[quote]Massif wrote:
The only way I think we will get away from capitalism is when we all stop working 60 hours a week in jobs we hate to buy shit we dont need (thank-you Mr Durden). When we start concentrating on what really matters, then your material needs diminish. When your material needs diminish, then capitalism decreases.
[/quote]
Nice reference. Although I think that’s more consumerism (buying shit to buy shit) than capitalism. And I am not a beautiful snowflake.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I wonder would it be better to have many parties so that 5 or 10 candidates run for President and someone with 23% (for example) of the vote wins.
[/quote]
Absolutely! I’ve talked about this on this site before. There could be a run-off vote between the top two or three (anyone over 20-30% of popular votes) candidates in a multi party (three or more) election. That would be the most ideal. Every viewpoint gets a voice and gets to be heard; and we get a more realistic demographic in our elected officials. Many people are afraid to vote for “third” party candidates because they feel they are throwing their votes away–and in this country that is likely true because in the end voting for the third party “lockout” candidate is just a vote for the extremist on the other end of the political spectrum (a la, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush).
A Multi-party system would help “normalize” the political spectrum in that over time only moderates (moderate meaning those that don’t fall on either end of the spectrum) would make it to the run-off thus ensuring a change in the spectrum. For instance, the term “liberal” and “conservative” being opposites in today?s political dialog would gradually pick up new connotations and the spectrum may become more two-dimensional. Instead of a continuum with two end-points there may become three or more–try imagining a triangle or square shaped spectrum where candidates pick up traces of three or more traits.
The current electoral system is totally outdated.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I wonder would it be better to have many parties so that 5 or 10 candidates run for President and someone with 23% (for example) of the vote wins.
Absolutely! I’ve talked about this on this site before. There could be a run-off vote between the top two or three (anyone over 20-30% of popular votes) candidates in a multi party (three or more) election. That would be the most ideal. Every viewpoint gets a voice and gets to be heard; and we get a more realistic demographic in our elected officials. Many people are afraid to vote for “third” party candidates because they feel they are throwing their votes away–and in this country that is likely true because in the end voting for the third party “lockout” candidate is just a vote for the extremist on the other end of the political spectrum (a la, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush).
A Multi-party system would help “normalize” the political spectrum in that over time only moderates (moderate meaning those that don’t fall on either end of the spectrum) would make it to the run-off thus ensuring a change in the spectrum. For instance, the term “liberal” and “conservative” being opposites in today?s political dialog would gradually pick up new connotations and the spectrum may become more two-dimensional. Instead of a continuum with two end-points there may become three or more–try imagining a triangle or square shaped spectrum where candidates pick up traces of three or more traits.
The current electoral system is totally outdated.
[/quote]
That sounds exciting! But you have to promise not to complain when some left, or right wing wacko gets elected.
[quote]oboffill wrote:
But fuck man. How can you not feel guilty? [/quote]
Guilty? I never feel guilty when I think of an underpriveledged person in a third world country. Feeling “guilty” denotes that I have some sort of responsibility for what is happening to that person.
with that stated I think helping others who are less fortunate than you is a good thing to do and I do it. However, I don’t do it out of a sense of guilt. I do it because it is the right thing to do and it is what I would want done for me if I were in a similar position.
By the way, I also don’t feel envy when I see Tom Cruise (you can pick someone else) on the big screen making 10’s of millions of dollars for making out with the latest hot starlet.
I think ultimately (especially in this country) we all get what we deserve…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That sounds exciting! But you have to promise not to complain when some left, or right wing wacko gets elected.
[/quote]
Not quite sure if you meant this tongue-in-cheek but as I stated in my last post a multi-party system would eventually “normalize the political spectrum” in that, I beleive, most people tend toward the mean of the curve when electing officials. In this case the mean is the majority of the area under the curve and the 5% of the population that are extremists will be divided up on the opposite ends, thus ensuring more moderate returns. Of course this is only a theory but I don’t see where else it could go.
