Capitalism: Is It Utopian?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote] vroom:
Joe Schmo down the street running the local Subway or McDonalds does not give a rats ass about your theories. Neither do his employees. [/quote]

–Now that’s a little funny to me, since the majority of my clients are small businesses and Joe Schmos. Joe Schmo doesn’t care about theory. He only cares about results. And that’s what I bring. None of this is theory. I think I’m failing to describe this fully.

None of this is imposing a managerial system on capitalism. Capitalism spawned the managerial system I’m describing. It’s like my body saying, hey enough of these donuts, would you pick up those weights, I was made to pick things up and I like activity! Some (well most) people stay with the donuts, but training is a system that realizes the potential of the body. We can look at capitalism and say okay then how do I optimize this to realize its potential, and that’s what I mean. What do you think?

102

[quote]UB07 wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
The last time I checked, government is made up of folks just like you and me.

???

are you an affluent W.A.S.P.???
did you/your daddy go to an ivy league school?
are you exempt from fighting in wars?

I know i dont meet those criteria.

(yes, i realize there are many exceptions but for the most part that is who runs this great land of ours)[/quote]

Absolutely. GWB and I have a great deal in common. A short list:

We both poop.
We both worry about how our children will be doing in a few years.
We both have to take care of ourselves if we don’t want to be fat, or get cancer, or whatever.
We both look out at the world and all of its problems, and feel like there is something we as a people should be doing about it.
We both have held a door for a lady.
We both need food and air on a regular basis.
We both wear clothes in public.
We both get nervous sometimes for a bit when speaking in public.
We both enjoy praise for our efforts.

Shall I go on? There are many fuckloads of things which are similar between us than the few things that separate us. And when I say “us”, I mean all of us as Americans or Human Beings.

The fact that you mentally isolate yourself from the people in government is a function of your disapproval of them or the job that they choose to do.

That’s YOUR problem.

“We’re all the same on the inside.” That’s what my dad used to say when he cut some poor dude open to get a bullet out of him or whatever.

Make sense?

103

The following was written, and when finished, I discovered they were doing some upgrades to our cable service, which meant no internet for me, and then the Carbolin-19 article was up so naturally I had to read that first, so this would have been posted hours ago.

Hey hspder:

[quote]hspder wrote:
The Mage wrote:
First of all I see in your discussion a belief that business people are inherently evil. That to make money is inherently evil. Forgive me but where does this come from?

No, I do not believe that. I believe that there are many people that are able to do morally reprehensible things in order to make (more) money. [/quote]

But is that not independent of the system? Yes people do reprehensible things, regardless of the system they are in. You cannot blame the system for reprehensible people unless you can prove a direct link to the system creating reprehensible people.

No I don’t think you are implying I am evil, and yes I am a capitalist. But I do not believe in capitalism just because I am selfish. In fact I believe that capitalism works best if you are not selfish. In fact I believe socialism is a hell of a lot more selfish then capitalism is. The results of hard and intelligent work are taken away and given to those that don’t, so hard intelligent work is punished while not lazy and stupid is rewarded. This is why capitalism is so superior to socialism.[quote]

My point is that even though you may argue that Capitalism doesn’t necessarily incite greed, the problem is – that many humans are greedy, and ignorant, and will do things that ultimately hurt them – in any political system. [/quote]

Yes, independent of the political system.

I don’t see this as being self destructive, but the path of least resistance. Organisms tend to take the easy way, and lifting weights is hard, and watching tv is easy.

I see the government as the referee. The guy who is supposed to keep the rules of the game. I don’t think the referee should be able to take the ball away from one team and give it to the other in a middle of a play just because one team is scoring more then the other is. [quote]

Unfortunately, both seem to be doing a pretty lousy job at it (and interfering with each other). The incentives – or disincentives – they provide to prevent that behavior are not working. People just enter denial-behaviors: “I’ll lie/steal/kill and won’t get caught”; “I’ll sin but I’ll still be saved”.

For example, saying stuff in the Bible like in 1 Timothy 6:10 and Proverbs 11:28 – that the love of money is evil – and that the righteous, not the rich, thrive, doesn?t seem to make any difference, because people somehow seem to believe that Capitalism doesn?t create a money-loving environment and self-righteousness (that Capitalism believe in) and righteousness are the same thing. Even really clear stuff, like saying that “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have” (Hebrews 13:5) seems to not be enough. People will still do what it takes to get that promotion! [/quote]

You do know I am an atheist don’t you? Anyway my definition of greed is when you put money above people. Money should never be placed above people.

