Greed - 20/20

[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.