[quote]Massif wrote:
Technology advanced because of capitalism. Efficiency is bred out of capitalism. Capitalism generates profits by creating a “need” and then supply a solution for it.
[/quote]
You will get no argument from me on that one. Same goes to you IagoMB, capitalism certainly has led to unprecedented advances, and has become increasingly efficient because of them. You start running into trouble when technological advances are not profitable.
Let’s use a terribly simplified example: if tomorrow, I invented a ultra-cheap, renewable method of harvesting energy that was 100% clean, and absolutely safe, what would happen? How long would I live after announcing my discovery?
IagoMB, you asked why something that is not needed would be produced. As a teenager, I worked in food preperation at a cinema. At the end of the night, we threw out enough food to feed several families. At the same time, there are people in the city that have no food to eat, why? If the cinema gave the surplus away, everyone would just wait until closing instead of buying the food, and the company would go out of business. It is my understanding that destroying surplus production is common in most places. This is an inefficiency of capitalism (in terms of resource allocation with respect to satisfying the most needs possible).
Please note, I am not saying that capitalism is evil, nor am I suggesting I know of a better system. However, any system that resolves these inefficiecies (although I would speculate that resolution would involve changing the goal of production, ie some form of communism). I think state capitalism (eg PR China, USSR, Cuba) is/was a failed attempt to put a band-aid on capitalisms short-comings, and to continue the analogy, the band-aid wasn’t sterile (although certainly, there were some advantages, particularly in the sciences, but that is a different topic).
Please, no “HEY! YOU’RE A STINKIN’ COMMIE!!” posts.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS,
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Not quite sure if you meant this tongue-in-cheek but as I stated in my last post a multi-party system would eventually “normalize the political spectrum” in that, I beleive, most people tend toward the mean of the curve when electing officials. In this case the mean is the majority of the area under the curve and the 5% of the population that are extremists will be divided up on the opposite ends, thus ensuring more moderate returns. Of course this is only a theory but I don’t see where else it could go.
[/quote]
Where else it could go? You haven’t done very much digging on this then, in a (nearly) two-party system, you intrinsically ensure victory for the majority. The “normalized spectrum” you speak of is already in play and the parties tailor themselves (even compromising principles) in order to better fit that spectrum. Case in point, the Republican party, classically favoring capitalism and smaller government, was largely responsible for forming the department of Homeland Security, debatably the single largest addition to the U.S. Government in history. More parties means the less popular parties get a greater chance of winning. Most will say that it shouldn’t be about popularity, and as we all know, what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. The caveat is, the masses don’t burn popular people at the stake. Not to say that this will happen, just that your theory was a little biased to the “happily ever after” end of the spectrum.
oboffill
I think someone needs to get a dictionary and look up the meaning of the following words:
Capitalism
Consumerism
Commercialism
Opportunism
Greed
Free Market Economy
Command Economy
To get a really good grasp on capitalism some readings on communism/socialism, economics, game theory, and systems optimization might be in order as well, but a lot of what you say is false association with the true meaning of capitalism. A real argument against capitalism would be something like the prisoner’s dillema (if you don’t know what it is, google it) With this I agree, there do need to be some laws governing capitalism so that we don’t bonk our collective heads when we all try to pick up the same shiny quarter. But capitalism, is a dominant force in the natural world as well as the economic one. Bash American politics for the greed and opportunism, not the capitalism.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
capitalism certainly has led to unprecedented advances, and has become increasingly efficient because of them. You start running into trouble when technological advances are not profitable.
Let’s use a terribly simplified example: if tomorrow, I invented a ultra-cheap, renewable method of harvesting energy that was 100% clean, and absolutely safe, what would happen? How long would I live after announcing my discovery?[/quote]
oboffill,
Here is a very good shortcoming of capitalism. It’s a little bit unreal (people aren’t often killed for a discovery, they just sell it to someone who buries it) but the underlying premise still applies, that individuals acting in their own best interests perform an act that hurts everyone, including themselves.
