Capitalism: The Debate

[SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT]

ROFL. This is amazing!

[Efs]

I watched a video today about the poor people in India. This image describes everything:

The middle-class Indians only have water for a certain time a day, the poor ones don't get any help from the government. Meanwhile, a guy who is worth $27 million (or was it billion) has a house full of water falls, a swimming pool...he pretty much has an unlimited water supply. But to "conserve water" the poorer people are getting no access and the middle-class are getting a certain amount per day. Fuck capitalism. These people didn't choose to become poor, they don't have equal opportunity, the rich guy is draining the water supplies because HE HAS MONEY.

[HeartofShadows]

image uploading

[thewake]

Efstratios Prime Wrote:I watched a video today about the poor people in India. This image describes everything:

Hidden stuff:

The middle-class Indians only have water for a certain time a day, the poor ones don't get any help from the government. Meanwhile, a guy who is worth $27 million (or was it billion) has a house full of water falls, a swimming pool...he pretty much has an unlimited water supply. But to "conserve water" the poorer people are getting no access and the middle-class are getting a certain amount per day. Fuck capitalism. These people didn't choose to become poor, they don't have equal opportunity, the rich guy is draining the water supplies because HE HAS MONEY.

India is 124th in the world on the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom. Socialism has a long history in India and, at the current moment, India is ruled by the United Progressive Coalition.

Quote:When Kentucky Fried Chicken wanted to open outlets in India, Parliament spent months debating whether the request should be allowed.
Source. Further Reading.

Like I've said before, rich people do great everywhere. It is only in countries with a largely free market, like America or other Western nations, that we see the poor raising their standard of living up from subsistence levels.

[Efs]

Weswammy Wrote:

Efstratios Prime Wrote:I watched a video today about the poor people in India. This image describes everything:

Hidden stuff:

The middle-class Indians only have water for a certain time a day, the poor ones don't get any help from the government. Meanwhile, a guy who is worth $27 million (or was it billion) has a house full of water falls, a swimming pool...he pretty much has an unlimited water supply. But to "conserve water" the poorer people are getting no access and the middle-class are getting a certain amount per day. Fuck capitalism. These people didn't choose to become poor, they don't have equal opportunity, the rich guy is draining the water supplies because HE HAS MONEY.

India is 124th in the world on the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom. Socialism has a long history in India and, at the current moment, India is ruled by the United Progressive Coalition.

Quote:When Kentucky Fried Chicken wanted to open outlets in India, Parliament spent months debating whether the request should be allowed.
Source. Further Reading.

Like I've said before, rich people do great everywhere. It is only in countries with a largely free market, like America or other Western nations, that we see the poor raising their standard of living up from subsistence levels.

India is not pure socialist...

[thewake]

Efstratios Prime Wrote:India is not pure socialist...

And America isn't pure capitalist either, but that's irrelevant. The fact is that there is a positive correlation between economic freedom and the condition of the masses of the people. I really don't see how you can claim that capitalism is the problem in India when they have so little economic freedom compared to countries that are prosperous. The people in India are not poor because of capitalism, they are poor because the government hasn't allowed capitalism to work.

[SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT]

Of course rich people do great everywhere, that's the point.

[thewake]

SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT Wrote:Of course rich people do great everywhere, that's the point.

Did you just totally ignore the rest of the statement?

Me Wrote:Like I've said before, rich people do great everywhere. It is only in countries with a largely free market... that we see the poor raising their standard of living up from subsistence levels.

[SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT]

Weswammy Wrote:

SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT Wrote:Of course rich people do great everywhere, that's the point.

Did you just totally ignore the rest of the statement?

Me Wrote:Like I've said before, rich people do great everywhere. It is only in countries with a largely free market... that we see the poor raising their standard of living up from subsistence levels.

and no I didn't read the rest but now I did, but still that's the history of the world, duh.

[thewake]

SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT Wrote:

Weswammy Wrote:

SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT Wrote:Of course rich people do great everywhere, that's the point.

Did you just totally ignore the rest of the statement?

