Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grakelin]

Cornelius Vanderbilt did that 200 years ago when a monopoly on something in the US didn't actually mean all that much.

[Nikov]

That is an incredibly weak counterpoint. So 200 years ago a monopoly caused by wealthy men and politicians schmoozing and dealing to create a single-bidder contract to handle all New York to New Jersey ferry services during the days of the spoils system where anything you could get a pocket politician to write off for you was considered fairly earned didn't actually mean that much?

Honestly Grakelin, you act like human beings changed in the last six thousand years.

[Grakelin]

It's not the people, it's the system.

In the early 1800s, the USA was still very young, and companies with monopolies weren't as powerful as companies with monopolies are today. The example of Vanderbilt is both too old to be relevant and an extremely rare scenario.

It's also the result of networking, because he came to power by being a good employee of Thomas Gibbons, one of the entrepreneurs who laid down the groundwork of the steamboat industry in the first place. His dream was always to have his own steamboat service, yes, but he started out with a boat provided for him by his parents.

[Earthquake Damage]

I think an economic system wherein you have to work really hard just to make sure your kids have a fighting chance is flawed, and saying that that is okay because life isn't fair shows a lack of critical thinking ability.

This.

While there is great potential for social mobility (e.g. various "rags to riches" anecdotes), in practice the poor remain poor, the middle class remain middle class, and the rich remain rich.  This has less to do with work ethic and merit than our (US perspective here) lingering Puritan tradition would have you believe.

[Nikov]

So you're saying what? Capitalism can't work in an older country? That it worked in one point of history but not the next? That getting a job for a guy who's already running a company counts as 'networking' and therefor invalidates the example?

[Luke_Prowler]

I think an economic system wherein you have to work really hard just to make sure your kids have a fighting chance is flawed, and saying that that is okay because life isn't fair shows a lack of critical thinking ability.

To be fair, an economic system where you still get paid everything you need even if you do jack squat is pretty flawed too.

[Nikov]

I think an economic system wherein you have to work really hard just to make sure your kids have a fighting chance is flawed, and saying that that is okay because life isn't fair shows a lack of critical thinking ability.

To be fair, an economic system where you still get paid everything you need even if you do jack squat is pretty flawed too.

Its not flawed, its fair! Everyone gets the same amount for low low prices everywhere! Think of all the great things such a system would provide us with. Vodka, potatoes, cardboard shoes, single ply toilet paper...

Apparently when Soviet officials visit the US, they're more impressed by supermarkets than superhighways. "Holy shit, you people have fresh fruit? And what is this, ten different kinds of potatoes?!?

[Grakelin]

Capitalism has always kept poor people poor and the already established rich wealthy by using their wealth to thrive within the system. But the perceived advantage that capitalism is a meritocracy does not apply as well when the system is 300 years old and all the resources have been claimed already.

Ninja Luke: Sure, if you look at communism or socialism in a very basic and undeveloped form. Nikov's sarcasm notwithstanding (especially his weird assertion about Soviet officials visiting the US in the present, as if they still existed), communist nations never actually let people sit around and do nothing, especially not when they are brutal dictatorships.

[Aqizzar]

To be fair, an economic system where you still get paid everything you need even if you do jack squat is pretty flawed too.

Just popping in to ask a question, now that the conversation has drifted into communism and freeloaders.  Why is it such an objectively bad thing to get free basic living resources?  I get that you don't want your productivity paying for someone else to work less, but everyone in the civilized word lost that argument with the reign of Otto Bismark.  Speaking purely objectively, outside of the particulars of any real system, while I don't like the idea that somewhere, somehow, my tax money is paying for someone who could be working but isn't, I don't consider that a flaw in the system itself.  I consider it a price worth paying so that people who really do need assistance get it without having to jump through hoops.

[Earthquake Damage]

To be fair, an economic system where you still get paid everything you need even if you do jack squat is pretty flawed too.

False dilemma.  Pure capitalism and pure communism (whatever that purity entails) are not your only options.  You're not necessarily limited to that continuum, really.

Its not flawed, its fair! Everyone gets the same amount for low low prices everywhere! Think of all the great things such a system would provide us with. Vodka, potatoes, cardboard shoes, single ply toilet paper...

Apparently when Soviet officials visit the US, they're more impressed by supermarkets than superhighways. "Holy shit, you people have fresh fruit? And what is this, ten different kinds of potatoes?!?

Prosperity != Fairness

I get that you don't want your productivity paying for someone else to work less, but everyone in the civilized word lost that argument with the reign of Otto Bismark.

Source, plz?  Not questioning.  I'm curious.

[Grakelin]

Supermarkets supply us with fresh fruit by buying them at discount rates from countries who desperately need to pay off IMF loans and can't actually afford to feed their own people, by the way.

[Luke_Prowler]

I'd like to point out that my statement was not a direct shot at communism (although it does imply it), but those wailing about how capitalism is flawed. The thing is that we know it's flawed, but all systems are. there will always be people that abuse the system, those who don't play by the rule. Don't assume that just because capitalism is having a hard time now that everything else would be better.

@Grakelin: Yes I know that those in a communistic system people still had to work, but since there was a guarantee of food and a job, there was no ambition to work harder (aside from personality traits and patriotic fever)

@Aqizzar: I actually support things like universal health care and unemployment benefits, since it helps those who would be unable to support themselves otherwise. But too much help and you end up with a house pet. And I don't mean the cute nice ones.

[Aqizzar]

@Aqizzar: I actually support things like universal health care and unemployment benefits, since it helps those who would be unable to support themselves otherwise. But too much help and you end up with a house pet. And I don't mean the cute nice ones.

I could point to a place like Sweden where it's guaranteed by the government that you'll never be poor, and yet manage some pretty great production-per-capita.

Point is, for how much emphasis super duper capitalism places on the opportunity to succeed through hard work, it's amazing how fast that turns into a "humans are gerbils" attitude when they don't actually have to work to survive.  Inconsistent appraisals of human nature.  Obviously I'm not accusing you of saying that, since you're not, it's just an observation.

[Renault]

Grakelin: Read this.
https://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/downloads/bp29_death.pdf

You're right in that the IMF creates problems for poor farmers. You're just about as wrong as you can be in how it creates those problems. It's the exact opposite of your description.

As to the rest of the thread, it seems theres not a lot of knowledge on what any of the terms people are using really means. For one thing, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism--they aren't really things. You can't just say "I support Capitalism!" because nobody is even clear what the term means. Sure, you can say its about private ownership of production or whatever, but thats really not a good definition because no 'capitalist' country has privatized everything. And hell, no socialist country ever nationalized everything. Both terms seem to be good for starting fights, but thats about where their use ends. In reality, most governments are mixed economies that lean in one of the two directions in practice and bellow loudly about in their propaganda.
Neither school of thought allows for freeloaders just sitting around, by the way. Market supporters need to stop using that assault on socialism, its old and silly. The ultimate difference is in how they allocate resources. Market economics leads to pareto optimality and usually maximum allocative effeciency. That is, it produces the most it can of what people want. It says nothing about how equitably they'll be distributed. Command economies typically strive for equitable distribution of resources, and that almost always comes at the cost of productive efficiency. Thats it. There really isn't anything more to debate. Capitalism creates a lot of wealth but can distribute it unevenly--though rarely as unevenly as Grakelin suggests. In fact, you can look at the numbers and find that the wealth of every sector of society has steadily improved over time, not just the rich. Right now, eastern Asia is a prime example. Market reforms there are leading to stunning rates of economic growth. And of course, with that comes all the problems inherent, yes, but you can't pretend they aren't real. Hell, even good ol' USA is still growing. I know its hard to believe with all the terror-saturated reports about our collapse, but, well, data, foo's. Follow this:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
Its the 2010 Economic Report of the President. Yes, poor people are doing much better than they were in the 50's. Capitalism is not pinning them down. Hell, even with the Bush-year doldrums, the number of people under the poverty line is down since the 90s.

Market economics usually create a great deal of wealth. Even socialist economics don't deny that reality anymore. Most socialist economists advocate the nationalization of key state industries, usually natural resources, transportation, energy, and healthcare. Thats really it.
Everyone here needs to tone down the rhetoric. Neither forms are twisted evil creations that will enslave your children. They're just different ways of allocating limited resources.

Oh, and Aquizzar, Sweden is able to afford that strong safety net because of high taxes on its incredibly-strong economy, where OECD describes "deregulation, globalization, and technology sector growth" as the "key productivity drivers."
See how tangled this all gets? They can support a socialistish safety net because of a capitalist economy. Nothing is as simple as people here are making it sound.

[Aqizzar]

Oh, and Aquizzar, Sweden is able to afford that strong safety net because of high taxes on its incredibly-strong economy, where OECD describes "deregulation, globalization, and technology sector growth" as the "key productivity drivers."
See how tangled this all gets? They can support a socialistish safety net because of a capitalist economy. Nothing is as simple as people here are making it sound.

What did I say otherwise?  You did a fairly good if long winded way of explaining that no economy fits into a single box, and how countries deal with an international market is a different affair from how they handle their economies internally.  I was making the point that the Swedish people, despite technically having no reason to work if all they want is the subsistence living guaranteed by their government, are still among the most productive workers in the world.  I wasn't saying anything about economic systems themselves, just arguing with the notion that if people don't have to work to stay alive then they won't bother trying for anything more than just staying alive.