News Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[Art]

I didn't miss the central point, I just chose to address something else. It's unavoidable when your perspective of the world is rather different than most people in the forum.

lol sorry Smurf it's the way I phrased it. I meant that you, Alex and me all interpreted it one way whilst LYN read it another.

 

[Smurf]

lol sorry Smurf it's the way I phrased it. I meant that you, Alex and me all interpreted it one way whilst LYN read it another.

Ah *shrug* I havn't really been following. It seems ever since I posted that fancy words thread everyone's stopped arguing about politics and started arguing about arguing.

 

[McGyver]

Role of Invisible Hand in Free Market Economics

Let me first make the distinction between Capitalism, and Free Market Economics.
Free Market is an "economic theory" which the West has had in practice for hundreds of years. Capitalism, on the other hand, in its more precise language, is a practice under "Free Market" economics and today also a buzz "term" used by politicians and business to describe our "Free Market." The distinction between the two - is that a "Free Market" requires an active and vibrant role of an "invisible hand," or the will of consumers and market participants to maintain order in the marketplace, independant of outside intervention. In its most strict interpretation - it negates ANY need for government regulation/intervention in managing our marketplace. Yet, experiences have proven this stricter view not to be so wise, i.e. Taft-Hartley Act, unions and anti-trust, the 1930s and 1988 stock market crashes, savings and loan collapse, thousands of federal and state regulatory agencies, mis-reporting of corporate accounting data (new Sarbanes-Oxley), and the list goes on. Both the U.S. and EU Free Market systems have accepted a "given" amount of oversight, where EU is viewed as being more socialistic, yet it generally has less stringent regulations than here in the U.S.
In order for Capitalism to work effectively, as demanded by conservatives, it too must incorpate the "invisible hand." Yet, as much as so many groups decry various forms of government intervention, these same companies and organizations are quick to ask for "special consideration" from government when it dis-proportionately favors their own interests - and this is the "corruption factor" in the U.S. political process, where industries, companies, unions, and organizations try to exert their desidered "dysfunctional influence" over the true Free Market system.
The reality is that business in the U.S. is creating a new form of "Capitalistic," that appears more Imperialistic, a bit of a "Dictatorship," and certainly less "Free Market." These changes and clever "mis-use" of the term, "Free Market," then seems a bit contradictory. This is quite evident today when one examines how government policy is being used to evolve this new form of Capitalism, in such things as tax advantages for corporations who outsource overseas, unchecked exorbitant executive compensation (Disney-Ovizt challenge) which a federal Court upheld as not given to Disney board negligence, lucrative no-bid government contracts, doing away with affirmative action, and even, yes even government intervention in family planning matters, medical care, and abortion.
Even many U.S. industries and the U.S. Supreme Court have mis-understood "Free Market." In the USSC's recent Groekster file sharing decision, I don't believe they ever considered the music industry's long-standing practice of making "hit" songs only commercially available through the purchase of an entire CD or record. For many years, consumers were forced to pay "over market price" for music they wanted. Where was the Free Market? It emerged as new Internet file sharing software and sites like Napster. One could say that the marketplace remedied itself!
If the United States truly desires to have a "Free Market" within its business and consumer marketplace, or "Capitalism" as so many political operatives cleverly interchangibly use - then it MUST be willing to walk the talk, to more freely let the marketplace remedy itself. In these instances, the "Invisible Hand" also includes the roles of the civil courts, free speech, equal rights, and equal opportunities. Neither the political Left, nor Right, can have it both ways. True Capitalism must acknowledge the pivitol role of the "Invisible Hand."
For more on my perspectives, please view www.diaceph.com
Stephen Dolle
Dolle Communications

 

[Smurf]

McGyver that's one of the greatest posts ever. I think Adam Smith is easily one of the most misunderstood intellectuals in our culture today.

 

[McGyver]

McGyver that's one of the greatest posts ever. I think Adam Smith is easily one of the most misunderstood intellectuals in our culture today.

Thanks for the kudos. Many people ask me why I take the time to author elaborate discussions on a number of these Internet forums. I think it is because of topics just like this... it causes me to REALLY think ... and then enables me to put these thoughts and inspiration into words. You should see me in rare form at one of my local coffee shops.

 

[Smurf]

I especially liked the Grokster and Napster analogy. I never thought of that.

 

[Skyhunter]

Excellent post McGyver.

What is wrong with capitalism is that the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself. I view capitalism as an evolutionary step in social evolution. Eventually the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive. At which time society will face it's next institutional crisis, whatever that may be.

 

[loseyourname]

I have read ALL of the posts in this thread which given your comments below vis a vis "it might have been you said this or maybe it was Smurf etc..." it would appear you haven't.
I thought you had missed the central point as did Smurf and having read Alex's recent posts it is clear she thought you did too. Is it just possible that we are right and you are wrong?

Art, if her point was something other than what she actually said, how am I to blame for not knowing her point? I can only evaluate what she actually says. Since I've quoted her twice now, including one quotation that was specifically the single sentence that constituted her claim, I'm not going to bother doing it again.

Personally I'd prefer if you evaluated what I actually did say rather than what you thought I might have said.

I apologize then. However, I'm sure you realize that we're arguing here largely over what somewhat else claimed; not what you claimed.

I never once mentioned privitisation nor sought to prove or disprove a causative link. As you missed it twice already I'll repeat myself a third time. I expressly said that the data suggests that there may be zero correlation between capitalism and prosperity.

Okay, I cannot really argue with a claim that says only that a certain data set might suggest something. You'll understand if I'm also not particularly impressed by such a weak claim.

