Why save Capitalism?

[Avid]

Whenever there's bosses there's misappropriation of production and profit. That also is humane nature.

You make the analogy that when one gets sick in a socialist system they are pushed out of the herd, how?

It would be more accurate to say that in reality when one gets sick in a socialist system, they can go get health care. It's in a capitalist system that one is left behind to be ravaged.

Humane-beings for the most part are fairly placid animals, as most animals are, feed them, provide shelter and beyond that not much else is called for. Most of our "needs" are manufactured, I need to have that widget! Why? Because someone manufactured the impression you can't live without it.

I'm not saying that we should all go back to living in caves and living off the land. I like creature comforts as much as the next person. But when products are made for the many, for the profit of the few, not only do those products not last by design, the many are left with nothing but a broken widget that they didn't need in the first place.

But let's say that widget was something that regardless of its usefulness was going to get produced anyway. If the workers that made that widget were in control of it's manufacturing and shared in it's profit without having the lion's share going to stock-holders and CEO's, that really produce nothing, pride of product would be instilled, and the making for a better means of production that would limit its negative effects on our environment would be imposed and the community as a whole benefits with the redistribution of wealth back into the community.

If said widget would be something that produced more pollution than the environment could handle, under Socialism, the people have the ability to change that by either changing methods of production or discontinue making the widgets altogether for the good of community.

Under a capitalist system that widget will get produced as long as it's making a profit and damn the consequences.

If people knew half of the truth about what most of the things they use do to our environment they'd think twice about using them, and that includes this computer I'm typing on.

Although it's true that laws and regulations can limit that damage done under Capitalism we have seen just what the end result of that is when the corrosive effects of profit manifest themselves into the system and those that manufacture are also placed into the regulatory positions. It is then that the laws become moot.

Fact is there is no prefect way to live in this modern world without some form of toll being extracted from our environment or our humanity. The best we can do is limit the toll we extract. Capitalism accelerates the damaged by placing more value on profit than what it takes to get that widget to market and what happens after it's discarded and what it does to the people in general.

Bottom line, Capitalism place's more emphasis on profit than people, whereas Socialism will place more value on people than profit.

Case in point is this government "bail out" (sell out) of these predatory companies. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the general public. A helping hand is given to businesses that used criminal predatory practices to over-inflate base value, But instead of punishing these criminals, because they've stolen so much, we are allowing these predators to keep their ill-gotten gains, while giving them more of our money to stay afloat, and we still have to pay off the debt these predators produced!

It's as though a bank robber stold all the money out of the bank, but instead of arresting him our govenment is giving him the keys to the bank and combination to the safe, after they've promised him that we'd re-fill it with what little money we have left.

Just how did this come about? Capitalism, which now has failed and has morphed into some demented form of Communism/fascism, Capitalism's ugly brothers.

In Nazi Germany it was government that took over corporations, here it was corporations that took over government - the results are the same.

How can something be too "big" to fail? If it's too big, break it up! Isn't it suppose to be the other way around? Aren't we suppose to looking after the little-guy?

Not is this system, the little-guy gets crushed.

I say to hell with these predators. Let them fail. And if we are to start buying up corporations let's socialize health-care and all means of production and let those companies that produce nothing but profit die.

Discuss, please.

[Colette]

Hmm, you might want to read Bill Gates' ideas on Creative Capitalism...see if there's anything in them that appeases your cynicism in relation to hardcore capitalism..

[ArchonAlarion]

That passage is just full of BS.

If there were dire consequences for not having widgets than people would demand them. How is a state bureaucrat in any better of a position to decide what is produced and by whom? Are they just a super intelligent god race?

Oh no wait, state officials are either elected by those same people who are too dumb to know what they want (obviously doesn't apply to voting =]) or are put in power by the former.

Basically the whole thing is ridiculous upon the slightest inspection.

[Avid]

I'm not exactly against capitalism. I'm just trying to pick out the flaws. I don't agree with the whole passage but I did find some interesting things in there to think about.

