Capitalism and Firefly

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 16:21
VIEWED: 10084
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 29, 2005 11:22 PM

As it's been made note of on another thread, Nathan Fillion got pissed at a comic book store that was tryin' to gouge the public (and HIM!!) by charging $20 for a $3 issue of Serenity. Nathan could have probably afforded it, but it was unfair what they were doing. The comic just came out. It seems Nathan is a little more like Mal than he's willing to admit (thumbs up, N).

My question here is: Do you agree with standing up to unfair pricing just because the perceived demand is so high, or do you feel Capitalism means whatever the market will bear, and Nathan should have just paid the price asked for?

I feel that Capitalism, like anything else, can be taken too far to where it hurts the little guy to make it's profit, and in this instance, Nathan, not Mal, is our hero.

Chrisisall

258WESTAUTHENTIC

Friday, July 29, 2005 11:46 PM

How can you ask someoen who is trying to make a living to take less than market value for something?

Again you as the customer can say I dont want to buy it. As the seller he has the right to sell it for what ever he feels the value of the comic is.

You have the option to buy it other places, thats the great part of capitalism.

------------------------------------------------

RON GLASS AUTOGRAPHED COMIC COVERS FOR SELL ON MY SITE FOR A LIMITED TIME ( Limited to 258 Copies )

https://258west.com/category/item.php?id=60

Serenity Comics, Action figures, RPG, Books, Trading cards... Everything Serenity can be found at my store.

http://www.bigdamnstore.com

Thanks for you support

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:13 AM

I can totally understand charging more if it's not current, or if it's autographed. I know the object of business is to make money. There are just degrees.
But that doesn't answer my question, should he have paid or not without a ruckuss, or was he right in how he responded?

He's my he-wo Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:
How can you ask someoen who is trying to make a living to take less than market value for something?

Well, price gouging is generally considered selling at well above market value when the seller has the buyer at a disadvantage. I don't think Chris is talking about someone selling anything at fair market value.

However, I think this situation with Fillion and his comic shop is not an example of price gouging. The reason it is not price gouging is that the seller does not have the buyer at a disadvantage. In fact it is the buyer who actually has the seller at a disadvantage. In a free market where competition exists the buyer can always go somewhere else to buy something, and the threat of loosing business to cheaper prices is what competition is all about.

There was nothing unfair about charging an exuberant price for something that is worth much less, as long as the seller doesn’t have the buyer at an unfair advantage (and even then it is debatable.) It was Fillion who had the advantage, I think, because he could (and probably did) go somewhere else, thereby leaving the previous seller without a purchase. So the only person who lost here was the seller, who should have reduced his prices if he wanted to stay competitive with the market, but that’s his choice. He didn’t do anything ethically wrong, if that’s all he did.

Free market Capitalism does mean whatever the market will bear, but the market is not set solely by the seller, rather by what the seller and the buyer agree upon. This is a concept that I think eludes many people. They go to Walmart and they pay whatever the seller sets; never quite understanding that the price is or should be set as much by the buyer as by the seller. So suggesting that Nathan should simply pay whatever price the seller asks is not capitalism. Nathan should argue and complain and argue and complain some more, until he gets down to a price that both the seller and the buyer can agree upon, or failing that depart and seek other sources. And that price is then what the market will bear.

So to answer Chris' question: Nathan did the right thing.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 30, 2005 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My question here is: Do you agree with standing up to unfair pricing just because the perceived demand is so high, or do you feel Capitalism means whatever the market will bear, and Nathan should have just paid the price asked for?

Concepts like value and worth are entirely subjective. People may talk about "fair market value" but that's something of a fiction. Goods and services are worth whatever you are willing to pay for them. Probably, to some people, the comic was worth $20. Obviously Nathan thought that was kind of a rip off (as do I) and had every right to gripe about it.

I think maybe Nathan's post was prompted more by the clerk's asinine responses to his complaints than by the actual price. Either way, I think he's right to complain. On the other hand, people who want to legislate 'price gouging' laws to prevent such a thing don't seem to understand the point of a free market, imho.

EDIT: (eewwww gross! I agreed with Finn!

)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 30, 2005 1:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think maybe Nathan's post was prompted more by the clerk's asinine responses to his complaints than by the actual price.
EDIT: (eewwww gross! I agreed with Finn! )

Like if the clerk just said, "I'm sorry, I know the price is really high, but small shops like ours have to pay rent, and event-driven material is unfortunatly our bread and butter...", but no, he had to go all Badger on Nathan.

And don't worry 'bout agreeing with Finn, I do it a lot (he's so warm and fuzzy and such, y'know).

Bargain huntin' Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 30, 2005 1:37 AM

Nathan did the right thing, the guy was an arse (based on his attitude alone).
Frankly he [[]Daryl, the comic book guy[]] may have done nothing wrong based on the ethics of capitalism, but I tend to think the ethics of capitalism isn't all that great anyway.
Greed isn't a great motivation for anything, yet its the guiding creed of capitalism.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 30, 2005 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Greed isn't a great motivation for anything, yet its the guiding creed of capitalism.

That notion is widely touted, even by supposed capitalists, but the real guiding creed of free-market capitalism (as long as you leave corporate privilege out of the mix) is respect for each person's right to decide for themselves.

This example really illustrates that nicely. In any economic system, there's always the chore of determining what something is worth. In a centralized economy you have bureaucrats or elected officials making such decisions. In a free market, people make these calls for themselves. Just seems more fair to me.

(Damn you, ChrisIsAll. Don't try to pretend you didn't know what you were stirring up here....

)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:04 AM

I see your point. But it just doesn't workout like that.
The companies that make money are the most ruthless, the ones that don't mind fighting dirty. Not the ones the offer the best, cheapest service.
The companies that make it are ones that don't mind screw people over (imho), that can channel the extra profits in to pulling the wool over peoples eyes, using pyschological tricks and advertising.
Recently I saw a program on TV that highlighted that food bought in small independent butchers/grocers etc was not just better for you (which people tend to know) but was cheaper than what you can buy in the supermarket. Why do people shop at supermarkets, because they're perceived to be cheaper and more convient (this one may be true), than the small independent shops.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
(Damn you, ChrisIsAll. Don't try to pretend you didn't know what you were stirring up here.... )

Who, me?

I just see a lot of anti-Independent like comments tossed around by die-hard Firefly fans on the RWE, and wanted to see how that thinking holds up when the man portrayin' our captain speaks out in a way that stands up for the people history rolls over.
I'm dying to see Lynchaj comment here

Words don't stir people up, Chrisisall does

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I see your point. But it just doesn't workout like that.
The companies that make money are the most ruthless, the ones that don't mind fighting dirty. Not the ones the offer the best, cheapest service.
The companies that make it are ones that don't mind screw people over (imho), that can channel the extra profits in to pulling the wool over peoples eyes, using pyschological tricks and advertising.
Recently I saw a program on TV that highlighted that food bought in small independent butchers/grocers etc was not just better for you (which people tend to know) but was cheaper than what you can buy in the supermarket. Why do people shop at supermarkets, because they're perceived to be cheaper and more convient (this one may be true), than the small independent shops.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

You're right, it doesn't work like that, not always in any case. These days corruption and greed carry the day for a multitude of reasons, which we ought to discuss, but I fail to see anything inherent in the notion of the free market that makes this happen.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Recently I saw a program on TV that highlighted that food bought in small independent butchers/grocers etc was not just better for you (which people tend to know) but was cheaper than what you can buy in the supermarket.

People doing the job always know best, not the Allianc...I mean, the corporations. They just know the best way to screw things up whilst maintaining their bottom line...THIS quarter.
Short sightedness that results in stupidity and corruption (not to mention conspiracies!!)

Not for s*#&in' on the little guy Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:22 AM

Theres nothing wrong with the concept of the free market.
Theres nothing wrong with the concept of communism. Before I'm labeled as this or that let me explain:
Communism's guiding principle is the idea of everyone being the same, equal, everyone helping each other out.
Capitalism, at its best, is advisarial, trying to succeed at the detrement of your competion.
Problem is neither of them workout how their supposed to.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:39 AM

Hmmm.. I think the issue is not really one of how capitalism (or communism or whatever) works or doesn't work. I'm just saying that the injustices we see in the name of 'capitalism' are just people looking to screw other people over. This is going to happen in any system. But, excepting the basic unfairness of corporate law, capitalism at least tries to seperate this from the forceful rule of government. It's why I like it better than any other economic system I've heard of.

People in a free market system can turn away from the despicable business practices you mentioned. They can stop shopping at Wal-Mart, they can refuse to grant unfair tax favors to large companies, they can stop letting themselves be brainwashed by unscrupulous marketing. The fact that they refuse to do so is pretty depressing, but the option is there waiting for us to seize it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

the ethics of capitalism

Capitalism... Ethics... What?

Anyone see the documentary "The Corporation"?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:53 AM

Nope, was it something on American TV? I'm British.

SergeantX:
Freedom of choice is meaningless with out the information/knowledge to use it.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

People in a free market system can turn away from the despicable business practices you mentioned. They can stop shopping at Wal-Mart, they can refuse to grant unfair tax favors to large companies, they can stop letting themselves be brainwashed by unscrupulous marketing. The fact that they refuse to do so is pretty depressing, but the option is there waiting for us to seize it.

I think your fallacy here is that you are assuming that the masses are basically intellegent. And that they are aware of what's going on.