In case you did read it but didn't understand what that means, it means no causative effect. I find it difficult to reconcile your claim to be trying to raise the standard of debate on this forum with the approach you have taken on this matter.

I apologize again, then. I am trying, Art. If you think I'm insincere and really do not care about the quality of forum discussion, just come out and say it.

 

[McGyver]

Excellent post McGyver.
What is wrong with capitalism is that the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself. I view capitalism as an evolutionary step in social evolution. Eventually the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive. At which time society will face it's next institutional crisis, whatever that may be.

Skyhunter:

I'm not sure of your point that the "the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself." The free market merely defines the economic rules, just as does math formula for solving an equation. The specific boundaries of the free market system are then set by the legislative bodies, and enforced by the judicial system. Present day capitalism is that which is defined by each nation, and their own economic and social priorities. It is evolutionary, but not necessarily that of a social order, rather, it is a necessity for business and commerce, and now more than ever today, international commerce.

The "profit" motive is, I believe, the most crucial component of the free market system. Yes, it is based upon "greed," but its inherent value lies in encouraging individuals to work, and to work smartly and efficiently, for rewards and return - all under their own free will and via "positive reinforcement." Reward doesn't always have to be monetary. It can also include increased self worth, confidence, and the well being attained through solid teamwork. Over the years, I have managed people of all ages, undoubtedly my most memorable experiences having been what I observed in managing youth sports. Kids don't play for money, or for their parents approval. They play because they begin to see their own self advancement, successful teamwork, and how it changees their lives for the better. Adults are much the same - it's just that our "needs" are more economic.

Regarding your point that the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive, I think that already came and mostly went with the extreme solialists movements and communism in EU-Asia, and it proved not to withstand the evolutionary test of time. As for our next institutional crises, I think it is already here - as computers have begun erasing the need for human labor, and enabling vast amounts of outsourcing to far away lands. But, as all things are cyclical, that too will evolve and change, and I believe if the U.S. can adhere to free market principle's, if we can weather the storm and if politicians can refrain from becoming short term opportunists, that those impacted by outsourcing and computerization today will emerge as new benefactors of the next new economy.

I realize this is asking a lot of those persons and political leaders in the U.S. with the wherewithall, and the will, to try to take it all. But, history is filled with so many who have tried and failed, and what's different and more encouraging today is our incredible advances in information made possible through global communications. Call me an optimist!

 

[Skyhunter]

Skyhunter:
I'm not sure of your point that the "the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself." The free market merely defines the economic rules, just as does math formula for solving an equation. The specific boundaries of the free market system are then set by the legislative bodies, and enforced by the judicial system. Present day capitalism is that which is defined by each nation, and their own economic and social priorities. It is evolutionary, but not necessarily that of a social order, rather, it is a necessity for business and commerce, and now more than ever today, international commerce.
The "profit" motive is, I believe, the most crucial component of the free market system. Yes, it is based upon "greed," but its inherent value lies in encouraging individuals to work, and to work smartly and efficiently, for rewards and return - all under their own free will and via "positive reinforcement." Reward doesn't always have to be monetary. It can also include increased self worth, confidence, and the well being attained through solid teamwork. Over the years, I have managed people of all ages, undoubtedly my most memorable experiences having been what I observed in managing youth sports. Kids don't play for money, or for their parents approval. They play because they begin to see their own self advancement, successful teamwork, and how it changees their lives for the better. Adults are much the same - it's just that our "needs" are more economic.
Regarding your point that the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive, I think that already came and mostly went with the extreme solialists movements and communism in EU-Asia, and it proved not to withstand the evolutionary test of time. As for our next institutional crises, I think it is already here - as computers have begun erasing the need for human labor, and enabling vast amounts of outsourcing to far away lands. But, as all things are cyclical, that too will evolve and change, and I believe if the U.S. can adhere to free market principle's, if we can weather the storm and if politicians can refrain from becoming short term opportunists, that those impacted by outsourcing and computerization today will emerge as new benefactors of the next new economy.
I realize this is asking a lot of those persons and political leaders in the U.S. with the wherewithall, and the will, to try to take it all. But, history is filled with so many who have tried and failed, and what's different and more encouraging today is our incredible advances in information made possible through global communications. Call me an optimist!

What I meant was that there are those (not you) that believe the free market will ultimately solve all the worlds problems and is the only system that works.

The reason I believe socialism/communism never worked was largely due to lack of motivation by the populace. If a mechanism could be implemented to motivate people to serve, as profit motivates people to work hard and produce, this would accelerate the process.

I advocate changing our system of suffrage to allow people without wealth to have more influence in the political system. Everyday people who are quiet leaders, respected within their communities for their selfless commitment to bettering the condition of their community. This would motivate more people to get involved in volunteering to work for the betterment of all.

 

[Smurf]

The reason the socialist movements half a centruy ago failed was because the government took all the people's produce and distributed it how they wanted. The people had no say in what they're labour produced and where it went, so they rebelled, by not working.

 

[Human Being]

Human beings were meant to cooperate, not compete. In the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest determines resource allocation among most species. The strong prey upon the weak, to provide for their young. Some species are more communal; the entire living unit is provided for by all its providers. In the case of human beings, the advantage which enabled their survival amongst so many other life forms is their brain. Experiences are readily converted to reusable data by and stored in the brain. These inputs can be physical,intellectual, emotional, or spiritual; and therein lies the advantage - by communicating experiences in various ways, human beings can learn from each other. All of society benefits from knowledge gained, the aggregate of which eventually becoming "technology".