[Krazy P]

I'm not exactly against capitalism. I'm just trying to pick out the flaws. I don't agree with the whole passage but I did find some interesting things in there to think about.

I think you might want to do some reading.

Karl Marx Das Kapital, Adam Smith Wealth of Nations, David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

That should get you started.

If you want to skip the heavy lifting, you could read J. M. Roberts, A History of the World to compare the different political and economic systems and how they perform over time.

The thing about learning about things, is it takes actual work and thought. A foreign concept to some.

The belief that wisdom will come just because you would like it to reminds me of the quote by Thomas Edison:

"The reason most people don't recognize opportunity is because it walks around wearing overalls and looking like hard work."

A woman, on average, in the United States earns more than a man in Europe. Now, I wonder why that is?

The average person today has a higher standard of living and better health than the nobility did a few hundred years ago. I wonder why that is?

[Avid]

I think you might want to do some reading.

Karl Marx Das Kapital, Adam Smith Wealth of Nations, David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

That should get you started.

If you want to skip the heavy lifting, you could read J. M. Roberts, A History of the World to compare the different political and economic systems and how they perform over time.

The thing about learning about things, is it takes actual work and thought. A foreign concept to some.

The belief that wisdom will come just because you would like it to reminds me of the quote by Thomas Edison:

"The reason most people don't recognize opportunity is because it walks around wearing overalls and looking like hard work."

A woman, on average, in the United States earns more than a man in Europe. Now, I wonder why that is?

The average person today has a higher standard of living and better health than the nobility did a few hundred years ago. I wonder why that is?

Thanks for the reading list. Wish my library didn't suck so much. Think I'll skip to that Roberts guy.

[ArchonAlarion]

I'd also reccomend David Friedman's The Machinary of Freedom, which outlines the most extreme (consistent) capitalism that you can get.

[void]

Talk about a poorly thought out passage. It seems like it was written by an emo grade-schooler. Moreover, any self respecting grammar nazi would have multiple aneurysms while reading that.

Similar ideas are presented far more convincingly in The Communist Manifesto, and many are either idealistic to the point of being inapplicable in the real world, or they rely on self-erected strawmen (e.g. greedy executives, misappropriation of resources, etc.). The concept of utility is not precisely defined, and the author subscribes to the already refuted notion that command economies are inherently superior to adequately regulated free-markets. Nobody with (at least) an elementary knowledge of basic macroeconomics proposes purely capitalist or socialist models. Both systems are demonstrably unstable and self-destructive.

In summary, two words suffice in describing the snippet: EPIC PHAIL

[thod]

What about the thieves guild, they make money by stealing from houses, or the assassins guild that makes it money by killing people. Would these not be legitimate industries too?

Yet we ban such money making companies because their way of making money hurts the individuals that receive their attention. Thus one man may not profit if the harm caused to another is greater. The thing about thieves and assassins is that their offense is against the person and so easily recognized.

Yet there are other organizations whose offense is against the community and thus no single individual has a particular interest to take action against it. An example would be dumping toxic waste in the local river.

It is suggested that the Wall St firms fall into this latter category with the target of predation being the whole nation. Their crime against each individual or town is so small that it is not noticed yet yields great profit for them. If this were so then society would benefit from having them shut down.

[Avid]

OK, ok...it is horrible. Sorry for posting. LOL

*Interesting perspective thod.

[Rafael]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Directly from the man whose theories "saved" capitalism last week.

Also, I agree with Thod. That and the fact that he money injected on the market was more than enough to end hunger in the whole world for an year or so.

[TigerDak]

Capitalism means freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of ideas. It also involves the right to pursue life, liberty, and and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism also means the right to private property. It is the only economic system that can work with our Republican form of democracy, our Constitution.

[Rafael]

Capitalism means freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of ideas. It also involves the right to pursue life, liberty, and and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism also means the right to private property. It is the only economic system that can work with our Republican form of democracy, our Constitution.

Capitalism SHOULD mean all of that, but when it becomes a dictatorship of capital, it must be controlled.