[quote]
IagoMB, you asked why something that is not needed would be produced. As a teenager, I worked in food preperation at a cinema. At the end of the night, we threw out enough food to feed several families. At the same time, there are people in the city that have no food to eat, why? If the cinema gave the surplus away, everyone would just wait until closing instead of buying the food, and the company would go out of business. It is my understanding that destroying surplus production is common in most places. This is an inefficiency of capitalism (in terms of resource allocation with respect to satisfying the most needs possible).
Please note, I am not saying that capitalism is evil, nor am I suggesting I know of a better system. However, any system that resolves these inefficiecies (although I would speculate that resolution would involve changing the goal of production, ie some form of communism). I think state capitalism (eg PR China, USSR, Cuba) is/was a failed attempt to put a band-aid on capitalisms short-comings, and to continue the analogy, the band-aid wasn’t sterile (although certainly, there were some advantages, particularly in the sciences, but that is a different topic).
Please, no “HEY! YOU’RE A STINKIN’ COMMIE!!” posts.[/quote]
Aleksandr, what you’re talking about is akin to communism and, more specifically, is a technocracy. A method of government whereby those who are scientists and experts in their field decide law and rule based (ideally) on existing data or experimentall verified axioms. Whereas democractic decision making focuses more on popularity to make its decisions and choose its rulers, and capitilism focuses on the individual, a technocracy focuses more on their ability to solve problems. So, rather than a capitalist being free to dump his excess food on a whim, the technocrat would have a system devised for the most efficient use and production of that food and a method of ensuring the inevitable excess is dealt with efficiently. There are problems with technocracy also though. Firstly, deciding who governs, democracy’s easy (the most votes), capitalism’s easy (when it comes to $, me), technocracy (?). Secondly, as I said before, what’s right isn’t always popular and vice versa, a technocrat would be forced to do very unpopular things like put a $ value on a human life, force abortions and/or euthanasia, etc. these are things that don’t generally calm the masses. Third, “no avaiable data” is fine in a research presentation or spreadsheet, but represents anarchy in a technocracy, also if two methods are equal, the technocrat is unable to rightly decide and must fall back on some other method. Fourth, mistakes, data can be wrong for many reasons, a technocrat, unlike a democrat or a capitalist, doesn’t rely on instinct, the sort of thing that would overcome false data, and slim margins don’t tolerate mistakes well. Lastly, and this is more personal, technocracies are currently mostly untested pipe dreams. The first time I read about them I poked a few holes in the idea, I’m sure applying the idea to even 100,000 people will generate many more controversies and conflicts.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Let’s use a terribly simplified example: if tomorrow, I invented a ultra-cheap, renewable method of harvesting energy that was 100% clean, and absolutely safe, what would happen? How long would I live after announcing my discovery?
[/quote]
Like solar or wind energy? It’s already here and competing in the market. I was driving around in a Prism out in CA two weeks ago. Why do you think you’d be killed if you invented another form of fuel?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
IagoMB, you asked why something that is not needed would be produced. As a teenager, I worked in food preperation at a cinema. At the end of the night, we threw out enough food to feed several families. At the same time, there are people in the city that have no food to eat, why? [/quote]
Those are two separate issues. A surplus is not the result of producing a product no ones wants, but rather producing too much of a product in need. (I’m thinking about all those lonely Tickle Me Elmos. So sad.)
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
If the cinema gave the surplus away, everyone would just wait until closing instead of buying the food, and the company would go out of business.
[/quote]
There are some more questions here. Why give it away? How about lowering prices half way through the last movie of the night? Do people want popcorn when they leave, or eat it as they watch the movie? If a surplus is given to homeless shelter or the likes, who’s in charge of that and how is that person getting paid? Is it volunteer work? What is the cinema liable for handing out day-old popcorn?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
It is my understanding that destroying surplus production is common in most places. This is an inefficiency of capitalism (in terms of resource allocation with respect to satisfying the most needs possible).