I think many try to define the biblical quote as you should not try to make money, and I think that is an incorrect understanding. Money is just a thing, and not even a real thing at that. You can strive for money, but not worship it. In fact the worship of money has lead to more people being poor then rich. The whole idea of credit that many see as free money has lead people down the wrong path. Then they get a real kick in the ass when the bills come due. [quote]

The Mage wrote:
[i]Now I notice you referring to capitalism as “The accumulation of the means of production” -ok, first of all this sounds very socialist, but to continue- “as property into a few hands…”

Means of production, and into the hands of few. This is not any definition I know, unless it is from some socialist rag.[/i]

This definition is basically based on the observation of the distribution of the means of production of wealth in capitalist countries. In EVERY SINGLE CAPITALIST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (with NO exception) at least 80% of the means of production of wealth is in the hands of less than 20% of the population. In the US it’s actually more acute than that – it’s 90% in the hands of 10%.

Am I implying there’s anything “evil” with that? Nope. But it’s reality, and you have to accept it as such – even if you don’t like how it sounds. [/quote]

But you are defining an action by the results, and in a way that makes it seem like it is worse then it actually is. In actuality over half of Americans own stock. That is over half of the population is in ownership of the capitol. The largest percentage is in the top 10% of course, but everyone can benefit. Or choose not to.

This actually brings up another related subject. Social Security. So many of the rich are benefiting off of the stock market, yet when the idea of letting people put a portion of Social Security in the market, many on the left go crazy. It seems to me that the left wants to prevent people from making it.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now I have read before where you seem to be against competition, instead being for collaboration, assuming that people will work together in harmony. While I understand this wonderful philosophy, it does not work. That should be obvious with all the money going into college sports.

You’re contradicting yourself. You’re saying that, on one hand, that business owners will do the right thing (as in: be righteous) because they’re smart enough to realize it’s in their best interest, but the worker bees are surely too stupid to realize collaboration – rather than competition – is in their best interest too, and will blindly compete amongst themselves anyway?

If that is not right-wing elitism, I don’t know what it is. [/quote]

Ah, putting words into my mouth. What I am saying is not that if you own a business, you are automatically better then other people, but the people with a superior moral code will be more likely to succeed then those who do not.

And while your term worker bees really defines how you see the world, again you are twisting my meaning. Regardless of how honest or dishonest the owner or CEO of a business is, if they have 100 employees, I guarantee at least one of them lacks a moral code. (Actually I believe the number is higher.) So it is easier to find an employee who lacks moral code then it is to find an owner who does just because the larger number of people involved.

Now locally there is a business that is very big in our city. I have met the original owner who started up the business, and the sole purpose was not to make it rich, but to bring his family together. They worked hard, and now the business is a great success.

Then he retired and gave the business over to his children. Unfortunately they do not have the moral code their father did. Some are better then others, but they really lack what their father had. The business is still going strong, but is starting to struggle, and I see it as being the fault of their character.

Now this is a great business that if they were not in charge, could go national. I would buy it in a second if I had the money.

[quote]Read this, please (it’s compulsory reading for my students, by the way):

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/community/bmag/sbsm9911/feature_contest.html

Now, I never assumed “that people will work together in harmony”. As the article explains, it’s not easy to create an incentive for them to do so, especially in a Capitalist environment, which is intrinsically competitive. But a good manager can create micro-environments where the incentive to collaborate is strong and obvious enough that they will. [/quote]

Ok, I have bookmarked it, and will read the whole thing later tonight. But I looked at the left box, and what I see is a kind of moral code that will benefit business. Exactly what I have been talking about.

If I owned a business, part of the employee’s income would derive from the success of the company. A direct percentage of the profits given to the employees, therefore enticing them to help the company succeed, while benefiting the employees directly.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Actually OPEC has a lot of countries collaborating on keeping the price of oil high. But this is where competition can come in and help.

Sure. But I never said that competition was bad between companies. On the contrary. I am, however, for collaboration between workers of the same company.

Much like lions, or ants, or bees, or any species that lives in a society: they collaborate within their family / colony, but compete with others outside. [/quote]

Yes, this is part of what I have been saying about capitalism.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
If people can get off their duffs, and get things like ethanol and biodiesel going, they would have real competition, and prices will slide, benefiting the consumer.

Have you realized that the ethanol and biodiesel industries are in the hands of the same oil companies, as will hydrogen? Just go to, say, www.shell.com and see for yourself. [/quote]

This is because they are realizing they have no choice. But then the farmers will be benefiting instead of OPEC. Also regardless it does affect supply and demand. The supply of oil will go up, and the market will respond.

I remember people saying this before. Then I remember a big slide in prices in the 90’s. I paid as little as 69 cents a gallon. It is a big up and down thing, nature of the markets, but the trend has been down. Even now, adjusted for inflation, the price is still not as high as it used to be. Especially if you take taxes out of the equasion.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I do dislike the oil cartel, as it is not very capitalistic. It might seem like capitalism, but these are countries deciding on how much they should produce to manipulate the markets.

Is it you, Ayn Rand? :slight_smile:

Now, tell me, what can break the Cartel? Is there anything within capitalist theories that can prevent something like this from happening? [/quote]

Yes, competition. Somebody will come along and create a way to break up the system. Why? Because there is profit in it.