Capatilism has the some basic flaws in common with communism. They both assume that people are basically intellegent, are informed, are activites, will do something when something isn't fair, etc This is, in reality, non-sense. People just don't care enough.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 30, 2005 3:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Capatilism has the some basic flaws in common with communism. They both assume that people are basically intellegent, are informed, are activites, will do something when something isn't fair, etc This is, in reality, non-sense. People just don't care enough.

So, basically you're saying Nathan did the right thing, and didn't over-react, or anything, right?
I would agree.

Back on track Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 30, 2005 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I think your fallacy here is that you are assuming that the masses are basically intellegent. And that they are aware of what's going on.

It's tempting to agree. I've made similar statements myself. But I think it's more a matter of laziness. Most people are reasonably intelligent but tend to avoid the 'work' of thinking for themselves if they can get away with it. I just don't see how making it easier for them to get away with it helps the problem.

Now, my last statement makes some (perhaps unwarranted) assumptions about what you might be suggesting as an alternative to a free market, but regardless, I'd rather err on the side of optimism when it comes to human intelligence. It seems that treating them as naive children in need of constant supervision will only encourage them to behave as naive children.

As I alluded to earlier, I really think the problems we're seeing aren't inherent in free economic exchange, but have more to do with the way people are conditioned from birth to respond to marketing and groupthink. The basic model of our education system is a culprit, in my opinion, as well as the non-stop assault of pop media.

Out of interest, are you suggesting any viable alternatives?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

TIGER

Saturday, July 30, 2005 7:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Theres nothing wrong with the concept of the free market.
Theres nothing wrong with the concept of communism. Before I'm labeled as this or that let me explain:
Communism's guiding principle is the idea of everyone being the same, equal, everyone helping each other out.
Capitalism, at its best, is advisarial, trying to succeed at the detrement of your competion.
Problem is neither of them workout how their supposed to.

The guiding priciple behind communism is not that people will help each other, it is that people will work willingly for everyone but themselves. That individuals will never desire rewards that match their efforts, but will settle for getting what everyone else gets regardless of their own sacrifice, ideas, pain and work. In reality this is only possible in insects, therefore it is neccessary to force people to conform to the communist model. Every communist government that has ever existed on earth either failed quickly or degenerated almost immediately into a dictatorship. Stalin, Castro, Mao, Kim Il-sung. That is the nature of communism.

The guiding principle behind capitalism is not to succeed to the detrement of your competition, it is that you are free to succeed (or fail) based on your own merits without interference from the government. This is the natural state of a human being - to do his best to provide for himself. The United States in the 19th and early 20th century (the only truly capitilast time/place in history) spearheaded the largest explosion of wealth for common people ever. That is the nature of capitalism.

So, if I have a choice between a jerk who wants to charge too much for a comic book that I can refuse to buy, and a Stalin or Il-Sung, I'll take the jerk.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
So, if I have a choice between a jerk who wants to charge too much for a comic book that I can refuse to buy, and a Stalin or Il-Sung, I'll take the jerk.

That certainly is lookin' at the small and large of it in the same sentance, all right.

Polar Chrisisall

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

So, if I have a choice between a jerk who wants to charge too much for a comic book that I can refuse to buy, and a Stalin or Il-Sung, I'll take the jerk.

This is an extremely unfair comparison.

A more oranges to oranges comparison would be, a choice between the Stalin's of the world and people who'll sell out other people/work them to death/go to war/etc. all for profit.

So, basically both options are horrible to the people, just one is more subtle than the other (at least to the population in that country).

Both are very unacceptable options. Why are you comparing the extremes of the extremes? Why can't you see that extremes are never the answer? Why can't you see that a middle path would be the best alternative?

Watch The Corporation. I think there's lots in there that you aren't aware of. Capitalism isn't the shining star of perfection that you make it out to be.

One can also make the argument that they both end in the same place for the people. Look at Russia, we have rich people at the top and extremely poor people at the bottom. Look at the US, we have rich people at the top and extremely poor people at the bottom. The only reason why there is more poor people in Russia (which mind you is not necesarily true anymore) is that there economy tanked, which mind you, may happen to the US in the relatively near future as well.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366940,00.html
"""
It didn't used to be that way. The American Dream was once robust and immigrants really did make it. As late as 1960, we were the most middle class and most egalitarian of all the OECD developed nations. We now rank 24th among industrial nations in income disparity -- only Russia and Mexico rank lower. That's disgraceful and most Americans would be shocked if you told them that. Barely 51 percent of Americans believe in the American Dream according to a Ford Foundation survey. One-third say they don't believe in the dream at all, which is devastating because that's the social glue, that's what binds us together, much more than Wall Street or Washington or even the US constitution.
"""

Hmmm...

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:07 PM

@ChrisIsAll:
Yes, I'm saying Mr. Fillion did the right thing. I've done the same thing with my friends when a store/company/etc done me wrong (UPS I'm looking at you!). Mr. Fillion is just better at it than I am.

@SergeantX:
My suggestion would be to move far away from the fringe to the middle. Creating some laws that would prevent corps from screwing the people would be good as well. Not to mention getting rid of all the company specific tax laws.

Interestingly enough, my wife has told me that the next instalment in the series I posted above (Monday I believe) is going to be a comparison of European and US economies. Should be an interesting read.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
My suggestion would be to move far away from the fringe to the middle. Creating some laws that would prevent corps from screwing the people would be good as well. Not to mention getting rid of all the company specific tax laws.

I'm curious what you consider 'the fringe', but we seem to be on the same page. Personally, I've never seen corporate law, at least as it exists today, as consistent with free market ideology. Corporations operate under an entirely different set of rules and responsibilities than privately owned companies. Nothing 'free' or 'fair' about it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, July 31, 2005 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I'm curious what you consider 'the fringe'

Basically, extremes. Capatilism or the form of it that the US has breeds very bad things; people get screwed all the time. I'm just saying, move to a moderate place. B/c, as you say, there's nothing free or fair about it.

If you want, I can try a better explination later. Right now I'm about to fall over tired.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

DAIKATH

Sunday, July 31, 2005 9:36 AM

Bah, there is nothing more irritating then reading a thread. Really want to share something and then watch the thread go into an entirely different direction wherein the emotion/story/argument you want to share is irrelevant to the discussion

CHRISISALL

Sunday, July 31, 2005 1:08 PM

Feel free to bring it back on topic.

Moderator Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 31, 2005 3:01 PM

No kidding Daikath, fire away!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

DAIKATH

Sunday, July 31, 2005 6:30 PM

Well I live in The Netherlands (better known as Holland though we only call it that way for ignorant foreigners). With the euro a whole lot of poeple took advantage of the confusion among poeple.

We all had to get used to a new currency and stuff in stores had different price tag to it. A lot of poieple and stores (even the government at a lot of places) took advantage of our initial confusion with new numbers on everything and have gotton away with raising the price on a lot of stuff. (The government denis this as they are saving their ass, pointing out the prices only rose after that. But the stores were smart enough to raise the prices as soon as we didnt think anymore in our old currency).

Long story short, especially in bars everything is much more expensive. I'd like to find some cheaper spots but I have only found them in fastfood (Kentucky Fried Chicken and some privately owned Turkish Fast food places are the only ones asking a reasonable price). For bars the cheaper places I could visit instead are just not there. Poeple visit them less often now too, but the prices won't go down.

I just now refuse to spend the kind of money bars are asking now. But I still live with my parents so drinking at home isn't a real option either.

So okay after all this ranting I finally make my point. Despite all of the theory behind capatalism I can't find a place to drink nowadays. If I could find a place that won't ask the price of a bottle for a glass I would go there and celebrate that there is such a place. But there isn't.

In theory I support the free market, but this is getting ridiculous over here.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 31, 2005 6:38 PM

That's kind of what Sigma was getting at. Consumers must have a decent level of awareness for market 'forces' to have much affect. If you can fool enough of them things get wonky.

Do you know anyone with enough cash to open a bar? Might be a good time to undercut the high prices with something more reasonable. There are probably other people like you out there, refusing to pay the higher prices.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 31, 2005 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Watch The Corporation. I think there's lots in there that you aren't aware of. Capitalism isn't the shining star of perfection that you make it out to be.

I'm going to look for this one. I've heard it's quite good.

There's got to be some way to separate free market capitalism from corporate capitalism. It's frustrating that the basic elements of a free economy are almost always tied to corporate excesses, as though it were a package deal. In my opinion, the legal framework of corporate law (limited liability, and the bevy of legal 'fictions' that accompany it), violates the basic ideas of the free market.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

DUSETH

Sunday, July 31, 2005 9:16 PM

As the seller he has the right to sell it for what ever he feels the value of the comic is.

Alright, first things first, while you do have a valid point about value and capitalism, you don't know the guy who runs the comic shop, I do, I live in the city where this happened.

First off, Patchy (as I will call him, leaving names out for obvious reasons) is a dick. The guy doesn't know how to run a business first off, he lost my business a long time ago because of this.

Second thing is he doesn't mark up his product reasonably, he gouges his customers and doesn't care that his business is getting ruined because of it.

Third, he could have easily gotten Nathan Fillion to autograph some other Firefly merchandise he has in the store and GIVEN him the comic, getting something more in return for a simple gesture.

All that said, I think Nathan was justified in his reaction to the scene that was caused. A three dollar comic (Canadian) with nearly a 700% markup, just cause it is the last copy in the store is a bunch of bs. Patchy just wanted to cause a scene and was hoping to seem like the better person for having stiffed Nathan. I can tell you now, that any and all Firefly fans in my city will no doubt have stopped giving Patchy their patronage, as his actions were less than honorable. I said my piece, stated my opinion and now I sit back to watch.