Times have changed since survival was a lifelong endeavor. Civilization, the fruits of millenia of successful survival, has afforded each member of it with a precious gift. We have at our disposal a tremendous amount of time, as a species. For thousands of years, our goal as a species has been to ensure the survival of the species as a whole. This is exactly what happens in nature, albeit in a different way. Resources are stashed away for emergencies and for the next generation, but in order to do this there must be an excess of resources. Thus, the act of ensuring the survival of future generations will over time have a negative effect on resource acquisition; either there will be less to acquire, or there will be less need to acquire it.

The presence of excessive excess provides the impetus for capitalism - value. The need to invent a placeholder for value is brought about by the exchange of excessive resources. This placeholder should intuitively be easily exchangeable and valued equally by all. Conceptually important to civilization, that which is now called money enables the civilized individual to obtain another's excess resources. As civilization advanced, and technology with it, the ability to acquire resources from the planet has increased exponentially. Keep in mind that all of this has occurred within the general context of cooperation among millenia of human beings.

That said, there is a darker side to the advancement of civilization, and it regards the concept of recycling. To explain precisely, the reuse of resources already acquired and used - not just natural resources but human beings and land itself. Domination by historic figures often paralleled times of great advancement, to the detriment of those being dominated. It goes without saying that people have been treated as expendable resources by many historic "leaders of state", all throughout time. For when excess resources are available, recycling becomes a burden, a resource-consuming effort.

Excess resources easily beget competition. They always have and will continue to do so as long as humanity sees survival through a distorted lens. Most people live their lives under the pretext that the aquisition of excess is the best indicator of survival ability. If they have a lot of "stuff", they will survive "easier" than someone who has no "stuff". They will be able to live the "good life", which the person with no "stuff" cannot do. They will be "happier" than someone who has no "stuff". Once technology could support the "Rat Race", the starter's gun went off.

Capitalism is entirely based upon competition, and this flawed human perception of what survival really is. Corporations are considered "individuals" legally, but they influence society far more than one human being can. These corporations evolve within their own "society" to possesses relationships with each other, much the same way people do. Parent companies, child companies, sibling companies, aunt/uncle/cousin companies, best friend companies, high-school-buddy companies, etc. And don't forget enemy companies. All these virtual individuals with varying relations, under the false pretext that having the most "stuff" is best, competing for a "finite" excess of resources - what a recipe for self-destruction.

What's wrong with capitalism is that in its "purest" form, capitalism reduces the potential "lifespan" of an economy, and continually increases the chance of a "life-threatening" economic episode. The rules of capitalism dictate that growth and profit maximization are paramount, that investing is preferred over saving, and that if you don't do it - someone else will. The mentality that "business is war" exists within the virtual minds of so many of these corporations. If there's excess to be had, take it before it's taken by others. At least, that's how I see capitalism - corporation and consumer alike, they both want to get a lot of stuff. More is always better.

What's wrong with capitalism is that it places so much importance on the "value placeholder" of MONEY that people eventually learn how to "create" it from absolutely nothing. They learn how to produce value placeholders that are not backed by equivalent natural resources. Technology has advanced to the point in which "virtual" money *IS* real, and if a few bytes of data in some computer in some country are changed such that a bank account somewhere is now larger, who's to care? Investing is often seen as "smart", but functionally it is nothing more than a way to make someone else even more wealthy than they already are.

Okay, I've blathered on long enough, and I'd like to change direction before I finish up.

Taking an extreme stance, money can be described as a virus and a cancer within the entity known as "economy". It requires a living host to prosper. In some cases, it reproduces by causing its host's "cells" to make more of it. In others, it has "evolved" into something vastly self-reproductive in spite of the host's "immune system". Either way, growth will continue until the hosts' ability to sustain that growth is compromised - after which money will begin to "die". Capitalism is destined to fall prey to itself, UNLESS humanity starts to care more about the future than the present. There are so many intuitive ways that can be done, I'll end with that point.

(ps - I tried catching up on the thread before posting, but so much of it is off-topic that I said screw it.)

 

[The Smoking Man]

The reason the socialist movements half a centruy ago failed was because the government took all the people's produce and distributed it how they wanted. The people had no say in what they're labour produced and where it went, so they rebelled, by not working.

Ironically, if you want capitalism, you look at China.

If you want Socialism/Communism, you look at the G8.

 

[RunDMC]

Capitalism was a great way to motivate industrial revolution style growth, but the model may now be outdated. Without going into the details of how it is not the best tool for the 21st century (nice post, Human Being), how about some free-form suggestions on how it could be replaced, tweaked or added to? (Communism is not the only alternative.)

EXAMPLES: What would be the effect of a second currency solely for leisure goods? Could swapping payroll tax for land rates remove a source of unearned income? How should genuine innovation be rewarded? Is the patents system adequate? Is it right that there are over 150 brands of water? Should medium-level industrial accidents be accepted as a form of collective risk-taking? Here' a crazy one: What would happen if the government provided a tax rebate for every hour you could prove you weren't at work? Would you be balancing your need to be at work to earn your income with the tax offset provided by a work/life balance? Should Spain fight for the known health benefits of the siesta, or is it a slap in the face to EU's efficiency?

Capitalism works, but so does a steam engine. We seem to have brains lurking in this forum, so who has some suggestions? What is the twin-cam, fuel-injected form of capitalism? (Yes, I understand the irony here: fuel-injected, twin-cam engines are largely a product of capitalism!)

Step 1: what are we trying to achieve? What do we want? Survival (in the western world) is almost off the agenda as a serious goal. What next? Poetry? Yuck! Kite surfing? Maybe! :)

I'm trying to be provocative (in a good way) here. I genuinely look forward to your thoughts.

 

[pi-r8]

(Communism is not the only alternative.)

Unfortunately, it is. Either the government recognizes that every individual has a right to own property, or it doesn't. If it does recognize that right, then it will ensure that only he can decide what to do with it. Pure capitalism follows automatically- there would be no taxes, no trustbusting, no economic regulations. Just property.

If, however, the government does not recognize the right to own property, no one can really posess anything. If you have something, it's just a privilage that can be taken away. In some governments is rarely taken away, but in others such as the USSR, property has been taken away at the drop of the hat. Or you could have a government that does nothing at all, and let's any random thug who wants your property come steal it.

Communism, socialism, anarchy, whatever you want to call it- there's no such thing as private property.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No government in the world allows for pure ownership of land.
It can ALWAYS be taken away.
It's a beatch to be laying track for a railroad and have to take a series of 90 degree turns around some little old ladies house when she refuses to sell.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml"... Your Friend.
And fer you damn Liberals ...

And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.

Oh god ... I've been possessed by Pengwuino!
Begone foul spirit ... The power of the lord commands you ... the power of the lord commands you ... AAAAAAaaaargh!

 

[pi-r8]

yeah, it's theft like that creates the problems which people associate with capitalism

 

[X-43D]

In short, PURE capitalism promotes greed at all costs. Who cares if you destroy the environment, make people work 15 hour days w/ no benefits, or pay workers 15 cents an hour as long as you make $1 more in profits right?? There are serious flaws with unrestricted capitalism. Believe it or not the Catholic Church offers up a very good argument against pure communism and capitalism in Rerum Novarum. Even if you hate Catholicism and religion, you should still read it. It is very thought provoking. Wiki has a brief descripition of the Papal encyclical here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum

I agree. Greed is not a good quality. A society can prospere if and only if human rights are respected. Slavery combined with racism were a strong violation of these rights. Even today blacks and other minority groups are economically discriminated compared to whites.

Some countries have adopted social capitalism which i think is the best choice.

 

[Smurf]

Unfortunately, it is. Either the government recognizes that every individual has a right to own property, or it doesn't. If it does recognize that right, then it will ensure that only he can decide what to do with it. Pure capitalism follows automatically- there would be no taxes, no trustbusting, no economic regulations. Just property.
If, however, the government does not recognize the right to own property, no one can really posess anything. If you have something, it's just a privilage that can be taken away. In some governments is rarely taken away, but in others such as the USSR, property has been taken away at the drop of the hat. Or you could have a government that does nothing at all, and let's any random thug who wants your property come steal it.
Communism, socialism, anarchy, whatever you want to call it- there's no such thing as private property.

I don't understand your reasoning Pi.

You say private property is important because otherwise the state can take it away from you. But you say that Anarchism is just as bad, even though there's no state to take it from you.

 

[X-43D]

It's obvious that power projection and capital development requires that someone get the short end of the stick. Much of the wealth of the west was build on Africa's exploitation using slave labour and cutthroat mercantalism.

 

[Plastic Photon]

A lack of understanding. There is a classical view of capitalism, Adam Smith, and a modern, Ayn Rand. Maybe it is that Ayn Rand's ideas are scary to most people. No taxes, no unwilling coercion, no property right restrictions, etc.

 

[pi-r8]

I don't understand your reasoning Pi.
You say private property is important because otherwise the state can take it away from you. But you say that Anarchism is just as bad, even though there's no state to take it from you.

The problem I see with Anarchy is that since there's no government PROTECTING your property, anyone who has you outgunned can take it away from you.

 

[pi-r8]

Much of the wealth of the west was build on Africa's exploitation using slave labour and cutthroat mercantalism.

Care to prove this rather provocative point?

 

[Burnsys]

It's obvious that power projection and capital development requires that someone get the short end of the stick. Much of the wealth of the west was build on Africa's exploitation using slave labour and cutthroat mercantalism.

Also much of the whealt from europe was build on theft of America natural resources (Gold, silver) and the forced labor of the native population to death in the mines...

 

[pi-r8]

Also much of the whealt from europe was build on theft of America natural resources (Gold, silver) and the forced labor of the native population to death in the mines...

Don't you find it a little strange that Europe's wealth didn't really start growing quickly until they stopped doing this (the industrial revolution)?

 

[X-43D]

Care to prove this rather provocative point?

There are many reasons for Africa's poverty but colonialism did play a major role on the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Africa

 

[McGyver]

Should Spain fight for the known health benefits of the siesta, or is it a slap in the face to EU's efficiency?

Capitalism works, but so does a steam engine. We seem to have brains lurking in this forum, so who has some suggestions? What is the twin-cam, fuel-injected form of capitalism? (Yes, I understand the irony here: fuel-injected, twin-cam engines are largely a product of capitalism!

Hey, if your lucky enough, productive enough, or just plain lazy enough - you'll reap what you reward. A siesta is a form of reward. We used to hunt or grow our own food, build our own homes, etc., somewhere along the way it became more advantageous to "specialize," and pay others for which you are not able or well adapted to doing yourself. Thus, the evolution of money. It's the money "games" that have become the source of problems.

As for the twin engine, turbo version of a new economic model, I believe we heading in that direction, notwithstanding some growing pains and bumps in the road. The Internet and information age will help to assure more fair and responsiveness within any system, and we as citizens, must utilize our own resources to offset "legislative and juducial activism" which again is attempting to undermine our freedoms, rights, work, and ownership, etc.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Don't you find it a little strange that Europe's wealth didn't really start growing quickly until they stopped doing this (the industrial revolution)?

Huh?

So what were the Brits doing taxing the USA?

The Spanish in Mexico hauling off Gold by the boatload?

What was all of Europe doing in SE Asia?

Wealth is a relative thing.

Now ... America's wealth didn't really start growing until after WWII when of all the developed nations in the world had basically been bombed to rubble and the USA was relatively untouched. They were the only ones left in the world with products to sell until general recovery took place a few years later.

Those with communist leanings were shunned and blockaded as well as having decided on a philosophy of isolationism.

And so ... The USA blossomed into a model of inefficiency of unskilled labour with a 10 to 20% rejection rate in manufacturing. (This would later allow the foothold Japan would gain with a 0 defect policy)

European products had traditionally been built to a higher standard like the BMW for instance.

Europe found themselves with a glut of semi skilled labour without the industry to support it... and so migration started happening.

America ended up with a glut of labourers from the world over to support the newfound demand for American goods.

Really, when you think about it, was there a demand in the rest of the world for American made products prior to WWII?

Unfortunately, the world was taken over with the idea of communism which in anything except in its purest form is domed to failure.

And so the socialsist programs of Europe destroyed industry by elevating the lot of the factory worker and taxing the rich to a ridiculous extent (The UK in the 1960's saw tax rates for the rich as high as 95%!)

America however was highly resistant to this launching campaigns like McCarthyism to discredit anything that smacked of the demonized 'non capitalist' forms of government. Thus they slowed it but disn't quite stop it.

In fact, the only areas influenced by the West that remained relatively free of Unions and other 'socialist/communist' underpinnings were Hong Kong and Japan.

The rest you know. Capitalism has abandoned the west in favour of any nation which has few human rights or social programs and uses their workforce for manufacturing.

Poverty has become the comodity that attracts investment.

America is merely a lifestyle thing where the investors and bankers live.

 

[pi-r8]

There are many reasons for Africa's poverty but colonialism did play a major role on the economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Africa

I'm sure colonialism hurt Africa's economy, but what you said, and what I asked you to prove, was that the wealth of the west was built by exploiting Africa. Hurting Africa is not the same thing as building wealth.

 

[pi-r8]

TSM- I'm not really sure what you're arguing with me about. What Burnsys said, and I disputed, was that the wealth of Europe was built by slave labor, and by stealing gold and silver from the Americas. I would have thought it obvious that this couldn't possibly build an economy- all you'd end up with is a large untrained workforce and an inflated price of gold and silver. I never disputed whether or not the European powers imported slaves or gold and silver, I'm just trying to show that that's not an effective economic policy.
To prove this, I brought up the point that during the time in which the European powers were doing this, their economies didn't really grow very much- their people still weren't much richer than those in what are now considered third world countries. During the industrial revolution, however, the wealth of Europeans skyrocketed. Since the no European power was importing slaves or stolen gold/silver at that time, I think that that proves that the idea of Europe's wealth being built on slavery and theft to be false.

Now ... America's wealth didn't really start growing until after WWII when of all the developed nations in the world had basically been bombed to rubble and the USA was relatively untouched. They were the only ones left in the world with products to sell until general recovery took place a few years later.

This is completely false. The USA's wealth had been growing rapidly up until WWII, with the exception of the great depression of course. The USA had the largest GDP of any country in the world when WWII broke out. By far.

And so ... The USA blossomed into a model of inefficiency of unskilled labour with a 10 to 20% rejection rate in manufacturing. (This would later allow the foothold Japan would gain with a 0 defect policy)

So you're saying that, while the USA becoming inefficient and unskilled, it's economy was finally starting to grow?

European products had traditionally been built to a higher standard like the BMW for instance.

They've also made some cars that are a piece of ****, like the Yugo for instance. What's your point?

Europe found themselves with a glut of semi skilled labour without the industry to support it... and so migration started happening.
America ended up with a glut of labourers from the world over to support the newfound demand for American goods.

This started happening long before WWII. It happened because the American economy was growing so quickly, thanks to the industrial revolution.

Really, when you think about it, was there a demand in the rest of the world for American made products prior to WWII?

Yes.

Unfortunately, the world was taken over with the idea of communism which in anything except in its purest form is domed to failure.
And so the socialsist programs of Europe destroyed industry by elevating the lot of the factory worker and taxing the rich to a ridiculous extent (The UK in the 1960's saw tax rates for the rich as high as 95%!)
America however was highly resistant to this launching campaigns like McCarthyism to discredit anything that smacked of the demonized 'non capitalist' forms of government. Thus they slowed it but disn't quite stop it.
In fact, the only areas influenced by the West that remained relatively free of Unions and other 'socialist/communist' underpinnings were Hong Kong and Japan.

So do you agree with me then that socialism hurts the economy, and capitalism helps it? I thought you were arguing with me.

 

[The Smoking Man]

TSM- I'm not really sure what you're arguing with me about. What Burnsys said, and I disputed, was that the wealth of Europe was built by slave labor, and by stealing gold and silver from the Americas. I would have thought it obvious that this couldn't possibly build an economy- all you'd end up with is a large untrained workforce and an inflated price of gold and silver. I never disputed whether or not the European powers imported slaves or gold and silver, I'm just trying to show that that's not an effective economic policy.

LOL ... You forget that the years prior to the 'revolution', the USA WAS Britain and the slaves there (and the prisoners exported from Britain) were the workforce.

To prove this, I brought up the point that during the time in which the European powers were doing this, their economies didn't really grow very much- their people still weren't much richer than those in what are now considered third world countries. During the industrial revolution, however, the wealth of Europeans skyrocketed.

