Capitalism doesn't work.

[The-Dran]

One failure in the philosophy of capitalism with the idea that "If you want it enough, you can DO it!" is that capitalism generally also assumes a zero-sum game. So, if you have too many people who "want it enough", it won't really matter.

Also, it has a Nietchzean "Survival of the Fittest" philosophy. One problem(in my opinion) with this philosophy is that LUCK plays into "Survival of the Fittest" a lot. Things like unemployment can mitigate the luck factor, but that gets further away from "pure capitalism"

I'd say there is another reason pure capitalism doesn't work--monopolies. The ideal company would be good enough that it would come to own everything. An absolute monopoly would mean ZERO competition.

Which means capitalism cannot secure a free enterprise without a bit of government control.

It's like why we have a laws and a constitution which limits and at the same time protects our freedoms.

How can something that limit something protect it at the same time?

Ever heard of overshadowing or overpowering? The reason why we have a government is to limit the freedom we having at taking away other people's freedom. And in the same sense that is why we need governmental control over businesses. Not to take away the spirit of competition or security or whatever nonsense you want to dribble about. But to protect smaller businesses from being over taken by much larger ones. You see there is pretty much no difference from when a business has complete control over the economy and when the government has complete control over the economy. In sense, it can be either good or bad, depending on who is in control. But it's oftenly more bad because of greed. So you a sense of balance between the power the government and free-businesses have over the economy and jobs. That way a much better security over management and establishment of businesses can be processed.

The goal of all economies should be wealth creation. This is distinct from the goal of wealth accumulation that seems to be the holy grail of capitalism.

For every individual endeavour and for the world economy as a whole:

Labour + Resources + Intellect = Economic Output

Introducing wealth into the equation makes it far too complicated for my pea-brain to describe mathematically so I'll try to explain what I thnk is currently going on and why it is flawed.

1) In general labour costs increase with time as everyone wants more for what they do. Even in minimal inflation economies there is a general expectation that buying power will increase, rather than decrease. So people demand more for their efforts.

This is countered by a reduction in the amount of labour needed to produce things with mechanisation, and robotics and engineering advances. The net result of this is not that labour costs reduce, more that the amount of labour needed is reduced. Commodities do not become cheaper because the gains in efficiency are channeled into wealth accumulation rather than price reduction.

2) Resources become more expensive with time also. Whether there is an abundant supply remaining is debateable, but the more easily accessible sources are certainly dwindling. It will become more expensive to extract further resources, and as we currently lived in a closed system (the planet) eventually resources will become more scarce.

3) Intellect is becoming more and more expensive at increasingly becomes a commodity.

4) The amount of input removed from the system in the form of wealth accumulation is increasing also, as shareholder and corporate interests demand more and more.

Overall the cost per unit of output is increasing at a large, if not exponential rate.

Meantime, output also needs to accelerate as demand grows with the population and their expectations. This is exacerbated by corporate influences advertising lifestyle improvements in an attempt to stimulate demand for products to enable wealth accumulation.

The only way this system can work is if output is infinitely expandable. I do not belive this to be the case. The fundamental premise of capitalism is one of positive feedback. Increasing wealth requires increased output, but in order to increase output we need more money. The raw materials of output (labour, resources, intellect) are becoming more expensive so further increases in output are more expensive.

This is not sustainable. In a closed system this is simply a road to destruction.

Wealth is not infinite and is not solely produced from labour. As labour becomes increasingly expensive the ability to profit from that labour becomes less.

The only way to combat this in a capitalist framework is to remove the expense of labour from the equation, thus removing the earning capacity of the labourer. This labourer is now far worse off. Re-entry into the workforce is more difficult as the labour market contracts due to increased mechanisation.

So while capitalism may produce increased wealth, it does so by concentrating it, rather than distributing it.

Capitalism creates nothing more than 'money worship'. I know several people who are rich and several people who are poor but I can state without hesitation that there is no correlation between merit and wealth. In a capitalist society you will prosper if you have a love for money. Its probably true as some of you have said that anyone can make money 'from scratch' but it is not usually because they do so out of love for what they do. They do so usually out of love for money. Therefore the system of capitalism highly affiliates with greed. Which is after all a sin. And why is it a sin? Because it leads to corruption. And why is corruption bad? Because it leads to violence.

You can never have a truely peaceful society if it's run by capitalism. You can if it's in a social democracy, but not if it's controlly by sin.

[Guitarmy]

I agree, bussiness is good, but unlimited growth is not.

[arz756]

At 6/7/06 09:17 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: The only way this system can work is if output is infinitely expandable.

Or there can be a cycle of recession and growth.