Outside of a dog a book is a man's best friend, inside a dog it's too dark to read.

CITIZEN

Sunday, July 31, 2005 9:32 PM

I believe yours is a mute point.

Quote:

I said my piece, stated my opinion and now I sit back to watch

I don't think anyone is going to argue against anything you've said.
Ours is a discussion of the wider issue.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

DUSETH

Sunday, July 31, 2005 9:54 PM

Like I said, I stated my opinion and made my point . Capitalism isn't something I'm fond of, because it breeds situations like what happened to Nathan Fillion. And there is little I can do to avoid Capitalism in todays day and age, but what I can do, I do with a passion, like avoiding Warp 1 Comics. Greed is a product of civilization, anyone who argues this needs to have their heads examined. Capitalism is in my opinion the chief factor of greed, and one we have brought upon ourselves. To complain without trying to change what we have wrought with our ambitions is pointless and a waste of time. All that said, I'm sure everyone would like a change from Capitalism to something a little more sane and incouraging for social growth.

258WESTAUTHENTIC

Sunday, July 31, 2005 10:39 PM

Why dont people look at this from the sellers prospective. No one complains when they can buy stuff super cheep online ( sometimes pennies above cost.) yet when something is in demand and the price goes up, people start complaining? Its called supply and demand.

I mean If you can sell a comic for $20 or sell it for $3 what would you do? Sure Only a hand full of people would pay $20 ( but if you only have a handfull of comics then its ok) If you have 1000 comics no way could you sell them all for $20 you will have to lower your price to move them.

The clerk could have handled the situation WAY better. Nathan had a right to complain about his service. Dont think he had a right to complain about the price. Nathan is in part to blame if him and the rest of the cast wernt so damn good in the show and the movie no one would want the comics and they would be selling for $1 each.

------------------------------------------------

RON GLASS AUTOGRAPHED COMIC COVERS FOR SELL ON MY SITE FOR A LIMITED TIME ( Limited to 258 Copies )

https://258west.com/category/item.php?id=60

Serenity Comics, Action figures, RPG, Books, Trading cards... Everything Serenity can be found at my store.

http://www.bigdamnstore.com

Thanks for you support

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 31, 2005 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DuSeth:
All that said, I'm sure everyone would like a change from Capitalism to something a little more sane and incouraging for social growth.

Like what? Seriously, I'm interested. I've studied the most popular alternatives, the various forms of socialism and such, but I'm not seeing how they avoid the problems we're discussing. They just centralize them. What have you got in mind?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, July 31, 2005 11:52 PM

@SergeantX:
I think that the first part of it is the most interesting. The next 2 parts get such that you can tell the leanings of the creators, but there's still a lot of good info in there; lots of examples.

@Duseth:
Noticed that you just joined, welcome

I pretty much agree with all your points except your opinion that greed is a product of civilization. I would say that it is a product of todays society. To say that it's a product of civilization would discount the possibility of groups of people working without greed as a prime motivator (ie there are tribes in the world that don't run on greed, countries in Europe are basically Socialist, etc).

Please note, I'm still in a fog. So, don't hesitate to tell me if I'm talking nonsence

For the record, I don't want to completely s**t on capatilism. I think that it is great on the smaller scale for a limited time. The early years of the US is a good example of that.

The problem comes in when you start to cross into a large scale corporate environment, next to no restrictions on busness practices (read: unethical busness practices), etc.

This is a natural evolution of capatilism. The trick is to start making laws that prevent these sort of practices before the corps get any real power; moving in a Socialist direction. That or actually make corps be what they were first in
tended for and actually enforce corp law. Unfortunately, the US is beyond that
point and Socialism has become a dirty word.

So, it'll definitly be an uphill battle, but change for the better is more than possible.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, August 1, 2005 12:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

I mean If you can sell a comic for $20 or sell it for $3 what would you do? Sure Only a hand full of people would pay $20 ( but if you only have a handfull of comics then its ok)

Um, no it's not. It's called ethics.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SERGEANTX

Monday, August 1, 2005 1:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
The problem comes in when you start to cross into a large scale corporate environment, next to no restrictions on busness practices (read: unethical busness practices), etc.

Agreed. The corps eventually amass enough power and money through the collective wealth of the shareholders that they can bend the government to their will. This problem multiplies when the corporations grow beyond the borders of their home nation. At that point they can pretty much dictate their own regulatory environment.

Quote:
This is a natural evolution of capatilism.

I'm not sure this is neccessarily true. Corporations developed as an alternative to approaching projects generally considered too large for private or individual developers. To encourage this (and, I'm assuming to keep up with countries willing to fund such projects with government money) our legal framework was designed to limit the liability of investors.

The problem with that, is it also limits accountability. If a privately owned business engages in vile practices, the owners can be sued, or even criminally prosecuted for the actions of their company. They can lose everything, even their freedom. In a corporation, the owners (i.e. shareholders) are protected from suffering such consequences. It makes for businesses that can act completely without conscience, while the owners risk nothing more than the money invested. Frequently that isn't even in jeopardy if the company is large and powerful enough to rig a government bailout.

Anyway, I don't see why these things naturally follow from allowing free enterprise. We just have to make sure all business operate under the same rules and quit giving special dispensation to corporations just because it's expedient to do so.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

258WESTAUTHENTIC

Monday, August 1, 2005 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

I mean If you can sell a comic for $20 or sell it for $3 what would you do? Sure Only a hand full of people would pay $20 ( but if you only have a handfull of comics then its ok)

Um, no it's not. It's called ethics.

That's Funny. I dont see people crying when someone buys something below a stores COST becuase they cant get rid of it. It works both ways. Ethics have nothing to do with it. How come the price of Gas, Milk, Water keeps going up? How about Rent in manhattan? Supply and Demand. Its a simple concept. How is people BID things up on Ebay to WAY over their Retail Value? Should the seller say " My God you bid way to much on this item, its retail price is far less. Let me refund the balance.

$20 you say is to High, is it to high for someone who Really wants it and cant find it any where else? How about in 5 years when a 1st print of serenity will be worth $100? I bet $20 will seem like a steal then. Wake up from this dream world you live in and open your eyes to the real life. Go back to school and learn about supply and demand.

------------------------------------------------

RON GLASS AUTOGRAPHED COMIC COVERS FOR SELL ON MY SITE FOR A LIMITED TIME ( Limited to 258 Copies )

https://258west.com/category/item.php?id=60

Serenity Comics, Action figures, RPG, Books, Trading cards... Everything Serenity can be found at my store.

http://www.bigdamnstore.com

Thanks for you support

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, August 1, 2005 4:54 AM

@SergeantX:
The reason why I think that this is natural evolution is that in the beginning companies will earn money from there local surroundings. Then they may move to other towns/cities/etc. Then still not content they'll want to make some massive undertaking. Thus the idea of the corporation is a natural evolution of capatilism. At least that's my logic.

But, at least we agree that the playing feild should be leveled

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, August 1, 2005 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

Ethics have nothing to do with it.

Just because you say something, doesn't make it true.

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

How come the price of Gas, Milk, Water keeps going up? How about Rent in manhattan?

Well, some of it would be inflation, increased cost to transport goods, people will raise to a price that they think they can get away with, people will screw people out of as much money as possible (read: unethical - see it does play a role), etc.

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

How is people BID things up on Ebay to WAY over their Retail Value? Should the seller say " My God you bid way to much on this item, its retail price is far less. Let me refund the balance.

You are making an apples and oranges comparison here. This isn't something that is being sold on a store shelf, first come first serve; it's highest bidder. Selling at auction isn't about market value, it isn't about price gouging. It's purely about what it's worth to the people bidding, period. Thus the people bidding set the price, NOT the person who puts it up for auction.

ebay != store. Since we're talking about actual retail stores here, you're also going to have to explain to me/us how autions are relavent.

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

$20 you say is to High, is it to high for someone who Really wants it and cant find it any where else?

Yes. If market value says $3, then $20 is rather steep don't you think?

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

How about in 5 years when a 1st print of serenity will be worth $100? I bet $20 will seem like a steal then.

I'd hate to let you in on a secret, but 5 years from now isn't now. Since we are talking about now, this is a rather moot statement isn't it.

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

Wake up from this dream world you live in and open your eyes to the real life. Go back to school and learn about supply and demand.

I find it funny that when people refuse to agree with a certain type of person right off the hop, that certain type of person will imediately jump right to personal insults.

I'm actually well aware of this concept. Your problem is that you don't realize that in this case supply was/is still relavitly high, thus even by the supply/demand "rule", $20 is way too high.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SERGEANTX

Monday, August 1, 2005 6:33 AM

Sigma, I think you're misusing the term 'market value'. In a free market economy it means nothing more than how much something is being sold for. It is constantly in flux and dependent entirely on how much a customer is willing to pay. There's no central authority setting prices. That's why it says 'suggested retail' on the cover.

Now, I understand you're not in favor of the whole free market set up, which is fine. But you still have the same problem with deciding how much to charge people for items. (Even if you're suggesting just giving them away, someone still has to decide how much of a given item gets made and who gets them.) Who decides?

The safety valve in a free market, when someone makes an unreasonable decision (like trying to charge $20 for a comic book), is that you can look for a better price from another seller. But, if the prices are set by an authority of some sort, you're pretty much stuck with one price, take it or leave it. Isn't it better to have options in such a case?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

TIGER

Monday, August 1, 2005 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The corps eventually amass enough power and money through the collective wealth of the shareholders that they can bend the government to their will.

