Why Capitalism Fails, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 23 times

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 06:08 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip

Hard work does not necessarily equal success.

Productive work equals success.

If I create something that benefits peoples lives, I can profit from this by trading what I produce for others.

If I dig holes in the ground all day, I might be working very hard, but in the end I have produced nothing of value, therefore I should not get anything for my work.

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 06:10 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

underproduction is baloney.

When a company can not make a profit it will not produce. If profit wasn't the motive more could be produced. For example when Spain was under control of the workers and everything was collectivized production went up by 20%, everyone was fed housed and clothed, everyone had a productive part in the system.

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

No they don't' they just have to have a population that can't afford that resource. For example a farm won't operate in Africa if no one can afford to buy the farms products, nothing is produced to feed people because the people don't have the financial ability to purchase the resources. So the resources are not produced, people starve.

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

Where do you get this stuff, and what is your point?

monopolies can not exist without government intervention.

You are a little naive I think. Capitalism is a monopoly.

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

Will they? Do they? But the problem is doing it cheaper means less pay for the workers, a company is still required to make a profit to survive so in reality the worker is still not benefiting from this system.

What you're suggesting is what is happening with jobs going overseas, cheaper labour, more cheaper products, but people are still living in poverty, especially those doing the labour in overseas sweatshops.

What about workers here, their jobs are going to places where the workers are forced to work for less, it's always less for the worker and more for the capitalists. Who is benefiting? Certainly not the workers.

Capitalism monopolizes the means of production.

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 06:12 PM by camaro68ss

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
reply to post by mnemeth1

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

Don’t be ridicules

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 06:12 PM by mnemeth1

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
reply to post by mnemeth1

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

If I'm not using my front yard, I don't maintain it, and haven't done anything with it, then yes.

Of course, planting a flower might give you a temporary claim to the immediate area around that flower, but if you don't maintain that flower and constantly care for its growth, then you would lose that claim to that small portion of land.

---

Say for example there is a degenerate home owner in a community that never cares for his front lawn.

He lets it grow wild and does nothing with it.

If his neighbor begins to care for that lawn as his own, his neighbor should be accorded the property rights to that lawn.

---

talk about a great motivator for people to keep their yard work up.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 06:16 PM by camaro68ss

reply to post by ANOK

so we argued back and forth about are belives and we are not going to change each others ideas. With that said. what is you idea to a great utopia society? And modern day terms. non of this small indian trib stuff

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 06:21 PM by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.

So how does it end up in the hands of their children?

Many other cultures also had a system of "ownership" but that "ownership" wasnt like ours in that one person could work a piece of land and then pass it down to their child, who could then use it to acquire more. You worked your land, your children worked theirs, and then when one of you died, that land was available for one of the new humans who needed it to work and claim.

Our version of "working for land" means that you can come in, disregard that people have held that land in common for thousands of years, and "work it" for some period, and then own it for perpetuity, whether they ever set foot on it again. Oddly enough, serfs who worked the land never got ownership of it, did they? Thats because land ownership has very little to do with how much you put into the land, with exception of the land grabs in the early days of America, and more to do with people making laws that suit themselves and then enforcing them. Bechtel tried to privatize rain water in Bolivia, how do you argue that they deserved that? Had they "worked the clouds" a specific amount of time? Or were they just empowered to do so by a legal system, that people like them created? (It failed, and ended in violence when the people rose up, but now there is a judgment against Boliva that they have to pay Bechtel for its economic losses) Although we recoil instinctively over a company trying to privatize rain, perpetual ownership of the Earth is not different, we are only acclimated to the idea, and so dont realize it for what it is.

Your simplistic explanation of homesteading was not an education, but you are welcome to actually provide one if you have some information that one didnt learn in the 5th grade.

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 06:32 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

It ends up in the hands of the children through a will.

If the kids decide to sell it, they can profit from it.

If the kids decide to use it, they keep it.

If the kids decide to do nothing with it and let it rot, they lose it.

This is fairly simple here.

A 5th grader should be able to understand these simple concepts as you point out.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 06:35 PM by ANOK

reply to post by mnemeth1

Wouldn't that be more of an Anarcho-Socialist view?

I mean capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

If private owners allowed their property to become common land then that is closer to socialism.

Either capitalism is the wrong term, or you don't really understand what it is. In fact I have always thought Anarcho-Capitalism was based on a modern American misunderstanding of socialism.

Capitalism requires government, and laws, in order to protect that private ownership of the means of production, otherwise what keeps the workers from taking that property when they need it?

If the government was gone what would keep the workers from organizing and taking your 'means of production' to be used by themselves. Do you think the workers are so stupid they'd keep working for you if they didn't have to?

If it's free-markets that you want, nothing is more free than socialism.
When the means of production are privately owned a state system is inevitable because some people are naturally greedy and you can't expect everyone to play fair. So to protect themselves and take full advantage of the workers, who without the capitalist earns nothing, the capitalists will naturally create a state system to benefit themselves.

Your system creates exclusivity as not everyone can own the means of production. It's what leads to oppression, coercion, even racism.

Capitalism is what is the problem, not government. Government is just a tool used by capitalists to control the population, an unruly population is not very productive or useful to the capitalist. Get rid of capitalism, we have no need for government.

Socialism is simply the workers ownership of the means of production, what happens then is up to all of us not someone dictating policy.

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 06:36 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by ANOK

No, the soviet view was - you don't own that land period.

The government lets you use that land.

If the government thinks it needs that land more than you do, it takes it by force.

It has nothing in common with the soviet system.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 06:38 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by ANOK

Capitalism doesn't lead to oppression because capitalist systems are purely voluntary.

You can't have oppression in a system of voluntary exchanges.

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 06:48 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by camaro68ss
what is you idea to a great utopia society? And modern day terms. non of this small indian trib stuff

There is no such thing as a Utopian society.

I have no blueprint either for any society, no one should.

In a socialist based economic system the power is simply shifted from private owners to the workers. Workers would run their own companies and each would benefit equally from the profits made. This motivates the workers as they benefit directly from their efforts.

In the capitalist system the worker is motivated to do the least they can for their pay, and the capitalists is motivated to pay the least he can get away with (or if not send the job overseas). This is not good for society as a whole.

It has been proven that cooperatives/collectives work better, there are companies that work like this now.

The private owner is just an unnecessary middle man. The government has always been the tool of the capitalist. We need neither.

Local decisions would be made by voluntary temporary committees chosen by and from the community. No one could be a career politician.

It's really not that hard, again see what happened in Spain.

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 07:02 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

Capitalism doesn't lead to oppression because capitalist systems are purely voluntary.

You can't have oppression in a system of voluntary exchanges.

Well capitalism is not voluntary, capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, how is that voluntary? I think you're confused, markets can exist fine without the private ownership of the means of production.

Workers are oppressed because of what I've already explained, there are no voluntary exchanges when the system forces you to work for less than your worth.

What you are describing is NOT capitalism unless there is private ownership of the means of production, which means oppression for the workers. Because again how can the capitalist survive if he doesn't maintain power over the worker?

I think you're confused as to what capitalism actually is. Maybe 'free market-anarchism' would be a better less confusing term? If you're going to use the term 'capitalism' you have to except what it actually means, unless you're going to redefine the term? It is not capitalism unless the means of production are privately owned, and that leads to oppression, coercion, poverty, war.

capitalism
- 5 dictionary results
Capitalism
George Reisman's treatise on Capitalism and Economics. Buy Now!
Mises.org
Dictionary.com Free Toolbar
Define Capitalism Instantly. Faster Page Loads With Fewer Ads.
Dictionary.com
Financial Dictionary

Capitalism definition

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production.

dictionary.reference.com...

[edit on 7/13/2010 by ANOK]

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 07:09 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by ANOK

The only people around here that are forcing people to work for less than they are worth is the State run prison systems.

Other than that, no one is enslaved to my knowledge or being forced to work against their free will.

If someone doesn't like the pay they are getting, they can quit.

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 07:12 PM by filosophia

this is not the definition of capitalism. There is such a thing as having multiple people who are successful.

However, if you have one family running the government, they are the default monopoly, and all else are second best. That's not capitalism, that's monarchy/corruption in government.

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 07:12 PM by silent thunder

Every system will have benefits and drawbacks, winners and losers.

Capitalism has delivered an extraordinary amount of wealth to the developed world. It hasn't been such a picnic for the developing world.

Probably the biggest issue capitalism will have to come to grips with in the next century is the fact that it assumes infinite resources and infinite growth. I think we are about to hit various walls in terms of what is physically possible to deliver on a crowded planet -- it simply isn't possible for everyone on earth to have the same standard of living as exists in the developed world, and it will be a frustrating and humbling experience for humanity to realize this and process it. Most are still in denial but it will become increasingly hard to deny.

This does not necessarily mean the end of capitalism, but the system will have to transform itself to cope with the cruel realities of absolute finitude.

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 07:13 PM by ldyserenity

reply to post by mnemeth1

You have to work to buy basic needs, if you're getting paid too little most of the time you gotta work two jobs and be very frugal if you wanna eat and that's not including rent, because let's be realistic here, you can't afford to buy in that position, ok, so what part of this don't you understand? Work or die starved to death on the street ummmm that's very cut and dry if you ask me!

[edit on 13-7-2010 by ldyserenity]

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 07:16 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If someone doesn't like the pay they are getting, they can quit.

Oh dear you are so naive.

I already explained why the workers can't do what you're suggesting.

Workers do not have the power to just quit and get another job.

How old are you? Have you even entered the work place yet? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a job?

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 07:19 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by ANOK

Everyone can quit if they aren't getting paid what they are worth.

I certainly would.

If I was getting paid below my market wage, I would look for new employment.

I'm not sure where you are getting this whole enslavement thing from, because a socialist system is enslavement and requires violence, a capitalist system is all voluntary.

I can quit if I'm not getting paid what I'm worth.

In a purely socialist system, you work, period. No pay. Everything is supposedly provided for you "free" - which is the most pie in the sky nonsense I've ever heard in my life.

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 07:27 PM by ldyserenity

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

Everyone can quit if they aren't getting paid what they are worth.

I certainly would.

If I was getting paid below my market wage, I would look for new employment.

I'm not sure where you are getting this whole enslavement thing from, because a socialist system is enslavement and requires violence, a capitalist system is all voluntary.

I can quit if I'm not getting paid what I'm worth.

In a purely socialist system, you work, period. No pay. Everything is supposedly provided for you "free" - which is the most pie in the sky nonsense I've ever heard in my life.

Ok if YOU quit then they will go to the mexican illegal and hire him and pay him 4 bucks an hour for something you may have done for 10 bucks an hour. Or they can ship it overseas or even more recently make others pick up for the loss of you as an employee with their same crappy pay but now doing the job you did and the job they are responsible for.

reply posted on 13-7-2010 @ 07:36 PM by 12GaugePermissionSlip

reply to post by camaro68ss