The oil companies know that they have to compete which is why they are getting into things like alternative fuels. If they don’t, they will lose out. This is also why when Microsoft seems to have the monopoly on computer systems, they still write software for Linux and Apple.

Really all it takes is some kid to write a new program to put Windows out of business.

[quote]Note that I know, from the Rules of Economy, that Capitalism does provide an incentive to break Cartels; however, Game Theory proves that incentive is not enough, because it is within our human nature to create Cartels.

The Mage wrote:
And the pharmaceutical companies you mentioned. The problem with them is actually government involvement which is very anti-consumer. Drugs are actually going up in price instead of going down. The FDA doesn’t work for us, they work for the drug companies. Again a sign of government regulations hurting the consumer. Along with the different rules for refining oil for every freekin state.

Do you really think that if the government wasn’t involved, the prices would fall? How so? Why would they? [/quote]

Competition. Just look at the supplement industry without all the regulation. The prices are falling, while this is not happening with the drug industry. This is an easy comparison.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now if you really want to know about ethics in business, here is a good article:

I am NOT arguing against the fact that righteousness is best for business, and for any society for that matter. On the contrary – I know, as a scientific fact, that it does. What I’m saying is that most people are too ignorant and too greedy to realize that – much like they are too ignorant to stop stuffing themselves and their kids with junk food – and, hence, a successful political system has to be able to create an environment that is better at punishing greed.

Even if Capitalism does not create an incentive for greed, it ALLOWS it. By enshrining self-interest, it also ALLOWS wealth to end up being very poorly distributed, which inevitably creates implosions in the economy, taking many people with them.

That’s my problem.

(On a moral level, I’d like to hear where all the Christians read in the Bible that enshrining self-interest – the foundation of Capitalism – was morally acceptable in any circumstances or for any self-righteous reason, but that’s another story)[/quote]

Ah yes, wealth distribution. Again this sounds like socialist ideals, which embody stealing. But anyway, the real way to distribute wealth is by earning it. We cannot blame the rich for the poor, and in fact by them investing money, they create jobs, and these people spend, and hopefully invest, which gets back to the rich who invest to create even more jobs.

I believe there has been a creation of over a million millionaires in the last year. (8.2 million US households.) Some of those were returning to millionaire status, but is the highest number ever.

There could be a lot more rich people then there are right now. Just the action of using tons of credit cards, and wasting money is keeping many people from becoming rich.

Look at your income, are you investing 15% of it? (Gross before taxes.) Look at your, and your wife’s income. I assume you each make at least $30,000 a year. Probably more. But $60,000 a year means you should put away at least $9,000 a year.

Assuming a 10% return, (less then the S&P 500 averaged per year over the entire last century,) you would have half a million in 19 years. 1 million in 26 years. 2 mil in 33 years. And this assumes no increase in income, no attempt at achieving a better return, nor even the benefit of matching funds into your retirement account.

Nowhere does this involve you doing anything underhanded or illegal, just living moderately and investing.

104

Iago,

So, you are agreeing with me. Most people stay with the donuts. This is saying, in your analogy, that most people don’t get enlightened and carry on the best business practices, but some do seek it out.

I’m not agruing against it. I’m not suggesting people shouldn’t. I’m just saying that both good and bad human nature are present within capitalism. If we were to want a utopia, we’d have to devise a system with the inherent positives of capitalism while minimising the negatives – one of which is bad people.

That’s kinda a nutshell description, but probably gets the idea across.

105

But you wrote this before:

[quote]
So, of course, promote ethics and proper business practices and the results that they can bring, but leave out the assumption that they are inherent in our system. [/quote]

In my analogy, I’m showing that they are inherit in capitalism. It’s not an assumption.
A business can not realize it’s potential with unethical people.

106

Iago,

Am I missing the boat or are you?

Whether or not businesses achieve optimal productivity or not has nothing to do with capitalism as a method of organizing society.

All you are saying is that certain types of behavior lead to certain results. I’m agreeing that outcomes can be guided by actions. Capitalism allows it.

However, my point is that capitalism does very little to curb the negatives inherent in mankind and that doing the right thing may or may not be done, and capitalism, alone, has very little say in the matter. Capitalism allows this also.

This is completely devoid of getting into more politically heated issues such as adequate accounting for pollution or other issues. Capitalism has very little to say on behavior at an individual level. It’s a question of game theory perhaps.

My contention is that for capitalism to be a utopia, it needs to do more than it does. I don’t know how to do this, without running into problems, but nonetheless, that is my contention.

107

I think we both missed the boat and we’re standing on the dock wondering what happened. I think we’re arguing for the same thing :slight_smile:

The difference is I don’t think it’s capitalism’s job to curb the negatives inherent in mankind. That should be the job of the Law. I believe it’s capitalism’s job to provide the framework and the opportunity to bring out the best in us and create prosperity for the most people by rewarding ethics more than greed. In that way, I think capitalism has a lot to say in the matter.