[pt9-9]

At 6/7/06 04:32 PM, arz756 wrote:

At 6/7/06 09:17 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: The only way this system can work is if output is infinitely expandable.

Or there can be a cycle of recession and growth.

No one wants that though.

BTW
Great thurough explanation on the flawed aspect of capitalism.

Although it could've been a little more condensed lol.

[arz756]

At 6/7/06 04:35 PM, pt9_9 wrote:

At 6/7/06 04:32 PM, arz756 wrote:

At 6/7/06 09:17 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: The only way this system can work is if output is infinitely expandable.

Or there can be a cycle of recession and growth.

No one wants that though.

BTW
Great thurough explanation on the flawed aspect of capitalism.

Although it could've been a little more condensed lol.

There is a cycle of Expansion and Contraction in all capitalistic societies. Normally the contractions aren't that bad unless you get people trying to put in socialist programs to stop it like hoover did, or FDR did.

[FunnyLittleMan15]

You would think that super companies like Walmart will become all powerful, but there are laws against having monoplies in the USA. Companies aren't allowed to merge together either. Tellephone companies were broken apart a few years back. This is capitalism's safety net. It all works out in the end. The minimum lifestyle is pretty good compared to what the past has been. Everyone is happy in the end to some extent.

[The-Dran]

At 6/7/06 04:37 PM, arz756 wrote:

At 6/7/06 04:35 PM, pt9_9 wrote:

At 6/7/06 04:32 PM, arz756 wrote:

At 6/7/06 09:17 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: The only way this system can work is if output is infinitely expandable.

Or there can be a cycle of recession and growth.

No one wants that though.

BTW
Great thurough explanation on the flawed aspect of capitalism.

Although it could've been a little more condensed lol.

There is a cycle of Expansion and Contraction in all capitalistic societies. Normally the contractions aren't that bad unless you get people trying to put in socialist programs to stop it like hoover did, or FDR did.

But it wasn't socialism that was harming society. It was the never-ending expectations from the aristocracy.

Do you have any idea how the great depression came to be?

[Politics]

Just out of curiosity, did you just edit out excerpts from this argument, and paste them here?

Or are you one of those posters, and you're simply compiling your own material?

I'll consider responding, but I would like an answer to this first.

[arz756]

At 6/7/06 05:58 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

Do you have any idea how the great depression came to be?

Nope, Do You?

[user001b]

At 6/7/06 06:47 PM, arz756 wrote:

At 6/7/06 05:58 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

Do you have any idea how the great depression came to be?

Nope, Do You?

banks and debit spending

[Cliff-Dude]

It works very well, if the government owns less, then there will be less taxes, and a little competition is healthy, too.

Socialism doesn't work because some people slack off on their job.
Communism doesn't work because control freaks run the comuunist countries.

[FunnyLittleMan15]

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!

This thread should end after that post.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 6/7/06 08:52 PM, Cliff-Dude wrote: It works very well, if the government owns less, then there will be less taxes, and a little competition is healthy, too.

A little bit of competition can be healthy, but you need co-operation also. Look at how much money and resources are wasted duplicating research among companies. That's just one of the reasons why perscription drugs cost so much.

Socialism doesn't work because some people slack off on their job.

Guessing you are too young to have ever worked at a job. Happens all the time in capitalist societies too. Worse yet, sometimes these are the people that get the promotions and favorable treatment because they are the ones able to suck up to the bosses the best. In theory, capitalism states that the best workers, ie, the most productive, are the ones that should rise to the top. Capitalism, like communism, doesn't always work out in fact the way it does in theory.

To th4e original poster, excellent points. I agree with the majority of what you said. I would also like to add that the proponents of theoretical capitalism also make the broad assumption that human beings can only be motivated to work for profit and often reject the notion that people will do certain jobs because they love to do them, or for a desire for knowledge, or to contribute to society.

[The-Dran]

At 6/7/06 06:23 PM, Captn_r wrote: Just out of curiosity, did you just edit out excerpts from this argument, and paste them here?

Or are you one of those posters, and you're simply compiling your own material?

I'll consider responding, but I would like an answer to this first.

Umm no.. I took things off from wikipedia and another forum that's centrally about economic philosophy.

[The-Dran]

At 6/7/06 08:52 PM, Cliff-Dude wrote: It works very well, if the government owns less, then there will be less taxes, and a little competition is healthy, too.

Guhh... yeah it works well for those who have wealth. Everyone else however would suffer extremely.

Socialism doesn't work because some people slack off on their job.

That's communism.

Communism doesn't work because control freaks run the comuunist countries.

That's stalinistic communism.

