Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Capitalism sucks

Capitalism sucks (Page 2)
Thread Tools
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 09:19 AM
 
It sounds more like Besson doesn't have the skills or mentality to be successful in a capitalistic environment.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 10:17 AM
 
No, and grow up BadKosh, this thread is for the adults to talk.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Do you ever have a thought that doesn't come from or via the RCC?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why does it matter?
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I just like it when people think for themselves. Call me crazy.

The notion that Chongo can't pick what sandwich he wants to eat for lunch without running it by a priest first makes me sad. I'm exaggerating of course before anyone gets all pedantically pissy at me.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That runs counter to the philosophy being bandied about by the regressive Marxists that are infesting universities now, and that's the only brand of anti-consumerism that's gained any traction these days, apart from the "love thy neighbor" communalism espoused by certain sects Christianity (the RCC being one of them).
I had a lovely roast beef and cheese on multigrain bread for lunch yesterday, and no, I did not run it by a priest.

Keep in mind Insomnia and Poco (and a few other members) appear to have a visceral hatred of all things Catholic.

Introduction to the First Edition

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing.”
“Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, D.D.”

Excerpt From: Fr. Leslie Rumble. “Radio Replies The Catholic Answers Edition.” Catholic Answers Press, 2014-06-26T07:00:00+00:00. iBooks.
I quoted Pope Leo XIII because the Church has be dealing with this question since Marxism began its rise. There have been additional encyclicals over the years, notably by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno In which the principal of subsidiarity was defined.
From the Catechism:
1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 02:17 PM
 
Besson, please clarify.

Does Capitalism's THEORY suck, or only capitalism's current implementation / incarnation ?

Secondly, your premise seems to be that "true" Capitalism (whatever that means) would stand completely on its own, without any regulations, laws, limitations etc.
Is that an implicit assumption that you make, or a subjective observation based on what's going on right now ?

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 02:27 PM
 
It's fundamental to humanity.

I know that many people like to extrapolate a world of capitalism where the government is behaving exactly as it should and how there would be little to no problems, but I just don't think this jives with how we are wired. Bringing the role of government into this particular argument just muddies it, so I'm avoiding it to not cloud my point.

My point, again, is that capitalism does not necessarily align with nobility, because nobility often doesn't monetize well. My point is also not an advocating of socialism or some other particular system in existence, I'm glad this thread hasn't gotten knee-jerky that way yet, but simply to throw cold water over this myth that capitalism can self correct and provide the same existence to people working on, say, educating the poor, as it does investment bankers or lawyers working for Goldman Sachs.

As subego has pointed out, it also doesn't necessarily claim to, but I still believe that there are many people that assign a lot of misguided faith in what it could be.

As a creative engineer I love trying to redesign things, so this thread is simply a thought exercise. I'm still trying to figure out whether there is some agreement with the (above) general premise before we explore further possible details.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
It sounds more like Besson doesn't have the skills or mentality to be successful in a capitalistic environment.
Wholeheartedly Agreed!

The people who tend to criticize capitalism are generally those who are incapable(or unwilling) of engaging in voluntary mutually beneficial trade; of providing a service to their fellowman.

There is another dimension to those who advocate for state sponsored redistribution. And we need to state it instead of shying away from it. They are fundamentally ego-maniacal. They believe that they are far more capable of organizing societies above and beyond the capabilities of the individuals who make up those societies, making them dictatorial and tyrannical.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Wholeheartedly Agreed!

The people who tend to criticize capitalism are generally those who are incapable(or unwilling) of engaging in voluntary mutually beneficial trade; of providing a service to their fellowman.

There is another dimension to those who advocate for state sponsored redistribution. And we need to state it instead of shying away from it. They are fundamentally ego-maniacal. They believe that they are far more capable of organizing societies above and beyond the capabilities of the individuals who make up those societies, making them dictatorial and tyrannical.

Not that it matters, at all, but I'm making 6 digits in a company invested in by Goldman Sachs. I'm neither incapable nor unwilling, I just see capitalism as flawed, and I'm positive I'm not the only one that feels this way from a similar vantage point.

It is also apparent that you did not see my pointing out MANY TIMES that I'm not necessarily advocating state sponsored redistribution. I did suggest a form of redistribution, but nowhere in my post did I say that it should be run by the government.

I kind of knew it was a matter of time before this thread devolve into emotional knee-jerky stuff like this, but comon... cut it out.