That is the most important point made in this entire thread.

The power is ultimately in the hands of government, not big business. Corporations spend millions (billions?) of dollars every year to influence the course of government in their favor. Why isn't it the other way around? Why aren't there gov't lobbyists stalking the halls of Microsoft begging for favors? Because government has the power. Large corporations beg at the feet of government for ways to FORCE the market in their favor, instead of competing honestly. Cable and Telecom companies constantly have lobbyist wars at all levels of government to obtain the rights to work in certain cities, use which phone lines, sell to which customers. The lowly consumer isn't allowed to choose between Comcast and Charter cable, for example, because the local government has already decided for you.

Capitalist nay-sayers blame corporate abuses on free markets - as if that's what we actually have (business in the U.S. is almost as regulated and taxed as those in socialist western Europe). The problem isn't that there are greedy, amoral, jerks in big business that will take advantage of the little guy every chance they get (which there are), it's that they can borrow the massive power of the government to do their bidding.

Some people say give the government MORE power - regulate, give favors, tax, interfere with ALL business even more than now, whether or not the business in question is even suspected of doing anything wrong.

Others say get to the source of the problem. Take the power away from the government. Don't allow them to hand out markets to begging corps like a king's indulgence. Don't allow gov'ts to give your house, or farm, or place of business to Home Depot for a bigger parking lot. (Yes, it's wrong of Home Depot to take it, but they couldn't if the gov't wasn't permitted to give it away in the first place).

In any economic system there will always be cheats, liars, and dirty bastards. The question is, do we allow them access to the institution with the monopoly on force in the country (government)? Or do we SEPARATE THE TWO ENTIRELY and force business to get the money they want by pleasing their customers?

Also, Nathan was absolutely right to do what he did. I think people put up with too much shit in general; as customers, as employees, as neighbors, as citizens. We need more like him, even if they are Canadian.

And finally, a most impressive and important point - [insert any SergeantX comment here].

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 1, 2005 2:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
In any economic system there will always be cheats, liars, and dirty bastards.

EXACTLY, Tiger.
Look at those living like kings in communist Russia a few years back, they weren't corporate but they used the system to live large. Whatever system is in place, those who worship greed will find a way to make it useful to them. Capitalism is just a really good tool for that, and allows for the maximum # of 'kings'.
I totally agree that the way to solve it is for government to have less power.

My condominium association where I live is a good example; the group was supposed to represent the will of all the owners, being owners themselves. But over the years people got on the board who owned, but didn't live here. They started to receive 'incentives' from the company managing the property to vote on issues in ways that favoured the company, not the owners. It was the work of two very dilligent souls that raised owner awareness to the problem, and through their tireless work, the management company was voted out by 51% of the owners (I'm making it sound a good deal simpler than it was here). We subsequently found out they were skimming thousands of $ a year through kickbacks and such. Golly, and they seemed like such nice folk...

Sounds like governments and corporations, huh?

Power to the people Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Monday, August 1, 2005 4:35 PM

Quote:

Look at those living like kings in communist Russia a few years back, they weren't corporate but they used the system to live large.

You mean after the collapse of communist russia when there was little or no system, perhaps?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 1, 2005 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You mean after the collapse or communist russia when there was little of no system, perhaps?

I mean before, you know, Stallinist Communist Facist white-haired guys runnin' the rubles (and developing the Firefox behind our backs)! The rulers, man! No-caviar-at-dinner-is-not-an-option types.
After the collapse we're talkin' the mob.
I'd like to see the ruler of ANY country drivin' a Saturn or a Hyundai - but we're gettin' off the topic (like that's ever been a big concern of mine...).

Educational Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Monday, August 1, 2005 4:54 PM

I see, so your likening present day capitalist corporations to the rulers of a Totalitarian dictatorship, organised crime, and possibly brutal murders like warlords.

Well, no argument here.
Big Execs and those types have a hell of alot in common.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 1, 2005 5:01 PM

Like the dude in Die Hard said, some use a gun, some use a fountain pen, what's the difference?

I have two myself Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Monday, August 1, 2005 5:08 PM

Quote:

Like the dude in Die Hard said

Now there's a guy who deserved his fate...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 1, 2005 5:16 PM

Poor Ellis, what a shmoe.

Okay to get back on topic; so Nathan Fillion doesn't like Capitalism, eh?

Wait, I'm confused now...

Product of a bankrupt culture Chrisisall

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, August 1, 2005 6:34 PM

Catching up.

@SergeantX:
What I'm getting at is that when we enter a large corperate environment, we enter into limited or no options as the corps will buy out all the options.

@Tiger:
You said, "The problem isn't that there are greedy, amoral, jerks in big business that will take advantage of the little guy every chance they get"

Then you say, "it's that they can borrow the massive power of the government to do their bidding."

Isn't taking advantage of the the fact that they can "borrow the massive power of the government to do there bidding", being amoral?

You said, "Or do we SEPARATE THE TWO ENTIRELY and force business to get the money they want by pleasing their customers".

Are you so naive that you think that this will happen? Corps will always bleed there customers for as much as they can get. Corps are about making money, and nothing in there recent (and even not so recent, distant) history has suggested that they are willing to sacrific profits for customer satisfaction. Especially after they get an effective monopoly in a market.

@ChrisIsAll:
"""Capitalism is just a really good tool for that, and allows for the maximum # of 'kings'."""

I think that you are confusing what capitalism was to what capitalism has lead the US economy to be. To use your analogy, the current US economy is designed to keep the number of 'kings' static at best (actually many sectors are getting less and less 'kings') and crush the 'princes'/'lords'/etc.

@Citizen:
"""
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
"""
LOL, that's great!!!

@ChrisIsAll:
"""
Like the dude in Die Hard said, some use a gun, some use a fountain pen, what's the difference?

I have two myself Chrisisall
"""
Really, I have an entire mug full

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 1, 2005 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I think that you are confusing what capitalism was to what capitalism has lead the US economy to be. To use your analogy, the current US economy is designed to keep the number of 'kings' static at best (actually many sectors are getting less and less 'kings') and crush the 'princes'/'lords'/etc.

Yeah, and I'm one of the many peasants...
Pie in the sky aside, the corporations are gonna have to fall due to their own selfishness before any effective change can be made, they are in bed so deep w/the government that they are (defacto) our rulers. And speaking of bed, at this end, we peasants don't even get kissed before we get

ed by them.

We've got to rise up! The only thing that counts in the end is power! Naked, merciless force!!!
Who's with me???

*pant, pant* Okay. I'm calmer now.

Maybe we could try a bartering system? Like; I give you a knuckle sandwich, and you give me the $3 comic?
Naw, it doesn't work for comics any better than it does for oil, CAN'T BUSH SEE THAT???!!!!

*pant, pant, pant*

I have to take a break from this...

BP 201/99 Chrisisall

P.S., you have a mug full of guns?

TIGER

Monday, August 1, 2005 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Isn't taking advantage of the the fact that they can "borrow the massive power of the government to do there bidding", being amoral?

No doubt about it. So if you take away the gov'ts massive power, the amoral business people are pretty much stuck trying to sell a $3 comic for $20, instead of using gov't force to corner a market for themselves.

Quote:
You said, "Or do we SEPARATE THE TWO ENTIRELY and force business to get the money they want by pleasing their customers".

Are you so naive that you think that this will happen? Corps will always bleed there customers for as much as they can get. Corps are about making money, and nothing in there recent (and even not so recent, distant) history has suggested that they are willing to sacrific profits for customer satisfaction.

I never said they would sacrifice profits, and of course they're out to make money - isn't that why you work too? A business will have to fill its customer's needs on some level at some point. How long would McDonalds last if they suddenly served up the cheaper "raw soy burger" with the ad line, "We're a big corporation, screw you!"

Quote:
I think that you are confusing what capitalism was to what capitalism has lead the US economy to be.

I think you may be confused about what capitalism is in the first place. It can't be one thing "then" and another thing "now". Capitalism is the economic philosophy that markets should be free and unencumbered by gov't interference. That was the definition 150 years ago, and that's it today. To expand on what I said in my earlier post, what we have today is severely limited capitalism at best. 150 years ago we had nearly pure capitalism. The wealth and well being of Americans and the size and scope of corporate corruption are directly linked to the amount of gov't meddling in free markets. The more meddling we get (as in today), the former decreases and the latter increases.

There's just no getting around the fact that the free-est markets ever (America in the early 19th cent - early 20th) ushered in the greatest boom of wealth, health, standard of living, and technology for the COMMON MAN all over the world.

How can that not be a good thing?

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 9:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

No doubt about it. So if you take away the gov'ts massive power, the amoral business people are pretty much stuck trying to sell a $3 comic for $20, instead of using gov't force to corner a market for themselves.

Um, what?

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

I never said they would sacrifice profits, and of course they're out to make money - isn't that why you work too? A business will have to fill its customer's needs on some level at some point. How long would McDonalds last if they suddenly served up the cheaper "raw soy burger" with the ad line, "We're a big corporation, screw you!"

To better service customer, you have to increase cost and therefore sacrific profits.

And no, I don't work to earn money, I work to live. There is a massive difference between the two.

Also, these corps do satisfy the customers needs when selling the customer whatever product it is that they sell. The problem is, shitty product, poor warrantee, price, etc.

What these corps do is not to think of what would be the best price for the consumer, but what would maximize there profit, and

the customer. What is the maximum amount of crap that the customer will put up with without switching products (ie M$ is very well known for this type of tactic).