Since this is the same philosophy used in China right now, I don't follow. Gold and Silver or Sony Walkmans and Cell phones. Take your pick. Slave labour producing Ingots or Electronics ... it doesn't matter. The effect is the same. The difference is ... Gold and silver are the product and the wealth at the same time requiring no domestic market. Electronics require a market and sap the domesic economy by producing a vertical flow of wealth in a credit based economy. If this had been done in the times of slavery with no socialist forms of wealth distribution, the rich would be in charge of warehouses filled with walkmans and no markets. As it is, they ended up with vaults filled with ingots of gold and silver ... even the Vatican which had a low population and a tithe of at least 10% of the take.

Since the no European power was importing slaves or stolen gold/silver at that time, I think that that proves that the idea of Europe's wealth being built on slavery and theft to be false.

No, actually at the time of the Industrial revolution, they also created a thing called Unions which moved some of the wealth downwards through a form of socialism and reduced the cost of production on mass produced goods making them affordable to the unwahsed masses.

This is completely false. The USA's wealth had been growing rapidly up until WWII, with the exception of the great depression of course. The USA had the largest GDP of any country in the world when WWII broke out. By far.

Yes, again, because of WWI America found itself relatively untouched and yet , as you point out, still managed to have 'the Great Depression'. Manwhile, Europe was rebuilding for the first time.

So you're saying that, while the USA becoming inefficient and unskilled, it's economy was finally starting to grow?

Yes. Look at it this way ... Most of the European industry had been converted over to the war effort. Enemies bombed each others war industries ... ergo, the factories previously producing products for consumers (like BMW) were bombed repeatedly and the machinery was lost. When the war ended, there was no industry to speak of and required a period of restoration until they could be brought back on-line. During that time, they were requred to look elsewhere for product. The only place left standing was ... the USA.

They've also made some cars that are a piece of ****, like the Yugo for instance. What's your point?

The point is that before the war European products were universally made with higher standards of quality and American made products carried the same stigma as the 'Made in Japan' or 'Made in Hong Kong' had in the 1960's America.

This started happening long before WWII. It happened because the American economy was growing so quickly, thanks to the industrial revolution.

That and the effects of WWI on the European economy.

So do you agree with me then that socialism hurts the economy, and capitalism helps it? I thought you were arguing with me.

Umm no ... look at my previous post. America is crippled with socialist programs along with most European countries. You have to look to China to find an economy free of Socialist/Communist principals. I say again ... China, regardless of what the name says is Fascist, not Communist. There is no universal health care, welfare, Unions, redistribution of wealth, minimum wage ... NOTHING. It is totally ruled internally by the power of the Currency and who has the most. (Including the government)

 

[pi-r8]

LOL ... You forget that the years prior to the 'revolution', the USA WAS Britain and the slaves there (and the prisoners exported from Britain) were the workforce.

You know that I was taking about the INDUSTRIAL revolution, right? Not the American revolution. The USA was independant by the time of the industrial revolution, and slavery was outlawed. (and it's no coincidence that these things happened in the order they did! Notice that Slavery was outlawed in Europe before it was outlawed in the US, and that Europe experienced the industrail revolution sooner than the US.)

Since this is the same philosophy used in China right now, I don't follow. Gold and Silver or Sony Walkmans and Cell phones. Take your pick. Slave labour producing Ingots or Electronics ... it doesn't matter. The effect is the same. The difference is ... Gold and silver are the product and the wealth at the same time requiring no domestic market. Electronics require a market and sap the domesic economy by producing a vertical flow of wealth in a credit based economy. If this had been done in the times of slavery with no socialist forms of wealth distribution, the rich would be in charge of warehouses filled with walkmans and no markets. As it is, they ended up with vaults filled with ingots of gold and silver ... even the Vatican which had a low population and a tithe of at least 10% of the take.

This is news to me. I had no idea that China relied on slave labor in the Americas to mine Sony Walkmans from the Andes. I was under the impression that they used low paid (some would say exploited) laborers to build the things. Do you see the difference? Slavery is prohibited under a proper capitalist government, but paying low wages is not. Electronics is something that people trade FOR, because it's useful. More electronics allows you to do more which allows you to produce more wealth. But gold is just a medium of exchange. Having more gold in the economy doesn't make the country richer, just like having more currency in circulation doesn't make it richer.

No, actually at the time of the Industrial revolution, they also created a thing called Unions which moved some of the wealth downwards through a form of socialism and reduced the cost of production on mass produced goods making them affordable to the unwahsed masses.

Ok first of all- unions aren't a form of socialism unless they're regulated by the government, which wouldn't happen under pure capitalism. And they don't reduce the cost of production, they increase wages.
Secondly- What does this have to do with what I was talking about? My point was- and still is- that while Europe was importing slaves and stolen treasure it did not grow richer, but it DID grow richer when it stopped doing that. THEREFORE, theft was not the source of Europe's wealth. How the industrial revolution made people richer has NOTHING to do with this.

Yes, again, because of WWI America found itself relatively untouched and yet , as you point out, still managed to have 'the Great Depression'. Manwhile, Europe was rebuilding for the first time.

You know you've contradicted yourself right? You said before that the US economy didn't start to grow until after WWII, but now you're saying that it grew after WWI. Make up your mind.

Yes. Look at it this way ... Most of the European industry had been converted over to the war effort. Enemies bombed each others war industries ... ergo, the factories previously producing products for consumers (like BMW) were bombed repeatedly and the machinery was lost. When the war ended, there was no industry to speak of and required a period of restoration until they could be brought back on-line. During that time, they were requred to look elsewhere for product. The only place left standing was ... the USA.

Here you go back to the WWII theory. This is great rhetoric, but it still completely ignores the fact the the USA had been an economic power since the industrial revolution.

The point is that before the war European products were universally made with higher standards of quality and American made products carried the same stigma as the 'Made in Japan' or 'Made in Hong Kong' had in the 1960's America.

That's completely untrue, but let's assume that you're right. What are you trying to prove? Seriously, I don't understand what you're arguing for. I thought we were discussing the source of the western countries' wealth, but you're just insulting US crafstmanship.

Umm no ... look at my previous post. America is crippled with socialist programs along with most European countries. You have to look to China to find an economy free of Socialist/Communist principals. I say again ... China, regardless of what the name says is Fascist, not Communist. There is no universal health care, welfare, Unions, redistribution of wealth, minimum wage ... NOTHING. It is totally ruled internally by the power of the Currency and who has the most. (Including the government)

I'd agree that China is closer to Fascism than Communism. They're certainly not capitalist, which would explain why the average Chinese citizen is still dirt poor. But once again... please, explain what you're arguing for. You said that "America is crippled with socialist programs", but America has the strongest economy in the world. Are you saying that socialism is the best economic system?
I remind you that this started with someone saying that Europe's wealth was based on slavery and theft, which I disputed. As far as I can tell, you still haven't even stated a position on this topic.

 

[RunDMC]

Are you all raving mad?

I'd agree that China is closer to Fascism than Communism. They're certainly not capitalist, which would explain why the average Chinese citizen is still dirt poor. But once again... please, explain what you're arguing for. You said that "America is crippled with socialist programs", but America has the strongest economy in the world. Are you saying that socialism is the best economic system?

I remind you that this started with someone saying that Europe's wealth was based on slavery and theft, which I disputed. As far as I can tell, you still haven't even stated a position on this topic.

This discussion seems to be "Communists are tyrants who want to enslave the poulace for the benfit of their own POWER" vs "Capitalists are tyrants who used slave labour for the benefit of their own POCKET"

The truth is that using slaves to dig up gold/pick cotton/whatver certainly didn't hinder the financial prospects of the slave owners, and communist regimes have tended to get out of control in the past.

It's like a bunch of people arguing over whether a cow is a canine or a feline. And the "The free market economy will deliver us to a nirvana of wealthy bliss" line is just crap.

Of course, the poor farmer in a communist regime would love to drive a giant SUV to the far end of a mega car park of an enormous Ikea, but somehow I can't help thinking that the big fat SUV driver in the car park of the Ikea is wishing there might be somehow be a simpler life.

To me it is all question of what we want to achieve. That we spend so much of our lives inventing new kinds of toothbrush bristles and so much of our lives looking at brands and ads and special offers that I wish we had an alien invasion to distract us from the drudgery of consumerism. I suspect more people feel the way I do every day.

Lets cut the "he-said, she-said" stuff and move on.

Oh yeah, and:

"2004: The number of high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) — individuals with a net worth of at least U.S. $1 million, excluding their primary residence — grew by 7.3 percent to 8.3 million, a net increase of 600,000 worldwide. North America led with a nearly 10 percent growth rate to 2.7 million HNWIs, surpassing the 2.6 million in Europe. Asia-Pacific’s growth rate of over 8 percent — to 2.3 million HNWIs — was twice that of Europe." -- Merrill Lynch

Stop thinking of Europe + America = rich, Asia = poor.

The times, they are a changin'

 

[The Smoking Man]

I might add that the concept of 'slave' and 'slave wages' are not mutually exclusive.

Slaves required maintenance by way of purchase, food, clothing, housing, overseers, etc.

Slave wages are paid to a self maintaining (automatic) slave who provides for himself but doesn't have a lifestyle any better than the 'manual' version.

Capitalism in it's most basic form (Without socialist programs and unions etc.) is just a word that makes today's slave owners feel better about themselves.

 

[X-43D]

Talking about the industrial revolution and increasing urbanization, the UN warns that every third person will be a slum dweller within 30 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1055785,00.html

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I might add that the concept of 'slave' and 'slave wages' are not mutually exclusive.

Slaves required maintenance by way of purchase, food, clothing, housing, overseers, etc.

Slave wages are paid to a self maintaining (automatic) slave who provides for himself but doesn't have a lifestyle any better than the 'manual' version.

Capitalism in it's most basic form (Without socialist programs and unions etc.) is just a word that makes today's slave owners feel better about themselves.

Moreover, in neither case is the worker guaranteed not to starve to death. Both are at the mercy of the owner/employer. The difference is that in the former situation, owners exploited western power, while in the latter employers exploit eastern poverty. Both have to pay maintenance of some kind - no workforce comes free.

 

[alexandra]

The problem I see with Anarchy is that since there's no government PROTECTING your property, anyone who has you outgunned can take it away from you.

Anarchy is often misunderstood and labelled as 'chaos'. While anarchy does mean not having a formal government 'from above', it does not necessarily mean 'barbarism' or chaos. But I am not the expert on anarchy; Smurf is:-)

Anyway, the problem that I see with capitalism is that the rich set up and control the capitalist state to protect their interests and to grow their wealth. The rich own the 'biggest guns' (I am speaking metaphorically - they literally own the guns, of course - but they also make, control and implement the laws and policies - including unjust and illegal invasions and wars - that secure and promote their interests).