Me Wrote:Like I've said before, rich people do great everywhere. It is only in countries with a largely free market... that we see the poor raising their standard of living up from subsistence levels.

and no I didn't read the rest but now I did, but still that's the history of the world, duh.

And history is telling us that capitalism is the best system.

[John Tuttle]

Efstratios Prime Wrote:I watched a video today about the poor people in India. This image describes everything:

Hidden stuff:

India was set back decades because for a long time many of its states were controlled by Marxist parties. Those that weren't were generally socialist. India's first PM was a socialist. America was allied with Pakistan throughout the Cold War because India was so close to socialism. Now that they have liberalized in the past decade or two, millions have been lifted out of abject poverty. Learn your history.

[Swift]

Weswammy Wrote:

Efstratios Prime Wrote:India is not pure socialist...

And America isn't pure capitalist either, but that's irrelevant. The fact is that there is a positive correlation between economic freedom and the condition of the masses of the people. I really don't see how you can claim that capitalism is the problem in India when they have so little economic freedom compared to countries that are prosperous. The people in India are not poor because of capitalism, they are poor because the government hasn't allowed capitalism to work.

I don't know who got this whole "India is socialist" rumor started, but it's completely untrue.

India is emerging is the world market and actually the government is fighting the Naxalites, a revolutionary socialist movement, and other ideologically aligned groups.

Weswammy Wrote:Currently the economy is controlled by the consumers. The big companies and brands we see every day don't cater to the tastes of the rich. Wal-Mart and supermarkets aren't expensive specialty stores.

The fundamental question here is who control the economy. It is argued that consumers control the economy by way of their purchases. But this means that consumer funds are directly related to the incentives process of production - so as workers have less money relative to capitalists, the production process slows.

Money is economic power, in other words. The free market is like a "democracy" in which power is purchased and sold, with a few managing the system to maintain their own shares of power. People like to look for expensive or excessive trades to prove capitalism's faults, but that's not necessary. All that is needed is to show that the capitalist is in a position of unique power, and holding that position perpetuates that power without necessarily adding any value (indeed, if he were adding value, he would be a laborer and not full a capitalist).


The Job Creator's Tragedy

So we can see that control over the economy is not held by consumers. It's not held by workers acting as suppliers of labor, or as consumers. It is solely held by those who own and manage the means of production to their own ends. The thing is - usually the capitalists claim the same thing, but with the caveat about consumer purchasing power. It's a smokescreen.

Those who have studied history would argue that the fact that kings were beholden to the protection of their serfs were controlled by the latter is no different. But the fact is that consumer demand, or serf protection, is only one concern for those who control an economic system with many facets.[/QUOTE]

Weswammy Wrote:Understand that your choice in the market is less limited than with a government. You vote each day with your dollars on what to buy, you choose and somebody else chooses. You like one item, somebody else likes an item you hate. You both buy what you like and are on your way. Both of you win. And if there's an item that people want, an entrepreneur will ultimately be there to fill in the gap.

In contrast, the best one could hope for in a "one size fits all" socialist economy is that the majority gets what they want and the minority is left in the dust. Do you honestly think there will be more choice when entry into the market is limited by the government? France's government, for instance, tried to get into the computer business with the Minitel. Now they're dinosaurs!

People don't have ultimate sway with their dollars. They are limited by the small number of companies producing a product and are also limited by which products the location they shop at will stock. For common items like milk, if I go to my local grocery store, there are two brands there. What is a consumer supposed to do if they dislike both? This same problem occurs with numerous items. The fact of the matter is you cannot simply withold your money from companies you dislike unless you would like to starve. Because people do not have sufficient means to live without purchasing from companies (or in capitalist mindset, buying what you like) there is no way to effectively voice your opinion. Whereas if the control was not in the hands of companies, people could directly influence the production of goods.

Weswammy Wrote:What about a large factory farmer? What about an industrial butcher? Do you honestly think it is moral to steal the property of other human beings?

Considering each has stolen and destroyed the land of the people, have sickened and caused the deaths of the people, I'd say it's a fair trade if their land was used to help people instead of hurt them.

Weswammy Wrote:Like I said, it takes risk to accumulate capital. The worker forgoes the risk in order for the safety and steadiness of the wage.

That may be true if all workers would rather be working for others than themselves. The risk to start a business comes about because capital is concentrated in the hands of the few, causing workers who want to escape their exploitation to submit themselves to the owners of that capital (banks, etc.).

Weswammy Wrote:That may be true if all workers would rather be working for others than themselves. The risk to start a business comes about because capital is concentrated in the hands of the few, causing workers who want to escape their exploitation to submit themselves to the owners of that capital (banks, etc.).

None of those pre-capitalist societies worked as well as capitalism. None advanced like capitalism.
That doesn't mean there isn't anything better. Medical procedues have gotten more advanced, yet we don't sit back and proclaim ourselves done.

Weswammy Wrote:The free market is based on voluntary exchange, not theft. Don't give me that crap.

I don't voluntarily give someone my money for food; I do it so I don't die. The threat of death negates all concepts of voluntary exchange.

Weswammy Wrote:Yes, but that's not the free market. I have never been an advocate of the violation of rights. Capitalism isn't the collusion of corporations and government.

It's an inherent result, considering the accumulation of wealth and the profit motive causes companies to do whatever they can to grow, which includes lobbying for lax industry laws and buying off politicians.

Weswammy Wrote:Last time I checked, publicly owned meant government owned.

Nowhere does it say that "government" means the large institution of the state. A workers council is still a form of governance.

[thewake]

Swift Wrote:I don't know who got this whole "India is socialist" rumor started, but it's completely untrue.

India is emerging is the world market and actually the government is fighting the Naxalites, a revolutionary socialist movement, and other ideologically aligned groups.

You're making the same mistake as I did with Burkina Faso:

John Tuttle Wrote:India was set back decades because for a long time many of its states were controlled by Marxist parties. Those that weren't were generally socialist. India's first PM was a socialist. America was allied with Pakistan throughout the Cold War because India was so close to socialism. Now that they have liberalized in the past decade or two, millions have been lifted out of abject poverty. Learn your history.

I would like to qualify that India still has a long way to go to having a really free market.

@ Swift: I'd like to apologize, but I'm very tired right now. I'll address the rest of your post hopefully tomorrow or in a few days. One doesn't do his best thinking while at the end of the day with little sleep.

[John Tuttle]

Weswammy Wrote:India was set back decades because for a long time many of its states were controlled by Marxist parties. Those that weren't were generally socialist. India's first PM was a socialist. America was allied with Pakistan throughout the Cold War because India was so close to socialism. Now that they have liberalized in the past decade or two, millions have been lifted out of abject poverty. Learn your history.

I would like to qualify that India still has a long way to go to having a really free market.
[/quote]

Agreed, hence my use of the word "liberalized" in that they became more liberal, not that they became super free market friend number one.

[John Tuttle]

Swift Wrote:

Weswammy Wrote:

Efstratios Prime Wrote:India is not pure socialist...

And America isn't pure capitalist either, but that's irrelevant. The fact is that there is a positive correlation between economic freedom and the condition of the masses of the people. I really don't see how you can claim that capitalism is the problem in India when they have so little economic freedom compared to countries that are prosperous. The people in India are not poor because of capitalism, they are poor because the government hasn't allowed capitalism to work.

I don't know who got this whole "India is socialist" rumor started, but it's completely untrue.

India is emerging is the world market and actually the government is fighting the Naxalites, a revolutionary socialist movement, and other ideologically aligned groups.

People with an understanding of Indian history. See, it is not about the present, but rather, the (near) past. Before the 1990s, India was ruled largely by socialists and socialist-leaning thinkers. India's first PM was a Fabian socialist, and he set the stage for a series of PMs who were socialist leaning. And many Indian states and local councils were controlled by not just socialists but communists for ages. Local politics is very important, especially in a large country such as India. Capitalism only has started to take hold since the 1990s, and it has lifted millions out of poverty, something that you seem to ignore. Obviously capitalism can't solve all social ills in two decades. Nothing can. But it has helped India massively.

[Swift]

John Tuttle Wrote:

Swift Wrote:

Weswammy Wrote:And America isn't pure capitalist either, but that's irrelevant. The fact is that there is a positive correlation between economic freedom and the condition of the masses of the people. I really don't see how you can claim that capitalism is the problem in India when they have so little economic freedom compared to countries that are prosperous. The people in India are not poor because of capitalism, they are poor because the government hasn't allowed capitalism to work.

I don't know who got this whole "India is socialist" rumor started, but it's completely untrue.

India is emerging is the world market and actually the government is fighting the Naxalites, a revolutionary socialist movement, and other ideologically aligned groups.

People with an understanding of Indian history. See, it is not about the present, but rather, the (near) past. Before the 1990s, India was ruled largely by socialists and socialist-leaning thinkers. India's first PM was a Fabian socialist, and he set the stage for a series of PMs who were socialist leaning. And many Indian states and local councils were controlled by not just socialists but communists for ages. Local politics is very important, especially in a large country such as India. Capitalism only has started to take hold since the 1990s, and it has lifted millions out of poverty, something that you seem to ignore. Obviously capitalism can't solve all social ills in two decades. Nothing can. But it has helped India massively.

There was still a market in India and there was still businesses and corporations that existed in India.

Having communists in local councils can't do much if they retained the capitalist system. Having communist politicians working within a capitalist system is largely ineffective.

[John Tuttle]

Swift Wrote:There was still a market in India and there was still businesses and corporations that existed in India.

Having communists in local councils can't do much if they retained the capitalist system. Having communist politicians working within a capitalist system is largely ineffective.

Almost all businesses and corporations were government run. The only free markets that were going on were on the very local level in bazaars and whatnot. Not exactly a free market economy.

[thewake]

Swift Wrote:The fundamental question here is who control the economy. It is argued that consumers control the economy by way of their purchases. But this means that consumer funds are directly related to the incentives process of production - so as workers have less money relative to capitalists, the production process slows.

Everyone is a consumer. Rich people buy things too, they have to eat and they buy luxury goods. And you forget that wealth is created in the capitalist system, that new goods and services add value to the economy. Consumers, who are also workers, create value too.

And don't tell me that consumers don't have the power. They do. My mother started a business and it has basically failed. There's not a demand for what she was trying to sell and she had to get another job. Consumers didn't want to buy the stuff. Yes, there are some items that I'd say the consumers have more power over than others. Food companies aren't going to go out of business, people have to have food.

Quote:Money is economic power, in other words.

Almost anything can be considered power. Even having influence over other people, by virtue of being thought wise, is power in a sense. Money is economic power like any other asset could be economic power. However, there is a distinction between political power and economic power. Political power is defined by its use of force, defined by the fact it is inherently monopolistic. On the other hand, if entry is unrestricted by government, new start-ups can challenge established companies. Economic power is inherently non-monopolistic, competitive. It is also not reliant on force to maintain. If I don't do what a company wants me to do, it can't put me in jail.

Quote:The free market is like a "democracy" in which power is purchased and sold, with a few managing the system to maintain their own shares of power.

We all participate in capitalism. We all hold money in our wallets. Yes, some people have more than others. I won't argue that. But you must realize that in capitalism, unlike in government, you don't get your money by taking from other people. You get your money by working out a trade with others. The owner of a grocery store doesn't steal your money, you give him the money in exchange for apples or pears. You both win.

And no, a few don't manage the system in the way a king might manage the state. We all manage our own little, or big, part of the system. You choose what to spend your money on. I choose what to spend my money on. Yes, your circumstances and my circumstances are limited by our material condition, but man's circumstances have been limited since time immemorial.

Quote:People like to look for expensive or excessive trades to prove capitalism's faults, but that's not necessary. All that is needed is to show that the capitalist is in a position of unique power,

Well, workers are in a position of unique power because they can refuse to work for the capitalist. Without the workers the capitalists would be nothing. I'll admit it. They have the power, collectively, that the capitalist has as an individual. Do you think the capitalist wouldn't suffer if all the workers quit? He'd have orders to fill. People would sue him because he didn't fill those orders. He'd lose his company, his sustenance.

And there isn't one monolithic "capitalist conspiracy" against the worker in a free market. Capitalists compete against each other. New capitalists rise up in new markets or boot old ones out of old markets. In a way, everyone who works is a capitalist. People compete in the job market, they generally aim to maximize their situation.

Quote:and holding that position perpetuates that power without necessarily adding any value (indeed, if he were adding value, he would be a laborer and not full a capitalist).

You think capitalists don't add value? You think that the skill of accumulating and managing capital, of directing the macro-level of a company, isn't important? Not everyone has that skill. There is such a thing as specialization of labor. And let me reiterate: The capitalist takes risks. He can lose the company if it doesn't do well. As I said before, the worker does not take that risk. The capitalist adds value, at the very least, by being the fall guy. The worker loses his job if a business fails, yes. But one can find another job. It can take years to build up a company again.

You think my grandfather, who helped start a business, didn't add any value when he decided what kind of products to stock the shelves with or who was the best person to hire? You think my father doesn't continue to contribute that same thing to it? You think he wouldn't suffer if the business went under?

Quote:The Job Creator's Tragedy

Yes, government spending can create jobs. But the question is, are these jobs really needed? Let's think for a second about an example. World War Two, the military gave jobs to many young men. But is war a good use of labor? No, it's destructive and draining on the economy. That's illustrative of the "make work" schemes employed by governments because the government, because it doesn't operate within the price system, doesn't know what is profitable and what isn't. It doesn't know and it can't know.

It's the seen and the unseen. We see the big bridge and the people hired to build it. We don't see the clothes, the computers, or the anythings that the taxpayers could have bought with the money, if only they hadn't had it taken away through taxes.

Oh, and here's some reading that might help explain the situation of the Bush tax cuts in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_ ... hypothesis

Quote:So we can see that control over the economy is not held by consumers. It's not held by workers acting as suppliers of labor, or as consumers. It is solely held by those who own and manage the means of production to their own ends. The thing is - usually the capitalists claim the same thing, but with the caveat about consumer purchasing power. It's a smokescreen. Those who have studied history would argue that the fact that kings were beholden to the protection of their serfs were controlled by the latter is no different. But the fact is that consumer demand, or serf protection, is only one concern for those who control an economic system with many facets.

Serfs couldn't even vote for their kings. But that's not even how the market works. I can choose to have a Wii, a PS3, or an X-Box 360. We all have the same leaders whether we elect them or not. I might vote for Ron Paul, but I have to accept what the majority wants. Serfs were kept down. They didn't even own themselves. In a free market, if a person is in a bad situation, he has a chance to get out and many choices. He can control variables in his situation. And I'd say the freer the market, the better the chance he can get out.

Quote:People don't have ultimate sway with their dollars. They are limited by the small number of companies producing a product

If there is a small number of companies producing a product, I can think of two situations it would be in. The first situation is when the market just isn't that big. If the market isn't big, if the demand isn't high, then there won't be too many people who will want to get into the business in the first place. A niche market, you might call it. The other is that the government interferes with the free market.

And what makes you think there isn't choice in industries that are mostly unregulated? Look at these choices:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Electronics ... cat0500000
http://www.tigerdirect.com/indexus.asp? ... kwCjCECjCE
http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/landingpage ... QAodQ0Ac6A

Yes, the range of choice is limited, but man's range of choice has always been limited. Limited by technology, scarcity of resources, and the fact that a company isn't going to take the time to design a brand new computer model just to satisfy, to the T, the desires of one customer. It's not profitable, and I would expect a socialist system to offer even less choice, if the history of how government works is any indication of what the future might hold.

Quote:For common items like milk, if I go to my local grocery store, there are two brands there. What is a consumer supposed to do if they dislike both? This same problem occurs with numerous items.

Take milk at the super market, for example. The milk industry is highly regulated by the government. I'm sure it takes a lot of money to start one of the companies because of the bureaucracy, the licenses, the FDA. And it's illegal

And what makes you think a government would produce more than one brand of milk? We have a democracy in America, and there aren't two Postal Services.

Quote:and are also limited by which products the location they shop at will stock.

Shop at a different location. There's more than one supermarket in my town. Humanity is inherently limited by his material situation. In order to be free of that, there would have to be no scarcity of resources. Do you expect a company to stock just what you want when nobody else will buy it? I can't imagine a socialist system doing any better, I can very much see the planners sneering at the idea of multiple storefronts in one town being "superfluous" and a waste of "precious resources."

Quote: Because people do not have sufficient means to live without purchasing from companies (or in capitalist mindset, buying what you like) there is no way to effectively voice your opinion.

No man is an island and we aren't gods, we have to eat. If you don't want to be a farmer you have to rely on other people to grow the food you want to eat. It goes hand in hand with the division of labor.

Quote:Whereas if the control was not in the hands of companies, people could directly influence the production of goods.

They do voice their opinions and influence production of goods. Ever heard of New Coke?

Quote:

Weswammy Wrote:What about a large factory farmer? What about an industrial butcher? Do you honestly think it is moral to steal the property of other human beings?

Considering each has stolen and destroyed the land of the people, have sickened and caused the deaths of the people, I'd say it's a fair trade if their land was used to help people instead of hurt them.

How have they hut people? Well, I'm sure individual companies have had bad records. Individual human beings have been murderers and rapists, so if I take the logic to its extreme conclusion, does that mean we get rid of humanity? I'd say industrial butchers have helped people more than they have hurt them. They get meat to the masses of people. Factory farmers raise beef and chickens at cheap prices and in large quantities. If we only had small organic farmers we'd have a whole lot less food.

Quote:

Weswammy Wrote:Like I said, it takes risk to accumulate capital. The worker forgoes the risk in order for the safety and steadiness of the wage.

That may be true if all workers would rather be working for others than themselves. The risk to start a business comes about because capital is concentrated in the hands of the few, causing workers who want to escape their exploitation to submit themselves to the owners of that capital (banks, etc.).

I hardly see it as exploitation when both parties benefit.

Weswammy Wrote:None of those pre-capitalist societies worked as well as capitalism. None advanced like capitalism.
That doesn't mean there isn't anything better. Medical procedues have gotten more advanced, yet we don't sit back and proclaim ourselves done.

We don't sit back and proclaim that the scientific methods we followed to get more advanced medical procedures are outmoded either. Capitalism is analogous to that method. The technology and material wealth that capitalism produces is forever expanding, growing. Capitalism has a record of technological advancement due to the way it is set up. It's competitive, whilst you propose to do away with competition. The incentives for progress are basically built into the system.

Supporting capitalism isn't sitting back and saying, "I'm done." It's saying, "Let society progress on its own, the only way it's ever been able to progress."

Quote:I don't voluntarily give someone my money for food; I do it so I don't die. The threat of death negates all concepts of voluntary exchange.

What society, capitalist or not, wouldn't have that very same threat of death? In socialism, one still has to work.

Capitalism doesn't emancipate mankind from his humanity.

Quote:

Weswammy Wrote:Yes, but that's not the free market. I have never been an advocate of the violation of rights. Capitalism isn't the collusion of corporations and government.

It's an inherent result, considering the accumulation of wealth and the profit motive causes companies to do whatever they can to grow, which includes lobbying for lax industry laws and buying off politicians.

A broken government doesn't mean the capitalist system is broken also. Capitalism demands a government resistant to that form of corruption, or else the very same motives that produce wealth in the realm of voluntary exchange will steal wealth via the political method.

Many things wrong with society today are the result, not of capitalism, but of government collusion with business.

Quote:Nowhere does it say that "government" means the large institution of the state. A workers council is still a form of governance.

If workers running individual factories was more efficient at making a profit then it would already by the dominant form of running a business. Even if workers didn't own the factory, the owners would eventually have realized the democratic method to be better. However, it's not.