If you want to wait around for the next boat I’ll buy you a beer. :slight_smile:

108

[quote]hspder wrote:
No, I do not believe that. I believe that there are many people that are able to do morally reprehensible things in order to make (more) money.

The Mage wrote:
But is that not independent of the system? Yes people do reprehensible things, regardless of the system they are in. You cannot blame the system for reprehensible people unless you can prove a direct link to the system creating reprehensible people.[/quote]

Vroom and I are turning blue from repeating this, but here it goes again:

We’re not blaming the system for the reprehensible people’s existance; we’re “blaming” capitalism for not doing a good job at dealing with reprehensible business behaviors.

If I have to repeat this once again, I swear my head will explode.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
No I don’t think you are implying I am evil, and yes I am a capitalist. But I do not believe in capitalism just because I am selfish. In fact I believe that capitalism works best if you are not selfish. In fact I believe socialism is a hell of a lot more selfish then capitalism is. The results of hard and intelligent work are taken away and given to those that don’t, so hard intelligent work is punished while not lazy and stupid is rewarded. This is why capitalism is so superior to socialism.[/quote]

What you wrote is the definition of a contradiction: do you actually know what selfishness is?

I mean you clearly state that what you hate about socialism is that “your property” is “taken away”. If that bothers you, aren’t you being selfish?

You also say that in Socialism “hard work is punished while lazy and stupid is rewarded”. Why do you feel paying taxes is “punishment”? For that matter, why are you assuming that your income is proportional to the amound of work you do? It’s not. Capitalism does nothing to make sure people are rewarded in proportion to the amount of work they do – not even the amount of wealth they produce.

I’ll give you an example right here in California. As has been discussed in the “Minutemen” thread, most of the grunt work that is done in this State – from farming to janitorial to hospitality – is done by Mexican immigrants that receive minimum wage – or less. They’re the backbone of this state’s economy and if they all went home tomorrow the State would collapse overnight.

They are EXTREMELY hard working people. The get $10/hour, which is barely enough to survive.

At the same time, their bosses, that did nothing more than help them come into this country (sometimes illegally), sit around and look at them work all day – and make MILLIONS a year.

Now tell me, is this fair? Are the hard working people getting the income they deserve? Are the lazy bastards not getting any income? On the contrary – the lazy get richer while the working barely survive.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I don’t see this as being self destructive, but the path of least resistance. Organisms tend to take the easy way, and lifting weights is hard, and watching tv is easy.[/quote]

Other organisms are not self-aware. We have no excuse.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I see the government as the referee. The guy who is supposed to keep the rules of the game. I don’t think the referee should be able to take the ball away from one team and give it to the other in a middle of a play just because one team is scoring more then the other is. [/quote]

That’s an exageration. I know a lot of very rich people in The Netherlands and Germany. I saw more luxury cars over there than I see here. Yes, they pay 60% income tax, but they still have plenty left to show off.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
You do know I am an atheist don’t you? [/quote]

Yes, and so am I – however my point is that even with the majority of this country’s population being Christian, they still don’t “get it”.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
But you are defining an action by the results, and in a way that makes it seem like it is worse then it actually is. In actuality over half of Americans own stock. That is over half of the population is in ownership of the capitol. The largest percentage is in the top 10% of course, but everyone can benefit. Or choose not to. [/quote]

Everyone can benefit? Do you have any idea how dangerous is the fact that half of the population owns stock, without having the buffer to afford loosing all of its value? How much that distorts the value of the stock, and how potentially explosive that is?

Seems you were not paying attention in Macro-economy class…

People like to gamble; they are careless, greedy and irresponsible. That’s human nature. Playing with the stock market without knowing what you’re doing puts EVERYONE in danger.

Want proof how careless, greedy and irresponsible people are?

Yesterday it was in the news that in California 60% of new mortgages are interest-only. SIXTY percent. That means that 60% of people in California buying new homes these days are opening themselves up for financial catastrophe, and the banks are gambling with them.

Why are people doing this? Because they are careless – they don’t care about the potential disaster that an interest-only mortgage can create; they are greedy – they are seduced by the fact that an interest-only mortgage will allow them to buy a bigger house to show off to their friends; and they are irresponsible, because they fail to understand the consequences to the economy if there’s a flurry of foreclosures where the banks cannot recover the equity.

Now, you can argue that odds are that the house prices will continue to increase and everything will be good. The problem is, all indicators point into the opposite direction: income per capita is decreasing; people are already investing all their (once disposable) income into their mortgage; education and health costs are increasing. So there will be a point where people will NOT be able to make the monthly payments, and the domino effect will begin – taking the whole state’s economy with it.

Do you know what was the other time in US history where interest-only mortgages were popular? Just before the Great Depression.