Why call it a dictatorship of capital? Just think of it, what's the easiest way to determine one's POWER? And so, on the word's of Rousseau, from The social contract (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

It is then, according to Grotius, doubtful whether the human race belongs to a hundred men, or that hundred men to the human race: and, throughout his book, he seems to incline to the former alternative, which is also the view of Hobbes. On this showing, the human species is divided into so many herds of cattle, each with its ruler, who keeps guard over them for the purpose of devouring them.


Locke and Kant also defended that it was not good for mankind to give one man too much power. They influenced the men who wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the Bill of rights (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), that are the better examples of "freedom" and "human rights" until the ONU declaration (which was based on these two).

Is that enough proof that capitalism has gone out of control?





Rafael added to this post, 35 minutes and 53 seconds later...

Also, read that (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[TigerDak]

Capitalism SHOULD mean all of that, but when it becomes a dictatorship of capital, it must be controlled.
I am not a believer in laissez-faire capitalism. Some regulation needs to exist.
Is that enough proof that capitalism has gone out of control?
No.

[Avid]

Good reads. Ty, Raf.

[void]

Capitalism means freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of ideas. It also involves the right to pursue life, liberty, and and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism also means the right to private property. It is the only economic system that can work with our Republican form of democracy, our Constitution.

Err, no. All those concepts are orthogonal (not contradictory) to the definition of capitalism. To use the freedom theme, capitalism only means freedom of enterprise. Stretching the definition to include all those things is silly.

[denaria]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerDak
Capitalism means freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of ideas. It also involves the right to pursue life, liberty, and and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism also means the right to private property. It is the only economic system that can work with our Republican form of democracy, our Constitution.

Capitalism SHOULD mean all of that, but when it becomes a dictatorship of capital, it must be controlled.

The real problem is not capitalism per se, but monopoly (and near monopoly). We now have organisations whose failure can significantly damage entire economies, and whose actions in the good times can also stoke up immense problems for the future. But as long as the consumer/voter perceives a benign dictatorship, no real attempt is made to rein them in. However, though Wal-mart may deliver cheap groceries, it does so at the expense of small local businesses and its suppliers; though investment banks' purchase of CDOs provided cheap mortgage money, they caused demand-pull inflation and a bubble in house prices; though big military makes America feel secure, its economic and logistic inefficiencies are the stuff of legend. Socialist monopoly is even worse - the Red Army, collective farms, Trabant "cars"... I just hope that the G8 get their collective heads together when the current debacle has run its course and take a stand against big-ness in all its ugly manifestations.

[elsdfr]

I think the free thought is valid but its nothing without international recgognition. Open your books.

Oh you did that and we're all aboubt to starve, thanks.

[brad2thebone]

I am for restrained capitalism.

I don't have a problem with capitalism when it more resembles perfect competition:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In America, what we have in the name of globalization and capitalism is oligopolies in a media based society:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The result resembles 12 wolves (owners of fortune 500 companies) snarling at 100 rabbits (the rest of us).
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Though GameTheory sounds great, like any theory or concept, it has it's holes. The 12 wolves along with the politicians in their pocket makes us overlook the blindspots and holes in gametheory.

Social traps:
For example inherent in game theory is the concept that when everyone is self-centered and is just taking, taking, taking, then everyone as a whole has less. But somehow, in our great enthusiasm for capitalism, we've just ignored this whole principle.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For example, in our economic system, it is pretty amazing that we only consider output (GDP) but we don't consider input (natural resources).
Wouldn't the efficiency of the system be judged by who makes the highest quality output with the least input? Meanwhile, people find all kinds of excuses to molest mother earth. Considering that we live with finite input (natural resources) I'm not sure how we can go on simply measuring progress just through output.

[elsdfr]

Rather tame, you're spending money you don't have. The Countries been broke for 10+ years and you stilll scream hail maries.. give me a break.

[TigerDak]

Err, no. All those concepts are orthogonal (not contradictory) to the definition of capitalism. To use the freedom theme, capitalism only means freedom of enterprise. Stretching the definition to include all those things is silly.
The freedom of enterprise as you put it involves free speech, free press, and so forth. For example, a man who starts a newspaper is exercising his right to pursue his own liberties and ambitions, but he is also exercising his free speech and his right to a free press. It is also his freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

The desire for freedom and liberty has always been part of human existence. Areas of the world that have less freedom tend not to have free markets, either. But once free markets are allowed, people tend to seek for the freedoms that accompany it. And likewise.

The philosophical, theological and economic values that drive democratic capitalism go hand in hand with all the freedoms that are contained in the United States founding documents. I believe that the Constitution has lasted as long as it has because of the freedoms that it grants people to pursue their own careers and ambitions. I also believe that democratic capitalism could not be as successful under more repressive forms of government. So it is not a stretch of definition to say that the freedoms expressed are contained in capitalism.

[Autoptic]

The Constitution hasn't lasted. It being repeatedly ignored as a matter of policy and even law.

[ArchonAlarion]

A: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

B: Voluntary exchange is positive sum. You wouldn't enter the exchange if you didn't believe it would benefit you.

C: Regulation is what leads to monopolization. Thats why our society is like this. Its because of regulation. You are trying to put fire out with gasoline.

[TigerDak]

A: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

B: Voluntary exchange is positive sum. You wouldn't enter the exchange if you didn't believe it would benefit you.

C: Regulation is what leads to monopolization. Thats why our society is like this. Its because of regulation. You are trying to put fire out with gasoline.

A. I lost interest in the video after the first 10 seconds when he tried to explain that oligopolies involve collusion to keep prices at the monopoly rate. I don't believe this is correct. An example of an oligopoly today would be either the auto manufacturers or oil companies. These are two industries that compete with one another. There is no collusion here. The Federal Trade Commission and several Congressional investigations have resulted in zero evidence of collusion. They do not collude.

Barriers to entry exist naturally. It would be pretty expensive for someone like you are me to try to start a new auto manufacturing company. That's just how the industry is. But if a new auto manufacturer wants to get into the industry, they are free to raise the capital that is necessary to do it.

C. Monopolies are not illegal. The only thing that is illegal about them would be their behavior; if they try to create situations where nobody else can compete with them. Regulation prevents monopolies by identifying anti-competitive behavior and by enforcing antitrust laws.

[DrEast]

A. I lost interest in the video after the first 10 seconds when he tried to explain that oligopolies involve collusion to keep prices at the monopoly rate. I don't believe this is correct. An example of an oligopoly today would be either the auto manufacturers or oil companies. These are two industries that compete with one another. There is no collusion here. The Federal Trade Commission and several Congressional investigations have resulted in zero evidence of collusion. They do not collude.

Barriers to entry exist naturally. It would be pretty expensive for someone like you are me to try to start a new auto manufacturing company. That's just how the industry is. But if a new auto manufacturer wants to get into the industry, they are free to raise the capital that is necessary to do it.

C. Monopolies are not illegal. The only thing that is illegal about them would be their behavior; if they try to create situations where nobody else can compete with them. Regulation prevents monopolies by identifying anti-competitive behavior and by enforcing antitrust laws.

This entire post indicates a trust in the State on a level that makes me sad. It's not as eye-rollingly bad as a pure Statist, but let me ask you, TigerDak: Are you aware of the inherent conflicts of interest that inevitably arise between a regulative body and the entities it regulates? How can these be overcome, since further regulation simply pushes the conflicts upwards?

Conflicts of interest can not be ignored. People nigh-inevitably cave in to them; usually they aren't even aware of what they're doing. This ignores, of course, the fact that regulation inevitably involves a human assessment of price or risk, neither of which can be assessed efficiently by human beings.

[Doppelbock]

Although it shows as being attributed to Avid below, I'm not sure where the original quoted text came from, so I'm not sure who I'm actually responding to here. Anyway, here goes...

Whenever there's bosses there's misappropriation of production and profit. That also is humane nature.

If it's human nature, it also occurs in government. If we should be afraid of large corporations for this reason, shouldn't we be even more afraid of government, who ultimately wields far more power? The difference is that corporations ultimately must answer to consumers (or they will go out of business!) -- that is, unless the government (with its far more power) has intervened on the corporations' behalf. Which is precisely what has happened in our country's current financial mess.

You make the analogy that when one gets sick in a socialist system they are pushed out of the herd, how?

Not sure who made this analogy or where. The thing with a socialist system isn't that people are treated differently (they are not); but that they are all treated with the same level of inefficiency and low quality.

It would be more accurate to say that in reality when one gets sick in a socialist system, they can go get health care. It's in a capitalist system that one is left behind to be ravaged.

Please provide an example of someone ever being denied medical attention in the U.S.

Humane-beings for the most part are fairly placid animals, as most animals are, feed them, provide shelter and beyond that not much else is called for. Most of our "needs" are manufactured, I need to have that widget! Why? Because someone manufactured the impression you can't live without it.

This is a complete non-sequitur unless some point is being made here that I'm missing. So the fact that it is utter bullshit doesn't even matter.

I'm not saying that we should all go back to living in caves and living off the land. I like creature comforts as much as the next person. But when products are made for the many, for the profit of the few, not only do those products not last by design, the many are left with nothing but a broken widget that they didn't need in the first place.

Products are made for the BENEFIT of the many, otherwise in a free market they WOULDN'T BUY IT! And as far as the "profit of the few" -- how about the ~100 million Americans who benefit through stocks owned via managed retirement plans and their 401K accounts? Don't they benefit when corporations in which they are invested benefit? And as far as products not lasting by design, in a free market you have your choice of who to buy from. Me, I buy Hondas and Toyotas because they last a lot longer than American cars. And hey, look what's happening to the Big 3 because they can't make a decent car? Looks like the market forces are working.

But let's say that widget was something that regardless of its usefulness was going to get produced anyway. If the workers that made that widget were in control of it's manufacturing and shared in it's profit without having the lion's share going to stock-holders and CEO's, that really produce nothing, pride of product would be instilled, and the making for a better means of production that would limit its negative effects on our environment would be imposed and the community as a whole benefits with the redistribution of wealth back into the community.

Oh 4fuxsake. The overwhelming majority of stockholders are ordinary middle class Americans. And if you are advocating socialism here, history shows that "pride of product" is not in fact instilled. Sans competition, and with a socialist safety net, there is no incentive for quality work. Your claim flies in the face of every piece of data available.

If said widget would be something that produced more pollution than the environment could handle, under Socialism, the people have the ability to change that by either changing methods of production or discontinue making the widgets altogether for the good of community.

Can you give an example where the "people" under Socialism have ever done this before?

Under a capitalist system that widget will get produced as long as it's making a profit and damn the consequences.

Under a "pure" free market with no government regulation whatsoever, that would be true. However if the government added the incentive to comply with environmental regulations (e.g., through fines for failure to do so), the game changes.

If people knew half of the truth about what most of the things they use do to our environment they'd think twice about using them, and that includes this computer I'm typing on.

Then do us a favor and stop using it, genius.

Although it's true that laws and regulations can limit that damage done under Capitalism we have seen just what the end result of that is when the corrosive effects of profit manifest themselves into the system and those that manufacture are also placed into the regulatory positions. It is then that the laws become moot.

That's because the laws and regulations are being made by politicians who are in the back pockets of the corporations. Really this has to do with the power of lobbyists, how capaign contributions are made, and so on. A problem with our political process, not with free markets per se.

Fact is there is no prefect way to live in this modern world without some form of toll being extracted from our environment or our humanity. The best we can do is limit the toll we extract. Capitalism accelerates the damaged by placing more value on profit than what it takes to get that widget to market and what happens after it's discarded and what it does to the people in general.

Um, bullshit.

Bottom line, Capitalism place's more emphasis on profit than people, whereas Socialism will place more value on people than profit.

Capitalism is a system designed to put greed to work in a win-win manner. Yes, corporations are profit-driven. But in order to maximize their profits, they must compete with other corporations to produce the highest quality products they can at the lowest possible prices. This is MUTUALLY beneficial to both the corporations earning a profit and to the consumers -- the general public -- who gets high quality products at lower prices than would be available under any other system. Socialism removes these incentives and results in shitty products.

Case in point is this government "bail out" (sell out) of these predatory companies. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the general public. A helping hand is given to businesses that used criminal predatory practices to over-inflate base value, But instead of punishing these criminals, because they've stolen so much, we are allowing these predators to keep their ill-gotten gains, while giving them more of our money to stay afloat, and we still have to pay off the debt these predators produced!

The companies benefit from the bailout and the taxpayers suffer (other than those taxpayers who own stock in the narrow set of companies being bailed out). But this is not because of capitalism, rather it's from government intervention -- intervention stemming from a dysfunctional relationship between industry and government, enabled by lobbying, campaign contributions, etc.

See here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) for a very detailed analysis.

It's as though a bank robber stold all the money out of the bank, but instead of arresting him our govenment is giving him the keys to the bank and combination to the safe, after they've promised him that we'd re-fill it with what little money we have left.

You should be blaming our government, not the bank robber.

Just how did this come about? Capitalism, which now has failed and has morphed into some demented form of Communism/fascism, Capitalism's ugly brothers.

Capitalism has not failed; it has been interfered with by the government, often due to political ideologies such as the impoverished one you are espousing here, and often due to the influence of lobbyists, old-boy networks, etc., which have no place in a true free market.

In Nazi Germany it was government that took over corporations, here it was corporations that took over government - the results are the same.

Close, but no cigar. Don't blame the corporations; blame the fact that our government has taken on so much power that it is now beneficial for corporate big-shots to lobby government for preferential treatment. The political arena has now become part of the "competition" of the free market so expect more of the same unless and until goverrnment is either reduced in power back to what our founding fathers intended, and/or until some barriers are erected between corporations and politicians.

DB

[MichaelH]

Don't blame the corporations; blame the fact that our government has taken on so much power that it is now beneficial for corporate big-shots to lobby government for preferential treatment.


To paraphrase Ayn Rand: The economy and the state should be as separate as the church and the state, and for the same reason.

[md21017md]

I had this very discussion with a friend over the weekend. While I support capitalisim, the American version is severly f'd up to say the least. In the american version, it's like a game where 1 participant sets the rules, has the referees on thier side, and when they loose, they get a "get out of jail car" and a free ride to "go" for another round.

Seriously, how many business, had they been mis-managed, or committed out and out fraud; how many would get a hand out from the government? Many of these banks threw the dice, and took a gamble on people with shaky credit at best in the hopes of a big payout, and they lost. Now that they lost they want a bail out, kiss my ass. You screwed up, deal with it.

Ok, so our economy can't survive without a bailout. Why are we not prosecuting each and every one involved? If I ran a small business and frauded my customers, regulators etc, I'd be in jail, why aren't these guys?




No, the real problem in american capitalisim is two fold. The first, the capitalists are allowed to lobby, and buy off congress to make the rules fit them. If capitalisim were to really work, they'd have to survive within the guidelines set forth by congress just like any other entity.

The second real problem is that modern corporations can not see past the quarter they are in. I saw this first hand a few jobs ago. They CFO and pres were of the mind set that if they had to pay 10,000 per month for something or a 1 time him of 30,000 they would take the 10k. Even though they'd save 80,000 in 1 year, they were only looking at the effect on the present quarter.

Granted, the CFO is in jail for options fraud, and the both the CFO and pres were fired over it, I still see this as a flaw in modern business.

Think about it, you are hired as president of a company, you get a fat compensation package for the next 5 years with a golden parachute if you fail. You are charged with making a 25% growth per quarter. So what do you do? Hmmm you can only raise sales so much, so you cut out all the jobs you can. Not enough, outsource to India. Ok, met your goals for a few quarters. Purchase raw materials from China, meet a few more. Purchase a few smaller competitors, and charge off operating costs as one time charges against acquisition, meet a few more quarters. Purchase a few run down but profitable competitors - ones who may need a huge influx of capital to bring up to standards in 5 years, bot for the next 5 will make money, home run for the rest of your 5 years. Collect your pay, run to the next CEO position and leave the mess for another person.

I watched this happen first hand. I watched my company purchase 8 others. They used the 1 time write off against acquisitions to meet walstreet expectations for 2+ years. I've watched the power co. in my city buy rundown nuke plants that will turn a profit for 10 years, but will then require a huge (beyond the profit recognized) capital expense to bring up to code, re-fuel, dump the old fuel. who cares, the curent CEO will not be around.

This is the problem with short sighted views on profits, and an ability to get congress to bend or write the rules to fit your needs. This is exacly what happened with the mortgage/bank crisis we are in now - they met thier goals then at the expense of "now" and a lot of the people that profited then are not around now to deal with the mess.

[Clockwork]

Being an objectivist (a proponent of lasseiz faire), I'd like to address a few of the issues from the article.

It would be more accurate to say that in reality when one gets sick in a socialist system, they can go get health care. It's in a capitalist system that one is left behind to be ravaged.
It would be more accurate to say that when one gets sick in a socialist system and cannot pay for their own health care, they use legal theft to steal the money from people who CAN pay for it or simply don’t pay for it by either depriving people who earned their money of their money or depriving doctors of payment for their service.

But when products are made for the many, for the profit of the few, not only do those products not last by design, the many are left with nothing but a broken widget that they didn't need in the first place.
If a company creates a product of poor quality that breaks by design, nobody will buy their product once word gets around and the company will ultimately fail. Better products will be purchased instead, unless consumers are more inclined to spend a little money on a temporary "gadget fix" rather than more money on a permanent gadget.

If the workers that made that widget were in control of it's manufacturing and shared in it's profit without having the lion's share going to stock-holders and CEO's, that really produce nothing
CEOs possess skills to manage production that laborers DO NOT POSSESS! This is like saying that a person who drives a car is unnecessary because they don't actually provide anything concerning the motion of the car, the motor does, so the motor should operate the direction of the car. Take a factory line worker and put them in front of a portfolio containing company economic information that they need to process to make decisions and see how well they do. It's an absurd argument that I get tired of.

pride of product would be instilled, and the making for a better means of production that would limit its negative effects on our environment would be imposed and the community as a whole benefits with the redistribution of wealth back into the community.

It's very nice and noble to think that if the workers were left alone in a factory they would do monumentally better than if they had superiors, but does it really work that way? I would argue "Absolutely not." If it did work in the manner that the quote portrayed, managers would have been eliminated long ago as inefficient.

Bottom line, Capitalism place's more emphasis on profit than people, whereas Socialism will place more value on people than profit.
Damn straight. Capitalism allows people to pursue what they want to pursue and doesn't permit others to stop their pursuits unless rights are being violated. Socialism sacrifices the most productive members of society to the least - rewarding failure and punishing success by taking the value created by the producers and giving it to the economically worthless leeches. Who cares if everyone lives terrible lives where suffering is the norm? As long as everyone stays alive. That's what socialism preaches.

Case in point is this government "bail out" (sell out) of these predatory companies. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the general public. A helping hand is given to businesses that used criminal predatory practices to over-inflate base value, But instead of punishing these criminals, because they've stolen so much, we are allowing these predators to keep their ill-gotten gains, while giving them more of our money to stay afloat, and we still have to pay off the debt these predators produced!
Just as socialism and communism take money from successes and give to failures, the government in this situation is taking money from "the general public" and giving it to failures - the banks.

Just how did this come about? Capitalism, which now has failed and has morphed into some demented form of Communism/fascism, Capitalism's ugly brothers.
Capitalism has been corrupted by socialistic tendencies and government controls and is shifting more toward communism. Communism is not the brother of capitalism, it is the direct OPPOSITE of capitalism. If relations are to be made, it is the big brother of socialism.

I say to hell with these predators. Let them fail.
I would agree with the first part. Let those who feed off of others - the social cannibals - die if nobody cares to help them of their own free will. End welfare, subsidies, and all other money-shifting processes that steal from the deserving to give to the undeserving. As for the “Corporations steal from the public!” argument – when has a businessman ever held a gun to your head and made you buy his product? They have never stolen anything.

And if we are to start buying up corporations let's socialize health-care and all means of production and let those companies that produce nothing but profit die.
You must generate profit, you cannot produce it. In order to generate profit, companies must create products that people WANT and are willing to pay for. People then exchange their money that they received for producing goods themselves. To attempt to destroy profit making is to demand that people stop producing, so that less is made and options become more and more depraved. That is when we’ll start living in caves once again.

For a better explanation of production, trading, etc, see Francisco D’Anconia’s speech from Atlas Shrugged: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Toodles!

- Clockwork

[TigerDak]

Are you aware of the inherent conflicts of interest that inevitably arise between a regulative body and the entities it regulates? How can these be overcome, since further regulation simply pushes the conflicts upwards?

Conflicts of interest are a fact of life. And nobody is demanding that they be ignored. Conflicts of interest can be overcome through negotiation and adaptation to the changes, as well as understanding why they exist in the first place.

A lot of regulation has to do with safety and fraud. I know a lot of situations where a federal body like the SEC arrested and prosecuted someone who was using the free market to promote fraudulent investments. Was he using the free market to start his own business and make sales to buyers? Yes. Is society better off with a regulatory body that can police such matters? Of course. I also know of people who were marketing an herb or other nutritional supplement, and they got carried away with their advertising claims insomuch that people stopped going to their doctor and started using their products instead. Finally, the FDA and FTC got wind of their advertising claims and decided to shut down the company. Examples like these are endless.

I have also seen examples where manufacturing companies did not have safe workplaces. Maybe they didn't know how, or didn't care. But, because there are federal guidelines that set minimum criteria and minimum safety standards, there resulted less accidents in the workplace from chemicals or whatever was involved. Did the employer get hurt? Did the employer lose money? No! The federal guidelines just made the workplace safer by setting up minimum safety standards or else the employer would be fined.

Where is the conflict of interest here?

By setting up standards for safety and fraud, regulation is what makes capitalism work. I know there are times when there can be too much regulation. But I believe that it sets the foundation that makes it all work. In a capitalist society, everyone is out for their own gain, which as I explained earlier, makes for a stronger and freer society. But who watches things from the perspective of the society as a whole? The county? The state? The nation? That's the responsibility of the government. Once you see how it all works, it becomes less of a conflict of interest.

[Avid]

Nah, none of that post is mine. That was a response to some other article.

*The responses here have been much more useful.

[Tyrant Soup]

Capitalism means freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of ideas. It also involves the right to pursue life, liberty, and and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism also means the right to private property. It is the only economic system that can work with our Republican form of democracy, our Constitution.

Like Communism, Capitalism has many flaws. It is not sustainable in the long run without substantial intervention from the government.

It is unworthy of blind worship.

[Linn]

Why save Capitalism?
Ask those who have experienced socialism.

[zibber]

The freedom of enterprise as you put it involves free speech, free press, and so forth. For example, a man who starts a newspaper is exercising his right to pursue his own liberties and ambitions, but he is also exercising his free speech and his right to a free press. It is also his freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

Rampant consumer culture is not compatible with freedom of thought. If people massively are being led to believe they need certain products to achieve happiness, they are in an immaterial prison.

(Dang libertarians/capitalists thinking everything described with the word "free" comes in one package. Is it impossible to conceive that some "freedoms" are incompatible with each other?)

[Doppelbock]

Why save Capitalism?
Ask those who have experienced socialism.

Best. Reply. Ever.

DB (nicely done)