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

I think you may be confused about what capitalism is in the first place. It can't be one thing "then" and another thing "now". Capitalism is the economic philosophy that markets should be free and unencumbered by gov't interference. That was the definition 150 years ago, and that's it today. To expand on what I said in my earlier post, what we have today is severely limited capitalism at best. 150 years ago we had nearly pure capitalism. The wealth and well being of Americans and the size and scope of corporate corruption are directly linked to the amount of gov't meddling in free markets. The more meddling we get (as in today), the former decreases and the latter increases.

Fine, you've caught me in a misnomer. Is it so wrong to assume that even if I'm using a word improperly that the rest of my numerous posts will provide context so that people know what I'm talking about.

Clearly from context, I'm not really talking about the theory of pure capatilism, but the implementation in the US then and now. Does that explicit statment clear that up for you?

And how

'd up the system is now isn't due to government envolvment (though it plays a role at a certain level), but that it is the corps manipulating things through the government; it begins and ends with the corps involvment.

It's that, the more meddling that happens (ie bribes) the more screwed up things get. Also, the US has a long history of not prosecuting such crimes. This is the real problem (Martha Stewart anyone? She got nailed yet all others involved got off with at most a slap on the wrist. Fair? Just? I think not.).

I find it fasinating that people in the US have such a fixation with government not interfering with there lives that everything that the gov is involved in is entirely there fault; everyone else involved, regardless of how deep, are pretty much ignored.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

There's just no getting around the fact that the free-est markets ever (America in the early 19th cent - early 20th) ushered in the greatest boom of wealth, health, standard of living, and technology for the COMMON MAN all over the world.

How can that not be a good thing?

Um, I actually stated that this was a good thing above. But, with the current state of things, with where this system has lead the US, it has turned into a very bad thing. That is indisputable. Walmart anyone? How many people don't have any sort of health insurance in the US right now? What's the unemployment? Where's the economy going? Oh yah, it's basically all in the crapper.

Also, I believe it was you that

TIGER

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
To better service customer, you have to increase cost and therefore sacrific profits.

Why? I run my own business, my best friend runs one, so does my father. Between the three of us we’ve probably thought up a thousand ways to improve customer satisfaction without raising costs – that’s how you stay in business.

Quote:
And no, I don't work to earn money, I work to live. There is a massive difference between the two.

So you’d be just as happy to receive your pay in clothes and food? “Money” isn’t a dirty word and you can want it and still be a good person.

Quote:
What these corps do is not to think of what would be the best price for the consumer, but what would maximize there profit, and the customer.

Every business (including big corporations) MUST consider what the best price for the customer is, or they won’t HAVE any customers. This is business 101. Do you think any business in a real capitalist economy would last a month if their game plane was to, as you say, “maximize profit and

the customer”?

Quote:
And how 'd up the system is now isn't due to government envolvment (though it plays a role at a certain level), but that it is the corps manipulating things through the government; it begins and ends with the corps involvment.

Nobody likes corps manipulating laws to their favor. But why just treat the symptom when you could treat the disease? Why make things harder for all business (regardless if they are immoral or not) with immense regulation and taxes, when you could take away the the power that corrupts in the first place? Reduce gov’t power and influence so no one can take advantage of it!

Quote:
How many people don't have any sort of health insurance in the US right now? What's the unemployment? Where's the economy going? Oh yah, it's basically all in the crapper.

The economy is doing fine compared to the last 10-15 years. It’s not doing great compared to the growth we saw for the first ¾ of the 20th century, but guess what else has changed in that time? More regulations, more taxes, more restrictions. More reasons for large corps to influence the gov’t.

Quote:
Also, I believe it was you that stated above that the US system and the EU systems are basically the same. Well, I mentioned that to my German wife. Her response what, LOL, that's nonsense...

I didn’t say they were the same, I said U.S. businesses face almost as much regulation and taxes (nowadays, that is).

I’m going to take a wild guess and say you’re Canadian. I’ve heard the same arguments almost word for word from half a dozen other Canadians. Once, I asked a former Canadian friend of mine how it could be so consistent between people from different areas, of different ages, etc.. He said they teach the socialist ideal up there like it was handed down from God. Maybe you could confirm or deny. Unless, of course, I got it wrong and you’re not from Canada.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 3:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

Why? I run my own business, my best friend runs one, so does my father. Between the three of us we’ve probably thought up a thousand ways to improve customer satisfaction without raising costs – that’s how you stay in business.

I'm talking about big business. May I assume that you have a small business?

To get better customer satisfaction you would have to have more staff (increased cost) and/or update there knowledge from time to time (increased cost) and/or... Just about everything that can be done results in increased cost.

Basically, if you want happier customers, you increase your cost.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

Quote:
And no, I don't work to earn money, I work to live. There is a massive difference between the two.
So you’d be just as happy to receive your pay in clothes and food? “Money” isn’t a dirty word and you can want it and still be a good person.

Um, pardon me, but where are you getting this? I said no such thing. You are letting your assumptions get away on you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

Do you think any business in a real capitalist economy would last a month if their game plane was to, as you say, “maximize profit and the customer”?

Considering that is what's going on in the US right now (and for some time) in all the corps, I'd say yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

Nobody likes corps manipulating laws to their favor. But why just treat the symptom when you could treat the disease? Why make things harder for all business (regardless if they are immoral or not) with immense regulation and taxes, when you could take away the the power that corrupts in the first place? Reduce gov’t power and influence so no one can take advantage of it!
...
The economy is doing fine compared to the last 10-15 years. It’s not doing great compared to the growth we saw for the first ¾ of the 20th century, but guess what else has changed in that time? More regulations, more taxes, more restrictions. More reasons for large corps to influence the gov’t.
...
I didn’t say they were the same, I said U.S. businesses face almost as much regulation and taxes (nowadays, that is).

Actually, they pay far higher taxes and are far more regulated. Just because the people who make the regulations in the US are doing there jobs with utter incompetence (and/or being corrupt), doesn't mean that it can't be done propery, nor does it mean that the government has to be taken out of the picture (or out of the pic entirely).

Basically what you're suggesting to do, is like solving the problem with an atom bomb. The perceived problem is solved, but you still end up with chaos.

By the by, this article mentions that the US economy isn't actually doing that well. Read, learn. Extremes never work.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366944,00.html

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

I’m going to take a wild guess and say you’re Canadian. I’ve heard the same arguments almost word for word from half a dozen other Canadians. Once, I asked a former Canadian friend of mine how it could be so consistent between people from different areas, of different ages, etc.. He said they teach the socialist ideal up there like it was handed down from God. Maybe you could confirm or deny. Unless, of course, I got it wrong and you’re not from Canada.

Considering I state in my online profile that I am Canadian, I'd say that you don't have to assume anything.

But no, they don't teach the socialist ideal like it is handed down by god. In fact, our economy is not socialist. It is a hybrid between capatilism and socialism. We've tried to get the benifit of both without the draw backs. So, who ever you've talked to - this so called Canadian - they don't know what they're talking about.

Basically what it comes down to is conflicting priorities. We want universial health care. We want people to be tak

RUE

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 3:10 AM

As best I can tell, you think that everything good comes from business, even international, corporate, monopolistic business, which (at the same time) you think needs to be divorced from government, which is itself a burden to small business but a ....

It's a little off-topic, but can you explain exactly what it is you believe?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 3:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I'm also curious to know, why the US is still hanging onto this fantasy that capatilism actually works in the long run.

Capitalism works in the short run, and most of the wealthy will be dead before it all falls. Heroine addicts have a similar rationale, I suspect.

Dark Chrisisall

TIGER

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 3:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Basically what it comes down to is conflicting priorities.

True. I want to be free and you want to be taken care of. That's it in a (very small) nut shell. It's boiled down to this point in so many discussions like this with people born into different economic cultures, that I don't know why I keep trying to convince them (especially on message boards - in person these debates are so much more interesting).

Anyway, I know these online debates can turn ugly, and emotional intent isn't always easy to show, so good talking to you. I can honestly say I learned something (although I don't promise it's what you intended).

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 3:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
I want to be free and you want to be taken care of. That's it in a (very small) nut shell.

I think that's oversimplifying just a bit...

Can't we all get along Chrisisall

TIGER

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As best I can tell, you think that everything good comes from business, even international, corporate, monopolistic business, which (at the same time) you think needs to be divorced from government, which is itself a burden to small business but a ....

It's a little off-topic, but can you explain exactly what it is you believe?

I think people should be free to do as they wish with their money, and since businesses ARE people that includes them.

I think the legal fiction that corporations are individuals is disgusting. The legal protection that government gives to large corporations is disgusting. If you want to organize your business into a corporation, go ahead, but you shouldn't be allowed any more protection from your stupidity or misbehavior than joe schmoe shop keeper.

I just want to be left alone! I don't want to be financially responsible for people I'll never meet and I don't want them to be responsibole for me. I don't want to be a part of some politician's grand plan for the future.

TIGER

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
I want to be free and you want to be taken care of. That's it in a (very small) nut shell.
I think that's oversimplifying just a bit...

Like I said, "very small" nutshell.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 2:18 PM

Um, aren't you overnutshelling it just a bit...?

Chrisisall

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 7:21 PM

“The guiding principle of capitalism is customer satisfaction.”

Satisfaction is totally subjective and therefore subject to enormous manipulation. Satisfying your customer with an illusion is a lot cheaper than giving the customer the real deal. Long as you don’t get caught. If you can bump the price of a comic book to $20 and convince the customer that the book is scarce, everybody wins, right?