Of course, I’m not saying that we’ll have another Great Depression; my point is that people are stupid, irresponsible, careless and greedy enough to gamble on it.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
This actually brings up another related subject. Social Security. So many of the rich are benefiting off of the stock market, yet when the idea of letting people put a portion of Social Security in the market, many on the left go crazy. It seems to me that the left wants to prevent people from making it.[/quote]

While I’ll admit that many people in the left are against putting a portion of SS in the market for political reasons, I can tell you there’s a very strong macro-economic rationale against it. All macro-economists I know are against it.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Regardless of how honest or dishonest the owner or CEO of a business is, if they have 100 employees, I guarantee at least one of them lacks a moral code. (Actually I believe the number is higher.) So it is easier to find an employee who lacks moral code then it is to find an owner who does just because the larger number of people involved.[/quote]

That would only be true if the CEOs were picked at random off the general population. I submit to you the fact that most CEOs in the Silicon Valley are profoundly unethical people and completely lack a moral code; they actually got there because of those characteristics. Does that mean that all CEOs are that bad (in other industries)? No. My point is that you cannot assume what you said, because there are industries where lack of ethics is handsomely rewarded.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Ok, I have bookmarked it, and will read the whole thing later tonight. But I looked at the left box, and what I see is a kind of moral code that will benefit business. Exactly what I have been talking about.[/quote]

Yes it is. It’s a moral code against competition – and you defended competition. And you’re not alone. Only about 10% of my students will accept the rationale behind the paper without a LOT of resistance.

So, you see, you cannot assume that people realize what’s best for them or for everyone around them; on the contrary: most people will take the worst possible choice with the worst possible consequence to others. And capitalism doesn’t stop them from doing just that.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
If I owned a business, part of the employee’s income would derive from the success of the company. A direct percentage of the profits given to the employees, therefore enticing them to help the company succeed, while benefiting the employees directly.[/quote]

Many Silicon Valley companies attempted to do that in the turn of the century. Do you know what happened? The stockholders started complaining – hard – that “their” profits were being given away to the workers and they stopped it.

Greediness and stupidity at its best.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Have you realized that the ethanol and biodiesel industries are in the hands of the same oil companies, as will hydrogen? Just go to, say, www.shell.com and see for yourself.

This is because they are realizing they have no choice. But then the farmers will be benefiting instead of OPEC. Also regardless it does affect supply and demand. The supply of oil will go up, and the market will respond.[/quote]

Do you see people running around and buying biodiesel vehicles? Nope. And even though OPEC will be out of the picture, the oil companies – like Shell – will still be in the picture working as a Cartel, not in competition.

Wake up and smell the coffee: Oil Prices will NEVER slide, unless the Government establishes them. They will, in fact, keep increaseing until there’s no more Oil to sell.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I remember people saying this before. Then I remember a big slide in prices in the 90’s. I paid as little as 69 cents a gallon. It is a big up and down thing, nature of the markets, but the trend has been down. Even now, adjusted for inflation, the price is still not as high as it used to be. Especially if you take taxes out of the equasion.[/quote]

That is true. However, the thing is that the situation changed dramatically, and the Oil Cartel is much stronger now. They’re gauging and getting away with it.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now, tell me, what can break the Cartel? Is there anything within capitalist theories that can prevent something like this from happening?

Yes, competition. Somebody will come along and create a way to break up the system. Why? Because there is profit in it. [/quote]

Ah, you’re using the old Micro-economic rationale. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work anymore – the OPEC and the oil companies realized that if they start competing, their bottom line decreases. Why? For two reasons: first of all, because the demand for oil is highly elastic, i.e., people will not buy that much less when the price increases; two, because people are lazy bastards and they will NOT drive 5 miles out of their way to buy gas $.10 cheaper.

Basically, if a gas company decreases their price a little, their sales do not increase, and they start loosing money; if they decrease it a LOT to create a large incentive to drive those 5 miles out of your way, all the other companies will also decrease their price, and nobody sees an increase in sales; so, what’s the incentive to decrease prices? None.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
The oil companies know that they have to compete which is why they are getting into things like alternative fuels. If they don’t, they will lose out.[/quote]

You seem to sugarcoat it very nicely… They’re making sure they keep the hold on the market for every fuel, and then purposedely delaying the deployment of such altnernative fuels to maximize their bottom line – even if it hurts our economy.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
This is also why when Microsoft seems to have the monopoly on computer systems, they still write software for Linux and Apple.[/quote]

Microsoft does not write software for Linux. Show me one piece of Microosoft software that runs on Linux.

They do have Microsoft Office for Apple because they have an agreement with Apple; however, they do keep it behind the PC (Windows-based) version, on purpose.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Really all it takes is some kid to write a new program to put Windows out of business.[/quote]

I hope you are joking…

There are several alternative Operating Systems that are, in many ways, better than Windows; why didn’t they take off? Because of such policies as telling Dell that if they didn’t have the exclusivity, they would allow Dell to bundle Windows at all. And since Dell is not willing to take the brunt of the cost of driving the adoption curve of any new OS, they keep bundling Windows – and only Windows.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Do you really think that if the government wasn’t involved, the prices would fall? How so? Why would they?