I mean really, why is it a surprise that capitalism is flawed? What system of this scale that humans have created is NOT flawed?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
...but simply to throw cold water over this myth that capitalism can self correct and provide the same existence to people working on, say, educating the poor, as it does investment bankers or lawyers working for Goldman Sachs.
No one believes this.

At most, there are people who don't care it fails to do so.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 03:37 PM
 
Clearly what we have in America is not the type of capitalism that Adam Smith envisioned in "Wealth of Nations". That is because while capitalism is great in theory ... unfortunately it still has a fundamental flaw. Unfettered capitalism inevitably leads to the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands over time.

OAW
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 03:51 PM
 
@besson3c

What(according to you) is the 'flaw' with capitalism?

You are not the first to make that assertion. Yet no one, not even you, can describe an alternative "system" which respects individual human&property rights. And i for one think it is morally and ethically *evil* to threaten someone to give up their rights and property because someone else thinks and feels they can make better use of what it not theirs.

If you are advocating *voluntary* redistribution (ie charity), a capitalistic system which respects the rights of all individuals, accommodates that practice. A socialistic/communistic system on the other hand, violates the rights of individuals by refusing to let them opt out of participation (by using the threat of force), and i find that course inherently totalitarian and evil.

PS>> I have to say, that I am not so superficial/vain/whatever to be jealous of or to envy the wealth of others. Nor am i ego maniacal enough to think that i can do a better job of organizing an economy than what voluntary trade accomplishes (which is also why i do not want to place a lower limit on what someone should be able to trade their services for; minimum wage). Someone else's wealth is not mine to give(or take). Someone else's work/life is not something i want to impose *my* limits and restrictions on either. I do not think a minority/majority/king or otherwise should be able to dictate those limits/restrictions/values on to individuals either. And i cannot, in good conscience, advocate someone else to do it on my behalf. I do however donate, voluntarily, to charity.
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Feb 15, 2016 at 04:19 PM. )
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Wholeheartedly Agreed!

The people who tend to criticize capitalism are generally those who are incapable(or unwilling) of engaging in voluntary mutually beneficial trade; of providing a service to their fellowman.

There is another dimension to those who advocate for state sponsored redistribution. And we need to state it instead of shying away from it. They are fundamentally ego-maniacal. They believe that they are far more capable of organizing societies above and beyond the capabilities of the individuals who make up those societies, making them dictatorial and tyrannical.
or they watched way too much Star Trek: TNG in their formative years and they believe that such a society is the pinnacle of human evolution. I'm not joking. I've seen otherwise rational men wax poetic over the idea, eyes glazed with the prospect of not having to work and getting anything they want for free, when the reality is it was never more than a clever fantasy concocted by an erstwhile hippy, with a fetish for Shakespeare... and chicks clad in skin-tight polyester.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2016, 12:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
@besson3c

What(according to you) is the 'flaw' with capitalism?

You are not the first to make that assertion. Yet no one, not even you, can describe an alternative "system" which respects individual human&property rights. And i for one think it is morally and ethically *evil* to threaten someone to give up their rights and property because someone else thinks and feels they can make better use of what it not theirs.

If you are advocating *voluntary* redistribution (ie charity), a capitalistic system which respects the rights of all individuals, accommodates that practice. A socialistic/communistic system on the other hand, violates the rights of individuals by refusing to let them opt out of participation (by using the threat of force), and i find that course inherently totalitarian and evil.

PS>> I have to say, that I am not so superficial/vain/whatever to be jealous of or to envy the wealth of others. Nor am i ego maniacal enough to think that i can do a better job of organizing an economy than what voluntary trade accomplishes (which is also why i do not want to place a lower limit on what someone should be able to trade their services for; minimum wage). Someone else's wealth is not mine to give(or take). Someone else's work/life is not something i want to impose *my* limits and restrictions on either. I do not think a minority/majority/king or otherwise should be able to dictate those limits/restrictions/values on to individuals either. And i cannot, in good conscience, advocate someone else to do it on my behalf. I do however donate, voluntarily, to charity.