[WolvenBear]

At 6/7/06 09:17 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: I'd say there is another reason pure capitalism doesn't work--monopolies. The ideal company would be good enough that it would come to own everything. An absolute monopoly would mean ZERO competition.

The only monopolies are government owned ones. Government regulation leads more to monopolies than free market does. Monopolies are not the natural state of things.

Which means capitalism cannot secure a free enterprise without a bit of government control.

Of course it can.

How can something that limit something protect it at the same time?

Well, for example. I can't kill you. That protects your life, while "limiting" my "freedom".

crap about government protecting small business

Governmental regulation hurts small business, and puts many out of business. If someone wants to sell out to a big business, let them. It shouldn't be the government's job to tell them no.

The goal of all economies should be wealth creation. This is distinct from the goal of wealth accumulation that seems to be the holy grail of capitalism.

There is no point to "wealth creation" without "wealth accumulation".

Introducing wealth into the equation makes it far too complicated for my pea-brain to describe mathematically so I'll try to explain what I thnk is currently going on and why it is flawed.

Without wealth, the entire point of development becomes moot.

1) In general labour costs increase with time as everyone wants more for what they do. Even in minimal inflation economies there is a general expectation that buying power will increase, rather than decrease. So people demand more for their efforts.

And usually get it, in the form of raises and the like. They then spend more money, since they're making more money. And that's how the economy works.

reducing nonsense Commodities do not become cheaper because the gains in efficiency are channeled into wealth accumulation rather than price reduction.

Commodities become cheaper. That is the natural state of things. As they become more efficient to make, they become cheaper. To argue otherwise is assinine. And labor needs increase as demands increase.

2) Resources become more expensive with time also. Whether there is an abundant supply remaining is debateable, but the more easily accessible sources are certainly dwindling. It will become more expensive to extract further resources, and as we currently lived in a closed system (the planet) eventually resources will become more scarce.

Number one, the planet is not a closed system. That's absolutely false. If it was, we'd all be dead (no sun). And there are plenty of resources like water, trees, air, that aren't in danger. You're being alarmist, nothing more.

3) Intellect is becoming more and more expensive at increasingly becomes a commodity.

Teachers are greedy and at the same time the greedier they are, the more worthless.

4) The amount of input removed from the system in the form of wealth accumulation is increasing also, as shareholder and corporate interests demand more and more.

That's not "removing" it from the system. That's spending surplus on stockholders. The stockholders then spend it. Remove? You've GOT to be kidding.

Overall the cost per unit of output is increasing at a large, if not exponential rate.

The prices of everything fall over time. Look at Wal-Mart for the best example of this.

Meantime, output also needs to accelerate as demand grows with the population and their expectations. This is exacerbated by corporate influences advertising lifestyle improvements in an attempt to stimulate demand for products to enable wealth accumulation.

And? So what? More people....more money....more buying.

[The-Dran]

At 6/7/06 06:47 PM, arz756 wrote:

At 6/7/06 05:58 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

Do you have any idea how the great depression came to be?

Nope, Do You?

Yes I do, the stock market crashed and alot of people lose their jobs.

Here is a good example of what I'm talking about, The Great Depression was known as a worldwide economic downturn, starting in 1929 and lasting through most of the 1930s. It centered in the United States and Europe, but had damaging effects around the world. Almost all countries were affected; the worst hit were the most industrialized, including the United States, Germany, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Cities around the world were hit hard, especially those based on heavy industry. Construction virtually halted in many countries. Farmers and rural areas suffered as prices for crops fell by 40-60%. Mining and lumbering areas were perhaps the hardest hit because demand fell sharply and there was little alternative economic activity. It ended at different times in different countries; for subsequent history see Home front during World War II.

In the 1920s, the widespread use of the home mortgage and credit purchases of automobiles and furniture boosted spending but created consumer debt. People who were deeply in debt when a price deflation occurred were in serious trouble --even if they kept their jobs--and risked default. Indeed, prices and incomes fell 20-50%, but the debts remained at the same dollar amount. As the debtors tightened their belts, consumer spending fell, and the whole economy weakened. With future profits looking poor, capital investment slowed or stopped. In the face of bad loans and worsening future prospects, banks became more conservative. They built up their reserves, which intensified the deflationary pressures. The downward spiral sped up. This kind of self-aggravating process may have turned a 1930 recession into a 1933 depression.

And this all came about due to unchecked capitalism.

[WolvenBear]

The only way this system can work is if output is infinitely expandable. I do not belive this to be the case. The fundamental premise of capitalism is one of positive feedback. Increasing wealth requires increased output, but in order to increase output we need more money. The raw materials of output (labour, resources, intellect) are becoming more expensive so further increases in output are more expensive.

