Why Capitalism Fails

Originally posted by camaro68ss
....you want to be like the USSR and there socialist ideas, look were they are now?

Where Russia is now has nothing to do with Socialism, there was no socialism in Russia the revolution failed.

What happened to Russia has a lot more to do with their government and capitalism.

If you want to read about a true socialist system that DID work very well then here...
www.zabalaza.net...

That was real socialism in action, the beginning of the real workers revolution. The only known real socialist experiment, nothing like what happened in Russia.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


I had a teacher that did something similar, but only for one day. She pretending the whole course grade depended on the performance in that one test, but she allowed another feature of capitalism the one you outline doesnt.

The first person to hit a certain point threshold first got to make a rule, which all the others then had to abide by. I and one other student hit that mark together and the rule we made was that no matter who else got points, we always got 2/3 of their points. So no matter what happened, they could never, ever, ever, ever win. Even if we did nothing for the rest of the test.

Yeah, there are lots of problems with capitalism, and the influence money has over governance. These exercises really drive that home.

reply to post by ANOK


Many Native American civilizations ran off of a social economic model as well. The INCA civilization was also another social model that succeeded very well. They performed work relevant to the needs of the population. They even had mail runners that would run from city to city carrying messages on roads they built. Some locations had no food, and other locations provided them food as they considered every person valuable to their civilization. They also had tons of gold, but it wasn't for the rich. Gold was used for artists to sculpt and to adorn their public buildings with.

In America, people would steal the gold because of it's monetary value, not taking into account the work of the community it took to produce that item.

I'm trying to apply this professor's reasoning to real life and it doesn't add up.

If I work hard enough I will make enough money to survive (D). If I work harder I will make enough money to live (C). If I work even harder I will make enough money to flourish (B). And if I really work hard and apply enough smarts to that work I will be rich (A). But if I don't work at all I won't make enough money to survive (F).

The comparisons between grades and capitalism aren't even close to being the same.

In the real world, I honestly do not care to have the most money (the equivalent of an A) because I don't need that much money to be happy, let alone live or survive. Neither does my family. I could make the equivalent of a C in the real world where me and my family are able to live and we are perfectly fine with the outcome. To many, that is a fulfilling life. That doesn't mean I don't work hard or provide less, that means I am not driven to greed. Ultimately, those who aspire for a A in capitalism end up paying a price by trading the time spent on the pursuit of money with time spent with their families. Personally, I favor a balance.

With grades, however, if I make a C it's an indication that I'm doing a half-assed job at my studies. It means I only kind of understand what I'm studying or don't care to put in much more effort. It contributes to a grade point average which can determine whether I stay in college or not and whether I am eligible for scholarships.

I understand where the professor was going - trying to make an example of 'survival of the fittest' through this bizarre grading system, but it honestly doesn't measure up to the real world.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


That is a great example. It is true why our American system of capitalism has failed. The ones with the power and money make the rules.

Now, I wish those that support Capitalism start prefacing their remarks with...America is not a capitalist country. It is a facist controlled mega-corporation that issues dividends to those that support its mission.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

 

Resources aren't artificially scarce.

They are scarce.

If they weren't scarce, we wouldn't have to work for a living.

If you want to talk about artificial scarcity, the finger can be pointed solely at government.

Right now, I can't drill, mine, or otherwise extract resources from my own property without buying off dozens of politicians first.

That my friend is artificial scarcity.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

you make many great points but at one point we need to cut our loses and relies you can’t teach the ignorant.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

 

Resources aren't artificially scarce.

They are scarce.

They are made scarce through either under production, if no one can afford the resource it isn't produced, or by being destroyed, unsold resources are often destroyed.

Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

www.worldsocialism.org...

For example people are starving in Africa due to the scarcity of food, yet there is an abundance of food that people throw away everyday.

Take the oil wars for example, the whole reason the US is in Iraq is to keep the production of oil down in order to maintain a high price on the market...

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

How about diamonds, a well known artificially scarce 'resource'...

De Beers artificially restrict the flow of diamonds, both by stockpiling diamonds in their vault in London and by manipulating the open market so as to drive up the price and maintain and even increase demand by aggressive advertising campaigns for the illusion of diamonds.

www.pippinbass.com...

You think that is unique to the diamond industry?

Capitalism requires a scarcity of resources in order to maintain their profit margins or it fails.

[edit on 7/13/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


You put it much more eloquently than I could. Or that professor did, and I agree. This truly, very perfectly describes capitalism.

reply to post by camaro68ss


You know it really blows my mind sometimes.

He's obviously not an idiot.

Yet he persist in his "ends justify the means" logic that promotes tyranny and oppression of the innocent.

Its not like we don't have solid verifiable historical proof that such systems of oppression don't work and only serve to make everyone worse off.

If he said something like "we should take all the money back from the banks and the corporations that have profited from government contracts and bailouts" as a one time shot, and then after that we would go back to a system of freedom, I might be inclined to agree with him.

But wanting a persistent parasite State just seems nuts.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Actually capitalism only succeeds when both people in a transaction benefit.

If one party or the other does not benefit, they will not engage in the transaction.

Socialism only succeeds when guns are used.

Actually, if you want to get down closer to the truth, both people dont have to benefit.

Initially, when setting up the system, both people have to perceive that they will benefit to enter into the arrangement. But once in, you cant just get out if you find out you really wont benefit. Once everything has been "privatized" you are stuck in that arrangement and have to participate or live in something worse than our hunter gatherer or early agrarian ancestors did. Harassed homelessness, with no legal means of making your own living by "traditional" methods. (When you could just settle somewhere and set about the business of making a living either by hunting or farming)

The problem with what we call "Capitalism" is that the word means many things to many people based on their understanding of it. It is not "one" thing. Much like socialism isnt "one" thing. It can be expressed in many, many forms.

"Free Market" capitalism likewise means many things to many people, based on their understanding or lack thereof.

A truly free market could work, but I have serious doubts that it could ever reach the perfection envisioned by Smith under the circumstances we have now. Socialism does not tend to work, and I would argue why the one could work and the other cannot is because a "free market" mimics a known, time tested, much proved system. Natural selection. Socialism does not.

However, we do not have a free market, and no one really wants one. Everyone wants a system that serves them, and everyone lobbies for that. Although they may call the system that serves them a "free market" what they really want is freedom for themselves and restrictions on their competitors.

It just isnt as simple as a capitalist/communist contrast. It never has been. A system that would truly operate as a "free market" needs an impartial "rule setter" (such as nature is) and we cant find one. Every ruler we have had can be bought, threatened, or bribed into skewing the market in someones favor. Plato famously tried to set up such a system, with elaborate and truly brilliant safeguards against the corruption of leadership and rule by threat, bribery, and love of family, but we have never implemented any form of governance even close to that he proposed, and until we do figure out how to have an uncorruptable ruler/government we will never have free market capitalism, or anything even close to it.

You cannot have a free market without an impassive force to keep the competition going. Without that impassive force, the first person to get ahead begins to change the rules of the game to suit themselves and to make it harder for everyone that follows. This is simple human nature, my classmate and I demonstrated it nicely in the 9th grade, and every thing in history proves it to be true.

reply to post by ANOK


underproduction is baloney.

one has to have a monopoly on resources for that to be plausible.

one can't have a monopoly on resources without using government guns.

monopolies can not exist without government intervention.

if someone can do it cheaper or produce more for less, they will.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


both parties have to benefit under capitalism or they will not engage in the trade.

to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Only when the force of government is used does this statement become false.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by camaro68ss
you make many great points but at one point we need to cut our loses and relies you can’t teach the ignorant.

You should educate yourself and do some real research before throwing insults around.

Food is only a scarce resource because we do not own the means of production, and those that do will not produce unless they make a profit, profit before people.

If the means of production was owned by the workers they would produce for their need, not their greed. The workers would be able to produce the food they require. No one single person should be allowed monopolize the production and distribution of resources to the detriment of others. One person rich ten people poor, what's the point?

Capitalism makes money the goal, when it should be Human life.

reply to post by ANOK


LOL

Tell that to the 7 million Ukrainians that were starved to death under collectivization.

Food becomes epically scarce when its controlled by the State.

In fact, communism is responsible for more deaths through starvation than any other socio-economic system.

Half of Africa is currently starving because the white farm owners were kicked off their property during collectivization.

Africa should be the bread basket of the world.






[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

www.loc.gov...

The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's policy of forced collectivization. The heaviest losses occurred in Ukraine, which had been the most productive agricultural area of the Soviet Union. Stalin was determined to crush all vestiges of Ukrainian nationalism. Thus, the famine was accompanied by a devastating purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and the Ukrainian Communist party itself. The famine broke the peasants' will to resist collectivization and left Ukraine politically, socially, and psychologically traumatized.

The policy of all-out collectivization instituted by Stalin in 1929 to finance industrialization had a disastrous effect on agricultural productivity. Nevertheless, in 1932 Stalin raised Ukraine's grain procurement quotas by forty-four percent. This meant that there would not be enough grain to feed the peasants, since Soviet law required that no grain from a collective farm could be given to the members of the farm until the government's quota was met. Stalin's decision and the methods used to implement it condemned millions of peasants to death by starvation. Party officials, with the aid of regular troops and secret police units, waged a merciless war of attrition against peasants who refused to give up their grain. Even indispensable seed grain was forcibly confiscated from peasant households. Any man, woman, or child caught taking even a handful of grain from a collective farm could be, and often was, executed or deported. Those who did not appear to be starving were often suspected of hoarding grain. Peasants were prevented from leaving their villages by the NKVD and a system of internal passports.

The death toll from the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine has been estimated between six million and seven million. According to a Soviet author, "Before they died, people often lost their senses and ceased to be human beings." Yet one of Stalin's lieutenants in Ukraine stated in 1933 that the famine was a great success. It showed the peasants "who is the master here. It cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay."..

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by camaro68ss
you make many great points but at one point we need to cut our loses and relies you can’t teach the ignorant.

You should educate yourself and do some real research before throwing insults around.

Food is only a scarce resource because we do not own the means of production, and those that do will not produce unless they make a profit, profit before people.

If the means of production was owned by the workers they would produce for their need, not their greed. The workers would be able to produce the food they require. No one single person should be allowed monopolize the production and distribution of resources to the detriment of others. One person rich ten people poor, what's the point?

Capitalism makes money the goal, when it should be Human life.

The government places subsides to farmers in the USA to NOT grow food to flood the market with cheep goods. You need to do your research before you state your clams.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by camaro68ss]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Then clearly you dont understand that property rights are the force of government. When one early settler can come in and say, "ALL of this is mine" and then create a legal system to enforce that property "right" upon all that follows, what is that if it is not force of government? Who can walk away from the system we have now in America and just settle on empty land, build a house, and grow their own food? Or hunt the forests and take what they need to live? Which is the natural right of any animal born on Earth? (Natural as in nature dictates that it is so)

No one can do that. Force of government IS used to keep people in a system they do not universally perceive as benefiting themselves, and force of government is used to force people who do have that natural system to enter into the forced system. (Where indigenous peoples who have lived on land for generations suddenly find that "their" land is now miraculously someone elses, and they have to leave or play by the new, enforced, rules)

You are taking too myopic a view of "force" here. And too broad a view of "willing participation." As soon as land ownership that passes from one person to another after the first person dies was introduced the system changed into something that requires "force of government." Nature doesnt allow that. Its artificial, and it is designed to make sure that he who makes the rules has the gold and can continue to make the rules.

I would like to clear up another misconception:
Hard work does not equal success, and working harder does not equal ending up rich.

People who are rich most likely don't work hard at all.

Example: A person who lays concrete block all day only makes about $10 an hour. He completely busts his @ss all day till his hands bleed. He works 70 a week with no vacation all year. What has he made in earnings?

$10 an hour X 70 hours a week X 52 weeks a year= 36,400 gross

Does that sound like hard work equates to success and enrichment? Not to me.
A more accurate statement would be to say, if you have successful parents, the right connections, and access to a premier education, you can land a position earning an exuberant salary while not working but a few hours a day.

Side story: My sister worked as a secretary for a man who was a Manager of a list company. She made $6 an hour (1989), he made $150,000. She averaged 50 hours a week, he averaged 5 hours a week because she did all his work. Why did he make so much more? Was he college educated? NO. His brother owned the company. Was his brother college educated? NO. He was running a scam on people looking for a low interest credit card. Ahhh, capitalism in America.

And another thing...
If you think that America is turning socialist, maybe it's because capitalistic greed has put so many millions in the poor house that now the social programs are overburdened to keep them from starving. Alternate choice: Provide the citizens with weekly dead body clean up service.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I think I have a better understanding of property rights than you do.

Naturally, people assume ownership of the resources they first work or purchase.

If a land owner wants to claim "all this land is mine" then in theory he should be able to demonstrate how he has worked that original resource into something other than it was.

Say by landscaping it, developing it, or so forth.

This was the system of homesteading used in westward expansion in the US.

It worked quite well.

A farmer would assume ownership of his land by staking a claim and then planting a field.

A miner would assume ownership of his mine by staking a claim and then opening a mine.




[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


So in that system I can claim your front yard mine just by planting some flower on it?