If customer satisfaction is your goal, then the ultimate strategy is to control what customers find satisfying. Pretty smart, eh? You know, mind control, aka marketing and advertising.

Or drugs. If there was no such thing as addiction, I think I’d feel a lot better about capitalism than I do. I spent a lot of my life tied up in the food service industry and the real money there, as anyone will tell you, is in the addictive substances, booz and espresso and sugar and grease. The free market loves addiction. And what is greed if not an addiction to money? And so, the free market loves greed, because there’s a lot of profit to be made off the greedy. You think you’ll make more money selling Hyundais or Porsches? Selling to the greedy and wealthy will always net you better profits than selling to the poor and frugal. Always. And because greed is addictive, instead of just exploiting the greedy, you too become greedy. When an entire culture is addicted to money, you get Reaganomics. Our consumer culture has even developed an addiction to shopping itself. People call it “retail therapy” and live out their lives in debt.

Capitalism works best in an homogenous community. That’s where you will find that holy grail of capitalist belief, a fair market price. Anywhere else, not so much. Cultural differences breed deception and exploitation. Granted, in some perfect fantasy of utopian capitalism, diversity helps to drive real competition and stimulates all kinds of growth; but as soon as one faction gets the upper hand they will move to consolidate their control of the market and the minorities will be exploited. The most exploited cultural difference in any market is poverty. Poor people, who have to work a lot of hours and maybe don’t have their own car, don’t have the time to go all over town checking for the best price, and are more likely to buy what you’re selling at the price you set. What is convenience for the affluent is mere survival to the poor.

Animals, trees, the natural world, they don’t buy anything, so capitalism doesn’t care if they’re farmed to extinction, clear-cut or strip mined. Capitalism always looks good in the short run, and the United States hasn’t been around long enough to know anything longer than the short run. No more whale oil? We find something new! No more petroleum? Find something knew! The Earth get used up? Hey, that reminds me, there was this great show...

A major reason why capitalism worked so well in the 19th and early 20th centuries (aside from the fact that there was no end to the boom and bust of short-run economies that fueled it) is because back then the big boys (Carnegie et al) were always trying to impress old money with their philanthropy. There were very, very rich people they wanted to get cozy with that thought full-on capitalist acquisitiveness just wasn’t cool. Back then, greed wasn’t good, it was shameful. So they built hospitals and schools to show what decent guys they were. Nowadays, there’s no money in philanthropy.

If ridding the world of its ills were profitable, somebody would have done it by now and retired a rich man.

Look at mass-market TV if you want to see what the natural pressures of a free market will get you. Look at the news. People don’t want to buy what’s good for them or what lasts or even what is true. They want to feel satisfied, and TV delivers every time.

Socialism is never gonna capture the hearts and minds of consumers, it’s just not marketable enough to catch on without being forced. So, until the human race grows up and actually wants what’s good for them, we’re likely to be st

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The Earth get used up? Hey, that reminds me, there was this great show...

Didn't see that one coming...
Besides being hi-larious, you thoughts are, as ever, spot on.

Cheers Chrisisall

RUE

Thursday, August 4, 2005 3:32 AM

Quote:
it’s just not marketable enough

Part of why international corporate capitalism survives is that people are taught all sorts of nonsense, and it forms an unquestioned basis for their perceptions, thinking, and choices.

One bit of silliness is that the US is the best of all possible worlds. People seem to be able to imagine worse societies, but not better ones. (Or, better ones that are palatable. Just look at Start Trek - TNG. Didn’t it all seem just a little thin and lacking in zest?) I think you have to live a fair bit of time in another country with a better standard of living to be able to grasp the reality of a better society. Not utopia, but perceptibly better. But that's an experience most Americans will never have.

Another is that somehow capitalism is 'natural', according to some blurry definition. Usually it's predicated on it being 'human nature'. And when pressed for some basis, what I've heard is either that all previous societies were imperfect until people to evolved up to capitalism, or that all previous societies were essentially capitalistic, or that evolution is essentially competitive and therefore capitalistic, or some other nonsense.

Between the two of these it becomes literally unthinkable that capitalism is a free choice.

And being a free choice, it can be altered or discarded when it ceases to make life good.

Anyway, I can posit, I think, a society where people are truly free. And free of poverty, insecurity, hopelessness, suspicion, and hate, and where the earth will be beautiful, abundant and clean at the hands of man. And I think I can do it with just one non-religious precept. (One of a handful of ideas that did not directly come from someone else, as far as I know.)

If you had to come up with a different rule to live by, what would it be?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 4, 2005 9:52 PM

As a child having our economy explained to me, I had the odd feeling the adults were joking. Me and my friends traded stuff we wanted, or did each other's chores in return for borrowing things, etc. Money was a strange adult concept that only made sense when my dad gave me my weekly allowance so that I could give it to the drug store guy for a comic book.

I long for the economic world Jean-Luc describes in First Contact.

Jabba no barter Chrisisall

RUE

Saturday, August 6, 2005 9:33 PM

Hey, thanks for the reply. I don't get to the site every day, and if topics get too far down the list, I sometimes lose track.

I too remember my childish confusion over the complicated world of jobs and money and banks.

Rue

If you are wondering what the single precept is, it is "just enough".

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, August 7, 2005 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you are wondering what the single precept is, it is "just enough".

I would agree with you on that, but I don't think it would sit too well with at least 10% of the U.S. population

.
Seeing sci-fi movies as a kid, I would have thought by now we would have 'evolved beyond' greed and hate, I guess it's in the genome...

Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Sunday, August 7, 2005 5:10 AM

This topic reminds me of an inner conflict I've never really been able to resolve. Despite my enthusiasm for laissez-faire economics, I actually find money tedious and annoying. In fact, I'm a downright crummy capitalist. I like to tell myself that's due to my impatience with all the regulatory and bureaucratic baggage that our current version of capitalism carries with it. But I can't be totally sure of that.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 8, 2005 12:03 AM

I would accept that label for myself, too.
Want to start a 'crummy capitalist's anymous' thread?

Chrisisall

PERFESSERGEE

Monday, August 8, 2005 5:14 AM

One of the issues that I haven't yet seen addressed on this thread is that of information assymetries. A number of modern economists have spent a great deal of time thinking and writing about this. A basic assumption of market capitalism is that all actors in the market have equivalent and current information. Assymetries among the actors can grotesquely distort markets, and allow those with superior information to basically ream everybody else. This is why insider trading in the stock market is prohibited. The Enron debacle is a great example of how the greedy can use information asymmetries to pillage those not in the know (which in that case included many of their own employees - may Ken Lay and his buddies spend a whole lot of time in the Special Hell).

And, of course, information can not only be manipulated, but there can be very powerful incentives for so doing.

To me, the US economic system looks a lot more like a gigantic information manipulation free-for-all than anything approaching honest capitalism (can you say "advertising", "media conglomerates" and "political spinmeisters?).

Capitalism is for wusses in comparison........

perfessergee

RUE

Monday, August 8, 2005 7:03 AM

It's always a pleasure to read informative posts.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

RUE

Monday, August 8, 2005 7:29 AM

SignyM and I were discussing this off-line. He (she?) is interested in the process of modern capitalism, and looking for the equivalent of a model that describes its functions.

If I inderstood correctly, one thing he mentioned was: why is modern capitalism so successful at spawning more capitalism?

Is it a matter of technology and the consequent multiplication of human productivity (capitalistic countries tend to be the most technologically advanced - not necessarily cause and effect). Is it the accumulative nature of capitalism? (concentration of wealth that may lead to investment in large-scale operations w/ economies of scale; or that leads to control of government that favors capitalists). And questions of this nature.

--------------

SgtX: I find one of the frutrating things about capitalism (aside from living life in a cage over which I have no control) is the abstract nature of life-sustaining work. One does 'stuff' and gets a 'check' which stands for 'money' which can be used to finally get the things by which one lives. Maybe that's why so many people yearn for an agrarian past. You get the stuff of life directly with your own two hands.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SERGEANTX

Monday, August 8, 2005 7:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
To me, the US economic system looks a lot more like a gigantic information manipulation free-for-all than anything approaching honest capitalism (can you say "advertising", "media conglomerates" and "political spinmeisters?).

Absomalutely. This is definitely something that needs to be explored. I think the same kind of manipulation is having it's way with democracy as well. Free markets and democratic rule both rely on an informed, prudent population to function well. But once you can keep people in the dark...

As a relatively petty example, take cell phones. I refuse to use one because of the deceptive, manipulative pricing schemes they use. It would be a trivial matter to have a little ticker on the screen of your cell phone showing exactly what your bill was at any given moment, or exactly what a call would cost you when you enter the number. But they very deliberately avoid that, introducing complex shell games for billing plans. Why do people line up for this kind of garbage?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Monday, August 8, 2005 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SgtX: I find one of the frutrating things about capitalism (aside from living life in a cage over which I have no control) is the abstract nature of life-sustaining work. One does 'stuff' and gets a 'check' which stands for 'money' which can be used to finally get the things by which one lives. Maybe that's why so many people yearn for an agrarian past. You get the stuff of life directly with your own two hands.

Great point! I've often yearned for a lifestyle where I directly utilized the fruits of my labor. It must be incredibly satisfying to build your own house, for example. And I'm not talking about hiring a contractor and taking out loans all the modern hocus pocus, but by cutting down trees, designing the layout, laying the foundation. It's so seldom we see direct results like that.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Monday, August 8, 2005 7:53 AM

Quote:
rue:
If you are wondering what the single precept is, it is "just enough".
Chrisisall:
I would agree with you on that, but I don't think it would sit too well with at least 10% of the U.S. population.
Seeing sci-fi movies as a kid, I would have thought by now we would have 'evolved beyond' greed and hate, I guess it's in the genome...