Again, labour is not increasing. Raw materials are not increasing, for the most part. Computers have become less expensive over time. Drugs become less expensive over time. Price is determined by three factors: cost, supply and demand.

This is not sustainable. In a closed system this is simply a road to destruction.

But we're not a closed system. We're an expanding system. You're entire argument is based on this ridiculous flawed premise.

Wealth is not infinite and is not solely produced from labour. As labour becomes increasingly expensive the ability to profit from that labour becomes less.

No. Labour has not become more expensive.

The only way to combat this in a capitalist framework is to remove the expense of labour from the equation, thus removing the earning capacity of the labourer. This labourer is now far worse off. Re-entry into the workforce is more difficult as the labour market contracts due to increased mechanisation.

That doesn't even make sense by itself.

So while capitalism may produce increased wealth, it does so by concentrating it, rather than distributing it.

No, it just increases it for everyone.

Capitalism creates nothing more than 'money worship'. I know several people who are rich and several people who are poor but I can state without hesitation that there is no correlation between merit and wealth. In a capitalist society you will prosper if you have a love for money. Its probably true as some of you have said that anyone can make money 'from scratch' but it is not usually because they do so out of love for what they do. They do so usually out of love for money. Therefore the system of capitalism highly affiliates with greed. Which is after all a sin. And why is it a sin? Because it leads to corruption. And why is corruption bad? Because it leads to violence.

No one works "for love". Everyone works for money. Money pays the bills. You work harder to get stuff you want. That is why socialism doesn't work.

You can never have a truely peaceful society if it's run by capitalism. You can if it's in a social democracy, but not if it's controlly by sin.

This whole thing was ridiculous. You have no real idea of how the economy works, but write this huge diatribe condemning it. Some of your more ridiculous claims: the earth is a closed system, labour is more expensive everyday, the prices of things never go down, etc, that no informed person would ever make. Sorry, this nonsense argument fails.

[The-Dran]

At 6/8/06 12:16 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 6/7/06 09:17 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: I'd say there is another reason pure capitalism doesn't work--monopolies. The ideal company would be good enough that it would come to own everything. An absolute monopoly would mean ZERO competition.

The only monopolies are government owned ones.

Wrong! Walmart is not governmentally owned.

Government regulation leads more to monopolies than free market does. Monopolies are not the natural state of things.

Actually they are so you are wrong again.

By the way it isn't government that regulates leads to more monopolies, my arrogant and idiotic friend.

It's that corporate businesses run the government, because they give payments of money to politicians to insure that these politicians win the election and help insure that these corporate businesses get what they want. Like the rights to doing what they want to national reserve or anything else in particular.

Which means capitalism cannot secure a free enterprise without a bit of government control.

Of course it can.

How?

How can something that limit something protect it at the same time?

Well, for example. I can't kill you. That protects your life, while "limiting" my "freedom".

There you go, you understand what I'm talking about. You need government to protect smaller businesses from the larger ones.

crap about government protecting small business

Governmental regulation hurts small business.

Actually they don't. Governmental regulation can only hurt smaller businesses if it is being controlled by the larger ones. Like for instance, the republican party is mostly controlled by big businesses. Therefore most of the actions done by the republican party are in favor of big businesses and hurt the smaller ones.

I don't know where you get that BS from, because it's obviously a lie.

and puts many out of business.

Businesses are normally put out because of stressful competition from larger businesses and have nothing to do with the government.

Again you don't know what you are talking about.

If someone wants to sell out to a big business, let them.

Oh please, no one wants to sell out to a big business. They just have to, because they have no way of combating the stressful competition with a big business.

It's like resorting to cannibalism. You don't want to eat this person, but you have to. Because you haven't eaten anything for several months and if you don't eat something soon, you'll die.

It's about survival and not free choices.

It shouldn't be the government's job to tell them no.

Actually it should. Because the government is institutionalized by the people and therefore has every single right to do what it can to help the people. And if a business is doing something that violates the people's interests then it should be taken down. But most of these violations are protected, because big businesses run the nation.

The goal of all economies should be wealth creation. This is distinct from the goal of wealth accumulation that seems to be the holy grail of capitalism.

There is no point to "wealth creation" without "wealth accumulation".

True...

but it actually goes the other way around.

You can't have wealth accumulation, without weath creation. And not everyone that creates wealth, accumulates it.

So there is contradition to your own little theory.

Introducing wealth into the equation makes it far too complicated for my pea-brain to describe mathematically so I'll try to explain what I thnk is currently going on and why it is flawed.

Without wealth, the entire point of development becomes moot.

Wow, you really aren't getting what I'm saying. By the way, got proof?