Competition. Just look at the supplement industry without all the regulation. The prices are falling, while this is not happening with the drug industry. This is an easy comparison.[/quote]

No it’s not – it’s completely different. First of all, the cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug is much higher than one of a supplement, so the incentive to lower prices is much smaller; then, the marketing strategies and budgets are completely different; finally, most parmaceutical drugs are not elective: you have to take them, so people will buy them even if they are horribly expensive.

You can also see it from another angle: why is it that even though Biotest supps are clearly the best in the market, people still buy crap? Where do you see Biotest’s hard work being handsomely rewarded, and the other companies lazy asses’ being kicked into bankrupcy?

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Ah yes, wealth distribution. Again this sounds like socialist ideals, which embody stealing. [/quote]

Again, you say that slight re-distribution of wealth (through high tax brackets for the extremely rich) is akin to stealing, and you don’t think you’re selfish and greedy? Interesting.

And yes, I am a Socialist. Not a Communist, but a (centrist) Socialist. For a more detailed explanation of my ideals:

The socialist doctrine I believe in demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth, to be achieved by reconstruction of the existing capitalist or other political system of a country through peaceful, democratic, and parliamentary means. The doctrine specifically advocates nationalization of natural resources, basic industries, banking and credit facilities, and public utilities. It places special emphasis on the nationalization of monopolized branches of industry and trade, viewing monopolies as inimical to the public welfare. It also advocates state ownership of corporations in which the ownership function has passed from stockholders to managerial personnel. Smaller and less vital enterprises would be left under private ownership, and privately held cooperatives would be encouraged.

Note that I am NOT for the total abolition of the capitalist system and of private profit. I just think capitalism needs to live under an overall system that protects citizens from each other’s natural greed and selfishness.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
But anyway, the real way to distribute wealth is by earning it. We cannot blame the rich for the poor, and in fact by them investing money, they create jobs, and these people spend, and hopefully invest, which gets back to the rich who invest to create even more jobs.[/quote]

It’s not that simple. Rich are not the perfect, moral, ethical people you make them out to be. There are several rich people that are greedy, selfish and immoral and will not “give back to the community” or even re-invest their earnings in creating more jobs; on the contrary: most rich people will try to maximize their profits by having the least possible amount of workers for the least possible amount of money, even if that means they live in third-world conditions.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I believe there has been a creation of over a million millionaires in the last year. (8.2 million US households.) Some of those were returning to millionaire status, but is the highest number ever.[/quote]

I wonder how many more people are living in poverty for each millionaire created.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
There could be a lot more rich people then there are right now. Just the action of using tons of credit cards, and wasting money is keeping many people from becoming rich.[/quote]

People will waste money and use credit as long as people exist. We can’t hope that everyone is enlightened. And you’re contradicting yourself again: if people are not rich because they are too stupid to spend their money wisely and use their credit wisely, why give them the opportunity to hang themselves in the stock market, where the knowledge needed and the stakes are much higher?

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Look at your income, are you investing 15% of it? (Gross before taxes.) Look at your, and your wife’s income. I assume you each make at least $30,000 a year. Probably more. But $60,000 a year means you should put away at least $9,000 a year.

Assuming a 10% return, (less then the S&P 500 averaged per year over the entire last century,) you would have half a million in 19 years. 1 million in 26 years. 2 mil in 33 years. And this assumes no increase in income, no attempt at achieving a better return, nor even the benefit of matching funds into your retirement account.

Nowhere does this involve you doing anything underhanded or illegal, just living moderately and investing.[/quote]

Even though there’s, again, a strong macro-economic argument against everybody having a somewhat large stake in the stock market, I won’t argue with that, since it’s too complicated and I’d be here blurting out Caos Math for the rest of the day.

But I get it: in a Capitalism system, to live comfortably you’ll just have to avoid using credit at all costs, and put most of your “disposable” income in high-yield investments, while keeping a large cushion (say, two year’s worth of net income) in safe, low-yield, investments, just in case something happens (you get fired, a depression comes, etc.).

Sounds simple, right? Then why doesn’t everybody do it?

My point is that people are too ignorant to invest wisely. They’d rather direct all their income into paying interest – for their interest-only mortage and 22% interest credit cards. Which not only hurts them, it hurts all of us, and the whole economy.

It’s actually pretty funny seing pastors tell their congregation to burn their credit cards and then have a $20 million mortgage on the church and asking the same congregation to pay for it.

The fact that capitalism ALLOWS this asinine behavior is my problem; I’m more than willing to accept that if we all knew what we’re doing and made the right choices all the time, Capitalism would work great and we’d all be happy people. But the fact is – people do NOT know what they’re doing. And Capitalism, by allowing them to hurt others due to their shortcomings, is flawed.

