is economically and morally wrong. taking money from one person and giving it to another person hinders production of the overall economy by rewarding failure. the current bailouts are the best example. as for the moral issue, it is wrong to take money earned from one person and give it to another person without their approval. socialism sounds nice and great and makes people want to gather around the campfire to sing koombaya, but really a free market is better for all people.
There is no such thing as a free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonquest
That's communism, not socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonquest
Socialism means that the government takes over some markets, such as housing, health care, food production, etc.
You're thinking of communism, where the state tells you where to work and where to live and what to eat.
If it's not okay to take money from someone and give it to someone else, then taxes (especially income taxes) must really bother you.
I see nowhere in Jonquest's post about government telling you where to work/live.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Emerging economies that lean toward socialist ideology eventually require an even greater divergence of power to the government. Failure to do so allows for the ability of competition as well as open market activities that transition economies to a more market centered destination.
Norway for example leans completely to the left, yet allows certain open market activities. They can do this because of an abundance of potential energy available to export with a small population. As the state produced production of energy per citizen shrinks (finite resources and growing population), the more authority a state must consume in order for equity to maintain static.
Cuba on the other hand has to subscribe to authoritarian control to maintain their equity stake. Freeing of their markets allows for free market activity to begin.
Emerging economies tend to be authoritarian during the initial stages of development. Freeing of trade lowers costs for consumers of such a state, and therefore does not allow its economy to grow from a production standpoint. Reason be, it is impossible for emerging markets to compete on a cost/production level with developed nations.
Take our farming industry for example. The exporting of agriculture is not done so on a free level, at least in regards to actual free trade. Reason be, subsidies exist that lower the total production costs via tax payer money. A lower production opportunity cost lowers aggregate price accordingly. Given this situation, how else can emerging markets develop a sustainable phase 1 economy (agriculture) without isolating (protectionism) itself from developed countries?
The reason Norway's energy industry is stable coincides with the fact that foreign entities are not free to export to Norway. Once the productivity of this industry increases, expect one of two possibilities: 1.) they allow open market activities... 2.) More control is issued to the state.
There is nothing as scarce as you think it is, GoldenBoy.
Capitalism creates scarcity. If it didn't, capitalism wouldn't work. We always hear that
Abundance
and Sustainability
are created best under a free market system, but the opposite is true.
Abundancy--If any resource that was once scarce became incredibly abundant, to the point that it could be offered at a miniscule cost to the consumer, all the businesses in that sector would fail. Why do you think we don't have cities fitting building after building with solar panels? Why aren't we peppering the Midwest with wind turbines? If we did, we could offer energy to our citizens for practically nothing.
Sustainability--For a society to be sustainable, it has to monitor the use of the resources that it runs on, effectively manage those resources, and look for ways of making them sustainable long enough to find a better resource or find a better way of utilizing it. Thus, sustainability is the bane of a free market's existence. If ANYTHING becomes sustainable (renewable), and abundant, those two things alone kill any business' chance of making a profit from it. Thus, where's the incentive to CREATE a society where people DON'T go hungry? Or get their furnace shut off because they couldn't afford a gas or electric bill?
I understand that a free market is good for creature comforts, since it gives us such a variety of them, but the things we need to survive should NOT be for profit.
The Government should handle electricity, food, water, and shelter. Enough for all of their citizens to at least have a chance at living a decent life. If they want more than the standard food and housing, they can get a job and work for it. The private sector doesn't have to be completely phased out, which is honestly what I want. The two can meet in the middle to create a society that has competition and innovation to raise the standard of living, and yet something to offer even the lowest of the lower class.
And, under this way of thinking, we can work to make all of our resources abundant and sustainable. It's a start, at least.
There is a finite limit to everything. Theoretically, the universe will come to an end when the total amount of helium is exhausted. Stars use helium, so we have about 50 billion years until there is nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
True capitalism is operated on the concept of opportunity cost. When competing against another firm, the essence of time itself is scarce. You have to utilize your strengths and weaknesses, so that you can effectively lower OTC, and in doing so will be able to realize real growth.Quote:
Capitalism creates scarcity. If it didn't, capitalism wouldn't work. We always hear that
For example, if a firm spends 50 hours a week aquiring material A, 100 hours to produce product X(s), time is then represented as a scarce resource. Without a quantitative limitation (function of time), i can produce an infinite amount of goods in zero time. Hence time is a scarce resource. What the firm can do is attempt to lower the amount of hours spent producing at the most minimal cost.
Open market operations outproduce central planned markets... End of story. If you do not believe me, than why does china produce 5 times its growth only 10 years from the previous? Answer: They opened up their markets. Now, they have a middle class that is greater than or equal to (in population) what we have in the US.Quote:
Abundance
and Sustainability
are created best under a free market system, but the opposite is true.
Lets go back to my example with time. Time is a scarce resource. When computers, cell phones, and the internet were implemented into the business world, something truly remarkable happened. OTC were reduced in regards to time. Firms had an abundance of time relative to when technology did not allow it. Did they fail? Of course not, because it allowed for the possibility of growth. With higher growth potential, firms had an easier time attracting capital, hiring employees, and securing loans. This allows for real growth represented in profit, although it is not a guarantee. The firm has to actually make it happen.Quote:
Abundancy--If any resource that was once scarce became incredibly abundant, to the point that it could be offered at a miniscule cost to the consumer, all the businesses in that sector would fail. Why do you think we don't have cities fitting building after building with solar panels? Why aren't we peppering the Midwest with wind turbines? If we did, we could offer energy to our citizens for practically nothing.
Again, this all goes back to opportunity costs. When energy source A becomes more expensive to produce than energy source B, which one will fetch both the smaller price, and hence the greatest potential sales? It would be source B, as long as the quality is similar.Quote:
Sustainability--For a society to be sustainable, it has to monitor the use of the resources that it runs on, effectively manage those resources, and look for ways of making them sustainable long enough to find a better resource or find a better way of utilizing it. Thus, sustainability is the bane of a free market's existence. If ANYTHING becomes sustainable (renewable), and abundant, those two things alone kill any business' chance of making a profit from it. Thus, where's the incentive to CREATE a society where people DON'T go hungry? Or get their furnace shut off because they couldn't afford a gas or electric bill?
If a firm decided not to produce source B, and instead stuck with source A, we then can observe the OTC of the situation. This firm is allocating more time and capital to produce an energy source that represents less potential profit. Therefore, this firm can be thought of as weak, and will not be able to compete with firms offering source B at a cheaper price. Rationality will call for the majority of firms to stop producing source A, lowering overall competition along with total production of source A. As more and more firms restructure to produce B, competition automatically pushes the price down as firms attempt to absorb market share by increasing their overall volume.
Is there an opportunity cost for over abundance? Absolutely! A firm that produces more than the market demands will have excess inventory. Inventory that faces potential risk of depreciation as well as cost of upkeep. Therefore it makes absolutely no sense, whether you are government or private business, to over shoot your demand capacity. You create waste, inefficiency, less potential profit.
There is still only one slightly free market, it is known as the internet.Quote:
I understand that a free market is good for creature comforts, since it gives us such a variety of them, but the things we need to survive should NOT be for profit.
By eliminating profit incentive, you lower overall production and quality. During the Russian revolution, as the Red's took control, Vladimir Lenin enacted the NEP. Instead of complete state control of production which was the current, Lenin allowed peasant farmers to sell their surplus. In doing so Russia's agriculture segment began to eclipse the industrial production segment, as prices continued to decrease in food while the prices for manufactured goods (still controlled by the state) increased. Prices increased because of the limited production (supply side), while prices decreased in agriculture.
NEP
As my previous example proves, centralization of these industries creates a higher OTC to consumers whether it is higher prices, limited availability, or lack of quality.Quote:
The Government should handle electricity, food, water, and shelter. Enough for all of their citizens to at least have a chance at living a decent life.
European nations tend to have higher social safety nets (besides the UK), and with it higher unemployment. By providing such necessities, you crowd out employment, and thus you stagnate growth.Quote:
If they want more than the standard food and housing, they can get a job and work for it. The private sector doesn't have to be completely phased out, which is honestly what I want. The two can meet in the middle to create a society that has competition and innovation to raise the standard of living, and yet something to offer even the lowest of the lower class.
I like government for certain things that cannot be efficiently provided by private industry. Such things include fire and police, military, roads (to a point), and periods of infrastructure renovation. As the evidence clearly shows, abundance and quality are a product of capitalism.Quote:
And, under this way of thinking, we can work to make all of our resources abundant and sustainable. It's a start, at least.
Time is not a resource you can buy, Golden Boy.
Abundance and sustainability are ENEMIES of free markets, because they lower profits.
Every corporation is driven solely by profit. If what you say is true, then you must have learned free market theory from studying non-profit organizations.
Also, the reason I'm done arguing with you over it is because you don't even listen.
You gave an example of the Russions, who were not only COMMUNISTS, NOT SOCIALISTS, but your example lacked two things I mentioned in my post.
THE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF USABLE RESOURCES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESOURCES AND/OR THE IMPROVED USE OF OLD
The leftists failed to manage their resources because they were deluded into thinking that they could use everything and not worry about it. OF COURSE that's not a sustainable thinking.
Free markets fail to provide equality in a time when we could easily create more than enough to go around.
Why is that so hard to see?
I was waiting for this comment. I disagree, and will provide an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Say it takes me 10 hours to build a retaining wall. I can only work 5 days a week, and 10 hours per day (i can produce 1 wall in 1 work day). If i get a contract to produce 522 retaining walls in one year, under your asertation "Time is not a resource i can buy", i am unable to fullfill my contract. Since i cannot do anything to slow down the passing of days, my only other option is to purchase someone elses time.
Now say i hire another guy for 10 hrs per day, 5 days per week, and he produces a wall at the same speed as i do. I will now be able to fullfill my contract. You know how? Because i was able to purchase time from someone who was willing to sell it...
You could make the argument that abundance and sustainability are the enemies of a monopoly. You could make the argument that they are the enemies of an individual firm. You cannot however make the argument that they are the enemies of free markets because; in a free market, i can run my firm as i please. Therefore business profit is optional.Quote:
Abundance and sustainability are ENEMIES of free markets, because they lower profits.
Care to provide an example of what i said that lead you to this conclusion?Quote:
Every corporation is driven solely by profit. If what you say is true, then you must have learned free market theory from studying non-profit organizations.
You cannot expect me to accept your opinions and beliefs as fact.Quote:
Also, the reason I'm done arguing with you over it is because you don't even listen.
Communism is a political system, where socialism is the economic system used under a communist government. MY example of the NEP was in response to your assertion that nobody should profit from working in the food/housing industries, combined with your belief that abundance and sustainability are counterintuitive with capitalism.Quote:
You gave an example of the Russions, who were not only COMMUNISTS, NOT SOCIALISTS, but your example lacked two things I mentioned in my post.
THE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF USABLE RESOURCES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESOURCES AND/OR THE IMPROVED USE OF OLD
It is the opposite though. Socialist systems have never outproduced capitalist systems. Until you offer some sort of proof otherwise, you are wrong.
Care to provide an example?Quote:
The leftists failed to manage their resources because they were deluded into thinking that they could use everything and not worry about it. OF COURSE that's not a sustainable thinking.
Because you are absolutely wrong. If you are not wrong, than please provide some sort of evidence (other than an opinion) to strengthen the stance of your argument...Quote:
Free markets fail to provide equality in a time when we could easily create more than enough to go around.
Why is that so hard to see?
I see it as simply as this
I don't much like people so to give some perspective I will admit that if 90% of the worlds population were to vanish overnight I would see it as a good thing.
The world we live on is an island and at some time in the future mankind is going to have to wake up and realise the only way forward is to unite as one .
The whole system as it stands is counterproductive and obsessed with the pursuit of the ridiculous
Unfortunately for mankind I do not believe it is possible for everyone to "just get along" and the whole joke we know as society will crumble
Mankind is mankinds worst enemy :thumbsup:
The socialistic countries that are successful utilize a mixed economy while socializing some industries. Switzerland, Norway, Germany, China is figuring it out. China is still authotarian but they moved away from straight-up communism. They figured out how to use the free market and grow economically while still maintaining a lot of their socialistic policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
I think you make profit like it's a bad thing. Too much profit can just be greedy, but profit within an acceptable scope is healthy. With profits, it leads to further growth in a company, innovation, benefits for employees, every company uses it's profit differently. Profits are good because the government collects on them. Why is this a concept that a lot of people do not understand? Some greed is good. Otherwise, how could an economy grow?
You say Goldenboy doesn't listen, but what he describes is basic economic concepts that he explains clearly like a college professor. Someone once told me the more you learn and understand finance, the more you understand the world and clearly this man understands the world.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against socialism at all. I'm against too much socialism because it is detrimental to society. Take France for example. You talk about affordability, but they're hit with a 19.6% sales tax on all goods that isn't basic food and medicine. You talk about sustainability, To hire and fire an employee is a vastly complex process due to overt job protectionism. The ability to combat waste is the most important control for sustainability. A job as simple as a bank teller for a french bank like BNP for example, it's a stringent interview process and if they get a bad employee after they pass a small probationary period, they are stuck with them. The employee can go to work, do the minimum and not worry about getting laid off. "At-Will" employees provide the most incentive to not only the ability for companies to grow, but for individuals as well. You can't manage resources if you are completely stuck with them.
That's why I think we should be looking at this and thinking "How can we make this work?"
A lot of people, Golden Boy included, look at it and say "It'll never work".
Like I said, I'm a straight-up socialist. However, I'm perfectly willing to make compromises and hash out what'll be best for all of us. After all, isn't that the theory behind socialism?
Its not that it will not work. Ideally, you are desiring a system that rewards everyone in an equal manner. As i have proved before, everyone is not equal. Therefore rewarding everyone equally will create inefficiency because there is not a finite incentive to perform better than the average or accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Fredrick Taylor observed something extraordinary in the early 20th century. He found that when workers are receiving equal pay, performing the same job, they will work only as hard as the least hard working employee. Reason be, they are not receiving any extra incentive to work harder than their equally compensated co-workers. Logically, at the end of the day someone who worked harder than the rest would be more fatigued, and will feel a lesser amount of gratitude when receiving compensation as time progresses. A continuation will have an effect on the long run productivity of this worker.
It is a matter of efficiency at the end of the day. Capitalism is more efficient than socialism. Unless you can prove otherwise, you must except this as fact.
That was early 20th century. This is now. Times change, GB. Our society should reflect that.
We can't prove otherwise because the countries that flew under a socialist banner were, in reality, communists.
Don't bring that stuff up in here, GB. I told you in the other thread, we act the way you describe because it's the way we've been taught since the Industrial Revolution. It's not necessary anymore, or at least won't be within the next century.
Read up on your psychology. Humans are products of their environments, not their genes.
You and I, and everyone who grew up in this capitalist society, were taught from the beginning that the status quo is the way things "should" be. We're on a marijuana board for God's sake. You can't believe that society is fine the way it is.
Were you refering to this Frederick Winslow Taylor?
"It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone."
That's either fascistic or communistic. Take your pick.
"I can say, without the slightest hesitation,'' Taylor told a congressional committee, ''that the science of handling pig-iron is so great that the man who is ... physically able to handle pig-iron and is sufficiently phlegmatic and stupid to choose this for his occupation is rarely able to comprehend the science of handling pig-iron."
The delusion that only the dregs of society sink to the bottom in a free market. Oh, and workers are stupid. These are some amazing theories.
"With the triumph of scientific management, unions would have nothing left to do, and they would have been cleansed of their most evil feature: the restriction of output. To underscore this idea, Taylor fashioned the myth that 'there has never been a strike of men working under scientific management', trying to give it credibility by constant repetition. In similar fashion he incessantly linked his proposals to shorter hours of work, without bothering to produce evidence of "Taylorized" firms that reduced working hours, and he revised his famous tale of Schmidt carrying pig iron at Bethlehem Steel at least three times, obscuring some aspects of his study and stressing others, so that each successive version made Schmidt's exertions more impressive, more voluntary and more rewarding to him than the last. Unlike [Harrington] Emerson, Taylor was not a charlatan, but his ideological message required the suppression of all evidence of worker's dissent, of coercion, or of any human motives or aspirations other than those his vision of progress could encompass."
The man sounds like a Nazi to me.
Oh, and by the way, the USSR took a look at Taylor's findings before his disciples forced it down manufacturers' throats.
"The easy availability of replacement labor, which allowed Taylor to choose only 'first-class men,' was an important condition for his system's success."[22] The situation in the Soviet Union was very different. "Because work is so unrythmic, the rational manager will hire more workers than he would need if supplies were even in order to have enough for storming. Because of the continuing labor shortage, managers are happy to pay needed workers more than the norm, either by issuing false job orders, assigning them to higher skill grades than they deserve on merit criteria, giving them 'loose' piece rates, or making what is supposed to be 'incentive' pay, premia for good work, effectively part of the normal wage. As Mary Mc Auley has suggested under these circumstances piece rates are not an incentive wage, but a way of justifying giving workers whatever they 'should' be getting, no matter what their pay is supposed to be according to the official norms."[23]
The man came up with his theories during the first kicks and sputters of the industrial revolution. If you remember history class, workers weren't motivated by pay. Men like Taylor inflicted cruel and unusual practices on workers, which led them to forming unions.
I love capitalism, but like anything it isnt perfect. There are some things out of socialism that we can use to make our society better. Im not down with just giving out free handouts left and right but I do believe in free healthcare. I mean ive seen it a hundred times, hard working middle class people that a pretty well off until they or a family member has a serious illness. Then hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills stack up causing people to go bankrupt. Situations like this are rediculous. We can spend billions of dollars on unnecesarry defense but we cant spend it to help our own people.
And for education im really not sure if that should be completly free but if the gov. helped pay for alot more then more people would be able to go to college. With more university educated people in a country I see no reason why a country wold not benefit in the long run