1) In general labour costs increase with time as everyone wants more for what they do. Even in minimal inflation economies there is a general expectation that buying power will increase, rather than decrease. So people demand more for their efforts.

And usually get it, in the form of raises and the like. They then spend more money, since they're making more money. And that's how the economy works.

Let me remind you that. Raises are very rare. By the way, where is your evidence? You are arguing like a spineless coward.

You don't know how the world works and you are being raised in a world of lies. It is pointless talking to you, because if society was runned by someone like you, everyone would die.

So thanks for insuring our demise, dumbass.

reducing nonsense Commodities do not become cheaper because the gains in efficiency are channeled into wealth accumulation rather than price reduction.

Commodities become cheaper. That is the natural state of things. As they become more efficient to make, they become cheaper. To argue otherwise is assinine. And labor needs increase as demands increase.

Commodities actually become more expensive. And that's the natural state of things. As they become more inefficient to maake, they become more expensive. To argue toehrwise is retarded. By the way got proof?

Number one, the planet is not a closed system. That's absolutely false. If it was, we'd all be dead (no sun). And there are plenty of resources like water, trees, air, that aren't in danger. You're being alarmist, nothing more.

Well you are being a hypocrit and nothing more. By the way, got proof?

3) Intellect is becoming more and more expensive at increasingly becomes a commodity.

Teachers are greedy and at the same time the greedier they are, the more worthless.

Got proof?

That's not "removing" it from the system. That's spending surplus on stockholders. The stockholders then spend it. Remove? You've GOT to be kidding.

Got proof?

The prices of everything fall over time. Look at Wal-Mart for the best example of this.

Got proof?

And? So what? More people....more money....more buying.

Ah huh... right... keep telling yourself that. Maybe it'll come true if you tap your ruby slippers three times, because it won't.

You are being simple minded.

More people does not equal more money. It equal more work. And more work does not mean more money.

Someone should give you a history course of how life was like in the Early Twentieth Century. But you don't have a clue as to how businesses work at all.

[SirLebowski]

Of course Capitalism doesn't work. But please don't just bitch without giving an alternative. And if you say Communism I will slap you, so help me God.

But I agree, almost no system can work when you are talking about millions and possible over a billion people. The sheer numbers are bound to get in the way. It just isn't possible.

[The-Dran]

At 6/8/06 12:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

The only way this system can work is if output is infinitely expandable. I do not belive this to be the case. The fundamental premise of capitalism is one of positive feedback. Increasing wealth requires increased output, but in order to increase output we need more money. The raw materials of output (labour, resources, intellect) are becoming more expensive so further increases in output are more expensive.

Again, labour is not increasing.

It is increasing, because you have more people that demand more labour.

Raw materials are not increasing, for the most part. Computers have become less expensive over time.

In order for computers to become less expensive, there would have to be more raw materials to create these computers. Now wouldn't you agree?

See how stupid you are now?

You just said that raw materials are not increasing and then you said that computers are becoming less expensive.

Don't you know that's a contradiction.

In order for computers to become less expensive, there would have to be more materials to make them. So that you can sell more computers and overtime, computers becomes less in demand over being less rare to construct, which therefore lowers it's price.

See what I mean, you're an idiot.

Drugs become less expensive over time.

Um which drugs? Because most of them are about as expensive as they were long ago.

Price is determined by three factors: cost, supply and demand.

Yeah I knew that.

But we're not a closed system.

Yes we are. Got proof?

We're an expanding system.

How?

You're entire argument is based on this ridiculous flawed premise.

And your's is based on unproven theories, exaggerated lies, and information that completely contradicts it's self as I have shown to you above. How can I be wrong if you keep contradicting yourself?

No. Labour has not become more expensive.

Yes it has.

That doesn't even make sense by itself.

How?

No, it just increases it for everyone.

How?

No one works "for love".

LMFAO!!! OH MY FUCKING GOD! Did you actually said something as redundant as that?

OF course no one works for love. But everyone will work for their own merit.

Everyone works for money.

I don't.

Money pays the bills.

Not all bills.

You work harder to get stuff you want.

But some people that work harder get nothing at all. Capitalism contradicts it's own nature, because not everyone that works harder gets more raises or shit that you like to exaggerate on.

I myself have worked in a part-time job. I worked twice as much as any other individual at the McDonalds I was stationed at. And what did I get? The same income as everyone else. And let me remind you that McDonalds is very capitalistic. And by the way this was back when I was sixteen and I'm comparing myself to other sixteen year olds. And yes I live in the United States and in a republican community. And yes I did consulted my superviser and he said nothing at all, except that you get paid just like everyone else and that even though I did more work, I can't be paid more just by that account alone.