109

Umm, a Cliff’s Notes precis for the terminally mental…

Arguing that capitalism is not a utopia does not mean that one does not enjoy and appreciate the benefits of capitalism.

Neither does it imply that one would prefer another known system.

Go read “Brave New World” or something. A utopia is a special place where everyone is happy or productive or drugged or something.

We’ve got too many unhappy and unproductive people to consider this a utopia, whether or not their unhappiness is their own doing is besides the point!

On a related point, constructing a utopia would be very difficult, given that nobody has ever succeeded in doing so yet… so don’t retort with the clasically useless “do you have a better alternative” line.

Such a question would require a thread with a different subject heading, wouldn’t it?

110

[quote]IagoMB wrote:
The difference is I don’t think it’s capitalism’s job to curb the negatives inherent in mankind. That should be the job of the Law. [/quote]

And how can you separate Capitalism from the Law of the country it lives in?

In a pure, laisez-faire, capitalist society, there are no labor laws; the market is completely deregulated, lawless.

Anti-trust LAWS are also contrary to capitalist principles.

So, how can you say that it’s the job of the law to regulate things, and then support capitalism that, at its purest form, is anti-labor and market laws?

Now, you can argue that Socialism goes much beyond having strong labor laws and regulated markets; that is true. The thing is that Socialists are cynical enough to realize that laws are rarely enough to regulate much of anything; if you want sure results, you need to be able to control the outcome (as faras that control does not interfere with the sacred principles of civil rights), not just attempt to influence it by legislating behaviors.

111

[quote]vroom wrote:
Arguing that capitalism is not a utopia does not mean that one does not enjoy and appreciate the benefits of capitalism.

Neither does it imply that one would prefer another known system.[/quote]

The very first post on this thread explains it very, very well - no one on the capitalism side of this argument holds that capitalism is utopian.

It is self-gratifying, but that is hardly utopian.

It is those of you who feel the need to lecture those of us that actually invest (own businesses) in the capitalist system who are arguing that it is not utopian.

Neither is it fair. The benevolence of the ‘level playing field’ crowd would have us dilute the Social Darwinism gene pool with their cries for fairness.

112

Rainjack, other than the nitwick trying to promote failed alternatives to capitalism, I don’t think anyone is arguing against capitalism… ?

113

[quote]
In a pure, laisez-faire, capitalist society, there are no labor laws; the market is completely deregulated, lawless. [/quote]

There’s that “pure” word again. Pure only exists in a text book (and really, really good beer from Bavaria). If you want to write about theory, knock your socks off. I’m writing about what really happens.

Another thing that really happens is CEOs, like me, work hard. Creating strategies, constantly watching the brand, forming partnerships, making sure employees are paid, and the countless things we need to do to run a business is not laziness. I know that last post wasn’t direct at me but your statement makes me think you have no practical knowledge of what it takes to start, maintain, and grow a successful ethical business. Also, as a person of Hispanic heritage, I completely agree that minimum wage should be raised, and to do that more businesses need to grow to boost the economy.

114

[quote]IagoMB wrote:
There’s that “pure” word again. Pure only exists in a text book (and really, really good beer from Bavaria). If you want to write about theory, knock your socks off. I’m writing about what really happens. [/quote]

What really happens due to what? Yes – the socialist laws that ended up getting into the US, that regulate the market and provide some mechanisms of social and job security…

Basically, my point is that if you say it’s the job of the law to prevent bad things from happening, since capitalism does not specify such laws (at all), you’ll end up finding yourself into socialist territory.

[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Another thing that really happens is CEOs, like me, work hard. Creating strategies, constantly watching the brand, forming partnerships, making sure employees are paid, and the countless things we need to do to run a business is not laziness. I know that last post wasn’t direct at me but your statement makes me think you have no practical knowledge of what it takes to start, maintain, and grow a successful ethical business.[/quote]

I have no doubts that some CEOs do. Even most. But not ALL!

[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Also, as a person of Hispanic heritage, I completely agree that minimum wage should be raised, and to do that more businesses need to grow to boost the economy.[/quote]

Well, here you are again: have your realized the concept of minimum wage is a socialist construct?

115

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Ross Hunt wrote:
…I take it that you when you refer to ‘the expense’ of government you have more than mere economic disadvantage in mind…?

… inordinate amount of power is placed in the hands of people who have not necessarily received their positions based on merit, breeding, intelligence, or the will of the people; they essentially fail every historical test of legitimacy, if you buy into that sort of thing.

Any time you socialize an institution, it must also become bureaucratized in some manner, especially in such a large republic as our own. This is a significant enough disadvantage for me to dismiss socialism out of hand.

But again, I don’t necessarily believe that equality is the saviour of western civilization. All men are NOT created equal. They may be equal under the law, but that is a separate issue.[/quote]

I DO agree with the proposition that socialism necessitates bueraucracy (i.e., micromanagement of affairs at the local level by a centralized government) and that this has a negative impact on efficiency. The question remains: Is the net efficiency of socialism, all things considered, less than that of more laissez-faire democratic capitalism?