[/quote]
I wouldn’t say an inefficiency of capitalism. More errors in market research and production management. And there are companies that voluntarily donate to charity. Many supplies given to not-for-profit business are gained this way, and it would involve a tax deduction.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
A surplus is not the result of producing a product no ones wants, but rather producing too much of a product in need. (I’m thinking about all those lonely Tickle Me Elmos. So sad.)
[/quote]
Wait. I know that’s not the full definition of surplus. I mean to write there needs to be a market need for a product to be produced, or you will not be in business too long.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Like solar or wind energy? It’s already here and competing in the market. I was driving around in a Prism out in CA two weeks ago. Why do you think you’d be killed if you invented another form of fuel?
[/quote]
I’m going to assume you read my post before, you’re right his specific example was spectacular, but the underlying premise that new technologies are suppressed solely for monetary gain can and does occur. I must apologize that I have no specific example, but, you must concede that without a law against it (or even with one) it could occur.
[quote]
Those are two separate issues. A surplus is not the result of producing a product no ones wants, but rather producing too much of a product in need. (I’m thinking about all those lonely Tickle Me Elmos. So sad.)
[/quote]Macroeconomics doesn’t really differentiate between wants and needs in this regard, maybe luxury and necessity, but in this case, surplus is when supply exceeds demand regardless of the motivations for that demand. So, a product no one wants/needs is one where the demand has moved or shifted to zero.
What you’re talking about isn’t (necessarily) capitalism, but systems optimization. Capitalism assumes that individuals and private organizations know whats best for themselves. Capitalism is the idea that even if they are wrong, they are free to pursue that end. Clearly, Aleksandr’s example is a situation where said individual or organization didn’t know what’s best, and does really represent a flaw in capitalism. The fix(es) you propose are debatably attainable solely by individuals and/or private organizations (except for the tax exempt donation part), but there are quite concievably, situations where one individual or corporation (or even a government) can’t KNOW what’s best for themselves or anyone else, especially when we talk about less useful and innocuous stuff than popcorn, stuff more like industrial waste and spent fissile material.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
I’m going to assume you read my post before, you’re right his specific example was spectacular, but the underlying premise that new technologies are suppressed solely for monetary gain can and does occur. I must apologize that I have no specific example, but, you must concede that without a law against it (or even with one) it could occur.
[/quote]
No it couldn?t, not for a long time. If you have such a great idea, it was just around the corner anyway and other people are going to stumble over it.
After that you only have to find the money to start a company and with a good idea money is relatively easy to find.
If you have a REALLY good idea, patent it and yell it from the rooftops; after that nobody?s going to touch you, the horses are allready out of the barn anyway.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Let’s use a terribly simplified example: if tomorrow, I invented a ultra-cheap, renewable method of harvesting energy that was 100% clean, and absolutely safe, what would happen? How long would I live after announcing my discovery?
Like solar or wind energy? It’s already here and competing in the market. I was driving around in a Prism out in CA two weeks ago. Why do you think you’d be killed if you invented another form of fuel?
[/quote]
I hope this statement was tongue-in-cheek. If not, and you actually believe that wind and solar energy are currently viable alternatives to petrol, you have been sadly misinformed. Considering the power of oil companies, it is seriously unlikely they would stand around and do nothing while their industry crumbles; to think otherwise is pretty naive.
Please note, there is a difference between “alternative fuels” and viable alternatives to petrochemicals.
I believe you have been corrected on this.
[quote]
Aleksandr wrote:
If the cinema gave the surplus away, everyone would just wait until closing instead of buying the food, and the company would go out of business.
There are some more questions here. Why give it away? How about lowering prices half way through the last movie of the night? Do people want popcorn when they leave, or eat it as they watch the movie? If a surplus is given to homeless shelter or the likes, who’s in charge of that and how is that person getting paid? Is it volunteer work? What is the cinema liable for handing out day-old popcorn?
Aleksandr wrote:
It is my understanding that destroying surplus production is common in most places. This is an inefficiency of capitalism (in terms of resource allocation with respect to satisfying the most needs possible).
I wouldn’t say an inefficiency of capitalism. More errors in market research and production management. And there are companies that voluntarily donate to charity. Many supplies given to not-for-profit business are gained this way, and it would involve a tax deduction.[/quote]
It is not an error in market research or production management, it is an inefficiency. If I know I am going to sell 8 pizzas, but there is a chance I might sell 10, I am going to prepare 10, so long as, on average, the incremental cost of those two extra pizzas is offset by the revenue generated by increased sales. Whenever those 2 extra pizzas aren’t sold, I will be destroying a scarce resource, and this is a clear misallocation of resources. Although for me as a business, it is profitable to risk having this surplus, it is still a waste of resources.
I should clarify that what I believe will eventually happen is not a technocracy, that is far too specific, and no one can predict the future. I just think that as individual demands on resources increase, and the world population increases, a more efficient system will evolve, much like capitalism evolved, once given a chance (singing of city charter).
[quote]orion wrote:
No it couldn?t, not for a long time. If you have such a great idea, it was just around the corner anyway and other people are going to stumble over it.
[/quote]It doesn’t necessarily need to be for a long time (esp. in food production and microprocessor design). And I’m going to assume you didn’t mean the second sentence to be an insult, but, Turing, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Euclid, Euler, the ideas these guys had were “right around the corner”?
Right, and lenders aren’t going to give you money just for having an idea, they are called venture capitalists and they like to see return on their investment, namely in the form of partial or total ownership.
[quote]If you have a REALLY good idea, patent it and yell it from the rooftops; after that nobody?s going to touch you, the horses are allready out of the barn anyway.[/quote]You assume that patents are ironclad and inviolable, patents are issuance of law and are therefor open to contestation, interpretation, and repeal (illegally, they are much more subjective). Yelling from the rooftops guarantees people will start touching you and everything around you, metaphorically. Literally, they patent as close to your patent as legally possible and consume the patent space around it, sometime suffocating it, that is, if your idea is REALLY good. Also, patents are expensive to effect and enforce. Generate any IP lately?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I’m going to assume you read my post before, you’re right his specific example was spectacular, but the underlying premise that new technologies are suppressed solely for monetary gain can and does occur. I must apologize that I have no specific example, but, you must concede that without a law against it (or even with one) it could occur.
[/quote]
Your reasoning is a little faulty. I can take the same argument and write that you must concede that without a law against it (or even with one) talking pink gorillas on Neptune could occur. Specific examples would lend support to your argument. Without them you have speculation and you allow your beliefs to be biased.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Macroeconomics doesn’t really differentiate between wants and needs in this regard, maybe luxury and necessity, but in this case, surplus is when supply exceeds demand regardless of the motivations for that demand. So, a product no one wants/needs is one where the demand has moved or shifted to zero.
[/quote]
Yes. But we still have two separate issues. Having a surplus, and what to do with it.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
What you’re talking about isn’t (necessarily) capitalism, but systems optimization. Capitalism assumes that individuals and private organizations know whats best for themselves. Capitalism is the idea that even if they are wrong, they are free to pursue that end. Clearly, Aleksandr’s example is a situation where said individual or organization didn’t know what’s best, and does really represent a flaw in capitalism. The fix(es) you propose are debatably attainable solely by individuals and/or private organizations (except for the tax exempt donation part), but there are quite concievably, situations where one individual or corporation (or even a government) can’t KNOW what’s best for themselves or anyone else, especially when we talk about less useful and innocuous stuff than popcorn, stuff more like industrial waste and spent fissile material.
[/quote]
I think I need this clarified. How is it the fault of capitalism if individual mistakes can be corrected with business optimization? If two companies have the popcorn dilemma, but one destroys the surplus and the other uses my suggestions, wouldn’t it be the fault of poor optimization? Are we going to blame Islam for Al qaeda, or misguided individuals using poor optimization?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
I hope this statement was tongue-in-cheek. If not, and you actually believe that wind and solar energy are currently viable alternatives to petrol, you have been sadly misinformed. Considering the power of oil companies, it is seriously unlikely they would stand around and do nothing while their industry crumbles; to think otherwise is pretty naive.
Please note, there is a difference between “alternative fuels” and viable alternatives to petrochemicals.
[/quote]
Sadly misinformed? The people I know using solar power for their homes are pretty happy, not sad. I got 68 mpg while driving a Honda Prism. I read an article last week on how they are making nano solar panel chips to put in paint! think about that, we can paint your home to store energy. These things are real and they are here competing in the market. If you want to support them, buy the product. Also, wouldn’t a viable alternatives to petrochemicals be an alternative fuel?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Those are two separate issues. A surplus is not the result of producing a product no ones wants, but rather producing too much of a product in need. (I’m thinking about all those lonely Tickle Me Elmos. So sad.)
I believe you have been corrected on this.
[/quote]
It’s still two separate issues. Having a surplus, and what to do with it.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
It is not an error in market research or production management, it is an inefficiency. If I know I am going to sell 8 pizzas, but there is a chance I might sell 10, I am going to prepare 10, so long as, on average, the incremental cost of those two extra pizzas is offset by the revenue generated by increased sales. Whenever those 2 extra pizzas aren’t sold, I will be destroying a scarce resource, and this is a clear misallocation of resources. Although for me as a business, it is profitable to risk having this surplus, it is still a waste of resources.
[/quote]
Are you arguing about having a surplus or what to do with the surplus? I think my examples show that a sound business structure can handle a surplus in an ethical and beneficial way. However, it’s still more on the production management side of things. Management styles such as Six Sigma are used to help optimizes quality and quantity, as well as employee growth.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
orion wrote:
After that you only have to find the money to start a company and with a good idea money is relatively easy to find.
Right, and lenders aren’t going to give you money just for having an idea, they are called venture capitalists and they like to see return on their investment, namely in the form of partial or total ownership.
[/quote]
Just a note here. VCs are just one resource of funds for entrepreneurs. Banks, SBA loans, lines of credit, and grants are available to give or loan money without forfeiting any control of your business.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Sadly misinformed? The people I know using solar power for their homes are pretty happy, not sad. I got 68 mpg while driving a Honda Prism. I read an article last week on how they are making nano solar panel chips to put in paint! think about that, we can paint your home to store energy. These things are real and they are here competing in the market. If you want to support them, buy the product. Also, wouldn’t a viable alternatives to petrochemicals be an alternative fuel?
[/quote]
Yes, people are using alternative fuels. But you can’t seriously consider that these are a viable alternative to petrochemicals, or will be any time soon. Your last sentence shows how little thought you are putting into this. Obviously, an alternative to petrochemicals would be an alternative energy source. It is equally obvious that not all alternatives are viable replacements. I contend that currently, none are viable replacements, except nuclear power and thus electric energy storage (that is, if more nuclear plants were built, hydrogen fuel cells would be viable as well).
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That sounds exciting! But you have to promise not to complain when some left, or right wing wacko gets elected.
Not quite sure if you meant this tongue-in-cheek but as I stated in my last post a multi-party system would eventually “normalize the political spectrum” in that, I beleive, most people tend toward the mean of the curve when electing officials. In this case the mean is the majority of the area under the curve and the 5% of the population that are extremists will be divided up on the opposite ends, thus ensuring more moderate returns. Of course this is only a theory but I don’t see where else it could go.
[/quote]
Tongue in cheek? Not hardly! Suppose we had such a multi-party system. You could theoretically get 20 candidates running for office. Of those 20 several could very well be far left or far right. If one of them can garner even 10% he could very well win!
Think about it.