So why didn't I get the earnings that were promised? Because the interpretation people have for the system of capitalism does not work in the way it actually works.

The whole payment thing is just a lie to get to work harder. No one actually gets paid more for more work they do. They get paid more, because their boss thinks they should get paid more. Maybe because their boss likes them. Which can be for social reasons alone. So it really doesn't have anything to do with how much work you put out.

That is why socialism doesn't work.

No that's why you can't understand socialism. It works. You just don't understand how it works. Go to Sweden. It works there. Learn a thing or two.

You can never have a truely peaceful society if it's run by capitalism. You can if it's in a social democracy, but not if it's controlly by sin.

This whole thing was ridiculous. You have no real idea of how the economy works.

Yes I do, but you surely don't.

but write this huge diatribe condemning it.

I wasn't condemning economy. I was showwing why capitalism doesn't work. It's not my fault you don't go outside of your damn house to see reality for what it really is.

Some of your more ridiculous claims: the earth is a closed system, labour is more expensive everyday, the prices of things never go down, etc, that no informed person would ever make. Sorry, this nonsense argument fails.

No actually you've failed. Because never once brought up a single bit of information that can be verified as facts. Mostly just opinions and lies. Perhaps you should get yourself a job and understand that working hard doesn't get you anywhere. You have to be liked for your social attributes.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 6/8/06 12:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Again, labour is not increasing. Raw materials are not increasing, for the most part. Computers have become less expensive over time. Drugs become less expensive over time. Price is determined by three factors: cost, supply and demand.

Raw materials may not be increasing, but more effiecient means of extraction have been created. Eventually, though, we will reach a point where resources become scarce. Durgs certainly are not becoming cheaper. If a company has a patent for a drug that is necessary for someon's survival, then the supply will be wahtever they deem, and demand will be whatever the individual can pay.

As for computer prices, this statement is only partly true. The price of computers on average has come down, but a large part of this is because quality has gone down as well in the lower end systems. Usually, your $300 special has 256 megs of ram, integrated graphics, a 2.4 ghz celeron processor. Its about 2 to 3 years behind the technology curve. On the otherhand, the system I set up 6 years ago was high end for its day. The processor was an amd, and it only cost $20 compared to minimum $80 for a celeron, the cheapest processor available, today. It had a separate graphics card, separate sound card, 196 megs of ram, and cost about $400 to build. To build a system in todays tech would cost roughly double that. While its true the technology is more advanced, the requirements on these systems are as well. So that 2.4 ghz celeron isn't going to get you as far today as my system back then would have. The components also do not last as long as they used to.

But we're not a closed system. We're an expanding system. You're entire argument is based on this ridiculous flawed premise.

We are an open system to an extent. The earth does recieve energy from the sun and some materials from meteors. The extraterrestial material, though, arrives at a rate well below the rate at which we are consuming current resources. We will eventually reach a point where wealth creation will peak because we will eventually find no new supplies of resources to extract.

Wealth is not infinite and is not solely produced from labour. As labour becomes increasingly expensive the ability to profit from that labour becomes less.

No. Labour has not become more expensive.

If you factor in the increase in benefit costs, in many ways it has.

The only way to combat this in a capitalist framework is to remove the expense of labour from the equation, thus removing the earning capacity of the labourer. This labourer is now far worse off. Re-entry into the workforce is more difficult as the labour market contracts due to increased mechanisation.

That doesn't even make sense by itself.

It makes perfect sense. As machines become cheaper to use than labor, labor is replaced. Its been the trend since the Industrial revolution.

So while capitalism may produce increased wealth, it does so by concentrating it, rather than distributing it.

No, it just increases it for everyone.

Maybe, but it increases much more rapidly for some than for others. Also, while the lower classes may be able to afford more goods, they also have more trouble affording basics like healthcare, and this is due to an increase in the cost of those basics above the increase in wages.

No one works "for love". Everyone works for money. Money pays the bills. You work harder to get stuff you want. That is why socialism doesn't work.

I will grant that you are correct to an extent. Everyone works because they need money, and many would not work if not for money. On the otherhand, there are also many people who would work for the sake of what they are doing if they could survive by other means. Many scientists work to gain knowleged. Many researchers working on cures for diseases want to cure the disease. Furthermore, even those who do work solely for money, not all of them desire to be rich. Many just want to make enough to survive and have some comforts. The only ways in which workers maximize their productivity is if they either want more money or care about what they are doing.

You can never have a truely peaceful society if it's run by capitalism. You can if it's in a social democracy, but not if it's controlly by sin.

This whole thing was ridiculous. You have no real idea of how the economy works, but write this huge diatribe condemning it. Some of your more ridiculous claims: the earth is a closed system, labour is more expensive everyday, the prices of things never go down, etc, that no informed person would ever make. Sorry, this nonsense argument fails.

I think he has more of an idea than you give him credit for, I think you just misread a lot of it.

[Ravens-Grin]

At 6/7/06 08:03 PM, user001b wrote:

At 6/7/06 06:47 PM, arz756 wrote:

At 6/7/06 05:58 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

Do you have any idea how the great depression came to be?

Nope, Do You?

banks and debit spending

That is not entirely the case. It did involve the banks, but it is highly related to consumer debt, people buying stocks on margin, as well as people holding loans while the market is deflating(in this way it costs a shit load more to pay back your loans). The banks were also loaning way too much money out, so while people were defaulting with their loans, people were demanding to have their entire accounts withdrawn.

I'll reply tomorrow opposing your view, but not tonight, I must go to bed.

[Ravens-Grin]

First off let me say that you have many valid points, but I do not believe in your final conclusion of the state of capitalism.

If the entire world relied solely upon manufacturing, then yes capitalism would ultimately cause a great depression, think of Germany after World War I, but apply that to the rest of the world. The amount of money would ultimately be unable to sustain the manufacturing process due to the added costs of inputs, even after inflation increases the money supply in a country. There is one thing that I believe you did not contemplate, and that would be banks and the service industries are growing at a considerable rate. If we add this into the equation of the economic system, we can see that these two fragments of the economic portion have the ability to float more and more money away from the typical model of manufacturing goods and allows the economic rate of growth to overcome the growth of the cost of basic materials(I’m using the assumption that the demand of the basic materials is constantly increasing, while the supplies we are finding are constantly decreasing) . Services and banks will cause the economy to grow or stay stagnant despite the constant rise of the price of raw materials. We are coming into a different type of economy, one that is based upon intellectual rights, services, as well as the conventional economic basis of manufacturing and construction. The economy will not be dependant upon these constantly increasing prices of copper, steel, and oil and suffer because of it, but rather the added costs of these basic necessities will be absorbed by other fragments of the capitalistic system.

As to your statement about the zero-sum, I'll admit I had no clue what you were talking about, and I'll rephrase what Wikipedia had to say on this topic. Pretty much your loss is someones gain. Capitalism on the mere manufacturing level does assume this zero-sum game idea; but when you include banks, stock markets, and the other quite dynamic parts of the economy, it is apparent that capitalism is truly not a zero-sum game and does not assume it. In a zero-sum game, there can be no growth. What you have is static ,stationary and you will not receive anymore of it. But, with the service industry, you will see that it is directly related to the population of a nation. As more people are born, the more resources you have, the more of a potential of a growth. The inherit problem with this though, is that the population is only sustainable to a certain degree, only a few billion people can be adequately supported by the Earth. We will reach an apex of the economy as the resources we have stays constant, and the population will also remain constant. But yet it won’t truly be the maximum amount the economy can grow under capitalism. People will always want to expand their businesses, inflation will still occur because more intangible money is pumped into the economy either via the Federal Reserve(Which only applies to what kind of economic system we have right now) or via the stock market. In the long run, a capitalistic economy is sustainable

Also, a great thing about supply and demand is that if people demand an item at such a great level, then more raw materials will go towards that. It is kind of a system of a guided hand, through the purchases of the people, which allows the society to allocate resources to what is needed and wanted the most. It would be totally inefficient for an organization to determine what is needed, and most of all, wanted by the entire population. Look at the USSR and their attempt to grow their economy via the 5 year plans. A total failure. The growth of an economy has to start at the individual.

The strange thing about my perspective of capitalism is that I feel that monopolies are actually quite beneficial to the basis of the economy, and the problem of a monopoly should actually be seen as problems of conglomerates. Yes, capitalism is based upon greed, but if one company performed one specific task, then they will want to try and maximize their profits. This is through price cuts, more efficiency within the company, and growth. All of these benefits the individual until a conglomerate comes along and uses unfair business practices, channeling profits from one part of the company to another so that it can cause bankruptcies to have itself as the sole competitor in an industry. So in conclusion; monopolies=good, conglomerates=bad.

I was just scanning through the forum post and there was some concerns about mechanization and the possibility that humans will lose jobs because of it. Only partly true. Mechanization is a great thing because of its possibility to expand the economy, which oddly enough adds more jobs! Mechanization allows for more people to enter the white-collar job market, which is by far less arduous back-breaking work, and it also receives more pay. Also, who is going to run, program, and maintain the machines? Overall though, I do not feel that mechanization is a bad thing in the long run, it may replace your job today, but tomorrow you’ll see that you’re better off.

