Greed - 20/20

[DrewKaree]

Greed is Awesome.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1303587

Wal-Mart gets trashed a lot.  They don't pay diddly, the benefits are bad, blah blah blah.  Funny thing is, you here that most from competitors and unions, not from customers or the overwhelming majority (if not near universality of employees). 
20/20 told the story of a woman who was on welfare, had lost her kids and had no skills when she got a job at Wal-Mart.  The manager took a chance on her.  Today, she is off welfare, she has an apartment, has regained custody of 2 of her kids, and now has 2 people working under her at another Wal-Mart.

Although it wasn't brought up on the show, I think Wal-Mart is a boon to any community.  You often hear how Wal-Mart comes in and drives mom and pop shops out of business.  That may well be true.  But consider most mom and pops aren't open 24/7.  Most probably aren't open much more than 9-5.  Odds are they are run mostly within the family.  If they do have more employees, they probably aren't paying much more than minimum wage and benefits are probably pretty scarce too.  Odds are good, most are so small they don't even come under government regs for a myriad of worker issues that Wal-Mart is required to provide.  That doesn't even begin to mention the consumer benefits Wal-Mart brings to the table.

Another story that struck me was about 3 wealthy people who have given away vast amounts of wealth. 

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1300757

One guy is a college professor.  He drives an old car, lives in a small apartment, gives away much of his money.  The story is that he is doing such a wonderful thing giving away all his money. 

But is he?  To my thinking, not really.  He has the capacity to buy a new car every few years.  Buying the car is demand.  Someone has to build that car.  Someone who can't afford a new car, can now buy his 4 year old used car.  Maybe, the 10 year old car that person was driving can now be bought by someone who didn't have any car.
Instead of living in that small apartment, he has the means to buy a house, maybe even have one built.  That would provide jobs.  The small apartment he lives in now might go to a young couple just starting out.

While charity is nice, and it indeed does help someone, is that not just giving a fish rather than teaching someone how to fish? 

The next story of the night was about a former import/exporter who went into teaching.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1304577

That story went on to talk about how capitalism is the great equalizer.  Money doesn't care what color you are.  The poor in this country have the most to gain from capitalism. 

Economist Walter Williams says we usually benefit more from for-profit companies. "Normally in our country," he said, "those areas where people are motivated the most by greed are the areas that we're the most satisfied with

[duffjr]

in the second story, it would cost him say 500k for a new house.  most of that money would go to the construction company.  the money that went to the workers would be further divided for necessities, occasional splurges, and savings.  the savings wouldn't go to anyone.  if he donated it all, most of it would go to charitable acts. 

[AllisterFiend]

Dang Drew,

Now you've going and done it, you posted an article about that evil word "capitalism", all hell is going to break loose now.


Allister Fiend

[patrickl]

LOL, it's always amazing how people can twist their greed into something noble.

When I was on vacation in Thailand I they have something similar with there worship of Budda. His teachings say you should help others. The thai have changed this into, I first need to help myself because if I ever get rich I can help others much better. Amazing logic.

[Hoagie_one]

Its an economic fact that the more a dollar circulates, the more it boosts the economy.  Spending is good.  Thi is why Bush gave us all that money early in his administration, to get us spending.

[DrewKaree]

LOL, it's always amazing how people can twist their greed into something noble.

When I was on vacation in Thailand I they have something similar with there worship of Budda. His teachings say you should help others. The thai have changed this into, I first need to help myself because if I ever get rich I can help others much better. Amazing logic.

Not ragging on you, just asking, because everyone seems to have different levels, and I find it interesting where people draw that line.

When SHOULD you stop helping yourself?  What is the definition of "rich"?  What makes your choices for how you live "right"?  Why do you believe the answers to these questions (for the person answering them, no one in particular) are the "right" answers for everybody?  Why do you believe the answers to these questions (again, for the person answering them, no one in particular) are NOT the "right" answers for certain people?

While I do not agree that the guy getting paid 40 million dollars is overpaid, I can see how others WOULD think that.  I just want to know at what point does someone BECOME "overpaid", and why have you set the criteria at that arbitrary point?  If everyone gets closer to "overpaid", does the criteria for being "overpaid" shift?  Why?

I haven't even watched all the video myself, but 20/20 does a lot of stories I like, not because I agree with them, but because they make me think.  There's another one about "merchants of cool" or something similar that I really enjoyed as well.  Mebbe someone else might check that out and start a thread about it, or I might in the future.

[patrickl]

There is no matter of levels. It's just that the Thai twisted a "religion" of benevolence into one of greed and I thought it was a nice case to illustrate how greedy people will do anything to explain their greed as a good thing.

[RetroJames]

I can earn it, consume it, spend it, invest it with the best of them, and I do love competition, but I worry about the amount of waste capitalism produces as well as effort for effort's sake.  It is a system that does not, on a large scale, reward the best products made to last a lifetime, buy rather the next products built to last just up to the end of the warranty. 

The system (and the greed of some involved) is also conduit for exploitation of one's services, labor, talents, etc. 

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, a capitalist system does not encourage the free transfer of knowledge which hold us all back as a species.

Some of these same downsides are eveident in other systems as well, I think capitalism is for the most part the lesser of a group of evils, but it is not perfect and could always stand to be improved.  How you go about that is anybody's guess.

I aint' ready to take my marching orderes from Bejing, but I for one get sick of buying a new toaster every few years when I know my sister still uses the one she got from our granparents!

[patrickl]

Just remember, that poorly engineered toaster you replace every few years brings work to the people who make them. So in fact it's better that they break down as often as possible.

[Crazy Cooter]

If his toaster didn't break, he wouldn't have to work overtime in the toaster factory and could spend time with his kids.  Then they wouldn't be selling drugs on the coner to avoid the OT in the factory themselves.

That's how the greed of some can ruin the lives of others... in an overly simplistic view.  ACME toasters builds shoddy toasters, you have to work more to replace it every 2-years, your kids get ignored and turn to organized crime because they want to live like the manager of ACME toaster, not their parents.

[DrewKaree]

your kids get ignored and turn to organized crime

Are you saying John Gotti might have turned out differently if his parents hadn't left him for the fast life that the toaster factory seduced them with?

[jbox]

If his toaster didn't break, he wouldn't have to work overtime in the toaster factory and could spend time with his kids.  Then they wouldn't be selling drugs on the coner to avoid the OT in the factory themselves.

Until we eventually reach - THE SHOE EVENT HORIZON! 

[Crazy Cooter]

I think Gotti had his mind made up about what he wanted to do  .

There are people that are required to put their jobs before their family or lose it... at all levels of wealth.  Not the only cause of drug use/abuse, but a common thread to it.

[patrickl]

BTW I was kidding with the toaster remark. Just showing how you can twist everything around.

I have to say there are good things and bad things that come from greed. It's fine just as long as it is is managed properly so it doesn't run out of control and only a greedy few benefit from exploited masses. I'd say in China and Russia it's way out of control and to me the US is slightly over the edge into out of control territory too. Wasn't it so that like 37 million US citizens live in poverty (even when the poverty level is set extremely low)?

[DrewKaree]

I have to say there are good things and bad things that come from greed. It's fine just as long as it is is managed properly so it doesn't run out of control and only a greedy few benefit from exploited masses.

That's what I mean about the questions I mentioned above though.  Your level of "greed out of control" is different from mine, mine is different from Chad's, Chad's is different from yours, and so on.  To say that it's fine as long as it's managed properly has to have some level of "too much" or "too little" assigned to it in order to assess whether or not it's being managed properly.

And I haven't defined my level of what the levels are either

[Crazy Cooter]

The only way to call it managed is if everyone has the same.  You'd have to get rid of the "keeping up with the Jones'" complex.

Greed leads to jealousy leads to crime leads to spite leads to entitlement leads to more greed.

In my mind, something that is "good" benefits another person more than it benefits the person doing the deed.  Donations to real charities are good.  Making Patrick work OT cranking out toasters so I can make a deadline I imposed is not.  It benefits my business more than it does him.  Unless he specifically asked for OT anyhow.  My Mom works a ton of "mandatory OT".  It's a complete joke IMO.  Hire more people or quit making promises you know can't keep.

[patrickl]

I have to say there are good things and bad things that come from greed. It's fine just as long as it is is managed properly so it doesn't run out of control and only a greedy few benefit from exploited masses.

That's what I mean about the questions I mentioned above though.

[DrewKaree]

Even the debate between keeping research hidden or not (mentioned earlier) I wouldn't know to be against or for it. On the one hand I'd say that research results should be publicly available because that would spread the knowledge. But if that would always be the case then big corporations would not spend so much money on research (they would have no means of making back the money they spent) and then noone would not have the knowledge. So in the end we might suffer from being too open.

This is currently the reason people are angry at drug companies for "making so much profit" on things they've done research on, have patented, and are selling for whatever the price they've set. 

See what I mean about "greed" being in the eye of the beholder?  Those who can't afford a drug because of its cost, but may recieve the same benefits from another cheaper drug, albeit more slowly, or having to take more of the cheaper drug to achieve the same results, aren't happy because they want "the best" and think that evil drug companies are screwing them over by making obscene profits on their products. 

My parents are the type of people who "can't" use generic ibuprofen because "it just doesn't work as well or the same as Advil or Motrin".  Bunk.  There ARE instances of this being the case due to some small improvement in a drug, but I know of many people who feel that since they have insurance to cover a drug, they're gonna get "the best", and let any other poor sap without insurance take the "inferior" medicine. 

Who's to blame in a situation like that?  Who do you assign the "greedy" label to?  The drug companies for charging more for the research/testing/production of the small-improvement "better" drug?  The insurance companies for not making everyone use the same "brand" of drug (in a case like mentioned above, that is) unless a doctor SPECIFICALLY prescribes a "name brand" and has a valid reason?  Or the person who sees no problem in trying to "get the most bang for my insurance buck"?

In pro sports, for some more instances, I don't see Peyton Manning as greedy.  He negotiated what he felt was a fair price for his services, and the team agreed.  I DO see Terrell Owens as greedy.  He negotiated what he felt was a fair price for his services, and for a length of time which he was comfortable with.  His view changed DRASTICALLY, and not in the 13 months since signing the contract, but in the 6-8 months since the season ended.  Ricky Williams.  I see HIM as greedy as well.  He's playing this year so he doesn't have to give back 8 million dollars.  He left under his own terms, but he didn't like the fact that his actions had consequences that cost him money, so he's punching the clock in order to keep what he views as "his", instead of standing by the decision he made originally.  He also realized it wouldn't be a huge sacrifice, since he would face a mandatory suspension of a fourth of the season, and he wouldn't be thrown back in to face a heavy workload for probably another fourth of the season as well.

Interesting topic so far.

[jbox]

Just remember, that poorly engineered toaster you replace every few years brings work to the people who make them. So in fact it's better that they break down as often as possible.

Funny, this is actually the complete reverse of the capitalistic principle - namely that the more free capital is, the faster the economy grows. By contrast, if I don't have to buy a new toaster I spend that money on something else like a kettle, so now my economy has a kettle factory and a toaster factory. The situation you describe is bordering dangerously close to a boondoggle, which is one of the things true conservatives hate about big government.

Myself, I think capitalism is the lesser of the known evils, but that far too often companies use the word "free market" to mean "let me break the law and smash my opponents and rake in mega profits". Government's role should be to regulate those industries which are not free markets (for whatever reason) so that one side or the other is not abused by the imbalance of power. For supply weaknesses, we have tax cuts, land packages, etc... and for demand weaknesses we have legislation, watch-dogs, etc... The oil companies may have every right to make money, but they certainly don't need government hand-outs to help them. Big Pharma on the other hand needs to be told it can make money, but that life-saving drugs need to be kept in reach of the people who need it most. The WTO clause for emergency patent abolishment is a good example where the threat can be leveraged as well as what can be done when the market force are unbalanced.

On the whole I think this balance works reasonably well, and looking at it as a question of market balance is far easier than picking some random $$ number to go after. Now personal tax deductions, there is something I really want to see axed though. 

[jbox]

Sorry - forgot to add this. A good example of market failure is non-compete contracts given to everyone's favourite punching bag. A good example of market success is that I can get thirty kinds of frozen chips in the supermarket, for whatever combination of animal/vegetable/gluten/cholesterol/potato I want. And software patents are evil.

[patrickl]

I wish people wouldn't quote my "toaster reversal joke". Makes it look like it was meant as a serious remark.

[jbox]

I wish people wouldn't quote my "toaster reversal joke". Makes it look like it was meant as a serious remark.

Actually it is. It is a good business strategy to build things that fall apart, because they are cheaper and guarentee future business. It's called "Planned Obsolence", and the only thing that counts against it is a consumer's ability to choose a manufacturer who decides not to do that. Competing companies only *don't* do it because one of them is willing to *not* do it to get the customers.

Hence it is only the competition that keeps the market efficient, not the manufacturers themselves.

[patrickl]

See what I mean about "greed" being in the eye of the beholder?

The greed itself is not something I have a problem with, but more when it leeds to exploitation.

Exploitation is something that should be visible even to the most greedy people. Like the chinese guy tearing down a chinese village (I think it housed 30.000 people!) for building his french castle. He should be able to understand that he is doing something wrong.

People charging lots of money for products they developed sounds greedy, but I guess that's not exploitation. If they hadn't made their product it would not be there. So people should be able to do without it (like they did before) or cough up the dough if they want better quality.

I also have no problem with athletes or entertainment people making obscene amounts. Although I have to admit that when I see "Cribs" on MTV I cannot always suppres some jealousy when I see a completely unkown guy/girl/kid showing of a multi million dollar home. But really, if people get paid that much then I guess they earn it. Someone had a choice to either pay them or not.

I guess the issue of choice would be my deciding factor (but I'll admit I haven't completely thought it through). Getting 30.000 peoples houses demolished because some nut wants to build his grandiose castle is 30.000 people being evicted without choice = exploitation. Or workers having to stay in an underpaid job because they have no choice (no other work available) while the owner makes huge amounts of money.

[Crazy Cooter]

I don't think medicines/hospitals should even be in private business.  I think the government should foot the bill for that because it's just as necessary as police & fire.  Things that are essential to life should not be operated as profit based companies.  They should be funded by all and enjoyed by all.  If the government can't run it as well as a businessman could, then we have the wrong people in the government.  Medicines should be distributed as needed in a manner most beneficial to the person, not his or her health plan or lack thereof.

Let's assume that we pass a law tomorrow for socialized health care.  Why can't the government make the money that the insurance companies do?  If the name on the workers paycheck suddenly changes to US Gov. instead of XY Insurance, none of the workers have lost a job.  None of us would notice a price increase and the government would be making more money than ever.  Who loses?  Why hasn't this been done?  Because then people that don't have insurance now would suddenly have it and go to the doctor.  Then the "profits" of the Gov go down.  If you can answer why we as a society have chosen to ignore the health care of the less fortunate (those without insurance), you'll come to the true definition of greed.

[DrewKaree]

If the government can't run it as well as a businessman could, then we have the wrong people in the government. 

But that's what's wrong with government at its root.  He who controls the money has the power, and I don't know of a better example of greed than the knob from Alaska who can't figure out why building a multimillion-dollar bridge to connect to a community of 50 people isn't a good thing when people from LA went through a friggen hurricane!  I KNOW there's conservative examples too, and I don't care who pisses away money, but if you've EVER been through West Virginia, you'd think Robert Byrd INVENTED West Virginia!  The money brought back to the states by these guys gives them power in their state, which in turn gives them power in varying measures nationwide.

Bloat, mismanagement, and spurious "oversight committees" already demonstrate WHY the government would be a piss-poor insurance company, in addition to a piss-poor many-other-companies.  Continuing to throw money at the government in hopes of them someday getting it right somehow continues to be in vogue, when they're some of the best examples of greed there are.

[DrewKaree]

If you can answer why we as a society have chosen to ignore the health care of the less fortunate (those without insurance), you'll come to the true definition of greed.

Because we as a society have chosen to take care of the UNfortunate, who have demonstrated exactly why the government is a piss-poor insurance provider.  If we didn't take care of the UNfortunate, I'd agree with that being a "true" definition of greed, but we've shown that we, as a society, have a level at which we expect people to start taking care of their own lives.

It again shows what I'm talking about.  How did we (and WHO, for that matter) decide what level to stop giving government-funded health care to people?

[AllisterFiend]

I don't think medicines/hospitals should even be in private business.  I think the government should foot the bill for that because it's just as necessary as police & fire.

Noooooooo....

Let's assume that we pass a law tomorrow for socialized health care.

Double Nooooooooo......


Please, no government anything, nothing they get their hands on works.



BTW, since Walmart was brought up in the first post, here is an interested article from John Stossel on Walmart.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_16_05_JS.html


Allister Fiend

[Grasshopper]

It's ridiculous to assume that a privately run organisation will always automatically be more efficient than an organisation run by the government. There is simply no evidence to support such a sweeping generalisation.

What creates efficiency is not being in the private sector per se but competition. However in certain walks of life it is difficult to create genuine competition. In other cases it is possible to create competition but the side effects are deemed to be too severe to make the benefits of a competitive environment worthwhile.

Take medicine for example.

The entry requirements for medical schools are unnecessarily high and getting through medical school is very expensive. Because of this many people of adequate intelligence who want to become doctors are prevented from doing so. The medical profession will argue that this helps keep standards high which I suppose is true but it also conveniently means there are barely enough doctors in the workplace to meet demand. This keeps doctors' salaries artificially high and also means they are almost guaranteed employment unless they do something absolutely outrageous or criminal. When is the last time you came across an unemployed doctor?

Basically once you've qualified as a doctor you are not subjected to the same level of competition in the employment market that most workers face. All professions play this game, but the medical profession is particularly good at it. 

Also doctors have a captive audience. By law only people with appropriate qualifications are able to practise medicine. You can't even purchase a drug unless you get a doctor's prescription first. This is a bizarre anomaly in our so called free society. Doctors will argue that this is necessary to protect patients but again it also conveniently distorts the market in their favour.

A third problem is that competition only works when consumers have access to the necessary information to make an informed choice and this often doesn't apply to medicine. It's very difficult for a layman to judge whether treatment x is better than treatment y or whether doctor a is better than doctor b. This situation is improving thanks to the internet but there is still a long way to go.

At the moment the US healthcare system seems to have the worst of both worlds - the greed, inequality, and profit-above-all-else mentality of the private sector without the benefits that genuine competition brings.

Of course a case could be made that all the restrictive practices that shield the medical profession from true competition should be removed. But until that happens it will not be possible to treat hospitals like say supermarkets and it's better that they are government run.

[Jess--]

As profits, pharmacutical compamies and helthcare have all cropped in one thread I shall make one small (off topic point)

with the increases in aids / hiv all of the pharm companies are supposedly working on a Cure.
Ask yourself this, If you are making Millions (or billions) selling drugs that treat the symptoms of a disease, and these drugs can keep your customers alive for Several years longer than they could otherwaise have expected (ensuring repeat business for as long as they live), How much effort would you really put into finding a cure (cure being a course of pills / injections that is required ONCE by the customer / patient with no need for repeat custom)

Let me see, Make money by selling the same people the same thing every month for as long as they live OR Sell the people the cure ONCE knowing they will never buy again.

Sorry guys.... guess I wouldnt be putting that much effort into curing the disease thats earning me $$$$$$$$ (looking at it purely from a business perspective)

[patrickl]

On the other hand, Imagine how much money you could ask for a drug that would cure people instead of just letting it drag on. You would wipe out the competition and make all the money yourself.

[Dermbrian]

Funny, this is actually the complete reverse of the capitalistic principle - namely that the more free capital is, the faster the economy grows. By contrast, if I don't have to buy a new toaster I spend that money on something else like a kettle, so now my economy has a kettle factory and a toaster factory. The situation you describe is bordering dangerously close to a boondoggle, which is one of the things true conservatives hate about big government.

Myself, I think capitalism is the lesser of the known evils....

Freeing up capital, growing the economy....are these always good things?  It seems to me that much of the things that capital is then used for are of value for only one reason:  the sale or creation of those things lets the people that sell or create them earn a living.  They can eat and stay warm for another day.

But in the larger picture, those extra kettles or Wega TV's or tub spas or personal gyrocopters take energy, resources to create.  Their creation and disposal generate waste.  An economy based on mass consumption in order to have jobs so that people can eat does seem like a vicious circle.

I have yet to see communism without gulags.  But somehow we as a civilization need to come up with some economy and government structure that serves us well and assures sustainability of our planet.  I don't think we're there, yet.

Personally, I'm beginning to think that key lies in the constitution.  If our forefathers had added some bits about sustainability and protecting the endowment that future generations inherit from us, maybe we'd get some attention paid to the future instead of our immediate need to eat and stay warm and produce and consume.  I think what we see as greed is often just trying to ensure their own survival, since the future isn't looking very bright in terms of quality of life and opportunities.

Brian

[Jess--]

Patrickl

there is no real competition because all of the drug companies are doing the same, if one company decides to release a cure yes they will make big money and hit their competition hard but with no repeat business they will lose at the end of the day.

it goes back to the example of the kettle that lasts one day longer than its warranty Vs the kettle that lasts forever. Repeat business is the best way of making money, from a business point of view a repeat customer has little or no cost, whereas a new customer comes in from advertising etc which costs money

yes the company selling the kettle that will last forever will sell well to start with but once everyone has one (or the majority has one) who will buy another?

[Crazy Cooter]

I can't believe I missed this:

Economist Walter Williams says we usually benefit more from for-profit companies. "Normally in our country," he said, "those areas where people are motivated the most by greed are the areas that we're the most satisfied with

[fredster]

Let's see, if we don't have capitalism, then we have what exactly?
Communism?

If we just say everybody is going to be okay, and you don't have to work, then I guess that's what? Communism?

And if you work hard and you make lots of money because you come up with something everybody likes, then you shouldn't profit from it?

If you work for years and years on a project and you come up with something that is great, cheap to manufacture, and then you are forced to sell it for the manufacturing costs and you get NO profit, would you do it again?

I can't see all this crap about Walmart.  If somebody else could come up with a store that competes, great. Nobody is stopping them. Walmart is running people out of business that really shouldn't have been in business.  Let's call it economic evolution instead.

Walmart isn't the only place you can buy toothpaste.  It isn't the only place you can buy a TV or a DVD.  Besides, there's SuperTargets and Meijer stores and a few more "supercenters" that run people out of business too.

If you make a widget, you don't have to sell it at Wallyworld.

If you want a widget, you don't have to buy it at Wallyworld.

It's not like people are forced into the store, or forced to supply the store, or forced to work at the store.

Just because somebody thinks they "can" pay more, it doesn't mean they "should" pay more.

The going rule in hiring in any company I have been involved is that they must be smart enough to do the job and dumb enough to work for the pay we offer.

[Crazy Cooter]

The going rule in hiring in any company I have been involved is that they must be smart enough to do the job and dumb enough to work for the pay we offer.

Exactly my point.  Why not pay them what they deserve?  Because it cuts into the owners profit margin.  Greed at its finest.  That's how people get taken advantage of.  Keep them ignorant of the fact that they could do better for themselves somewhere else.  Keep them happy enough so they come back the next day.  Is it employment or suppression?

I wonder how many times a great idea is lost because an employee says to themselves: "I'm not about to make this company any more money".  I know I've had that thought numerous times.  No respect for the employee = no respect for the employer.

Whoever said communism was bad?  China has a better economy than we do.

[fredster]

That's employment.  If they can do better, they can leave. It's not suppression.  I can't even imagine somebody thinking along those lines. I mean, it's beyond reason to think of it that way.

Don't tell me "they can't leave, they can't afford it".  I grew up poor. You can have nothing in AL or you can have nothing in IN or TN.  If you have the will, you can move.  Look at all the illegal aliens moving.  It just depends on what you are willing to do.  People make opportunities.

Sam Walton started at the store at the bottom, sweeping floors, and learned the business to make Walmart. 

I wonder how many times a great idea is lost because an employee says to themselves: "I'm not about to make this company any more money

Well, get another job.  Sell that idea to the competitor.  Start a business and market it on your own. Make a better company and found it on your principles.  What's stopping you? Your imagination? Your drive? Your willingness to make a sacrifice?

Whoever said communism was bad?  China has a better economy than we do.

Wow. How profound. I'll forgive you because I know you aren't serious.

[patrickl]

If we just say everybody is going to be okay, and you don't have to work, then I guess that's what? Communism?

Communism is about everybody working just as hard and everybody getting paid the same.

[btoddkelley]

If we just say everybody is going to be okay, and you don't have to work, then I guess that's what? Communism?

Communism is about everybody working just as hard and everybody getting paid the same.

And thats why it doent work. See "The tragedy of the commons"

[Grasshopper]

Let's see, if we don't have capitalism, then we have what exactly?
Communism?

If we just say everybody is going to be okay, and you don't have to work, then I guess that's what? Communism?

This is a good example of the ridiculous statements some people make to try and justify extreme capitalism

Since when did mankind only have a choice between pure communism and pure capitalism? What about for instance socialism? And what about hybrid systems?

History shows us that extreme systems tend not to work in the long run and extreme capitalism is no exception.

No country on earth has ever tried a pure capitalist system for the simple reason that it wouldn't work. Even the United States has incorporated socialist elements into its system. For example free (for the consumer) education for all children funded through taxation and a police force also funded through taxation. Of course no one uses the 's' word but these are definitely socialist ideas. And before you start saying how inefficient the state education system is think how long the US would survive without it. Ditto the police service.

I'm certainly no fan of communism but to simply dismiss it as a system where people don't have to work is retarded. In any case it's debateable whether true communism has ever been tried.

At the end of the day it's best to be open minded and use whatever approach works best in practise. There will be different solutions for different circumstances. Sometimes a free market approach works best and sometimes a socialist approach works best.

[Grasshopper]

That's employment.  If they can do better, they can leave. It's not suppression.  I can't even imagine somebody thinking along those lines. I mean, it's beyond reason to think of it that way.

Don't tell me "they can't leave, they can't afford it".  I grew up poor. You can have nothing in AL or you can have nothing in IN or TN.  If you have the will, you can move.  Look at all the illegal aliens moving.  It just depends on what you are willing to do.  People make opportunities.

So if your job opportunities are limited because you've got a low IQ, or you're sick, or you're disabled, or you're too old to retrain then it's basically tough $h!t. Great system.

[jbox]

Why not pay them what they deserve?

Excellent idea. Now, how do you decide what they deserve? Take a movie for example, is the main star more important than the producer? Is the boom guy more important than a stage hand? How about the make-up artist? Do we give them all shares? How many? How about the cinema cleaner, or the candy bar attendent?

Capitalism is the best way we know how to compromise because it tries to give as much power to the two parties involved as possible. Market economics are very good for healthy markets, and very bad for unhealthy markets. So we (rightly) have laws to try and keep the market healthy and balanced, but otherwise need to realise we can't tell people what is better for them all the time.

All of the pro-capitalism examples tend to be "business B simply out-competes business A". All of the anti-capitalism examples are "person A can't rationally *not* choose to buy B, so company C can charge whatever they want." Those are both very good examples, one of where the government should stay out of it, and one where the government should step in, but the underlying reason for both is to try and make sure both parties have the power to make a good decision from their own point of view.

[fredster]

This is a good example of the ridiculous statements some people make to try and justify extreme capitalism

No country on earth has ever tried a pure capitalist system for the simple reason that it wouldn't work. Even the United States has incorporated socialist elements into its system. For example free (for the consumer) education for all children funded through taxation and a police force also funded through taxation. Of course no one uses the 's' word but these are definitely socialist ideas. And before you start saying how inefficient the state education system is think how long the US would survive without it. Ditto the police service.

Communism is exactly what equal pay and pricing things based on how much time it took to make them is all about. 

 There is no pure socialism, communism, or any other ism.  It's the broad concept of capitalism we are talking about.  Too much of anything is a bad thing.

So if your job opportunities are limited because you've got a low IQ, or you're sick, or you're disabled, or you're too old to retrain then it's basically tough $h!t. Great system.

Duh, Yea.  we have welfare systems in place for those people.  If you are stupid then you likely aren't rich.  If for some reason you are rich and stupid, then you won't be rich long. Ask all the lotto winners who are in debt after a few years.

Is there any particular reason why we should make people who are sick, low I.Q or disabled equal with the genuis, the athlete, and the young?  Ever read Fahrenheit 451?

It's human nature for the strong and smarter to survive isn't it?

but the underlying reason for both is to try and make sure both parties have the power to make a good decision from their own point of view.

The function of the government is to make sure everybody has an equal CHANCE.  That's all. It doens't have to make sure everybody's wealth is exactly the same, etc.

Just that everybody has the opportunity. 

[Crazy Cooter]

Is there any particular reason why we should make people who are sick, low I.Q or disabled equal with the genuis, the athlete, and the young?  Ever read Fahrenheit 451?

Yeah.  The Constitution.

Under your example of hiring, you would pay people the minimum they would work for.  Suppose you have two positions.  You have one individual that doesn't need a job and is "passable" for the task, and a second person who is desperate for the job and excellent at it.  You'd end up paying the "passable" guy more because he has the option of holding out.  That's not fair.  I know "life isn't fair", but it doesn't help when even your employer is taking advantage of your situation.  The guy that is better should make more money.  Instead, most companies only do a review yearly and give a raise that covers the cost of living (if your lucky).  That way the employees never get ahead.  Who got the bonuses this quarter in the oil industry?  Not the guys drenched in cancerous oil, I'll tell you that much.  They shared the "hard times" the industry is complaining about but share little in the prosperous times now.

Employers take advantage of employees.  That's how "capitalism" works.  You look at the productivity reports each month and fire the low guy on the totem pole.  Bigger, better, faster, and screw anyone that gets in the way.  That = more $$ on the bottom line.  Who cares about little Timmy.

[AllisterFiend]

Communism is about everybody working just as hard and everybody getting paid the same.

BullS**t,

I work for a large company that has a union (hence, I consider it a communist environment.)

When you say everybody works just as hard, you are correct, they work just as hard as the most worthless piece of crap employee in the group, why, because the attitude is if this guy can sit around all day and do absolutely nothing (except b*tch about all the work he does and how capitalism sucks, geesh, I just described most of the anti-capitalist in this group) and make the same amount of money as me, why am I going to bust my *ass* and actually do something around here.  I see it everyday, there is no motovation for the employees who actually work.  therefore after some time, even the well intentioned individual (I know of lot of you out there hate individualism), gets brought down to what I call the lowest common employee.

I also find it funny that most people who either A: Hate Capitalism or B: Hate America, almost always praise communism, these same people could never survive under this type of government as they would not be allowed to A: b*tch about their government like they do now, or B: have this conversation on the internet.

Whoever said communism was bad? China has a better economy than we do.

hmmm...I do hope you were joking with this statement   

[Dermbrian]

When you say everybody works just as hard, you are correct, they work just as hard as the most worthless piece of crap employee in the group, why, because the attitude is if this guy can sit around all day and do absolutely nothing (except b*tch about all the work he does and how capitalism sucks, geesh, I just described most of the anti-capitalist in this group) and make the same amount of money as me, why am I going to bust my *ass* and actually do something around here.  I see it everyday, there is no motovation for the employees who actually work.  therefore after some time, even the well intentioned individual (I know of lot of you out there hate individualism), gets brought down to what I call the lowest common employee.

I also find it funny that most people who either A: Hate Capitalism or B: Hate America, almost always praise communism, these same people could never survive under this type of government as they would not be allowed to A: b*tch about their government like they do now, or B: have this conversation on the internet.

You're right about human nature.  I agree that most people would only work as hard as the one that works the least if the rewards are the same.  But on the flip side, wouldn't it be nice if the work being done something worthwhile instead of making this years model to replace last years model so that the six billion of us can keep throwing things away?  Maybe the work week would be about 15 hours, then.

Utopia just isn't possible.   But maybe something better than the current scheme is.   If the human race is still around by the year 2500, I don't think they'll have anything at all like the current economic systems.  If we agree that humanity should survive, then we'll need to get to whatever system allows that and also avoids resource wars and overconsumption. 

I hope that whatever we grow toward is a system that respects the individual, lets people express themselves and allows time for other people, music, art, literature, pinball, and Robotron. 

Brian

Brian

[jbox]

Actually, China is no longer a simple communist economy. They have moved towards a hybrid protectionist market, ultimately very similar to most Western economies. Not to mention that, certain, ahem, allies of the US also have capitalist style economies while still being facist governments.   

Wait, let's see if we can somehow link the terrorists to communism, then it would be plain EVIL to think pure capitalism isn't the best solution to every problem! 

And, while we're at it, can we stop talking nonsense that drug companies wouldn't release a cure to cancer if they found one. Obviously they would first wait for their patents on treatment drugs to start expiring, but with the money they made on the cure they would then be able to buy other goodies. This is supposed to be one of the great motivators for capitalism, that great success can allow you to do other things, instead of just sitting on your moore making toasters all day.

[Crazy Cooter]

Whoever said communism was bad? China has a better economy than we do.

hmmm...I do hope you were joking with this statement   

No.  China will send up more than $200 billion more than we send them this year.  Their economy is on track to hit nearly 10% growth (compared to us at around 2.5-3.0%.  They're doing everything they can to slow their growth.  They keep telling us to send stuff to them to a) help them with their trade surplus & b) help us with our trade deficit.  Right now they have the strongest growing economy in the world.

"The lowest common employee" is a result of large corporations.  In the Ma & Pa scenario, the owners knew the workers by name and probably could name most (if not all) of their family members.  In large corporations, decisions are based on profit margins (greed) with no regard for "the lowest common employee".  That makes for no motivation for that employee to do anything.  Why put in OT for some company that would fire you tomorrow without a second thought?  Why do it for some guy that has never known your name?  It's that lack of recognizing individuals that created "the lowest common employee".  They're just a number and a liability, not a person.  Unions are *supposed* to ensure that people get the recognition and rewards/benefits they deserve for their work.  If you have a group that does just enough to not get fired, it's easy enough to get someone else.  I've never had any trouble with unions (construction).  When I get guys that can't do what they need to do, it's fixed that day with one or two phone calls.  I'm also the kind of person that writes them in for a couple extra hours at the end of the week if they busted their ass getting stuff done.  I also ask who wants OT if it's needed.  Some guys are feeding a whole group of kids, some just want to get to the bar.  Sometimes nobody wants to and stuff doesn't get done.  I get better people working with me this way.  It's the way I was told works best by a guy who had 30 years experience.  I've been around enough now to see he was right.

I'm not against capitalism, I just think it's gone too far.  I'd love to slap an offshore oil rig in the gulf, but somebody greased enough hands that I can't do that.  It's all "claimed" by the major companies.  Those doors are closed to me.  That's what I hate.  I should have the same voice and opportunity as the next guy, but I don't.  I could probably come up with the billion dollars capital for building it, I just can't put it anywhere.  That's not fair.  If it's not a fair market, how can it be a free market?

[Crazy Cooter]

As an example of greed:
PORTION OF THE MSN POLL:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10087805/
Rearranged in order of "importance".

What should be the top U.S. foreign policy priority?   * 20,752 responses   

1-   Terrorism and defense - 28%
2-   Energy independence - 20%
3-   Protect American jobs - 15%
4-   Raise living standards - 13%
5-   Global climate change - 8%
6-   Illegal immigration - 6%
7-   Spread of weapons of mass destruction - 5%
8-   Stop genocide - 3%
9-   Spread of AIDS - 1%
10- Fight illegal drugs - 0%

It's important that my oil is cheap, my AC unit runs less, mexicans don't cross the border, and I have a big screen TV so I can watch the news reports of GENOCIDE happening...

"me, me, me"... greed... whatever you call it.  It's a fact and it's not good.

[btoddkelley]

Everyone is rational self interested. (see greedy) Its not a US phenomenon, its a HUMAN phenomenon. That's also why socialist and communist countries end up with a more unequal distribution of wealth than capitalist  nations. The guys in power end up with all the wealth.

Todd

[AllisterFiend]

No.  China will send up more than $200 billion more than we send them this year.  Their economy is on track to hit nearly 10% growth (compared to us at around 2.5-3.0%.  They're doing everything they can to slow their growth.  They keep telling us to send stuff to them to a) help them with their trade surplus & b) help us with our trade deficit.  Right now they have the strongest growing economy in the world.

When you pay people .10 cents a day, and have them working 70-80 a week, you can get 10% growth.  You keep bringing up Communist China and talking about how great their economy is when it goes against everything you have been talking about in this thread. 

BToddKelley said it best when he said

That's also why socialist and communist countries end up with a more unequal distribution of wealth than capitalist nations. The guys in power end up with all the wealth.

Todd

At least in a Capitalist system you have better opportunities if you are willing to work for them. I stress the word "work" because if anyone likes the other sytems out there they do not like to work and would rather have their governments take care of them.  I can take care of myself and my family better than any government can.

"The lowest common employee" is a result of large corporations.  In the Ma & Pa scenario, the owners knew the workers by name and probably could name most (if not all) of their family members.  In large corporations, decisions are based on profit margins (greed) with no regard for "the lowest common employee".  That makes for no motivation for that employee to do anything.  Why put in OT for some company that would fire you tomorrow without a second thought?  Why do it for some guy that has never known your name?  It's that lack of recognizing individuals that created "the lowest common employee".  They're just a number and a liability, not a person.  Unions are *supposed* to ensure that people get the recognition and rewards/benefits they deserve for their work.  If you have a group that does just enough to not get fired, it's easy enough to get someone else.  I've never had any trouble with unions (construction).  When I get guys that can't do what they need to do, it's fixed that day with one or two phone calls.  I'm also the kind of person that writes them in for a couple extra hours at the end of the week if they busted their ass getting stuff done.  I also ask who wants OT if it's needed.  Some guys are feeding a whole group of kids, some just want to get to the bar.  Sometimes nobody wants to and stuff doesn't get done.  I get better people working with me this way.  It's the way I was told works best by a guy who had 30 years experience.  I've been around enough now to see he was right.

It has nothing to do with mom and pop stores and large corporations, I do not care how big the company is or how small, when you do not reward your hardest working employees you slowly bring everyone to the same level.  Offering the guys overtime is great, (the ones who work will take it, the ones who don't are the ones who sit around all day, unless they can come in for more hours and sit around and do nothing) but, when all is said and done, those guys might have made more money then the bums but now they had to work more hours to make more money when they should have made more only working 40 hours.

Funny, all they guys I know with 30+ years are retired in place, hoping they get fired because they will get more money if they do.

A buddy and myself want to transfer to another location, but we can't, even though we are well qualified and very good at what we do.  The second level supervisor of the other group wants us, but can't take us because he would have to bring in the other two useless individuals before us just because they have been working for the company longer than us. (seems reasonable at first until you realize they have actually just been sitting around doing nothing longer than us).  The supervisor does not want those two guys working for him and can not do anything to get us into his group.  Once again punishing the harder workers.

When I first got into a union I thought it would be great, but now I realize it is not.

I'm not against capitalism, I just think it's gone too far.  I'd love to slap an offshore oil rig in the gulf, but somebody greased enough hands that I can't do that.  It's all "claimed" by the major companies.  Those doors are closed to me.  That's what I hate.  I should have the same voice and opportunity as the next guy, but I don't.  I could probably come up with the billion dollars capital for building it, I just can't put it anywhere.  That's not fair.  If it's not a fair market, how can it be a free market?

Life is not fair, we can't all sit around and sing songs all day and strum a guitar, the oil business has been claimed for many years now, quit trying to reap the benefits of people who have done the hard work already and think of something new to do, unless you think that will be too much work, look at what the guys from google have accomplished, they did not try to squeeze their way into something that was already proven and saturated, they thought of their own product.

damn, late for work now, gotta go.


Allister Fiend

[Crazy Cooter]

Google is a terrible example.    How on earth is that company really "worth" billions?  They did nothing new.  They have nowhere near one billion in assets...

What Union are you involved with (area of work anyhow)?  It seems like the supervisors should have got rid of the other clowns a long time ago.  I know some Unions make it harder to get rid of someone, but if they can't do the work... they deserve the boot.  I know there are guys that don't work hard even in construction, but once you start working on projects worth over $100 million, that problem pretty much goes away.  They realize it's a year-round gig and they bust their balls.  The harder they work, the more chance they have of being brought with to the next "big" job.  That means more year-round work and they'll get to their retirement sooner.

China's wages have got up considerably lately as they have started integrating some capitalist ideas.  Like I said, I'm not against capitalism, I'm against extreme capitalism.  For my Gulf oil example, it would be one thing if the companies were building an oil rig to actually pump oil, but when they have just "claimed" a national resource with no plan on doing anything?  that's not right.  Let me and the rest come in and make the oil industry a truely free market.  The US complains about how the Middle East needs to be stabilized for the security of oil supplies, yet we have presold all of our own reserves to companies that aren't using it to it's potential.

That's also why socialist and communist countries end up with a more unequal distribution of wealth than capitalist nations. The guys in power end up with all the wealth.

I say that applies even in the US.  Name the last President who didn't come from a million dollar family... What percentage of the Senators are not millionaires...  I *think* that it's around 2% of the general population is worth a million, but it's much much higher for politicians.

I still say we should be working towards making things fair.  Instead we keep opening the spread between the rich and the poor.  Either we're doing something wrong, or the US is getting lazy FAST.

[Grasshopper]

BullS**t,

I work for a large company that has a union (hence, I consider it a communist environment.)

When you say everybody works just as hard, you are correct, they work just as hard as the most worthless piece of crap employee in the group, why, because the attitude is if this guy can sit around all day and do absolutely nothing (except b*tch about all the work he does and how capitalism sucks, geesh, I just described most of the anti-capitalist in this group) and make the same amount of money as me, why am I going to bust my *ass* and actually do something around here.  I see it everyday, there is no motovation for the employees who actually work.  therefore after some time, even the well intentioned individual (I know of lot of you out there hate individualism), gets brought down to what I call the lowest common employee.

Well if you object so much to the higher salary, better job security, and better working conditions that generally go hand in hand with belonging to a unionised workforce then I've got a suggestion. Why don't you tear up your union card and give some of your salary back to your employer. Oh, and don't forget to tell him that he can crap on you at any time he wants with impunity because you won't be calling on the union to back you up.

I also find it funny that most people who either A: Hate Capitalism or B: Hate America, almost always praise communism, these same people could never survive under this type of government as they would not be allowed to A: b*tch about their government like they do now, or B: have this conversation on the internet.

Eh? At what point did anyone here say they "hate capitalism" or "hate America"?

And since when is communism the same as totalitarianism? Sure the very small number of governments who have chosen to describe themselves as communist (but in reality weren't truly communist) have also been totalitarian. But so what? There are plenty of capitalist countries that have also been totalitarian, some of which have been propped up by the US government.

The same applies to socialism. I can think of many socialist-leaning countries that are at least as democratic as the US.

[fredster]

And since when is communism the same as totalitarianism?

While Germany was communist, didn't they like build a wall? Was that wall to keep people out in your opinion?  Because it was so nice to live there?

 Let's see, in every capitalistic country you can leave.  You know, move.  Cuba is a communist country. They leave alright, but on rafts to the US. 

Well if you object so much to the higher salary, better job security, and better working conditions that generally go hand in hand with belonging to a unionised workforce then I've got a suggestion. Why don't you tear up your union card and give some of your salary back to your employer.

Read the news on that one - http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051118/BUSINESS01/511180431/1014

My current employer used to have a union, but the people voted it out in the early 80's. I never worked for a union in my life. Not that I wouldn't have,  it's just I found better paying jobs ELSEWHERE.

What does an employer owe you? Only one thing, what he agreed to give you.  You owe him your time and work, he owes you your paycheck.

If either of the two violate that simple contract, then that's the end of that business relationship. 

If you don't like that employer, then find another one.

It seems to me that people don't put themselves in the place of the employer.

Let's say you are building a house.  You have a contractor come out and frame it, but he says since you still seem to have some money, you should pay him more than what you agreed.  After all, the house will be worth more after it's built than the raw materials and labor.  So it's only fair he get his cut of that profit.

That's the way I hear "arguement" about getting more money from the employer.

As far as this google valuation, I don't know either.

Here are some rules I live by, maybe they could shed some light on my point of view:

1) It's not what you are worth, it's what you can negotiate.
2) If somebody else like me is making more money, then I can too
3) There is always money to be made in any business if I can only figure out how.
4) You don't have to be nice to somebody that is trying to screw you
5) If I keep spending more money than I make, I will never have any money and owe money for the rest of my life.

I think these are pretty simple rules.  They are capitalistic rules, but hey, I like my country.  Lots of other people from way far away (like in Cuba and China) like it too.  11 million illegal aliens can't be wrong can they?

[patrickl]

Communism is about everybody working just as hard and everybody getting paid the same.

BullS**t,

Ehm ... you seem to be mixing up opinion with fact. Equality IS what communism is about. I'm not saying it works or not nor if I'm in favor of the principle or not. Just saying that it communism is not "people don't need to work" as someone else suggested.

[fredster]

Just saying that it communism is not "people don't need to work" as someone else suggested.

That's right.  Made the USSR great didn't it?  Look at all those quality products.  Same with China.  You don't have to work.  But if you don't work you do what?

What's the going labor rate in China?  How about the industrial standards?

I'm sorry folks, but anybody that can try and put communism on any plane other than failed social system is ignoring a lot of history, news, interviews, Stalin, cold war, etc.

Do we have re-invent everything every few years just so we can make sure it doesn't work THIS time?

[jbox]

Capitalism: Supply & Demand
Communism: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

That *is* the definition of these *economic* systems. Both of them work well in some cases, and poorly in others. Once again, those who refuse to study history... 

[fredster]

In theory.

But what ended up happening was that the population become alcoholics. Everybody was oppressed because nobody could achieve. Power was held by the select few. It was up to them to decide what your "need" was.

Anybody who thinks that communism worked in any way shape or form is insane.  Anybody who thinks the USSR was a model forgets Siberia and Stalin. How many millions did he kill? 

In China, you work for what, .10 an hour? You have to live where you are told, you can't have any more than 2 children. You can't travel.  You are not free.

Freedom has a price.

Supply and demand is like nature. It's the same as evolution when you get right down to it.

Nothing is perfect. Nothing. There are upsides and downsides all over.  But I'd say that capitalistic systems slap down anything else.  It works better than any other system ever devised.

In every game there are winners and losers. In life and nature it's the same way.

[Crazy Cooter]

...the population become alcoholics. Everybody was oppressed because nobody could achieve. Power was held by the select few. It was up to them to decide what your "need" was.

Meth is getting up there with alcohol as being our biggest problem in the US... 

You need to look at what China is doing right now, to say their monetary system isn't working is ludicris.  The child thing is to curb their population, if you have more than 2 kids, you pay a "fee".  They can travel and many feel they are equal to, or better off than us.  That's their perspective.

I think capitalism is good, but it can be abused.  I think it is being abused now in the US.  If you think that it is working better now than anything in history, explain how the gap is growing between the rich and the poor.  Is the general population lazy or what?

[jbox]

Capitalism is great. It allows us to put a price on everything. Our labour, our kidneys, our vote, our very lives can be tallied by a jury to decide what it costs to kill someone.

While communism obviously has no benefits, like health care, outreach programs, rehabilitation centres, prisons, a standing army, etc... By definition anything you can't choose *not* to opt out of paying for is not capitalism.

[Dermbrian]

In theory.

But what ended up happening was that the population become alcoholics. Everybody was oppressed because nobody could achieve. Power was held by the select few. It was up to them to decide what your "need" was.

Anybody who thinks that communism worked in any way shape or form is insane.  Anybody who thinks the USSR was a model forgets Siberia and Stalin. How many millions did he kill? 

In China, you work for what, .10 an hour? You have to live where you are told, you can't have any more than 2 children. You can't travel.  You are not free.

Freedom has a price.

Supply and demand is like nature. It's the same as evolution when you get right down to it.

Nothing is perfect. Nothing. There are upsides and downsides all over.  But I'd say that capitalistic systems slap down anything else.  It works better than any other system ever devised.

Communism is an economic system.  Communism and freedom are, perhaps, not mutually exclusive.   Power certainly should not rest in a select few in a communist society....it should rest in the people.  As it should here in the US.   But all I see politicians doing in the US is working to either support their power base and encouraging business to be profitable, in the misguided belief that will mean more jobs for their constituents.  Instead, business does what business is designed to do.  Lower costs wherever possible to be most efficient, and generate as much profit for the owners or stockholders as possible.

In an opportunity driven system like capitalism, you have to have a market for your labor.  If the market doesn't exist, you're supposed to create a market. 

Under a communist economy, the *possibility* seems to exist that instead the labor can be shared and distributed, and society can decide what pursuits are worth that labor.

I am old enough to remember that we were supposed to have 20 hour work weeks by the 21st century.  Well, we're getting there.  Full time jobs are hard to come by.  I think the vision was that life would be better because of labor saving devices.  Not that we have to create more and more labor saving devices so that we can have a market so that we can create jobs.

I do get jaded, though, and think that we're a long and painful way away from finding what works best for the long term for mankind.  The brotherhood of man looks good on paper, but right now we're one big disfunctional family.

Brian

 



 

The political systems that If the political system of a communist state was modelled on democracy, human rights, and had a constitution protected by a court, things might turn out differently.

[patrickl]

Just saying that it communism is not "people don't need to work" as someone else suggested.

That's right.

[fredster]

I don't think I'm confusing anything.

Freedom might have different meanings to different people.

I am old enough to remember that we were supposed to have 20 hour work weeks by the 21st century.  Well, we're getting there.  Full time jobs are hard to come by.

Where are you from? Unemployment in the US is the lowest it's been for a decade. In fact, I don't have any friends unemployed.

Socialism has some very good charateristics.  Communism in theory would work if the people in power made correct decisons.

China's economy is based on it's attachment to the US dollar, and in a large part is funded by the US.

Socialism / communism / and Capitalism are all political-economic systems. The political climate has to be in place to practice the economic system. They are integrated.

Meth and Alcoholism are big problems, sure.  But we don't have 40%+ of the population as alcoholics in the US. It's in the single digits. 

In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, Socialism and Communism crush creativity and innovation.  Capitalism naturally encourages creativity.  If you can make the next big thing, then you profit from it.

Things like the TV, the VCR, faster computers, IPODs, medical research, and a host of other technical innovations are born in the US and other countries copy it.  The US leads the world in technical innovations and breakthrough medical discoveries.  Can any body argue with that?

Why? Because of the profit motive.

Under a communist economy, the *possibility* seems to exist that instead the labor can be shared and distributed, and society can decide what pursuits are worth that labor.

In a capitalist system, it's the same thing only it's not "planned". 

While communism obviously has no benefits, like health care, outreach programs, rehabilitation centres, prisons, a standing army, etc... By definition anything you can't choose *not* to opt out of paying for is not capitalism.

Take the USSR model. They had prisons and "rehabilitation centers".  So does Cuba. You don't like Castro, you go to a "rehabilitation center". 

China has a "standing army".  Russia had a "standing army"

You didn't have the option of opting out of paying for them.

Or maybe you are confused about socialism? It's more something for socialism to say that people don't have to work if they don't want to.

Really? And what happens to someone who doesn't work ?  Do they have health care, food and shelter?  What's the unemployment rate in the Netherlands?  What are all these people doing?

In an opportunity driven system like capitalism, you have to have a market for your labor.  If the market doesn't exist, you're supposed to create a market. 

Huh? if the market doesn't exist, you don't make any money.  If you "create" a market, then the market existed.  What sells, lives. What doesn't sell, dies.  What sells big gets bigger.  Kinda like Darwin's theory don't you think?

But all I see politicians doing in the US is working to either support their power base and encouraging business to be profitable, in the misguided belief that will mean more jobs for their constituents.  Instead, business does what business is designed to do.  Lower costs wherever possible to be most efficient, and generate as much profit for the owners or stockholders as possible.

Well Duh, yeah. The more business the more taxes that comes in.  Over the last few years the tax revenues have increased because of increased  business. 

And that profit for the owners and stockholders is where you should have your money.  In mutual funds, stocks and bonds, 401K, etc. That's how it works. IF you are NOT investing your money, then get an Ameritrade account and take advantage of the economy.  That's how it's shared.

Groups of stockholders can influence companies to take new directions. That's how you vote in the business world.

I swear that our schools are failing us in the US because they don't teach kids about investing, banking, insurance, taxes, and the stock market.

[AllisterFiend]

explain how the gap is growing between the rich and the poor.  Is the general population lazy or what?

Well, it all depends on how you define poor, if being poor in this country means having a car, air conditioner, heater, roof over their head, CABLE television, smoking two packs of cigarettes a day and drinking all day, then you are right, we have a problem.

I used to do installations house to house about 5-6 years ago and I worked in some of the worst neighborhoods in town, I've seen it all, and believe me, what we consider poor in this country would make someone from a truly poor nation laugh at us.

No one looked like they were starving to me, the were sitting around with fully furnished living rooms (not the best furniture or the newest but useable), watching T.V. (CABLE by the way), and eating and drinking.

My point is basically, it really does depend on how you define poor, someone living in a house described above is not in my opinion bad off.

Allister Fiend

[Crazy Cooter]

I define rich & poor by the money they make.  Look at the tax returns of the US.  If you don't consider someone "poor" because they can still live in a cave eating bugs, then that's your opinion I guess.  The middle class is shrinking and we're becoming a nation of the "haves" and the "have-nots".

*** Fact Check ***

Unemployment is not the lowest it's been in a decade.
Yearly averages according to the U.S. Department of Labor:
http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/UNRATE.htm
2005- 5.12%
2004- 5.53%
2003- 5.99%
2002- 5.78%
2001- 4.75%
2000- 3.97%
1999- 4.22%
1998- 4.50%
1997- 4.94%
1996- 5.41%

Your 19th friend will be unemployed.

If Chinas economy was based on the US dollar (which it is not), how can they do so well while we're not?

www.marininstitute.org - buried in their site -
~7.4% of full-time workers people between 18-49 years old are "problem drinkers" in the US.

Medical breakthroughs: http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=37077.0
There's one arguement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/
- The Sony U-matic system, introduced in Tokyo in September 1971, was the world's first commercial videocassette format.
- In 1970 the Dutch electronics company Philips developed a home videocassette format.
- Betamax was Sony (Japan) & VHS is JVC's (also Japan).  Nothing to do with the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/
- The German student Paul Gottlieb Nipkow proposed and patented the first electromechanical television system in 1885.
- On March 25, 1925, Scottish inventor John Logie Baird gave a demonstration of televised silhouette images at Selfridge's Department Store in London.
- In 1928 Baird's company (Baird Television Development Company / Cinema Television) broadcast the first transatlantic television signal, between London and New York, and the first shore to ship transmission.
- Vladimir Kosma Zworykin is sometimes cited as the father of electronic television because of his invention of the iconoscope in 1923 and his invention of the kinescope in 1929. His design was one of the first to demonstrate a television system with all the features of modern picture tubes.  [Zworykin was in Russia]
- A fully electronic system was first achieved by Philo Taylor Farnsworth on September 7, 1927, although the low-resolution, light-insensitive camera tube limited the image to a plate of glass painted black, with a straight line etched across it, rotated in front of a bright carbon arc lamp. Seven years later, on August 25, 1934, at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Farnsworth gave the world's first public demonstration of a working, all-electronic television system, with 220 lines per picture, 30 pictures per second.

Look at the dates and find out who copied who.

*** End Fact Check ***

Take the USSR model. They had prisons and "rehabilitation centers".  So does Cuba. You don't like Castro, you go to a "rehabilitation center".

China has a "standing army".  Russia had a "standing army"

You didn't have the option of opting out of paying for them.

How is that any different than the US?

I swear that our schools are failing us in the US because they don't teach kids about investing, banking, insurance, taxes, and the stock market.

I agree with that 110%, but don't see it as the only way to profit from economic growth.  Look at how much the average family is in debt.  They don't have any money to invest.  That's where the problem is.  Not only do most people not know how to invest, the ones that do don't always have the money to do it.

That leads into my arguement about greed.  If I come up with the next electronic widget and make a working prototype that will turn the world upside down, what do I do?  Go into business right?  Nope.  I need money to protect my ideas, money to form the business, money to start production, etc.  My choices are:
1- Don't make it.
2- Sell the idea.
3- Find investors.

In order for me to make "some" money, I need to make other people money too.  That's stupid.  The laws should be written so it's easy for the average person to protect their ideas.  Patents are just too expensive.  In my view, the laws are written so that the existing large corporations will make money off other peoples ideas and work.  That's greed.  Look at all the subsidiary companies of GE or 3M.  It's out of control.  It shouldn't be allowed to work that way.  As an example, I'll tell you the business structure of a construction company I worked for.

- The company was not based in the US because taxes are too much here.  They moved their "headquarters" to some island somewhere, but there were zero employees at that location (assuming it was even a real address).
- All their work was done in the US.
- The "Parent" company owned all the tools, desks, chairs, computers... everything.  There sole "business" was renting these items to branch offices, and getting "paid back" for the investment they made by starting the subsidiary company.
- The branch offices worked out of buildings rented locally and all tools and stuff were shipped to that location.

Why you ask?  Risk Management.  If a building they constructed fell over and squished a child care facility in the middle of the day, the subsidiary company would be sued.  What would they get sued for?  Nothing.  They own nothing.  It's an empty shell company.  What if the Parent company got sued?  For what?  All they did was rent stuff out.  They are legally isolated.

That's how existing money can make more money with no risk.  It's a top-heavy system.  The average person can't compete.  That's how large corporations are free to "try" something and bail out with virtually no risk to their existing "stuff".  Meanwhile an entreprenuer has to mortgage his house and spend his kids college fund.  Great if it works out, but it crushes them if it doesn't.

Summary: "Existing" money has waaaaay less risk than "new" money.  It shouldn't be like that.  The risk should be the same.

[jbox]

You're slipping Cooter. You also missed the obvious fact that China is buying bonds from other countries in high numbers. So, in fact, *they* are funding *our* economies. 

Your example is 90% correct though, but there is no such thing as "new money". Capitalism is designed to have the old boys club in charge of the money based on the assumption that since they have the money they know best how to make money. What many people don't know is that Adam Smith also said in his book that the government needed to keep a close watch on them, because they would invariably do their best to try and subvert the system to remove competition (and hence remove capitalism). It would be good if actually reading that book was required in western high schools, since so many people seem to not really understand what and how the economic -isms are supposed to do.

[Crazy Cooter]

My fingers were tired  .

Our businesses are also building in China.  Dairy Queen, WalMart, etc.  So not only are they lending us money via bonds, they're "allowing" our companies to expand.

Removing competition... like merging billion dollar companies to make trillion dollar companies (J.P. Morgan, Chase, Manhatan, Bank One, Whatever Else):
JPMC's chairman Bill Harrison spoke first, reciting the proposed combined entity's 2300 branches in 17 states, its $1.1 trillion in assets...

Who can compete with that?  Not even the US government can.  But it was allowed to happen.  It's to the point that you *think* you have competition because it's a different name, but it's all the *same* company.  That's not capitalism, that's taking advantage of people = greed.

[jbox]

I think it might have been Machiavelli who said that countries should never allow monopolies to develop since they would eventually become competitors of the government itself. 

[Crazy Cooter]

Heavy but interesting reading (Anti-trust stuff):
http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/history/docs/origins.pdf
Start @ page 6 and tell me if we're not allowing the same thing.  It's just hide behind different company names now.

[fredster]

Ok, it's like that is it?

You are so wrong Cooter, at so many levels. I mean, where in the world did you grow up? Who copied who? They copied US. Got it? US! Geeze man, I can't believe we are even having this discussion.

I said -

Things like the TV, the VCR, faster computers, IPODs, medical research, and a host of other technical innovations are born in the US and other countries copy it.  The US leads the world in technical innovations and breakthrough medical discoveries.  Can any body argue with that?

Other people developed OUR ideas Cooter.

Television was invented in the US by Philo Farnsworth.

The VCR was invented in the US in 1956 Cooter.  It was made by the US, Xerox.  It was developed for home use overseas.  Lookup "Ampex VRX-1000 "

We developed scores and scores of cutting edge technology.

That's not saying other countries didn't come up with technical innovations. It's saying we lead the world in comming up with the technology in the first place.

I have to say I was wrong about the unemployment rate.  It's about the same as it has been the whole decade, low. Kinda went into the crapper after 9/11.  Almost went back to the levels we saw in Clinton's first term.

I guess that's one reason we are at war. If you remember.

Medical breakthroughs? We unraveled DNA. We developed Blood groups, we also developed XRAY and CAT scans. Geeze man.

The US's alcolism rate Cooter? Why didn't you quote another country's rate.  Why did you just look at the US?

~7.4% of full-time workers people between 18-49 years old are "problem drinkers" in the US.

7.4% is not 40%.  What's the "norm" in a developed country? 5-7% of the total population?  How about this quote - "18.8% were alcohol

[patrickl]

I don't think I'm confusing anything.

Ehm yeah you really are confusing things.

I was talking about communism not being about not working and my statement is accurate. Sorry for not explaining further because I thought that was common knowledge, but with communism everyone is supposed to work. If you can't find work work is provided. In the USSR this was pretty commonplace. The job may be a more or less useless job, but that's not the point. They all have to work.

Or maybe you are confused about socialism? It's more something for socialism to say that people don't have to work if they don't want to.

Really? And what happens to someone who doesn't work ?

[fredster]

Your working statement is accurate only in theory. Not in practice.

The difference is that people work work for their own gain work harder and with more passion than people who work for somebody else's gain. It strips away your motivation to achieve and excell.

And you didn't answer the question about "not working", likely because you can't.  I doubt if any of us on the BYOAC know the answer to what happens to you if you didn't work in Russia. Why? Because they didn't tell anybody.  They lied a lot, even made changes to their maps based on their need.

And just because you show up at a job, doesn't mean that you "work".  It just means you show up. That was the problem with the system.

My point about the neatherlands is that I am getting really worn on everybody comparing the systems in the US to whatever. Compare other countries to other countries.

And the AMPEX was the first. It was as big as a house and cost a buttload of cash in 1956. But to say that it wasn't a step in the progression of the technology is wrong.

It's like saying that the UNIVAC wasn't a step in the progress of current computer technology. Or that the Lazer developed by the US wasn't a step in the progression of CD/DVD technology.

As far as the television, it was due. In the US if you google search for "Invented the first Television" you come up with Philo Farnsworth.  Lots of people were working concurrently, but it was Philo Farnsworth that came up with the first one.

Where was the first television network built? In Russia? I don't think so.

People concurrently came up with the telephone. I guess Alexander Graham Bell wasn't the first in your opinion?

Discussions don't have much use if people don't stick to facts and bring so much emotion to the table.

Right, sure. Or if you twist your facts to re-write history.

Let me summarize my points:
1) Communism is a failure. It is against human nature because it removes the profit motive and relegates everyone to a level of equality that is artifical. 
2) Communism transfered too much power to the government from the people . You didn't have a choice if you wanted to reverse it. Thus your freedom was compromised.
3) Capitalism rewards those who are innovative and have drive and determination.  It is responsible for most of the technical innovations we have in this world today.
4) "Pure" capitalism has predictable outcomes that actually stifles competition if left unchecked. No pure "ism" is ever perfect. But it is the natural economic system.
5) The function of the US government is to keep the playing field fair.  It is all. Everybody must have an equal right to play.  It isn't responsible for fixing the game so their are no losers. If they did, there would be no real winners.

As far as alcohol consumption, the US is 21st in the world.  Damn, I guess we don't lead there - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_alc_con  You'd think with the NFL and NBA, we'd be up there higher.

[Crazy Cooter]

As far as alcohol consumption, the US is 21st in the world.  Damn, I guess we don't lead there - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_alc_con  You'd think with the NFL and NBA, we'd be up there higher.

LOL.  Maybe we should all pitch in on that one over the upcoming holiday season  .

FWIW:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4453960.stm
China is buying seventy Boeing 737 aircraft - a $4bn (

[Grasshopper]

Just saying that it communism is not "people don't need to work" as someone else suggested.

That's right.  Made the USSR great didn't it?  Look at all those quality products.  Same with China.  You don't have to work.  But if you don't work you do what?

What's the going labor rate in China?  How about the industrial standards?

I'm sorry folks, but anybody that can try and put communism on any plane other than failed social system is ignoring a lot of history, news, interviews, Stalin, cold war, etc.

Do we have re-invent everything every few years just so we can make sure it doesn't work THIS time?

If you're going to use history to backup your arguments then you also need to understand the history of the United States.

Newsflash - the United States didn't become wealthy overnight. What about the squalid working conditions that so many city dwellers had to endure during the industrial revolution of the nineteenth century? What about the poverty of the wild west (most people were after all dirt poor farmers not gunslingers)? What about the great depression of the 1930s? What about the slave trade? What about the fact that most of the United States's land and natural resources was stolen from the native inhabitants? OK the last two of those things can't be blamed on capitalism but they do tie in with the theme of exploitation upon which capitalism depends.

Basically several generations of people have had to endure a lot of pain for you to enjoy the wealth you take for granted. To denigrate China because they are at an earlier stage of industrial development is retarded and tells you nothing about the relative merits of capitalism, communism and socialism.

China is also a particularly poor example to choose as an example of failed communism because their economy has for a long time been capitalist in everything but name. Oh, and despite their capitalist economy the Chinese government remains deeply repressive and resistant to democratic reform. So much for equating capitalism with freedom.

[Grasshopper]

Let me summarize my points:
1) Communism is a failure. It is against human nature because it removes the profit motive and relegates everyone to a level of equality that is artifical. 
2) Communism transfered too much power to the government from the people . You didn't have a choice if you wanted to reverse it. Thus your freedom was compromised.

It is getting tiresome having to repeat this but true communism has never been tried. Carl Marx saw communism as a utopian ideal that mankind would perhaps achieve in the distant future. Interestingly he also envisioned societies having to go through a capitalist phase before becoming communist.

However, I agree that the soviet system didn't work. I also find it hard to believe that pure communism could work in practice. It seems counter-intuitive to me. But that is beside the point. It was you who introduced communism into this debate. Pointing out the many downsides of capitalism and suggesting ways to improve the system is not the same as advocating full blown communism. That is a typical straw man tactic used by many rightwingers.

[fredster]

"Straw Man arguement"?

[RetroJames]

I wish people wouldn't quote my "toaster reversal joke". Makes it look like it was meant as a serious remark.

Actually it is. It is a good business strategy to build things that fall apart, because they are cheaper and guarentee future business. It's called "Planned Obsolence", and the only thing that counts against it is a consumer's ability to choose a manufacturer who decides not to do that. Competing companies only *don't* do it because one of them is willing to *not* do it to get the customers.

Hence it is only the competition that keeps the market efficient, not the manufacturers themselves.

Exactly right, and that to me is not a feature but a flaw.  I am enamored with the "invisible hand" of the market place for all that it does do, but to me this is an example of how the invisible hand should not be given free and absolute reign as it clearly does not make sense if you follow it to its logical conclusion; depletion of resources, repetetive work. wasted time and energy.

[patrickl]

Fredster, it's depressing how you take the things people say out of context so you can twist their words into an argument for your own case. I'm not sure if you do this on purpose or if you just don't understand what people say. However I am sure it's not funny and it does not make you look "clever".

[fredster]

I don't seek to be clever. I just do what the rest of us here do, speak my mind and my viewpoint.  I am under the impression my opinion is just as valid as the next guys.

I took it step by step, quote for quote PatrickL. Anybody can find the things I quoted and see if I "didn't understand".
That's not twisting or taking it out of context. It's just examination. That's all. 

After all, I didn't pick up on your toaster analogy did I?

I guess what I don't understand is all of this hostility toward business and capitalism. I never have understood that. I believe that people feel like they have gotten the short end of the stick, so they want to stick it to da man or something.

It's like a people whining because they didn't get a big piece of pie and it wasn't fair 

[Zero_Hour]

My thoughts on the original 3 pieces... coz I know you're all wondering 

Walmart -
When Walmart starts building Libraries, Parks, and other Public use facilities in the communities they enter AND flourish in, then I will start to believe they are just as good as the Local Proprietor model of retail. In My town, the largest local park, the Brand new Library at our local college, as well as the local Public library are all the result of Local capitalists. These tend to be individuals active in the community, who have a vested interest in the sustaining of that community, and usually like to see buildings with their names on them. Sadly there are not as many of them around these parts as there used to be. But hey we do have a Wal Mart that at one time was the highest grossing store in terms of Dollars/Square Ft. in the country. In another 20 or 30 years will Wal-Mart be active in the community the way previous capitalists have? Publicly Traded Corporations have one single motive. Profit. Seeing as how nobody puts local libraries on TV for three hours at a clip on Sundays in the fall, I have my doubts about their future philanthropy at the LOCAL level, which is where it will make the most impact. Shopping at Wal-Mart makes me feel like I'm voting against my own self interests, as well as those of my community.

Spending versus chairity -
No difference. As soon as that $$$ goes to the chairitable organization it is back working in the economy, the same if it were going to buy a new car or a kilo of cocaine. The money circulates, and as long as it continues to, it's doing the whole economic stimulus thing.

Capitalism as the great equalizer -
A lovely concept, but alas we don't practice anything of the sort in this country. We live in a regulated capitalistic economy augmented with various social programs, on a fairly 'deregulated' swing of the pendulum at this time. The people who have the most to gain from capitalism are the ones who have the most to invest in it. Not surprisingly those tend to be CEO's and Board Members of large corporations. When  executive compensation increases at signifigantly higher rates than that of workers - and I'm talking about rate of growth here, something is wrong. I don't have a problem with large executive pay packages in and of themselves, I only get offended when they jump by double digit percentage points with massive buyout clauses if they screw up and get canned - and workers are lucky to get a cost of living raise, and maintain their benefit / pension packages. I guess I'm hoping for regulation to swing the other way, but then I'm sure there's a way to make that work against the 'little guy' too.


Another thought -
regardless of your love or hate of our corpatalistic (I just made that up  )society here in the states, it probably woiuldn't hurt us too much if we stopped buying so much crap that was made in China, and sending our companies over there to help build up their infrastructure. That money would be much better spent at home, even if there was less of it to go around.

[jbox]

Two simple solutions - get rid of incorporation and inheritance. These are the two best ways to launder money without any connection to "more work = more pay". Philanthropy always goes up the harder you tax rich people because it gets them more bang-for-buck then in the long run.

Plus, the counter-argument would originally be that big companies which make lots of money pay lots of taxes which can be used to build parks and libraries. The only problem is that big companies can pay *less* taxes by virtue of company-related laundering abilities. So, get rid of the non-people companies (which we did just fine without for a very long time) and more local taxes for your local libraries and parks.

[Dermbrian]

Another thought -
regardless of your love or hate of our corpatalistic (I just made that up  )society here in the states, it probably woiuldn't hurt us too much if we stopped buying so much crap that was made in China, and sending our companies over there to help build up their infrastructure. That money would be much better spent at home, even if there was less of it to go around.

Nice word.  My made up word is crapitalism.

That one sums up my biggest issue with capitalism.  I don't deny that it is a system that results in tremendous innovation and technical achievement.  But along the way, a tremendous amount of only marginally useful crap gets sold, too, using up limited resources in insane ways.  It fosters a competetive environment rather than a cooperative existence. 

Maybe nothing else has worked better so far, but I'm unconvinced that it's the best sustainable system that can work in an overcrowded world.  I will say that I think socialism, as I understand it, is a worse system.   That seems to require the same, or worse, frantic existence for the producers to supply the needs of themselves and the non-producers (who are usually not a non-producer by choice, IMHO).  I think that eventually we have to find ways to produce the mostly things that we need and things of value, and less things just for the sake of producing things.


Brian

[Crazy Cooter]

One might easily say that the US needs to share the wealth "better" so the poor would not be "poor"anymore.

Wow. Redistrubution of wealth. Take it from those that can make it and give it to those who don't know what to do with it. So we can empower them to wait for more. Great idea 

I actually don't believe in monetary donations.  What I'd like to see is the risk for an existing company and a startup company to be more equal.  I think that would lead to faster innovations.

Right now, large corporations can start a new venture with zero risk to their current operations.  Try doing that as an individual.  It can't be done.  Look at Northwest Airlines.  They are going through bankruptcy, yet the management gets bonuses and they can still order millions in new planes.  If I file for bankruptcy, can I still have a high paying job and buy a new house?  Nope.  I'm held personally accountable for my debts (as it should be).  That same accountability should be pushed on corporations.  Let Northwest fail and other companies take over their market share.  there are several smaller outfits that would love to get a piece of that pie and might do a better job.  At least they should be given that shot.

Look at GM:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10138507/
GM has been crippled by high labor, pension, health care and materials costs as well as by sagging demand for sport utility vehicles, its longtime cash cows, and by bloated plant capacity. Its market share has been eroded by competition from Asian automakers led by Toyota Motor Corp. GM lost nearly $4 billion in the first nine months of this year.

Toyota is a better run company.  They didn't let themselves get into a position like this.  GM's management made the decisions that got them into their mess.  Look at what the menagement team makes (old info): http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_gm_execs_forego/index.htm  luckily they didn't get their bonuses  .  They suck at their jobs, they're making poor decisions.  I don't see any accountability for their decisions.  What happens now?  They cut 30,000 jobs.  The problem isn't the 30,000 people in the trenches, it's the morons at the top.  But they won't fire themselves, instead they slip into their retirement package  .  Look at Lutz in particular: Bob Lutz, chairman-GM North America and vice chairman-product development - Lutz's pay jumped from $483,333 in 2001 to $1.45 million in 2002. Other compensation totaled $120,734.  Their product development sucks.  They aren't building for the market.  They didn't look 5 years ahead at what people would want.  His salary tripled that year and the decisions he made then caused 30,000 people to lose their jobs.

Get rid of the corporate safety nets, or give them to individuals.  I don't care so long as it's equal risk.

[fredster]

What you are saying about GM and Toyota are very true.  GM is a huge corporation with people who can't see more than the next quarterly cycle ahead.

If you ever talk to anybody in the automotive industry, top on down, you will find out in the first 5 minutes exactly how many years/months/days it will be until they retire. After that, they don't care.

But is it just time for them to fall out?  Is it just time for that dysfunctional system to just die?  They were not responsive to the market, they couldn't keep their costs in line, etc.  So they die out.

The demand for the vehicles will not disappear. Somebody who is adaptive and can respond to the market will step in and hire those people and make those cars.  Will they get paid the same and have the same benefits? Who knows?

This just proves that the capitalistic system is working actually.  It's going to replace something inefficient with something efficient.  "there are several smaller outfits that would love to get a piece of that pie and might do a better job.  "

The people displaced will find new jobs. It could happen to any of us at any time.  Any social/economic system have to abide by the law of supply and demand at some level.

[patrickl]

This just proves that the capitalistic system is working actually.

[fredster]

I'd say more often than not capitalism leads to extra waste and inefficiency.

Maybe.  Like strip mining or clearing forests.  There are examples of that in about every culture.

But I wouldn't generalize that it is because of capitalism more than it would be the society that does that.

Look at Russia and China. Look at what happened there as far as waste. 

[patrickl]

I'd say more often than not capitalism leads to extra waste and inefficiency.

Maybe.

[fredster]

I can see that.

So we'd all have the same things.  We'd all have exactly the stuff we need to live.

Wonder if somebody didn't like it like that? Wonder if he wanted one in Red with a turbocharger?

[Crazy Cooter]

Interesting reading...

CIA - The World Fact Book:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. The war in March/April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. The rise in GDP in 2004 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity. The economy suffered from a sharp increase in energy prices in the second half of 2004. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.

You'd think that over 30 years time, we'd be able to address this... unless nobody wants to...

[Crazy Cooter]

Also of interest since we've brought up China quite a bit:
US: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
CHINA: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

Poverty Rate: China= 10%, US= 12%
Degree of inequality in the distribution of family income: China= 44, US= 45
Business investments on assets: China= 46%, US= 16%
Public Debt: China= 31.4% of GDP, US= 65% of GDP
Industrial Growth: China= 17.1%, US 4.4%
Current Account Balance: China= +$30.32 billion, US= -$646.5 billion
Manpower available for military service:  China= 342,956,265, US= 67,742,879male & 67,070,144female
Military Expenditures: China=  $67.49 billion, US=  $370.7 billion

Be sure to read the background paragraph & the description of the politics.

[jbox]

Anyway, it's probably more a result of greed rather than capitalism. If people weren't so greedy they could accept a little less profit and keep things more environmentally sane.

I agree, if people weren't so greedy they would attempt to buy the more expensive products from eco-friendlier companies instead of getting the cheapest 'no frills super toxic' laundry powder.

Companies can't sell products people won't buy. That's why it's called supply and demand. If people really cared about the environment there are dozens of changes they could make today, but all of them require their time and effort, instead of some other entity with a capital letter doing it for them (like Government, or Companies, or The Education System). Just because I'm morally opposed to share-holders doesn't mean I don't think that customers bear 99% of the responsability for what is wrong with capitalist markets.

Enforced conformity is a bad thing people, and capitalism is currently the best system at giving people the choices they want to have. Just because by and large people can't be bothered putting the energy into making good choices doesn't make the system wrong, it just makes them idiots.

[patrickl]

Enforced conformity is a bad thing people, and capitalism is currently the best system at giving people the choices they want to have. Just because by and large people can't be bothered putting the energy into making good choices doesn't make the system wrong, it just makes them idiots.

The government is supposed to enforce things for the greater good. Individuals cannot make that distinction. That's not because they are idiots. Nope. That's because they are greedy!

I'm a big fan of "the polluter pays". In the Netherlands there a sort of tax on polluting the environment (a very broad definition of pollution btw)

The average Joe will just buy the toxic waste cleaning product because it's cheaper. Helping the environment is not something individuals can do. You need to influence (or rule) the masses for that. Just like we have the government to stop people from stealing the government should also help against people/companies raping the environment.

[patrickl]

Capitalism was on the news here this night. I saw big stores open, people running over each other and starting fistfights over cutting lines. The few who actually did get the TV at "deep discount" often got robbed on their way home. Amusing I guess, but a pretty frightning example of greed too.

Anyway, it showed me most of all that greed is something that can be instilled in the people. Just use enough marketing power and people will run over each other to buy a TV with some extra discount.

[Crazy Cooter]

I saw the lady that "flipped her wig"  .

The funny part is that MicroCenter has $400-$500 notebooks all the time with but require a rebate from them (I've never been shorted on a MicroCenter rebate):
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=214681

$459 after $200 mail-in.  Might not work for everyone at x-mas time because of the rebate, but I've seen them with better deals anyhow...
That one has TV-out too.

Somebody should seriously sue WalMart and the others for the safety aspect and for not letting the disabled have a chance at the products.  If they are going to offer something from 5am -11am, they should be required to carry enough to cover that time span.  Or at least do what Best Buy did and hand out vouchers to people standing in line prior to opening the doors.  That way there is no mad dash to fight people.

[Crazy Cooter]

Interesting reading about the concentration of wealth vs purchasing power.  Also discusses why we may be heading for a recession (again):
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P134742.asp

[DrewKaree]

The government is supposed to enforce things for the greater good. Individuals cannot make that distinction. That's not because they are idiots. Nope. That's because they are greedy!

I don't understand why you believe that government is supposed to enforce things for the greater good.  The government is comprised of individuals.  Those people you state are greedy.  One person can (and often DOES) try to do something for the greater good in government.  What we often don't see (perhaps EVER) is the greed attached to that "greater good" thing, such as a bridge to nowhere.

To state that individuals CANNOT make that distinction simply makes a collection of individuals (who CANNOT make that distinction) equally unable to make that distinction, only on a grander scale.

To allow government to make those "greater good" decisions has resulted time and again in the government abusing its power to the point that the "greater good" is served only minimally, if at all.  If 49 cents of every dollar is going to "the greater good", are we REALLY serving the "greater good"?  I realize setting the bar at a cent less than half a dollar is VERY low, but I'm betting throwing away 50% is considered acceptable.

[jbox]

The government is supposed to enforce things for the greater good. Individuals cannot make that distinction. That's not because they are idiots. Nope. That's because they are greedy!

Congratulations, you have passed Facism 101. Which second year subjects would you like to enrol in?

The solution to this problem is never going to be disempowering people, because then you just end up concentrating even more power in the hands of these animals you think are greedy anyway. There is no philosopher king, and never will be while the solution to a problem is simply to make someone else solve it instead of having society at large agree to take up the challenge. That's pretty damn hard of course, but most real solutions are.

[jbox]

To state that individuals CANNOT make that distinction simply makes a collection of individuals (who CANNOT make that distinction) equally unable to make that distinction, only on a grander scale.

I love that site.

[DrewKaree]

I'd love to have BOTH of those framed and hanging on the wall

I'd also like to add that having so little faith in people, specifically, any single person, is foolish beyond belief.  It also implies such a negative attitude towards our fellow man as to make me believe that attitude itself is the foundation of greed:  I can't count on ANYONE to do it, therefore, I have to do it myself, or get a collective of more people like ME to "do it right".

That "no one will do it unless forced to do it" is in direct contradiction to such organizations as the Red Cross, efforts such as donations to areas devastated by natural disasters (seen in spades this year), and daily work being done by soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and churches.

[Crazy Cooter]

...Look at Northwest Airlines.  They are going through bankruptcy, yet the management gets bonuses and they can still order millions in new planes.  If I file for bankruptcy, can I still have a high paying job and buy a new house?  Nope.  I'm held personally accountable for my debts (as it should be).  That same accountability should be pushed on corporations.  Let Northwest fail and other companies take over their market share.  there are several smaller outfits that would love to get a piece of that pie and might do a better job.  At least they should be given that shot..

I should charge for my thoughts:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/REGIONAL_AIRLINES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
At a time when the nation's major airlines are being buffeted by skyrocketing fuel costs, heavy competition and bankruptcies, some regional carriers are posting growing profits and looking to expand.

[jbox]

That "no one will do it unless forced to do it" is in direct contradiction to such organizations as the Red Cross, efforts such as donations to areas devastated by natural disasters (seen in spades this year), and daily work being done by soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and churches.

Hippies and commies, the lot of them. Fancy doing things even though no body is paying you to try your hardest! 

[DrewKaree]

Hippies and commies, the lot of them. Fancy doing things even though no body is paying you to try your hardest! 

Wait...all this time I've been called "Evil" and "fascist".  Are you calling me schizo?  Man, I'm SO messed up on this one now!

Does this mean I have to start eating dirt and licking frogs and such?

Seriously though, I'm all for getting government the hell out of my way to allow me to accomplish more, ultimately for ME, but I also feel my government is FAR more wasteful with my money in attempting to use it to help people, than with the decisions I make to distribute what the government "allows" me to keep to charitable organizations. 

What patrickl is essentially saying is that the government is better capable than I to avoid "greed" with my money, yet it's often shown to be the reverse - NOT giving as much to government often results in MORE giving to charitable organizations - and are often (but not always) far less wrapped up in paperwork and "offices" the funds have to go through, which inevitably siphon off their "share" of that forced learning individuals can't grasp

Well, I figure since he's not here, I'd just shove as many words into his mouth as possible to show him I'm not greedy with his words

[jbox]

Well, I figure since he's not here, I'd just shove as many words into his mouth as possible to show him I'm not greedy with his words

Don't forget to leave room for the dirt and frogs.

[patrickl]

LOL, you guys really don't understand the government should be the one to protect the environment? Of course in a country that is the greatest waster of resources in the world people probably don't care no.

Doesn't the government enforce a maximum speed? Stop (or at least try to stop) people from stealing, murdering (if it is not done in the name of a crusade) and such? That's all for the greater good. Making sure the country (or even the planet) is an inhabitable place in a couple of years is also something only the government can make happen. Greedy individuals will always choose for their own good.

[Grasshopper]

Hippies and commies, the lot of them. Fancy doing things even though no body is paying you to try your hardest! 

Wait...all this time I've been called "Evil" and "fascist".  Are you calling me schizo?  Man, I'm SO messed up on this one now!

Does this mean I have to start eating dirt and licking frogs and such?

Seriously though, I'm all for getting government the hell out of my way to allow me to accomplish more, ultimately for ME, but I also feel my government is FAR more wasteful with my money in attempting to use it to help people, than with the decisions I make to distribute what the government "allows" me to keep to charitable organizations. 

What patrickl is essentially saying is that the government is better capable than I to avoid "greed" with my money, yet it's often shown to be the reverse - NOT giving as much to government often results in MORE giving to charitable organizations - and are often (but not always) far less wrapped up in paperwork and "offices" the funds have to go through, which inevitably siphon off their "share" of that forced learning individuals can't grasp

Well, I figure since he's not here, I'd just shove as many words into his mouth as possible to show him I'm not greedy with his words

I tell you what Drew why not make the paying of all taxes voluntary? I mean I'm sure most people would still pay right?

And why not have charities running the police and Army? I'm sure everyone would contribute just as much as they do now through taxation. I mean people are not greedy and selfish are they?

[Crazy Cooter]

The common thread I see is that "Companies waste less money than Government".  Then why are we keeping people in Congress for 30+ years?  Get them out and get people in that can run the Government in a cost effective manner.  It's not a hopeless situation.  We should be forcing the Government to spend wisely.  Instead, the general public buys into the propaganda/rumors sent out by the interest groups that persuade the Government to waste money in the first place.

How many people (besides us) know about the vote to immediately pull troops out of Iraq?  How many of those can explain the difference between the Republican version that was voted on and the Democrat version that was not?

People just don't care.  That's how the Government gets away with waste and how interest groups get away with influencing politicians.  Politics isn't about serving the public, it's about serving the interest groups to get re-election money... to serve the interest groups longer.

To get rid of Greed, I think first we have to get people to care.  Charities are far from safe.  I've brought up my research into the Rockefeller family and would like to point out how they used the Red Cross & 9/11 for profit.  You'd think that the Red Cross would be in charge of distributing the funds donated for 9/11 victims right?  Wrong.  They "hired" the Rockefellers to do it:
http://www.rockpa.org/_ARC.aspx

Where is that money "stored" until it is dispersed?
http://www.rockpa.org/Content/rockpadocs/donor%20advised%20fund%20-%20tpc%20infopack.pdf
It's invested in Rockefeller companies.

Of course considering the Board of Directors are Rockefellers, where else would they invest it?
http://www.rockpa.org/Board.aspx
(The "R." that you *think* is a middle initial stands for Rockefeller)

So Greed is rampant in Charity work as well.  The Rockefellers actually "donate" money from one of their charities to another one.  That inflates the dollar amount the charities handle and, in turn, inflate the income of the people that run them.

[fredster]

Patrickl, do you think the example of people fighting for notebooks is a capitalistic thing or more like a cultural thing?

[patrickl]

Patrickl, do you think the example of people fighting for notebooks is a capitalistic thing or more like a cultural thing?

[fredster]

Patrickl,
So that means "Yes it's a capitalistic thing" then?

[Crazy Cooter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4480156.stm

A Republican congressman in the United States has resigned after admitting he took $2.4m (

[DrewKaree]

I tell you what Drew why not make the paying of all taxes voluntary? I mean I'm sure most people would still pay right?

And why not have charities running the police and Army? I'm sure everyone would contribute just as much as they do now through taxation. I mean people are not greedy and selfish are they?

Sure, I'm all down with that, I mean that is what was said, right?  Or do you simply don't see or are unwilling to acknowledge that government wastes far more money on things unnecessary to this "greater good"?

Try not to give us the knee-jerk apology for government's wasteful ways.  You might get more attention paid to your points if you weren't so myopic and could realize it's not a crime to admit government wastes so much that they could E-A-S-I-L-Y cut spending on stupid things like a bridge to nowhere, a museum for "music", foolishly using money on stopgap projects that cost more in the long run than just doing it right the first time......cut spending, or better yet, STOP spending on stupid crap like that, and you would have all the money you'd need to fund your pet projects too.

When you can admit these things, we might be able to have a sane conversation.  In the meantime, I'll keep pointing out government wastes money, and you keep assuming government is the ONE area in America that isn't wasting money - remember, the point I actually made?

[fredster]

I never understood why people think "the government" can possibly do anything effectively.  It's too big. It's a bohemouth that stumbles around sometimes aimlessly.  The right hand doesn't even know where the left hand is, let alone what it's doing.

Look at all that money. Billions and trillions of dollars.  It's beyond conprehension where it all goes.  But it does go, doesn't it?

If you think the government will protect you, man, you didn't see it in action at katrina. Don't blame the current administration, it will happen again.

If there is a man cutting through your door with a chainsaw, they aren't going to save you.If you expect them to help you take care of your family, you'll starve waiting.

You have to help yourself and take care of yourself. Take care of other people when you can.

[jbox]

Jbox,

I didn't write that, Grasshopper did. Deliberately misunderstanding my original point about how any government is inherently communist is one thing, but falsly attributing a quote to me and arguing against 'me' when I don't agree with the original point anyway once again reminds me why I usually only bother reading DK's posts to better sum up whatever it is you are currently rambling about. 

For example:

A voluntary tax is the Lotto. People do that in about every state. Greed feeds it.  But you can't win if you don't play, can you?

has *nothing* to do with taxes. Gambling is a zero-sum game, and using that as an example works *against* the point the pro-caps are trying to make. In reality, I have won more than 99.99% of the gamblers (ie. me=+$100, them=-$100) simply by not playing. Roulette is not a business strategy like economies of scale is supposed to be, or middle-man reduction, or R&D, etc...

I tell you what Drew why not make the paying of all taxes voluntary? I mean I'm sure most people would still pay right?

I would love to have a line-item power over the budget. Up until now the technology simply hasn't existed to really enforce this. In the same way that house insurance and car insurance is optional, I would love to have a card that gives me access to roads and the bus that my neighbour is not allowed to use because they chose not to pay that tax. I would love to have a card that lets me get my medicine at PBS prices, while the woman next to me pays 400% as much because she didn't want to pay her medicare levy. I don't declare any tax deductions for exactly that reason, and I do my best to try and convince the people around me to do the same. In return, I try to vote in the people who I think will then spend my money in the way I would most like it to be spent.

To get rid of Greed, I think first we have to get people to care.

And finally, this is 100% right. Now go out there, talk to your friends, talk to your family, call up on the radio, start a blog, hand out flyers, run information nights with free fizzy drinks & donuts.

These steps will actually educate and encourage the people around you to care, removing their right to make decisions about their own life is about the quickest way to make them *stop* caring. Nothing is solved by the Government, it is solved by people doing a job because a bunch of other people will all give a bit of their life to you in return for doing it.

For a long time I wanted so badly to be put in charge because I knew I was better educated then the "slobbering masses". But that opinion is exactly what we react against when a leader comes to power who thinks differently than we do. The solution is to try and convince other people to your point of view, not simply deny them the ability to make the choice at all. The theory of capitalism is that the person with the best idea of what you want is *you*. If you think other people should be making a different decision, try to reason with them, don't just write them off completely.

[Grasshopper]

I tell you what Drew why not make the paying of all taxes voluntary? I mean I'm sure most people would still pay right?

And why not have charities running the police and Army? I'm sure everyone would contribute just as much as they do now through taxation. I mean people are not greedy and selfish are they?

Sure, I'm all down with that, I mean that is what was said, right?  Or do you simply don't see or are unwilling to acknowledge that government wastes far more money on things unnecessary to this "greater good"?

Try not to give us the knee-jerk apology for government's wasteful ways.  You might get more attention paid to your points if you weren't so myopic and could realize it's not a crime to admit government wastes so much that they could E-A-S-I-L-Y cut spending on stupid things like a bridge to nowhere, a museum for "music", foolishly using money on stopgap projects that cost more in the long run than just doing it right the first time......cut spending, or better yet, STOP spending on stupid crap like that, and you would have all the money you'd need to fund your pet projects too.

When you can admit these things, we might be able to have a sane conversation.  In the meantime, I'll keep pointing out government wastes money, and you keep assuming government is the ONE area in America that isn't wasting money - remember, the point I actually made?

There are enough straw men here to fill a scarecrows convention.

I am aware that governments and indeed many charities and corporations waste a lot of money. In a democracy you're supposed to hold your government to account. If you don't like how they spend your money you kick then out. OK, I accept that the US has a deeply flawed voting system which makes holding the government to account difficult in practice but that is a bit off topic.

The main point I was making was that some things by their very nature have to be funded collectively whether we like it or not. If for instance you made payment towards defence voluntary then many people (probably the majority) simply wouldn't pay. We'd all be keeping our fingers crossed and hoping the other guy would pay. Do you honestly think an invading army is going to differentiate between people who chose to pay towards defence and those that didn't? Then there is state funded education. It could be argued that people who choose not to have children should not be obliged to fund people who have kids. The trouble is that if you don't provide 'free' education a lot of parents simply won't educate their kids. Those kids then grow up to be ignorant and unemployable. They then turn to crime and that means in the long run even more money has to be spent on police, prisons etc.

I also happen to believe in redistribution of wealth both for reasons of morality and pragmatism, and the most efficient way to redistribute wealth is through a progressive taxation system. I think the figures in Cooter's link speak for themselves.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P134742.asp

In an unregulated capitalist system there is a natural tendency for the gap between rich and poor to widen over time. No economist will dispute this. This is not because, as some have suggested, all rich people have some innate ability to generate wealth that poor people lack.  It's simply because after rich people have paid for the basics of life plus a few luxuries they have a lot of money left over to re-invest i.e. money makes money. Poor people are running hard just to stand still. For every Bill Gates there are dozens of George Bushes.

There comes a point when inequality actually starts to stifle innovation. I mean why should someone who has inherited a lot of wealth work hard and take risks?

The question is where do you draw the line? How much inequality is acceptable? Do you really want to go back to the eighteenth century where a small number of aristocrats controlled most of the wealth and everyone else had to work their butts off to maintain the aristocrats' lifestyle? Didn't you guys fight a war to get away from that BS? Well that is the future facing America is you don't start taking redistribution seriously.

[patrickl]

Patrickl,
So that means "Yes it's a capitalistic thing" then?

LOL. I don't think I said that. I thought it was a nice display of what happens when people get to greedy or more importantly how they were made greedy. These people were lured to that store with some promise of huge discounts I guess. So I'd say it's more psychological.

I don't think greed can be related only to capitalism. Too much greed is the downfall of any system. I'd say greed brought down the USSR (or maybe paranoia). China is doing much better. They don't try to dominate the world. Even though they will in a few years.

[patrickl]

I never understood why people think "the government" can possibly do anything effectively.

They don't really have to DO anything. They just have to legislate to make sure people don't abuse resources. It's really not that hard.

[patrickl]

To get rid of Greed, I think first we have to get people to care.

People can't care. It's too much for them to do that. It takes a real effort to care about something doesn't it? First it has to tee you off before you care.

[fredster]

Only the "greater good" is what they think it is. And the "greater good" is the ideal of those in power.

Government isn't that effective at anything it does. Well, our government anyway.  If we give it more power, we lose our power.

After a while, the goverment becomes less responsive to the people.  It becomes more restrictive to personal freedom for the "greater good"

[Crazy Cooter]

So how do we make the government be more responsible & careful about spending?  The "greater good" *should* be what we want.  Is there an unbiased site that summarizes what the House & Senate did that day so I don't have to watch C-Span?

I think it goes back to what I brought up before.  How many people even know what the government is doing that will affect them?  Do we even have reasonable access to that info without having to study law for 10 years to understand it?

[patrickl]

Only the "greater good" is what they think it is. And the "greater good" is the ideal of those in power.

Government isn't that effective at anything it does. Well, our government anyway.

[Crazy Cooter]

Personally, I'd love to see a return to the "Wild West" mentality.  I'm pretty much an anarchist at heart, so when I say the government should step into something it's usually after a great amount of consideration.

FWIW, I was surprised by fredsters comments too.  Maybe deep inside he's a liberal .

[patrickl]

Personally, I'd love to see a return to the "Wild West" mentality.

[jbox]

So how do we make the government be more responsible & careful about spending?  The "greater good" *should* be what we want.  Is there an unbiased site that summarizes what the House & Senate did that day so I don't have to watch C-Span?

Why don't you make one? Why do you make it sound like someone else should doing this for you, instead of volunteering your time to one of the current sites to try and improve it?   

Sure it's not easy, but at least you would be doing something about the problem instead of expecting someone else to fix it for you, then complaining when they have a different idea of what "fixed" means.   

[DrewKaree]

I cannot understand that this concept is so difficult to understand.

I'm guessing it's because your government works on a "who will outgive the other person" and you don't see a problem with that, since they're working towards what YOU believe to be the better way to get things done.

If it were that easy, MrC would be trumpeting Mr Kerry's surrender at this very moment, rather than the wailing and gnashing of teeth he undergoes on a daily basis.  You have the power to effect change in your city the easiest, and every level of government added onto it only makes your ability to effect change harder and harder.  You may be able to turn your entire state around to your way of thinking, at which point, you have to turn those cute wi'il representatives out into the cruel world of politics, where they are effective only if the general apathetic population makes their collective sighs known to enough people who might also agree with them.  Then they have to decide with the rest of the electorate whether or not to continue what they're doing, keeping themselves in control of certain stashes of money and power, and whether or not the fight with "the other side" is better fought another day, and instead today they'll sell their principles out for some token show of capitulation on something that more than likely DOESN'T serve "the greater good".


You guys continue to throw up defense and public safety officials.  No one ever seems willing to admit that if spending on such stupid things (like CONCRETE instead of asphalt for roads would cost more initially, save more in the long run, and require less taxation, or allow direction of the difference in those two options to be spent on hiring more policemen) were ever actually thought about, we COULD spend more money on "greater good" things.  Of course, we're back to your scenario of the people who currently DON'T do these things being the ones in charge of the cash register   It's the waste.  Period.  The greed of politicians to bring money back from D.C. to their home state for projects that make little to no difference in "the greater good". 

Why is it so difficult to understand the concept that spending a million dollars in one of our fine states to erect a monument to the fine Swedish people would better serve "the greater good" by hiring 1 more cop?  Now, take this one stupid example, multiply it by 50, and then just TRY to get a handle on the stupidity of spending by those people you think are better suited to look out for "the greater good", even though by your own words they're individuals incapable of doing something good because they're greedy.

Folks like MrC, Grasshopper, Shmokes, Stingray, etc DID vote to remove the people they thought were doing a terrible job.  So did I.  Please tell us if it solved the problems I'm specifically addressing, not some ephemeral "police, health care, environment, blah blah blah".  The ENTIRE government, BOTH sides of the aisle, need to realize they're spending OUR money so poorly.  I can't believe you AREN'T incensed at some of the ways YOUR government pisses money away, since clearly if they DIDN'T, they'd be able to take care of MORE of the problems you want to try to cure in your society.

We're not talking about small amounts either.  There's some third-world countries out there that would give your left arm for the amount governments like ours piss away yearly on things that do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for "the greater good". 

A return to the old west?  Meh.  Might actually work out better than what's currently being done.  Jbox seems to have a better idea, but I can already see people griping about that concept because "we can't afford it, but they can".  It's a personal responsibility thing with his concept.  Who's the greedy person in his concept?  The person who thought ahead, or the person who figured they'd piss money away because they didn't see the need to think about their future?

That may speak to excess more than greed though.

[tommy]

Too much stuff to read through here... i'll just say how about the playoff bound Giants and stuff.

OH YEAH.


Plex.

[DrewKaree]

Too much stuff to read through here... i'll just say how about the playoff bound Giants and stuff.

OH YEAH.


Plex.

Does this mean if the Giants weren't going anywhere that you might have disappeared forever?  You haven't had the cojones to show your face around here and NOW you're gonna crap up threads with your stupid boasting?  Someone, for the good of BYOAC, twist Tiki Barber's ankle.  Tommy might be around...well....until the football season starts next year and he runs and hides in the basement until he thinks it's safe to come out

Hey folks look.  It's tommy!  But we pronounce it "doo-shay"

[tommy]

Too much stuff to read through here... i'll just say how about the playoff bound Giants and stuff.

OH YEAH.


Plex.

Does this mean if the Giants weren't going anywhere that you might have disappeared forever? 

No, i would have just had a beer and not mentioned the three kicks our kicker missed to lose the game three times.


Edit- I am a good thread crapper upper.

[patrickl]

Drew,

I'm am talking about legislation or taxation to help clean products be more competitive. While you seem to keep on ranting about government efficiency. I'm quite unsure what the link is.

What your line of thinking does prove is that greed messes up (corrupts) a government too. So in that sense, you have shown greed to be a bad thing.

[Crazy Cooter]

http://www.yahoo.com/s/263455

Brent Wilkes, the founder of defense contractor ADCS Inc., gave more than $840,000 in contributions to 32 House members or candidates,
...
With help from two committee chairmen, ADCS got more than $90 million in government contracts since its founding in 1995, helping propel Wilkes from an obscure businessman to a millionaire prominent in Republican circles.

So how do we make the government be more responsible & careful about spending?  The "greater good" *should* be what we want.  Is there an unbiased site that summarizes what the House & Senate did that day so I don't have to watch C-Span?

Why don't you make one? Why do you make it sound like someone else should doing this for you, instead of volunteering your time to one of the current sites to try and improve it?   

Sure it's not easy, but at least you would be doing something about the problem instead of expecting someone else to fix it for you, then complaining when they have a different idea of what "fixed" means.   

Why should we have to summarize someone elses job?  There should be quick summary of everything that goes on at capital hill.  That way we would be able to hold people accountable for their actions and be able to see through the "spin" that always comes in during election campaigns.

[fredster]

Grasshopper:

For a long time I wanted so badly to be put in charge because I knew I was better educated then the "slobbering masses".

ROTFLMA

I say the same thing at work.  If I was in charge there would be changes made by god!

Cooter, what's surprsing about my comments? It's a typical conservative viewpoint.  Government needs to be kept out of as many things as possible, not included. That's a "small government" concept.  Maybe deep down, you are a conservative 

Patrickl,

I cannot understand that this concept is so difficult to understand. Obviously in any government money will be wasted, but do you think the US would be better off if there was no government? It was mentioned before, but what about defense, police, education, health care and care for the environment?

Provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare? Where have I heard that before? Huh?

The "government" does all that. What's different is what we believe is "care".  Take "care" of the environment.  Does that mean we leave it totally alone? Does that mean we strip the forrests and then replant them? What exactly does that mean?  Does it mean we take "care" of it so that we drain the wetlands and establish farms and homes ? 
Obviously in any government money will be wasted. Why? because it is constantly being pushed and pulled by political winds.

The US doesn't have socialized medicine. Just Medicare, and that is for the disabled and the old and retired only.  Other than that, it's welfare.  And those systems are plagued by mis-use and fraud in the billions.  They can't keep track of what they have now, let alone adding 250,000,000 more.

As far as "voting for the Wrong Government", I side with Drew, it doesn't matter which side of the isle you are on.  By it's very nature it's unresponsive. The bigger it gets, the more unresponsive it becomes to individuals or even small groups.

That's what keeping it small is all about. Keep it small, lean, and responsive.

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper:

For a long time I wanted so badly to be put in charge because I knew I was better educated then the "slobbering masses".

ROTFLMA

I say the same thing at work.  If I was in charge there would be changes made by god!

Not my quote. And in any case completely irrelevant to the points I made.

[patrickl]

Obviously in any government money will be wasted.

Again with this "money waste" issue and the government being crap anyway. What does this have to do with the point I brought up. Why do I even respond again since I said I gave up?

[fredster]

You are right Grasshopper, you didn't say that.  Jbox did. That doesn't mean I am not still ROTFLMA.

I misquoted Jbox when it was you in this thread too.  I get you two mixed up for some reason? 

Patrickl, I dunno what point you were making. I really don't. I didn't see a point other than you didn't like Drew's points.

I guess what we are getting from this thread then is  "Greed is bad, Okay?"

Well, I've learned alot! I'll try and convince my coworkers that we are laboring for the greedy underbelly of the man.  We should all rise up and tell our customers and suppliers that we won't make those nasty consumer goods anymore.

We should all just try and get along, set down an commune with each other and nature, and try and figure out what will benifit us all the most.  We shouldn't allow "greed" to interfere with the "greater good".  We should try and make our products clean!

 I'll also suggest that we only elect the best most qualified people for our political offices.

Yep, they'll be thrilled I'm sure.  I will be so respected for these great ideas! Maybe I'll get a promotion!

[patrickl]

[quote author=fredster link=topic=45760.msg446121#msg446121 Patrickl, I dunno what point you were making. I really don't. I didn't see a point other than you didn't like Drew's points.

The point is still in the message where I made it. It got snowed under by bridges to nowhere and statues for swedes. I guess to some people the "G" word is like a red rag in front of a bull. No normal conversation is possible beyond that point.

I guess that's what I have learnt most from this. The people who feel most that the US should spread it's "freedom" around (meaning form of government) are so deeply dissatisfied with their own government that they'd rather get rid of it. OK that actually makes sense. Export the whole lot to Iraq and be done with it I guess. Never mind.