Please read the thread, I think your questions to me have already been answered.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2016, 11:35 AM
 
Another myth that needs to be dispelled is the notion that everyone should be college educated. Could you imagine such a world. Nobody would be a food packer, nobody would be a carpenter, plumber, mechanic, HVAC repair-man, or anything that requires hand work. There'd be nobody to ship your tech stuff to you from amazon. It would be beneath everyone. Is anyone on board with this free college thing? First it starts as free, just like high school, then in 10 years teachers will be forced to give everyone A's not to hurt their self esteem, because everyone's a winner... just like 'modern' high school.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2016, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Another myth that needs to be dispelled is the notion that everyone should be college educated. Could you imagine such a world. Nobody would be a food packer, nobody would be a carpenter, plumber, mechanic, HVAC repair-man, or anything that requires hand work. There'd be nobody to ship your tech stuff to you from amazon. It would be beneath everyone. Is anyone on board with this free college thing? First it starts as free, just like high school, then in 10 years teachers will be forced to give everyone A's not to hurt their self esteem, because everyone's a winner... just like 'modern' high school.

On the one hand, this is absolutely on the money. The UK Labour government of the 90s tried to do exactly this and we ended up with a generation of media studies graduates who couldn't tie their own shoelaces without an instruction manual and a supervisor who was being paid less than them. It irks me that our population doesn't seem to have really taken much notice of this.

If I were to reform public education, I would do the following:

Create a useful set of basic qualifications for real life:

Maths to balance the chequebook and household budget;
English to communicate effectively, efficiently and politely with others;
"Technology" to repair a leaky tap, wire a plug, plaster a wall, etc;
Basic cookery;
Using the internet/basic IT skills;
Self study skills;
Conversational science;
Sex education;
Parenting skills;

I'd implement as much of that as possible to be done at the students' own pace so they could get it out the way fast if capable. After they pass all that, they can specialise. Specialising would be either apprenticeship or vocational courses or a more traditional academic path. I'd still like to keep the self-pacing where possible, within reason. I include that more for students who wish to do more, not those who want to do less.


On the other hand, it seems more and more likely that the time will come when very many jobs will become completely automated. We have machines that can print roads now. They still require men to load them for now but its clear that many less skilled jobs can be done by machines as they get more and more capable.

There will come a point when we can't give everyone a supervisory job watching over a bank of machines. I wonder what happens then. Perhaps we'll all have to be astronauts.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2016, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Another myth that needs to be dispelled is the notion that everyone should be college educated. Could you imagine such a world. Nobody would be a food packer, nobody would be a carpenter, plumber, mechanic, HVAC repair-man, or anything that requires hand work. There'd be nobody to ship your tech stuff to you from amazon. It would be beneath everyone. Is anyone on board with this free college thing? First it starts as free, just like high school, then in 10 years teachers will be forced to give everyone A's not to hurt their self esteem, because everyone's a winner... just like 'modern' high school.
Correct. Unless we get more people into trade schools, the West is ****ed.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2016, 04:26 PM
 
This reminds me of the interview that Tim Cook did with Charlie Rose when he was asked why Apple manufacturers in China. And he said it was "skill". China deliberately trained a large segment of their population in the skilled trades whereas the US abandoned that and moved towards a more service-based economy. And there are long-term consequences and repercussions for that. Not all of them positive.

OAW
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2016, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Before we reform capitalism, I'd like to see some changes to democracy.

I still think my garbage collection protocols have merit.

New bills or laws should be kept to one subject each, no tacking on of other crap to sneak it through;
Each bill or law should include a description of what issue it hopes to address or problem it hopes to solve and a clearly defined set of metrics with timescales to measure the success or failure of the bill or law;
Bills failing to achieve their goals are automatically repealed or brought back up for review according to their metrics;


I'd also like to see the implementation of modern tech to allow politicians to better gauge public opinion. Too much policy is drafted without the public (or anyone else) deciding what the driving philosophy behind it should be.
Lots of opinion polls to be taken via government website and a dedicated app. Nothing legally binding, just a way to test the waters on important issues.
I've seen similar suggestions, particularly the "one bill, one subject" gem. It's a worthy goal, though a good bit of modern "representative democracy" machination - which allows anything at all to get done - is based on "mutual back scratching" and slipping in a bit of this or that. Which all means that it'll be awfully hard to even begin to discuss this.

On the other hand, a plain-English synopsis of what a bill (or even a part of a bill) is supposed to do, why it needs doing, and how its success is to be measured is a great idea. Even if we can't get single-subject bills, if every section of every bill had to have a paragraph written at a 10th grade reading level that spelled this out, the voting public would know a LOT more about where their representatives are spending their money, and why.

I'm not as happy with allowing politicians to closely gauge public opinion on an issue by issue level. They already "lead" by "what the polls say" far too much. Instead, I'd like to see pols be more accessible to their constituents. Following poll data would only further isolate elected officials from the constituents.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2016, 05:45 PM
 
Its something I've muttered about before, but I think a lot of legislation is done without any sense of what the goals are. Rather than having the public vote on every bill or decision, I'd like them to vote on the overarching goals behind a set of decisions that the politicians would then debate and implement.

For example, the penal system. Some people believe its about punishment, some about rehab, some about deterrent. I've never seen a political asked, but they regularly have to set out plans and reforms and budget cuts etc etc. How can you do that effectively if you have no idea what you are ultimately trying to achieve.
It may well be that you end up striking a balance between the three choices in this case, but if one is deemed more important, then this gives some crucial direction to where the money or effort is best spent.

Also the garbage collection I feel is a crucial part missing from modern legislating. A slim, nimble, efficient operating system quickly gets bogged down and sluggish when you tack updates onto it. Western law is very much like this. You start with a framework such as a constitution, then you just start tacking on bills and laws and precedents and it goes on for centuries. If we aren't gong to be allowed to "replace OS 9 altogether with OS X" every few decades or so, then we should really mod the system to make it self-cleaning.
Get rid of antiquated laws and make sure that when technology or social progress changes things, the law is able to better keep up.


I know exactly what you mean about trading favours being integral to politics, but when they tack unrelated issues together to sneak things through it often seems like you have to allow something bad to happen in order to get a diminished version of something good done and then what looks like a win-win for both political sides is a lose-lose for the electorate.
I see nothing wrong with having to promise your support to a separate issue on a separate bill instead of sneaking things under the radar. I think the current system is more to hide things from the people than the politicians.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2016, 07:02 PM
 
I think most legislation is 80% "how it plays to the voters" and at best 20% useful. Which is why pork fills so many bills. Pols gotta work hard to keep that seat, no matter what the cost. Even if they never get anything useful done.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2016, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There is a complete myth that there is this "invisible hand of the free market" that is all-knowing and the decider of value in our society. This is a load of crap.
There isn't an invisible hand any more than evolution requires an invisible hand to create massive changes for the better, yet selective pressures of evolution still work. The selective processes of evolution are exactly the same as free market forces. The best business will prevail. The business that produces the most necessary products and services more efficiently than the rest will prevail over the less efficient. On the same token the society with the best government and culture will lead over others.

For example, there are terrible middle managers of large companies that make far more money than fantastic teachers, artists, even scientists.
There's also plenty of scientists and artists who make more money than any middle manager - there's probably more artists than there are middle managers. A teacher's job is important but one of the left out variables of value is quantity of people able & willing to teach. Most teachers are fine with their pay for a 6.5 hr day, and a 3rd of the year off work, otherwise they wouldn't go into that field. It's important to understand why there are terrible middle managers making lots of money. And it's because we dont actually have a capitalist system regulating them - we have corrupt government regulating cradling them. Just like with species of animals as companies become larger they become less efficient, less maneuverable & adaptable, and bad people can get lost in the bureaucracies. In the world of biology stable environments evolve larger lifeforms, while unstable environments evolve smaller lifeforms - the concept is universal.

All the things you hate are due to government interference with free market forces, and the middle class's trend to give up personal responsibility to government or corporations (think government & insurance companies managing our healthcare bills). In a capitalist system the proverbial top .5 % and all the wealth disparity we talk about would have lost their hats in 2009 if it weren't for government bailouts. The greedy middle class was on board with this at the time because failing to see the larger picture in the name of perceived easy stock gambling profits, meant they got to keep a few thousand chump change in their little 401k's & stock accounts. In a capitalist system small businesses would be on a level playing field as large businesses with terrible middle men. As a result the more efficient small business would out compete the large business either extinguishing it or forcing it to adapt. That doesn't work because government constantly interferes bailing out large business in the name of jobs and protecting billionaire bond holders, while charging lower permitting fees to larger businesses in the name of keeping jobs in their city. Local governments do actually compete to see who can cradle big business the most in attempts to get companies to move to their city.
This whole scam is pulled over society through the dog and pony show of "regulation" which while a nice idea in principle, in reality, regulation seems to apply most to the smallest businesses while the largest ones get away with anything they want.

As a musician working in a tech startup, I feel a constant sense of guilt that I make a 6 digit salary while so many other people doing noble things struggle.
Dont feel guilty. I dont know what you make but if on the low end of 6 fig, after 2016 taxes and bailout inflation, it's only equal to what 50k was about 12 years ago. I realize inflation has taken off so fast we might still think of 6 figs as lot of money.

Capitalism also sucks because of what is going on in the US now, where the middle class is being completely gutted. I'm sure many of you saw the footage of an Indiana company announcing to its employees that the 3000 people they employee will be replaced by Mexican workers once the plant is relocated.
The pay difference is too wide to ignore. Mexicans work the assembly line for $3-5/hr, Chinese $1.9o/hr with no benefits. Americans wont work for less than $15 + health insurance + retirement, once they get that they often complain how the floor is too hard and they need soft mats to walk on. Then they sue when they trip on the mats. Our sue happy culture is probably one of the biggest factors in outsourcing because of the wild card it introduces to the cost of business. You can't sue for not watching where you're going or general accidents in most countries.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2016, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
There isn't an invisible hand any more than evolution requires an invisible hand to create massive changes for the better, yet selective pressures of evolution still work. The selective processes of evolution are exactly the same as free market forces. The best business will prevail. The business that produces the most necessary products and services more efficiently than the rest will prevail over the less efficient. On the same token the society with the best government and culture will lead over others.


There's also plenty of scientists and artists who make more money than any middle manager - there's probably more artists than there are middle managers. A teacher's job is important but one of the left out variables of value is quantity of people able & willing to teach. Most teachers are fine with their pay for a 6.5 hr day, and a 3rd of the year off work, otherwise they wouldn't go into that field. It's important to understand why there are terrible middle managers making lots of money. And it's because we dont actually have a capitalist system regulating them - we have corrupt government regulating cradling them. Just like with species of animals as companies become larger they become less efficient, less maneuverable & adaptable, and bad people can get lost in the bureaucracies. In the world of biology stable environments evolve larger lifeforms, while unstable environments evolve smaller lifeforms - the concept is universal.

All the things you hate are due to government interference with free market forces, and the middle class's trend to give up personal responsibility to government or corporations (think government & insurance companies managing our healthcare bills). In a capitalist system the proverbial top .5 % and all the wealth disparity we talk about would have lost their hats in 2009 if it weren't for government bailouts. The greedy middle class was on board with this at the time because failing to see the larger picture in the name of perceived easy stock gambling profits, meant they got to keep a few thousand chump change in their little 401k's & stock accounts. In a capitalist system small businesses would be on a level playing field as large businesses with terrible middle men. As a result the more efficient small business would out compete the large business either extinguishing it or forcing it to adapt. That doesn't work because government constantly interferes bailing out large business in the name of jobs and protecting billionaire bond holders, while charging lower permitting fees to larger businesses in the name of keeping jobs in their city. Local governments do actually compete to see who can cradle big business the most in attempts to get companies to move to their city.
This whole scam is pulled over society through the dog and pony show of "regulation" which while a nice idea in principle, in reality, regulation seems to apply most to the smallest businesses while the largest ones get away with anything they want.


Dont feel guilty. I dont know what you make but if on the low end of 6 fig, after 2016 taxes and bailout inflation, it's only equal to what 50k was about 12 years ago. I realize inflation has taken off so fast we might still think of 6 figs as lot of money.



The pay difference is too wide to ignore. Mexicans work the assembly line for $3-5/hr, Chinese $1.9o/hr with no benefits. Americans wont work for less than $15 + health insurance + retirement, once they get that they often complain how the floor is too hard and they need soft mats to walk on. Then they sue when they trip on the mats. Our sue happy culture is probably one of the biggest factors in outsourcing because of the wild card it introduces to the cost of business. You can't sue for not watching where you're going or general accidents in most countries.
Well said.

"All the things you hate are due to government interference with free market forces". (crony capitalism)

The thing about any voluntary trade is it requires both parties to consent. Middle managers only have their jobs because someone else is willing to pay them. *One* might not value their work (im not a big fan myself), but someone else seems to.

The price system is a marvelous thing. It indicates to everyone what needs to be produced. Take oil for instance, when oil prices were super high, it incentivized producers to supply more oil because they want to sell something at those high prices. When the oil prices dropped over the past 18 months, is took away the incentive to supply more oil. The same goes for every product and service.

And no, a tyranny of one/minority/majority cannot do a better job of setting those prices via regulation. It is up to individuals to set those prices as they see fit.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:26 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,