Don’t think so? Let’s go into some supply and demand curves. Look them up if you want to really know what I’m going to talk about. Pretty much, because the demand of labour would decrease by a small margin, and the supply will pretty much remain constant, the market price for the worker’s wage will actually decrease. But since there are more workers (mechanized and human), the production and profits should increase, which allows the company to pay the workers more money, as well as invest in other parts of the market. This is assuming that the company is well run.

My feeling is that capitalism is the best economic system. It has incentives for people to achieve a better paying job and worker harder, and it automatically distributes resources based upon the demand and not based upon people in a boardroom. Give me another type of economic system with these benefits and then I might saw capitalism is horrid, but I don’t see that day coming.

[The-Dran]

At 6/8/06 11:31 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote: First off let me say that you have many valid points, but I do not believe in your final conclusion of the state of capitalism.

My feeling is that capitalism is the best economic system.

For who though? Most worker rights as being humans are violated in a pure capitalist society.

It has incentives for people to achieve a better paying job and worker harder.

I worked in a capitalist business much harder than other employees and I did not receive any extra dime or nickle.

and it automatically distributes resources based upon the demand and not based upon people in a boardroom.

Resources based on what the Owner or Manager of the facility wants and not by what the employees think would best help the business.

Give me another type of economic system with these benefits and then I might saw capitalism is horrid, but I don’t see that day coming.

Social Democracy.

In a social democracy the employees simply have a voice in the decisions their bosses make for the business. They can come to an agreement on how wages should be done. And everything socially democratic and in the same sense everyone is allows to open their own business, but they must give equal democratic power to the employees that they hire.

A social democracy has the best benefits granted by both capitalism and by socialism and it depends highly on true democracy, which happens to work. If you don't believe me, go to Sweden.

[Ravens-Grin]

At 6/8/06 12:54 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

At 6/8/06 11:31 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote: First off let me say that you have many valid points, but I do not believe in your final conclusion of the state of capitalism.

My feeling is that capitalism is the best economic system.

For who though? Most worker rights as being humans are violated in a pure capitalist society.

A developing industrial nation yes because the economy cannot support such wages, but in developed nation, no.

It has incentives for people to achieve a better paying job and worker harder.

I worked in a capitalist business much harder than other employees and I did not receive any extra dime or nickle.

Then you could've used your skills and hard work to get a better job.

and it automatically distributes resources based upon the demand and not based upon people in a boardroom.

Resources based on what the Owner or Manager of the facility wants and not by what the employees think would best help the business.

I don't think you get what I was trying to say. I wasn't looking at the employees in that argument but rather the consumers. The consumers decide on what should be produced by the demand.

Give me another type of economic system with these benefits and then I might saw capitalism is horrid, but I don’t see that day coming.

Social Democracy.

If you don't believe me, go to Sweden.

Tax rates galore, I don't think so. A social democracy is almost the same thing as a union, and you can already see what occurs when people demand more money for doing less work, the company fails. Look at the state of the extremely unionized US automobile industry. It has been unable to cope with overseas competition, causing quarter after quarter of red ink. I don't like social democracy because of this inflexibility as compared to capitalism. Also, what happens in a recession? Do the people demand the same amount of money despite it being a poor business move?

[PhysicsMafia]

No system is perfect, everything has its flaws.. I mean capitalism is a bit crap, its just the best that we have at the minute.

Capitalism has many good points, free markets, ability to earn your own money for you and not the state and all the other freedoms that come with that.

However it does tend to kill off any small businesses and large manopolies in the end will destroy competition. The priviatisation of public services are also a bad idea in my opinion, when health services, transport and other public services are run to make profit corners are alwasy cut. It is no longer about providing a good service but filling the pocets of the owners which inevitable leads to poor quality service.

[arz756]

At 6/8/06 05:25 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: I mean capitalism is a bit crap, its just the The priviatisation of public services are also a bad idea in my opinion, when health services, transport and other public services are run to make profit corners are alwasy cut. It is no longer about providing a good service but filling the pocets of the owners which inevitable leads to poor quality service.

Or having the public services run by the government are poor quality because they don't have to worry about failing unlike a buisness. Kinda like public education.

[PhysicsMafia]

At 6/8/06 05:28 PM, arz756 wrote:

Or having the public services run by the government are poor quality because they don't have to worry about failing unlike a buisness. Kinda like public education.

Well a government does hav to worry about failing because if they dont they wont be back in government. And our public education here is extreemly good, privitised education is unfair and elitist, it creates a system where only the rich get a good education, keeping the poor poor and widening the class divide

[peedee]

Government run businesses are garbage.