Capitalism is a system that is designed to protect the most powerful (ie. the richest) by all means; capitalism cares nothing about human beings - they are just so much fodder for profits; that is what is wrong with it (if one is a humanist, that is). If one aspires to be a capitalist, and if one believes they are getting a 'good deal' out of capitalism and don't care at all at what cost (to others - including future generations) their individual, selfish interests are being met, then there is nothing wrong with capitalism (or the 'survival of the richest') at all.

The question "what is wrong with capitalism" is not merely academic. As others have pointed out, capitalism threatens our very survival as a species. One way in which capitalism is used to protect the rich is it protects their profits against (in human/species terms) rational decisions like doing something about pollution, global warming and the inevitable environmental catastrophe that the insatiable greed for profits will result in. So that's the other thing wrong with capitalism: by definition, being focused on growing the wealth of the few, it adopts a short-term view (increase profits now - don't worry about the quality of rivers, air, etc). I continue to wonder at people's support of a system that is hell-bent on destroying the planet. But I guess if human beings are stupid enough to just let this happen, then in evolutionary terms extinction is a 'fair' outcome.

 

[alexandra]

America is merely a lifestyle thing where the investors and bankers live.

Classic, TSM!

 

[X-43D]

I agree. The vast majority of us are still slaves to these corporate masters who are far and few between.

 

[loseyourname]

I agree. The vast majority of us are still slaves to these corporate masters who are far and few between.

I wonder if an actual slave would agree that your quality of life is no better than hers.

 

[Smurf]

Anarchy is often misunderstood and labelled as 'chaos'. While anarchy does mean not having a formal government 'from above', it does not necessarily mean 'barbarism' or chaos. But I am not the expert on anarchy; Smurf is:-)

Yes, and I'm not the expert on communism, Alexandra is. :-)

However, what pi says is not untrue. Many (libertarian) anarchists would condemn any institute which 'protected' any property at all. He would hold that protection is inherently a destructive act since it involves force, or violence collectively directed at a target that is opposed to the individual or entity who's property you're 'protecting'. This is, in effect, a destructive hierarchy, which I am opposed to.

However, some individualist anarchists would disagree that privately owned(and protected) property is essential to true liberty. It's still open to debate.

 

[X-43D]

Greed is the flaw in neoliberal policies. The strong can help the weak, especially those who have way too much money than they need.

 

[Skyhunter]

What is wrong with capitalism.

Currently the biggest problem with capitalism is that property rights have trumped personal rights. The homeless person who has no capital has fewer rights than the landed gentry. The landed gentry (middle class) has fewer rights than the wealthy aristocracy. I see this as anathema to the vision laid out for America by it's founders.

Abolishing the inheritance tax is a great example of this trend by capitalist aristocrats.

 

[Smurf]

Proudhon wrote an excellent essay on the subject of (whatever you want to call it - our organization of labour) that I will post some of if not all later. I can't remember what it's called but I have it at home somewhere.

 

[Astronuc]

http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/~multimed/theorie/klassik/owen/bios/Proudhon.html

http://www.iisg.nl/~w3vl/specialtopics.html - this site has some interesting papers. The section on Anarchism should appeal to Smurf.

http://www.web.net/blackrosebooks/anarism.htm - Smurf, do have this book yet?

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/49/11review.html

Just for starters.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Currently the biggest problem with capitalism is that property rights have trumped personal rights. The homeless person who has no capital has fewer rights than the landed gentry. The landed gentry (middle class) has fewer rights than the wealthy aristocracy. I see this as anathema to the vision laid out for America by it's founders.
Abolishing the inheritance tax is a great example of this trend by capitalist aristocrats.

This is not so much a problem with capitalism but a problem with a lack of democracy. Social and economic democracy can be achieved in a political system that respects private property and encourages entrepreneurial drive and the creation and accumulation of private wealth. Indeed it cannot be achieved otherwise. But it requires a strong public sector that will ensure that private avarice ultimately works in the public interest. It requires a recognition that for capitalism to work, the economy must serve the people (Adam Smith would say the markets) and not the other way around.

AM

 

[Smurf]

The problem with Capitalism is that it is undemocratic. The entire idea of property ownership is. If a person is said to own something then, no matter if it is against the will of the general populace of against the will of the people it concerns, the state will enforce the owners will on all decisions to do with what he "owns".

 

[flotsam]

The best thing you can ever do when musing on what is the best world system is forget expedience and pretend you alone have the power to change the world and the future through objective analysis. Your job is decide what is the best system for the future existence, happiness and prosperity of the human race. Capitalism wouldn't get a look in!

Imagine for a moment that we are visited by advanced aliens keen to communicate with and view other 'galactic cultures'. Which world statesman gets the job of telling them that we are currently living under a system that is waging undeclared war on our planet, works on the principle of perpetual war to gain resources, stands by and watches 30,000 people die every day for the want of a meal and cheap drugs, privatises everything including ideas and information and is driven by the single principle of individual gain with little or no regard to the consequences.
If I was one of the aliens, I'd be disgusted.

P.S. What system do you think the advanced aliens would have at home?
Capitalism? not a chance, that I think would be long left behind in their evolutionary history.

 

[Smurf]

P.S. What system do you think the advanced aliens would have at home?
Capitalism? not a chance, that I think would be long left behind in their evolutionary history.

I don't see why not, we have it. You're assuming any extra terrestrial life with be more socially advanced than us. That's not necessarily true.

 

[flotsam]

I don't see why not, we have it. You're assuming any extra terrestrial life with be more socially advanced than us. That's not necessarily true.

I'm assuming the got to where they are by 'not' having a system that destroys their habitat and species and thus survives long enough to develop the capabilty to travel great distances in space.