Just to get the ball rolling on this track (if it interests you): I agree with de Tocqueville that in order for a non-centralized administration to be socially successful, the people must be educated in their power as individual political and private actors, and eager to affect the public sphere by forming associations devoted to certain political ends. If this passion for association does not exist, democrats lapse into selfish and soulless seclusion - what de Tocqueville calls ‘individualism.’ Could it be the case that our nation has become too ‘individualistic’ (i.e., too indifferent and lackluster about politics) for them to be suited for any but a socialist government?

But the question that interests me more is this one, the one that Tocqueville seems to dodge and that I suspect that you have more interest in: What is the purpose of society? Towards what end do we deem a laissez-faire democracy good or useful and socialism bad or inefficieent?

116

[quote]
Basically, my point is that if you say it’s the job of the law to prevent bad things from happening, since capitalism does not specify such laws (at all), you’ll end up finding yourself into socialist territory. [/quote]

Re-read my posts on realizing the potential of a business. The ethics are found within the framework of capitalism.

[quote]
I have no doubts that some CEOs do. Even most. But not ALL! [/quote]

That’s not what you wrote, and if you’re writing now that most CEOs are not lazy then the example you gave is isn’t that great since everyone is paid for their contribution.

[quote]
have your realized the concept of minimum wage is a socialist construct? [/quote]

And the way to raise it is through growing business in a competitive capitalist economy.

117

Iago,

While I am all for free beer while awaiting the next boat, which would make this kind of utopic, I think you are arguing along a tangent.

I think you are arguing that utopic conditions or optimal outcomes are able to occur within capitalism?

While this is actually a very interesting concept, it isn’t quite the argument that others are having. The fact that such situations are possible and do perhaps happen spontaneously in small microcosms of society does not a utopian society make.

If in fact such microcosms exist, they are transient and somewhat accidental. I believe to qualify as a true utopia that optimal solutions that don’t leave out significant chunks of society should exist and that they should be stable.

So far I haven’t seen this. Provide me with plenty of free beer and perhaps I will… :stuck_out_tongue:

118

[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Re-read my posts on realizing the potential of a business. The ethics are found within the framework of capitalism.[/quote]

No they’re not – they are found within the framework of intelligence.

[quote]IagoMB wrote:
hspder wrote:
I have no doubts that some CEOs do. Even most. But not ALL!

That’s not what you wrote, and if you’re writing now that most CEOs are not lazy then the example you gave is isn’t that great since everyone is paid for their contribution. [/quote]

You’re distorting my statements. 50.000001% would constitute most. And the fact that a CEO is not lazy doesn’t mean his income is justified by his work; much less if you compare it to a minimum wage worker that might actually be producing more wealth.

[quote]IagoMB wrote:
hspder wrote:

Have your realized the concept of minimum wage is a socialist construct?

And the way to raise it is through growing business in a competitive capitalist economy.
[/quote]

I agree! I have said nothing in contrary. My point is that the socialist constructs need to be there – not that capitalism should be eliminated altogether. Communists believe that capitalism should be eliminated altogether, and I’m NOT communist…

119

[quote]
I think you are arguing that utopic conditions or optimal outcomes are able to occur within capitalism? [/quote]

I became involved with this thread when I thought the posts had a lot of theory but no practical examples. So I wrote about what I do. I also saw a bunch of posts that are pretty much ‘business is bad’. ‘Capitalists are unethical.’ And I fight not to take that personally since I am ethical because I am a capitalist.

The optimal outcomes I’m writing about are in an environment that encourages ethical competition, internal and external to the business. At its best (within an open managerial system) competition will reward motivated individuals to achieve more than they thought they could, which grows the business, creates more jobs and boosts the economy. It continually raises the bar of what can be achieved.

The problem which has been pointed out, is individual choice. Not everyone will choose to be ethical. I don’t see how it’s capitalist’s responsibility to make sure everyone is ethical. What it does, is provide an environment that rewards the ethical person more then it rewards the unethical person-- by providing wealth to the individual, the company, the employees, and the economy (among others). I think this is the fairest system, but not perfect or pure in any way. Business is always in flux. It’s this living fluid collection of individuals working towards a goal.

It can be argued if this is a microcosm or not, but I think that’s just asking are there more ethical or unethical people in the world, and that’s in flux as well. However, there is nothing accidental about it. I’ve spent days and weeks creating business plans, mission statements and values that cover every aspect of what a business should do. They are very well thought out.

120

Iago,

I hear you.

I’ve seen some very good business and some very bad business and had my fair share of dealing with business plans and attempts at raising capital during the dot com era.

I reflect on and treasure the times that I’ve worked in well run organizations. Similarly, the places where I have had a positive impact on others also provides me with a lot of personal satisfaction.

This whole thread is probably just a big series of misunderstandings, however, I’m still waiting for that beer! :stuck_out_tongue: