Print

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

[Jimmy]

The great thing about capitalism is the concept of a free market. You need to work to survive, this is a given in life. Capitalism offers you a choice to offer your work to the highest bidder. Your work may not be of a type or quality to satisfy the needs of an empoyer, so they're not obligated to offer you a job. An employer may not offer you a rate you feel is sufficient for your quality of work, so you can refuse. Eventually the need to survive forces a compromise between your desires and the employer.

The reason CEOs gain such astronomically large wages is proportional to the value we place in their product. If everyone suddenly decided to abandon fossil fuels tomorrow, BP execs would be out of the job overnight. However this is not going to happen because the market demand for oil products isn't going away. Congratulations to them, they've got control of the supply of a product the market values, and they'll profit ridiculously because of that. Your own place in the heirarchy of the system doesn't afford you the same advantage as them because you don't control the same product. You likely control only the effort you make in producing value for a company.

The solution to becoming rags-to-riches is to control that product which is so unique and valued by the market that many people will pay you for it. Simple labor is unlikely to achieve that goal. Some create that product through education, gaining unique skills that enable them to provide a rarer service. Others invent an idea that nobody else has created and control that to enhance their value. Say what you will about capitalism, it works.

[Grakelin]

If we all stopped using fossil fuels, oil execs would invest in something else and continue to be wealthy.

[Renault]

 

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.

I said more than just that, but apparently not too well, heh. Thanks for the compliment, though. And you're right, people want more than the bare minimum required to survive. I just wanted to point out that Sweden is a fiercely capitalist country that both cares for its people and leaps over all the accusations leveled at capitalism by its detractors. Hell, its the 7th in the human development index and 1st in democracy, according to the UN.

[Creaca]

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.

I never said that was okay. In fact, I went out of my way several times to say I think the whole thing in general just plain sucks. There are several cracks I want to make about your critical reading ability, but I'll just leave this little side note to that effect.

That being said, Capitalism does its job. Unequal distribution of wealth means that money isn't guaranteed. You can get screwed. You can also make it big. And of course all the shades of grey in between. That whole freedom/safety thing. Capitalism offers less financial safety, with the bonus of more financial freedom. Of course, no country is a true Capitalist economy, there are plenty of safety nets some would say too many even depending on the country you're speaking of.

Socialism

[Renault]

If we all stopped using fossil fuels, oil execs would invest in something else and continue to be wealthy.

Perhaps. They'd be down about 100 billion in equity, though. And even if they miraculously went away unscathed--they won't--, so what? Them being rich doesn't make you or me poor. Wealth isn't zero-sum, or we'd all have to be sharing the wealth of the stone age between us still.

[Grakelin]

Creaca: If the economic system is dividing the resources in a way that only benefits the fortunate, it isn't doing its job. We might as well just not have an economic system in that case and let people ravage eachother for their resources.

Renault: I'm not really against markets or entrepreneurship, but I do strongly advocate for high taxes and strong social benefits. The issue I have with capitalism (I'll use the term for lack of a better one than simply lengthening it to 'pure capitalism' or using the not-quite-correct term 'deregulation') is this idea that it is a meritocracy and it allows poor people to become awesome if they work hard enough. The fact is that we here in Canada and the US live in a classed society, and unless we become extremely lucky, not working hard will only make us decrease in class, not increase. The fact that our poorest classes are rising ever closer past the poverty line is irrelevant when things like healthcare and education are growing more expensive at a faster rate.

[Jimmy]

If we all stopped using fossil fuels, oil execs would invest in something else and continue to be wealthy.

Exactly! They would abandon control of a product which is no longer valued and instead control a different product.

Remember that the wealth of your typical executive is mostly tied up in assets. They don't have giant vaults of money in their building like Scrooge McDuck. They own shares of a company, the value of which is determined by the market. The newspaper reports you see giving dollar values to their names are just converting the company share value. Mostly these assets are diversified into several areas, some higher and lower risk.

Say I was a CEO. My primary wealth is the business I control, of which I own 25% and the rest is split up with other executives and shareholders. This business represents 50% of my total wealth, from which I pay myself a large sum approved by the other shareholders in the company. I also own property and 'safe' stock in cash and gold, etc. which represents the other 50% of my wealth.

Suddenly someone opens a business that makes my product worthless. The value of my business drops to nothing overnight. 50% of my wealth is now gone. Realistically this never happens, but if I think it would happen I could sell my share of the business and buy something else instead that wouldn't devalue.

The fastest way to grow wealth is to use existing wealth to create more. Investing is a common way to do this. I give you my money now to use to make your business better (hire staff, buy raw materials etc) and in return I take a share of the profits proportional to my investment. If you want the profits to be yours again you buy back my share. This is a stupidly simplified example but it gives you the general idea of my point. The only way that my wealth or yours grows, however, is when the market demands the product we're producing.

[Renault]

Creaca: If the economic system is dividing the resources in a way that only benefits the fortunate, it isn't doing its job. We might as well just not have an economic system in that case and let people ravage eachother for their resources.

Renault: I'm not really against markets or entrepreneurship, but I do strongly advocate for high taxes and strong social benefits. The issue I have with capitalism (I'll use the term for lack of a better one than simply lengthening it to 'pure capitalism' or using the not-quite-correct term 'deregulation') is this idea that it is a meritocracy and it allows poor people to become awesome if they work hard enough. The fact is that we here in Canada and the US live in a classed society, and unless we become extremely lucky, not working hard will only make us decrease in class, not increase. The fact that our poorest classes are rising ever closer past the poverty line is irrelevant when things like healthcare and education are growing more expensive at a faster rate.

I certainly can't argue with any of that. See, thats the thing about these debates. People tend to hear capitalism or socialism and get sort of....fiery. I do it myself. In reality, we all want the same things, and just have differing ideas how to achieve them.

[Creaca]

Creaca: If the economic system is dividing the resources in a way that only benefits the fortunate, it isn't doing its job. We might as well just not have an economic system in that case and let people ravage each other for their resources.

As I said, there are plenty of safety nets and protection for people less fortunate. However, part of capitalism is it isn't always fair. People are held accountable for their economic status, so if you're poor that isn't everyone else problem. You can always put your children through school even at the your worst, and if they're low income scholarships are a dime a dozen. And the "parent" in question in this little scenario likely had the same opportunitys open to him or her.

Secondly, you can't not have an economic system anymore than you can't have a system of government. When you put a group of people together in a room with wants and needs they will always work something out to get them. Even in hunting and gathering cultures some bartering went on.

[Jimmy]

As I said, there are plenty of safety nets and protection for people less fortunate. However, part of capitalism is it isn't always fair. People are held accountable for their economic status, so if you're poor that isn't everyone else problem. You can always put your children through school even at the your worst, and if they're low income scholarships are a dime a dozen. And the "parent" in question in this little scenario likely had the same opportunitys open to him or her.

Exactly. It's not my problem if you're poor and I'm rich. Nevertheless we aspire as human beings to create a relative level of equality, and therefore we have governments that create public welfare. From a purely economic viewpoint, a person's worth is only proportional to their ability to work and create value. The disabled and sick, mentally ill or elderly would theoretically be treated as worthless and allowed to die, but our moral obligations prevent us doing this. Instead, we devote a measure of our taxed income from the able to support the disabled.

If this isn't enough, there's non-government and altruistic groups devoted entirely to supporting these groups. The greatest point of note in this discussion is that the support is designed to provide enough for the basic needs of life and some measure of comfort, but for anything more it is expected that the person contribute something of value back to society.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

There's a reason kids today don't care for shit about a basic education, we've taught them that's not where the money gets made. And then we cry bloody murder because we've got some of the stupidest kids on the planet relative to their opportunities.

Note that this isn't actually true. The quality of education isn't going down, it's just not increasing fast enough to suit most people. Nor is it far behind, if it's behind at all, other countries', where the lowest scoring students are shunted off into technical programs, leaving only the most academically capable to be judged (which isn't necessarily a bad idea, since relatively simpler (than mindfuckery like calculus) skilled manual labor pays significantly better than "McDonalds ostensibly-meat-sludge scraper of the month"), which results in the apparent gap in statistics.

[Muz]

I'm not a fan of capitalism, but it works. It's based on the theory that everyone is selfish and by being selfish, everyone wins. Most game theory calculates the best solution to be the one where everyone can expect everyone else to be selfish.

I dislike it, just like I dislike a lot of other things about modern society... unrestricted free speech, privacy laws, intellectual property, democracy, etc. They're all evil, but their advantage is in that they're designed to be the most resistant to greater evil. I'm against people who blindly support them, but they work.

[Leafsnail]

"In a purely capitalist economy, you would not be allowed to pass money to your children after you die"

I've been thinking about this kind of thing a LOT recently.  Specifically, I find it odd that those on the right wing oppose inheritance tax (well, not that odd if it's out of self interest, I guess).  Basically, dumping a large quantity of money on someone isn't exactly incentivising, is it?  We're back to "If you've got enough money to live, why work?" and yet those on the right usually support it...

[ed boy]

It's one of those things where implementing the law would never work, even if it could be put in place. If you take all inheritance, then people are going to find lots of ways around the tax.

Besides, there are some things which have value greater than their physical worth. Some former posessions of your parents you would value at rather higher than the market price.

[Nilocy]

To your free education point: Scotland has free higher education to all Scottish nationals, and all foreigners 'cept the English and Welsh.