If 90% didn't recognize the 'right' of the 10% who want to take everything, could the 10% keep their preferred system going?
I work with someone who used to stick his nose in the air and declare - it's human nature to be (greedy, brutal, power-hungry). But if that's true, what about the 99% of humans who aren't? (globally) Are they not human?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SERGEANTX

Monday, August 8, 2005 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I work with someone who used to stick his nose in the air and declare - it's human nature to be (greedy, brutal, power-hungry). But if that's true, what about the 99% of humans who aren't? (globally) Are they not human?

Gawd, that does get old. It's fine and dandy to defend rationale self-interest, but these people who read half of Atlas Shrugged and start prancing around bragging about what greedy pricks they are. ARRRHGGHH

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Monday, August 8, 2005 6:50 PM

SgtX

But, notice I said used to ! He doesn't say that where I can hear it anymore.

OOC, can anyone take up the economics discussion with SignyM? Not only are the answers beyond me, the questions are as well. They seem to approach economics a little bit like thermodynamics and a little bit like the (new) science of mathematically modeling evolution.

I think it would take someone knowledgeable to carry on.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

HKCAVALIER

Monday, August 8, 2005 6:59 PM

SergeantX, I always suspected that you were a dirty context-dropping, tribalist, mediocritarian, paradox-monger! How dare you question the Power and the Glory that is Rand? Check your premises! (Sorry, just had my own run-in with the Cult of Ayn, hadda get that out of my system)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Free markets and democratic rule both rely on an informed, prudent population to function well. But once you can keep people in the dark...

I was hoping you would respond more directly to my earlier post. I was thinking of you as I wrote it because you are reasonable, compassionate AND a close-up friend of capitalism, and those three in one man is a rare combination in my experience.

It's amazing to me that people can think of capitalism and "an informed, prudent population" in the same breath. Capitalism and deception are inseparable in my mind. Have you ever worked in sales? You have at least been subject to one or two sales pitches in your life. Capitalism has always been about convincing the buyer that he or she needs whatever you're selling. Capitalists traffic mainly in desire. The logical conclusion of such a system is mind control and addiction. Trying to keep a consumer "informed and prudent" in a capitalist system is like trying to keep a drunk sober by boarding him at a saloon.

Democracy fares a little better with the human race because, for most of us, it's a purely amateur venture. The population only has to be "informed and prudent" once or twice a year. I think most of us can handle that. Of course politicians are the "professionals" in a capitalist democracy, so they tend to get pretty warped. The best thing our democracy has going for it right now, to my mind, is term limits. Keeps the power from totally stagnating in one faction for long (hope, hope).

Capitalism needs limits too. Who was it, Thomas Payne? who proposed at the framing of the constitution that corporations should be limited to a term of 8 years at which point they'd have to be liquidated? Back in the day, "Liberal Government" seemed to be the answer to the problem; limit capitalism in the name of the poor, the environment and the unlucky.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

RUE

Monday, August 8, 2005 7:18 PM

Hi HK,
Just a short quip

Quote:
Capitalism has always been about convincing the buyer that he or she needs whatever you're selling.

As my BIL says, if that stuff is so good, why are they trying to exchange it for your money?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 8, 2005 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But if that's true, what about the 99% of humans who aren't? (globally) Are they not human?

I can't speak for other countries, but I've worked with the public here in the States most of my life, and that 99% seems a mite high to me

In a Buddist way I have to acknowledge that there is no bad I've wittnessed in others that hasn't had it's time in me, too; I just wish more people would spend more time trying to let go of crappy baggage, instead of trying to hold onto, and justify their posession of it.

*Hey, where's my capitalist greed?!? Whadda you mean it got put on the wrong plane???
I knew I shoulda carried it on....*

If a tree falls on Chrisisall, can he make money sueing the forest?

EMBERS

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 1:48 PM

somewhat related to the topic of Firefly, and systems of Government, is this link to a libertarians support of our BDTV show (I know we have a lot of libertarians at this website):
http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/020132.php
I thought you guys would find it interesting.

And regarding humans 'evolving' past greed...
please.
We've made no headway in the LAST 500 years
(or in the last 3000 years)
so I hardly think we can expect to be over it in the next 500 years.
Particularly in the USA where we use up most of the world's resources in our selfish pursuit of our 'life-style',
we can hardly pretend there is anyone here who isn't pretty greedy.

Join my crew: Fairfield Fireflies
http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html?fuseaction=gro
ups.main&searchby=F

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 4:15 PM

That was a great link, thanks, embers!
It also reminded my why The Undescovered Country and Insurrection are my favourite Trek flicks; The Federation is portrayed as being falable, not the benevolant and perfect entity it is most of the time.

Socio-economical Chrisisall

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
And regarding humans 'evolving' past greed...
please.
We've made no headway in the LAST 500 years
(or in the last 3000 years)
so I hardly think we can expect to be over it in the next 500 years.
Particularly in the USA where we use up most of the world's resources in our selfish pursuit of our 'life-style',
we can hardly pretend there is anyone here who isn't pretty greedy.

Wha-huh? I know all kinds of people who aren't particularly greedy at all. Myself for instance. What are you talking about?

And individuals "evolve" out of addictions every day, arguably more in the United States than anywhere else on the planet, ironically. Alcoholism used to be nothing but a big joke on prime time television, now corporations pay for their employees' rehab. Fat people used to be nothing but funny. Smoking used to be nothing but cool. Debtors Anonymous is a growing movement.

It's interesting to note that the term "workaholism" has entered popular awareness at all. Addiction awareness seems to enter public consciousness like a grief process: first there's denial-drinking makes you cool; then there's bargaining-sure alcoholism exists, but only affects the bums on skid row (that's when all the joking starts); then there's anger-prosecute drunk drivers to the full extent of the law!; only after you recognize how truly destructive the drug is, usually only after it's affected you personally, do you then think about giving it up.

That's where "hitting bottom" comes in. Some alcoholics need only piss off a few friends before they get clean. Some have to run over school children, before they stop. Some people don't hit bottom until the addiction kills them. That's the mystery of recovery.

Workaholism is still transitioning from denial to bargaining, just a decade or two behind sex addiction. Sure, hardly anyone is taking it too seriously today; many people still proudly call themselves "workaholics," but more and more of us are embarrassed for them when they do, thinking about the wife and kids this jackass is neglecting. But the day is coming when the deleterious effects of compulsive working are catalogued and named. The "high" produced by exceeding unrealistic expectations won't be something managers can be unselfconsciously proud of. Already, a growing number of people are voluntarily "down sizing" their careers to focus on their mental and emotional health and on their real lives.

It's a process. Consciousness is evolving at a faster and faster rate every year. There are fewer and fewer places to run and hide, Embers, the truth is coming for us all!

In the meantime, it's gonna be a pretty bumpy ride for all of us.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

EMBERS

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Wha-huh? I know all kinds of people who aren't particularly greedy at all. Myself for instance. What are you talking about?

I was talking about the fact that the US does less recycling than any other country on the planet, but uses more energy than pretty much everyone else combined.

Do you know anyone who actually tries to conserve energy or water?
Do you know anyone who is driving an electric car, using only bio-degradable products, or avoids poluting the planet?

I would say that hogging the resources of Earth and destroying the enviornment is all greed...the by products of greed.
I'm just saying that when I have visited Europe I have been struck by how much more careful everyone else is compared to how wasteful we are.

Join my crew: Fairfield Fireflies
http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html?fuseaction=gro
ups.main&searchby=F

RUE

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 7:24 PM

Ah.

So you recognize that in some way greed is at least affected by upbringing. My contention is that if it is modifiable, it is not intrinsically human nature.

As to the 99% who are not greedy: roughly half the world's population is just trying to stay alive.

Most of the rest are just trying to get by. And for those not on the edge of survival, what do they spend their days doing? Do live by cheating strangers out of their stuff? Or steal? Are they constantly plotting against family and friends? What is it that they DO that's greedy?

If they are greedy, then it is some limited circumscribed version of greed.

Most people I know would be happy with a secure livelihood (not handout). They're not looking to have it all - they're looking to always have enough.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

RUE

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 7:29 PM

Quote:
Do you know anyone who actually tries to conserve energy or water?
Do you know anyone who is driving an electric car, using only bio-degradable products, or avoids poluting the planet?

I do. About 10% of the people where I work do this as well.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
Do you know anyone who actually tries to conserve energy or water?
Do you know anyone who is driving an electric car, using only bio-degradable products, or avoids poluting the planet?

LOL! You are sooooo asking the wrong guy! I practically live on a commune! An all American commune, I might add!

Don't personally have an elecrtic car, but choose not to own a car and take public transportation to and from work. Dude, you gotta get out of the 'burbs and see how people really live! LOL!

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean, I realize that what you're talking about are very serious issues within our culture, but if you knew me, you'd be laughing too!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

EMBERS

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 7:52 PM

HKCavalier, I am impressed by your life-style,
but if you think you are in the majority in this country then it is you who needs to open your eyes to the reality.

And Rue, if one benefits from the infra-structure of a country which practices greed in it's dealings with the rest of the world,
then one should also take responsibility for it, IMO.
Just because I have never held a gun doesn't mean that I am not responsible for every shot taken by a member of our Armed Forces...one must either support the action or work to change it.
(that is a slightly different angle on the same question, I'm just saying that we ARE our government, and all the corporate interests which represent us over-seas).

Unless or until we are all willing to live a life of selfless denial like HKCavalier (and is that computer at the commune plugged into solar power too?) then I don't think we can pretend we are not benefiting from our Government's efforts to indulge us (do you know how much they pay for a gallon of petrol in Europe!?! We would have an over-throw of the government if they were to tax us half so much).

Obviously I'm taking an extreme position here, but I think it is a valid point. We cannot self-righteously stand here and insist we have over come all greed while we ignore those who are starving and dying around the world.

Join my crew: Fairfield Fireflies
http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html?fuseaction=gro
ups.main&searchby=F

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 7:57 PM

Quote:
I would say that hogging the resources of Earth and destroying the enviornment is all greed...the by products of greed.

There's a difference between greed and carelessness. I don't see a lot of "greed" at the individual level. What I DO see is "greed" at the systemic level. But before I go off into left field, I'm going to have to read this entire thread.

OH, and BTW- I drive an energy-efficient car, I'm ALWAYS turning off lights, buy organic (when available), recycle and the best part.... I my job is mainly in the realm of reducing pollution!

HK- Some day I'd like to live in a commune too.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 9:08 PM

Well, I got the smallest, most efficient gas car I could, my next will be a hybrid, I recycle glass, metal, and paper, and when I beat up bad guys, I use economy of motion to save energy...
I mean, I turn off lights I'm not using.
I even got me a newfangled washer/dryer combo unit that dries cloths through precipitation, it uses half the energy and water of a standard set.

Funny, I live pretty simply, yet I still feel like I have so much. I would love to live in a commune.

The bottom line is we can all do more to use less. I can't stand the packaging at supermarkets, such waste; I get as much as I can from local farmers. Not that I'm to be commended, on the contrary, I still waste too much.

Confessin' Chrisisall

EMBERS

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 9:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There's a difference between greed and carelessness.

well call it what you will,
to get back to my original point:
I think people will be just as careless in 500 years as they are now.
I don't see people 'evolving' beyond =
the 'haves' (the members of the Alliance and/or the Federation) who are in power and enjoy the wealth and privileges of power,
and the 'have nots' (the Browncoats, the riff raff on the fringes of society struggling to keep flying).

note: my point was never that the Alliance/Federation/or the USA today is evil, I don't see 'greed' as evil, just human nature. Which is probably why you don't see any greed, because you don't see people as evil, just careless about the rest of humanity....

edited to add Chrisisall's confessions:

Quote:
Well, I got the smallest, most efficient gas car I could, my next will be a hybrid, I recycle glass, metal, and paper, and when I beat up bad guys, I use economy of motion to save energy...
I mean, I turn off lights I'm not using.
I even got me a newfangled washer/dryer combo unit that dries cloths through precipitation, it uses half the energy and water of a standard set.

Funny, I live pretty simply, yet I still feel like I have so much. I would love to live in a commune.

The bottom line is we can all do more to use less. I can't stand the packaging at supermarkets, such waste; I get as much as I can from local farmers. Not that I'm to be commended, on the contrary, I still waste too much.

LOL
that is kind of my situation:
I drive a small fuel efficient car, and the next will be a hybred
I have a special washer that uses less water and extracts the water after the rinse more efficiently so that drying time is less,
I live in an ashram, eat organic and recycle.
But I don't kid myself that it is enough.
No way am I giving up my air-conditioning
or my hot & cold running water.

I've traveled enough to know that US is not the only country that enjoys a comfortable life style.
I've traveled enough to have seen a lot of the poverty of those who make our clothes....
It is all pretty over-whelming.
Christ said there will always be poor,
and I'm afraid he is right.
Try as we might on an individual level we still enjoy a far more privileged life than most.
(in case you don't recognize it, that is liberal guilt talking)

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HK- Some day I'd like to live in a commune too.

What a bunch of commies! LOL!

Just to be clear, strictly speaking it ain't a full-on commune. I believe the term du jour is "intentional community." Everybody's got capitalistical jay-oh-bee's and I have no idea what anyone else makes at them (well, some idea). Grow a lot of our produce here (mmmmmmm, homegrown basil) but not all.

And hey, Embers, your position, if I may say so, sounds a tad perfectionistic. I don't have all the answers, but some of us have some of them. I have friends who do generate all their electricity at home. I ain't there yet, but that doesn't mean I'm killing the planet or waging a war of aggression overseas. On the other hand, it's fair to say that my self-sufficient friends are a little crazier than I am (no, really

). You just have to strike the right balance to suit yourself. And there's no need to feel guilty for benefiting from a system you were born into. Just do your part to improve things and try not to back-slide, y'know?

You can't use the progress of the last 3000 years as a measure of the progress of the next 3000 or even the next 100. Most of the global progress toward recongnizing human rights has happened in just the last century or so. People didn't even know what children were until Freud started paying attention. Of course, the destructive potential of the human endeavor has exponentiated as well. That's the fascinating thing about history: it's got momentum.

Firefly is what I call a cautionary tale and pretty gorram astute one at that. Joss is showing us where Capitalism will prolly take us in the long run; what I call endgame capitalism. The idea is to show us where we're headed so we can change direction before it's too late. I think a lot of us are pulling on the breaks.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
(in case you don't recognize it, that is liberal guilt talking)

It's only 'liberal guilt' if you walk around thinking that if you feel bad about it all the time, that somehow makes it better for those in need.
Otherwise I'd call it humanist humility.

Chrisisall

EMBERS

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You can't use the progress of the last 3000 years as a measure of the progress of the next 3000 or even the next 100. Most of the global progress toward recongnizing human rights has happened in just the last century or so.

I'm sorry if I had been a bit snarky in my previous post,
you do make a very valid point here...
I'm afraid I've lost some of my optimism over the years, becoming a little bit cynical when I see the USofA guilty of torturing prisoners...

Quote:
Firefly is what I call a cautionary tale and pretty gorram astute one at that. Joss is showing us where Capitalism will prolly take us in the long run; what I call endgame capitalism. The idea is to show us where we're headed so we can change direction before it's too late. I think a lot of us are pulling on the breaks.

Joss' intentions are always make for an interesting discussion. In the commentary to 'Objects in Space' Joss seems to suggest that he is an existentialist,
but we know that at heart he DOES believe in noble ideals and family love and other warm fuzzies....
But here (like the Alliance is Communist or Facist debate) we find that both the optimists and pessimists can find a lot that speaks to them in 'Firefly'.
In the end it is the brilliance of the writing that we can be moved and up-lifted by this show,
without it seriously challenging our own POV.

I promise I'll try not to sound so jaded in the future

RUE

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:59 AM

Quote:
if one benefits from the infra-structure of a country which practices greed in it's dealings with the rest of the world, then one should also take responsibility for it, IMO.

I would GLADLY give up everything I have if it could make the world a fair place. And I do what I can as an individual and as a group member to try to change things.

But the most important thing to change is - a mind.

I wish I could explain how convinced I am that a society is the free choice of its members.
And when people come to a new realization, nothing can stand in the way.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:13 AM

I haven't really been following this thread lately, but it seems to be settling on the moral implications of capitalism, whether you can actually have a sane moral society under a free market in the long run. I think you can. But I'm pretty sure that the mess we have now won't improve unless we make some fairly radical changes, and soon.

For me, the malignancy on the free market is the corporation. Capitalism, and again I'm talking about my idyllic version of it, is completely centered on the decisions of individuals. A corporation isn't an individual. It will never hold the responsibility nor the accountability of an individual. Most of the injustices we've been discussing happen when those profiting from them are safely removed from those suffering them.

Modern corporations essentially exists as rogue states, people who combine their wealth and use it to buy influence and power that will further expand their wealth and influence.

All that said, I'm not sure where I stand these days. I've always supported the free market because I believe in a free society. If people don't have control over the fruits of their labor, other freedoms become superfluous. What I'd like to see, before we give up on free enterprise entirely, is to see if we can find some way to get rid of the current corporate model. I'm not sure what we'd replace it with, or even if it should be replaced.

The problem with giving up the corporation is, that it's largely responsible for the current position the US holds in the world. The multi-national corps, hosted by the US, have essentially established the world wide empire that our political ideology prohibits us. They move behind the scenes of every single US 'police action' or 'peace keeping' mission. Eagerly expanding their influence into the newly cleared 'markets'. Asking the US to turn its back on the corporation would basically be asking us to give up our super power status overnight. I'd be eager to do so myself, but I'm guessing a broad majority, liberals and conservatives alike would not.

Sorry for the rambling post. I know my thoughts weren't entirely clear. That's partially because I'm still a little in flux on the issue myself. Its also because I haven't slept much lately. I've been working on a midlife career change which has been an uphill battle. The good news is, I got the job. I'll be starting the 29th as a programmer for a software firm in Pennsylvania. The CEO is a Firefly fan!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:15 AM

So, it might take some imagination and a leap of faith, but if you can accept that things don't HAVE to be this way ... or some version of this way ... what would you pick?

Agrarian independence? Imagine a farm and home of your own. There are no fences around 'your land' - no one is going to take it away from you. You farm what you need, and some extra to trade and for security - things like drought do happen. Technology makes life easy, but you have only the technology you need. The land is open as far as they eye can see. And great herds still roam and flocks fly. You are secure in your ability to provide for yourself and your family.

Social cooperation? Your society knows that there is room for everyone. And that the most successful society is the one that includes all its members. So it strives to incorporate all by finding the ways each member can add to it, and by making a place for them to contribute.

Or something else?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE