Don'tcha love their 'logic'?

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, October 30, 2009 03:04
VIEWED: 11402
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:52 PM

Quote:
So if I own a cornfield, let's say...
And I hire ten workers to pick corn, let's say.
And I let each worker keep 5% of corn yield, let's say.
So the workers cumulatively get 50% of the yield, and I get 50% of the yield myself...That's not capitalism?

That's called feudalism. You own the land. The peasants (who by definition are landless) work the land. You own the crop. Now, if you owned the workers as well, that would be called slavery.

Quote:
If I sell 10 shares of cornfield stock on the market, entitling each share-owner to 1/10 of the 50% yield I own, and those shares can be freely traded... That's Capitalism?

If I understand you correctly- Yep. You got it.

------
Done.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:03 PM

Hello,

Now, if the ten workers take their 5% corn yield, eat 1% of it, and use the other 4% to buy houses on small plots of land... And then return next season to pick my corn again, eat 1% of it, and use the other 4% to buy cars and furnishings, and etc...

Is it still feudalism now that the 'peasants' own land?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:15 PM

Hello Signy,

This is partially off topic, but I thought I should mention it.

I have recently been reading an exhaustively detailed book about the Panama canal. There were two major efforts there. One was by a private French corporation, and the other was a government project that structured the work along socialist lines. (Government provided health care and transportation, standardized housing, standardized jobs, standardized wages. At some points even a standardized food supply of superior fare to what had previously been available.) Barring the government-encouraged revolution and intrigues surrounding the project, I believe this is the kind of great social work you envision for our nation. It was ultimately successful and very impressive, and it actually provided income for its workers (imported from practically every nation within reach) in excess of what they could obtain privately at home.

The book is called The Path Between The Seas, by David Mccullough, and it is a very fair appraisal of everything good and bad about the panama canal, its construction, and everything surrounding it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:15 PM

How do they exchange their corn for houses, cars and TVs? (And in such a primitive system, how are TVs and cars made anyway?) Do they use money or barter? In any case, the best approximation of the economy might be mercantilism- which implies a rather broad system of trade, and access to goods made away from the manor.

Tony, I have to get to real life. Just want to leave you with this: "capitalism" is like "human life". We THINK we know what it means... the idealized examples are bright and shining in our minds... until we start looking at it in detail. In reality there are no bright lines between life and non-life, between human and non-human, and between capitalism and mercantilism. However, just because there are no bright lines doesn't mean there aren't distinctions either. For me, I put my capitalist stake in the ground at the concept of freely exchanging ownership of the means of production.

------------
BTW- thanks for the book reference. Yes, that is the kind of project I envision.

And now, I REALLY have to get to the real world.

TTUL.
-------------------
Done

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:20 PM

Hello,

I'm not sure what is primitive exactly about the arrangement. Is it primitive because the workers keep a share of their production? Or is it because they are trading in corn? Would it make a difference if the corn was converted to gold, and they just spent the gold?

Well, it sounds like mercantilism (people free to own means of production, produce goods, and trade goods and services)is what I mistakenly attributed to capitalism.

Is the stock market it, then? Is that the defining characteristic of capitalism?

So... is mercantilism as evil as capitalism? Less so? How does it compare to your desired system of government?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:41 PM

I neglected to answer this:

Quote:
Is it still feudalism now that the 'peasants' own land?

No. If they could easily sell their land, and make money from it without working it themselves it might be capitalism, or possibly mercantilism.

Oh gosh, I'm sorry, I post-edited again. Please don't take my posts as even worth responding to until you see the "done".

And yes, its because they're paid in corn. It's like an assembly-line worker being paid in nuts and bolts, or the meat-packer paid in cuts of meat. The "payment" is not widely accepted, uniform value, or fungible, which makes broad-scale trade (and therefore fine divisions of labor and advanced technology) impossible.

Each advance in an economic system requires so many underlying capacities ... roads and trade; currency and common language; uniform metrics of size, time and weight; technology and education... its almost impossible to posit a system for simplicity of discussion that doesn't contain ALL of the elements in a known system, and that defeats the point! (For example, what would have happened to the manorial/ feudal system if roads had been safe and passable? Would it have jump-started the economy into mercantilism, or would it have looked more like the Chinese dynastic empires?) So I find myself at times having a hard time classifying some economic propositions and situations, in which case I would hope that we could work on these together.

TTUL
-------

Done

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, October 24, 2009 10:08 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

-F

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:18 PM

Tony, I like your ability to debate, it's very impressive. But let me put it this way: I made a phaser in 1979 using materials that were worth maybe 25 cents, plus a pre-made nozzle I purchased for $10. I sold it at a convention for $50. I stated that price because I truly believed no one would pay that ridiculous price (I really wanted to keep it, it was really cool. But at 1979 dollars, that was HUGE money for a 19 year old!). I became a true Capitalist despite my real intentions.

So, IMO, Capitalism is buying (or making) for a little & selling for a lot (thank you, Lex Luthor).

Simply making "enough" profit is merely a form of barter.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:38 PM

Hello,

When I went to High School, they used to have fund raising events. The band would do this quite a bit. I think to go to various camps or competitions.

One of my favorite fund raisers was the Krispy Kreme (sp?) doughnut sale. They'd sell Krispy Kreme doughnuts in the morning for 25 cents each. And who doesn't like a Krispy Kreme doughnut?

As soon as I came into school in the morning, I'd buy a whole box of Krispy Kreme doughnuts. I'd spend all of my lunch money on it.

Within a very short period of time, all of the doughnuts associated with the fund raiser would be sold. And I'd be the lone jackass with a box of doughnuts that I carried around, trudging from class to class. The first few times I did this, people would laugh at me.

"Damn, bro, you gonna eat all those?"

"Yup," I'd say.

"You must be one hungry motherfucker!"

"Yup," I'd say.

"Can I have one of those?"

"Nope," I'd say.

"I'll give you a quarter!"

"Nope," I'd say.

"Come on, man!"

"Nope," I'd say.

As lunch approached, people would tend to get hungrier.

"Come on, man. You ain't gonna eat all those!"

"Sure will," I'd say.

"Just sell me one."

"Nope," I'd say.

"I'll give you fifty cents!"

"Sold," I'd say.

And I'd say it again and again and again.

Every day at lunch I ate a Krispy Kreme doughnut, a slice of pizza, and I went home with almost as much money as I started with, even after eating my fill.

This was my primary moneymaking scheme in High School, before I got a job. I was very proud of myself, and in fact I still am.

This is behavior that would be denounced as wrong or even evil by anti-capitalists. I bought a commodity when it was poorly valued, and sold it when it was valued highly. I made a profit based on no labor whatsoever (other than carrying around a box) simply by investing capital into an asset and re-selling it at an opportune moment.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

-F

Hello,

I have read this article before, but I feel there is a great deal I do not understand about the Mondragon Cooperative, or cooperatives in general.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I was very proud of myself, and in fact I still am.

Good job, bro!

Quote:

This is behavior that would be denounced as wrong or even evil by anti-capitalists.

No way! Did you exploit anyone? Did you introduce harmful ingredients into the doughnuts to extend their shelf, errr, box life, to increase your potential profits? Did you pay off school officials with a measure of your profits to ensure that no other kids could buy entire boxes of doughnuts so as to hinder your potential competition?
No?
So, you were a GOOD Capitalist! Revel in your time!

The laughing Chrisisall

GEEZER

Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

-F

Yep. Folks who believe in the cooperative system have formed cooperatives. Anybody else who wants to form a cooperative can join the Mondragon system or something similar. So should we force everyone to join a cooperative? If I have a great idea for making a much better widget, do I have to find a bunch of folk who want to work in a widget factory for a share of potential profits (or losses) to get my widget made? Shouldn't I be able to ask other folks to risk investing their capital, rather than their labor, in the process?

In the cooperative version the workers are risking investing their labor and, if their product doesn't sell, getting less of a return than they put in. In a capitalist system, the investor takes the risk and the worker knows pretty much what his compensation will be.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Shouldn't I be able to ask other folks to risk investing their capital, rather than their labor, in the process?

No. Becuase that's the seed of evility.
*sarcastic snark*

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

"You left out the part where we don't do the work with trowels, we hire browner people from other lands to do the work. Only they have to use their hands, because we sold the trowels to another country."

I've seen the bulldozers. I promise, I'm not making it up. They exist. They build things in my city every day.

Well, thank goodness! I take it you don't live in Honduras or Guatemala, though, where bulldozers are rather scarcer, and where so many of our goods are made, usually by hand, because that's even cheaper than automating our processes...

Quote:

"So it seems the government CAN build some desirable things, after all."

Well, I have to admit... this completely blows up the argument I never made.

--Anthony

A bit disingenuous of you - you rather strongly IMPLIED that in your post about the government giving us everything we need, and that nobody needs a Ferrari.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

GEEZER

Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

*sarcastic snark*

Redundant.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:24 AM

Hello,

Nobody does need a Ferrari. A Ferrari is an exclusive vehicle specifically targeted to the very rich.

So there wouldn't be any Ferraris OR rich people to buy them in the described scenario.

So, I was not disingenuous at all.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:44 AM

So only capitalism can make people rich?

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:48 AM

Hello,

Since 'profit' was described to me as a form of 'theft' where people did not get the full value of their work, then that would seem to be the case.

Moreso since I have repeatedly been told that money needs to be forcibly redistributed from the rich to the poor. (So how can anyone be rich?)

BUT! If I misunderstand any particular, please let me know. If I can have socialism, a mansion, and a private yacht, then I may be sold.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:06 AM

Ah, but in capitalism, you may already be sold. And bought. And re-sold. :)

Thing is, we don't have any real idea how REAL, *pure* capitalism would work, any more than we have an idea of how real, pure socialism or communism would work. Americans, when decrying socialism, tend to point to places like Sweden, and say, "Is this what you want? You want to be SWEDISH?" They tend to neglect that there are some very rich Swedes who live in some very nice houses and own yachts and expensive cars.

Also, Kim Jong Il has some very nice things, doesn't he? I mean, if your point is that socialism or communism CAN'T provide such things except for the very few, I'd counter by saying that neither can capitalism. You are really no different than the great number of people who lived in the former Soviet Union, or who now live in China or North Korea. You live your life HOPING to get enough to just get by, and maybe, MAYBE, in your wildest dreams, you dreams of getting a bit more. Some people achieve the highest rungs of power and wealth, but they tend to be very few and far between. I saw a study somewhere that claimed that the top two percent in America own more than the other 98% combined. I'm skeptical of that number, but I'd also bet that if it's off, it's not by far - probably more like 5%:95%.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:48 AM

Hello,

The closest model I have to pure capitalism is Hong Kong, and... it does remarkably well.

My point was in the socialist environ depicted in my scenario, there would not be exclusive things for people of extreme wealth, because there would not be people of extreme wealth period. Not even the leaders would supposedly have such things.

And yes, I'd say that the lure of somehow, someday obtaining something luxuriant is a motivator. While most of us won't live in luxury, many of us will be able to buy a special something at some point in our lives, whatever it is, that strikes our fancy. Something that is part of a lifestyle beyond our means, but this singular element is obtainable with effort.

I don't know what your one special thing might be that may be worth working towards. I imagine most people have one.

As a representation of a pure socialist society, I have often wondered how the Next Generation Federation worked. The Picard family operated a family vineyard. I'd have loved to know the economics of that. I'd also love to have understood whether everyone got the same pay (in credits) or how pay was distributed, or how luxuries were purchased, if at all (a big ranch, a yacht, a private spaceship.)

Sadly, these elements of idealized socialism were never deemed worthy of representation. This is especially lamentable in instances where the capitalist Ferengi appear. I'd have loved to see some comparison/contrast as a tool to understanding the different systems merits and flaws.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:46 AM

Quote:
The closest model I have to pure capitalism is Hong Kong, and... it does remarkably well.

Funny, because some of the purest capitalist models I see are drug cartels. They're chasing after money, pure and simple. They are providing a good that people want, at a price they are lining up to pay. Sure, they "buy" influence and political power, but only insofar as it helps them to chase that almighty dollar.

Those, also, seem to do amazingly well, financially speaking.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:59 AM

Hello,

Given the choice, I'd probably prefer to work for a corp in Hong Kong. ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Sunday, October 25, 2009 6:17 AM

Yes, and given the choice, I've no doubt that many of the people working for the cartels would like to work for a Hong Kong corporation, too. ;-) Thing is, the capitalists they work for don't tend to give them lots of choices.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:10 AM

Hello,

Freedom of choice is central to my vision of free market capitalism, so the mafia is right out. :-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:35 PM

Is that by their choice, or yours?

And what do you have against the mafia? They're just capitalists! ;)

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

KWICKO

Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:54 PM

By the way, Anthony, your dream capitalist society sounds about as fantastical and unreal as you seem to believe Signy's dream non-capitalist society would be. A free-market system without corruption and graft would be a free-market system without humans. Not sure how we'd benefit from that...

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, Anthony, your dream capitalist society sounds about as fantastical and unreal as you seem to believe Signy's dream non-capitalist society would be.

TKO

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:56 PM

I mowed the lawn increasing the the value of my house. That must be capitalism! I ate breakfast, and it benefited me. That must be capitalism! The sun came up, shining on my farm. That must be capitalism!

Yanno, not everything that benefits you is capitalism! No wonder you're so reluctant to think about giving it up!

Quote:
But let me put it this way: I made a phaser in 1979 using materials that were worth maybe 25 cents, plus a pre-made nozzle I purchased for $10. I sold it at a convention for $50.

Not capitalism. Primitivism. Peeps have been doing this since anyone wove a basket or chipped a flint. Did you sell stocks in your company, Chris? Did you own and sell someone elses labor?

Quote:
I bought a commodity when it was poorly valued, and sold it when it was valued highly. I made a profit based on no labor whatsoever (other than carrying around a box) simply by investing capital into an asset and re-selling it at an opportune moment.

Not capitalism. Mercantilism. Unless you could transfer the ownership of your trading company to someone else.

Every time someone makes money on something, you think its capitalism. But that's not true. Even in an economy of cooperatives, and even under socialism, peeps put work in to get something out. In fact, the idea of socialism or cooperatives is not that you give something up, its that you get to KEEP MORE. I mean, what could be a more pure capitalist economy than one where EVERYONE is an owner?

Quote:
My point was in the socialist environ depicted in my scenario, there would not be exclusive things for people of extreme wealth, because there would not be people of extreme wealth period. Not even the leaders would supposedly have such things. And yes, I'd say that the lure of somehow, someday obtaining something luxuriant is a motivator. While most of us won't live in luxury, many of us will be able to buy a special something at some point in our lives, whatever it is, that strikes our fancy. Something that is part of a lifestyle beyond our means, but this singular element is obtainable with effort.

Tony, once again you have conflated several things. Do you want to own a yacht? There's is nothing under socialism or cooperativism (technically called economic democracy) to prevent you from owning that "special something". You seem to think that the point of socialism or economic democracy is that everyone be equally poor. But the REAL point is that everyone can be RICH.

OTOH, you make several invalid assumptions (and you know what assumptions do, right? They make an *ass* out of *u* and *me*.)

1) You assume that what the EU does (aggressively redistribute income) is "socialism". It's not. Socialism is where the means of production are owned socially. Socialism actually doesn't address distribution of wealth. Even describing the EU as a "mixed economy" doesn't work, because what that describes is some of the means of production are owned socially and some are owned privately. I don't know a word to describe aggressive wealth redistribution, because its really only in place to keep capitalism viable. Distributivism, maybe???

2) You assume that luxury goods are exclusive to capitalists. Again, not true. You can have luxury good under ANY economic system provided the level of production is high. But, if you want luxury good to be exclusive... in other words, you don't want them for their intrinsic value to you but for their snob appeal... then ANY extreme hierarchal system will do: Monarchy, with you at the top. Or fascism, with you at the top.

ETA to remove comment.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:47 PM

"There are stupid people everywhere. Why do you bother talking to them?"

Hello,

This is why I am reticent to try to understand anything by discussing it with people here.

It usually comes down to this.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:07 PM

Tony, despite the fact that we went through an intensely detailed discussion of what capitalism is and is not, you boomeranged right back to the most ignorant of assumptions.

I knew I shouldn't have put that in, but yanno what? That's exactly what he said, I didn't make it up. It's one thing to be ignorant, it's another thing to be incapable of learning. I just wanted to toss in an outsider's view of this discussion to let you know how your (plural) assumptions would be considered by a neutral third party... how your (plural) views would be considered by an expert. So, I will remove the comment, but I wanted you to know... I'm not making these definitions up.

AND BTW- it doesn't "boil down" to that comment. There is a whole discussion above it which you have ignored. The fact that you DO ignore everything else is what narrows the conversation.

---------
Done

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
But let me put it this way: I made a phaser in 1979 using materials that were worth maybe 25 cents, plus a pre-made nozzle I purchased for $10. I sold it at a convention for $50.
Not capitalism. Primitivism. Peeps have been doing this since anyone wove a basket or chipped a flint. Did you sell stocks in your company, Chris? Did you own and sell someone elses labor?

Yes, I churned out black market phasers by the thousands, employing a plethora of 3rd graders whom I paid next to nothing, and bribed the local cross-walk guard to look the other way before & after work, and bribed school officials (they were the most expensive) to let the kids be listed as present when they were really at my factory instead of lunch. Then I sold my entire operation to a meth-lab guy.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tony, despite the fact that we went through an intensely detailed discussion of what capitalism is and is not, you boomeranged right back to the most ignorant of assumptions.

I knew I shouldn't have put that in, but yanno what? That's exactly what he said, I didn't make it up. It's one thing to be ignorant, it's another thing to be incapable of learning. I just wanted to toss in an outsider's view of this discussion to let you know how your (plural) assumptions would be considered by a neutral third party... how your (plural) views would be considered by an expert. So, I will remove the comment, but I wanted you to know... I'm not making these definitions up.

AND BTW- it doesn't "boil down" to that comment. There is a whole discussion above it which you have ignored. The fact that you DO ignore everything else is what narrows the conversation.

---------
Done

Hello,

You have stated quite explicitly that for me to own a house is not possible under socialism.

Is this not correct?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"There are stupid people everywhere. Why do you bother talking to them?"

Hello,

This is why I am reticent to try to understand anything by discussing it with people here.

It usually comes down to this.

And that is why I *DO* discuss things with people here. It's a microcosm, a tiny sliver of the real world, but here, at least, I can interact and hopefully open ONE person's mind just the tiniest crack. It's why the very best of teachers become teachers (a job I could never do) - not to change everybody, but to reach, hopefully, ONE person who will then go on to reach and teach others.

And it's worked the other way, too; I've learned enormous amounts by being here. It's forced me to face assumptions and biases I hold myself; it's forced me to try to keep up and get and remain informed. And, most importantly, it's just plain fun, fun, fun. It's cathartic, in a way - it's a pressure release valve. Yes, sometimes we get carried away with the snark and vitriol, but most of us seem to come back to reality most of the time. And don't think that YOU haven't made US think; while we may have stark disagreements on some things, you've given me new insights and viewpoints to consider, even if I'm considering them in a stance of opposition. How's that a bad thing?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"There are stupid people everywhere. Why do you bother talking to them?"

Hello,

This is why I am reticent to try to understand anything by discussing it with people here.

It usually comes down to this.

And that is why I *DO* discuss things with people here. It's a microcosm, a tiny sliver of the real world, but here, at least, I can interact and hopefully open ONE person's mind just the tiniest crack. It's why the very best of teachers become teachers (a job I could never do) - not to change everybody, but to reach, hopefully, ONE person who will then go on to reach and teach others.

And it's worked the other way, too; I've learned enormous amounts by being here. It's forced me to face assumptions and biases I hold myself; it's forced me to try to keep up and get and remain informed. And, most importantly, it's just plain fun, fun, fun. It's cathartic, in a way - it's a pressure release valve. Yes, sometimes we get carried away with the snark and vitriol, but most of us seem to come back to reality most of the time. And don't think that YOU haven't made US think; while we may have stark disagreements on some things, you've given me new insights and viewpoints to consider, even if I'm considering them in a stance of opposition. How's that a bad thing?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

Hello Mike,

It is less fun when you have a long discussion with someone, trying to absorb a foreign concept, and they come back with, "Hey, I consulted an expert friend of mine, and his expert opinion is that you're an idiot and I shouldn't talk to you."

The alternative statement is often, "Hey, I'm an expert in this field, and my expert opinion is that you're an idiot and not worth talking to."

It discourages further discourse, yannow?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tony, despite the fact that we went through an intensely detailed discussion of what capitalism is and is not, you boomeranged right back to the most ignorant of assumptions.

I knew I shouldn't have put that in, but yanno what? That's exactly what he said, I didn't make it up. It's one thing to be ignorant, it's another thing to be incapable of learning. I just wanted to toss in an outsider's view of this discussion to let you know how your (plural) assumptions would be considered by a neutral third party... how your (plural) views would be considered by an expert. So, I will remove the comment, but I wanted you to know... I'm not making these definitions up.

AND BTW- it doesn't "boil down" to that comment. There is a whole discussion above it which you have ignored. The fact that you DO ignore everything else is what narrows the conversation.

---------
Done

Hello Signy,

In case my comment got lost,

You have stated quite explicitly that in socialism, I can not own a house.

Is this not correct?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

DARKJESTER

Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:10 PM

Exactly, Anthony

Half the time in what I read here, in the RWE section, the posters remind me of snarling dogs, posing and trying to intimidate each other into backing down. Most of the rest strikes me as misdirection and logic games trying to shore up weak arguments (and of course, since I don't provide links to examples and dated specific citations that statement will be ridiculed and/or ignored, LOUDLY).

And it just keeps on with the SAME names being called, the SAME arguments being re-hashed, the SAME positions being defended and attacked.... Some folks seem to enjoy it. Don't much see the point myself.

But every once in a while, I'll come across something new, like a court case I knew nothing about, or someone relating a personal story that actually makes sense and emphasizes the point they are trying to make. That's why I come back here (RWE) once a week or so.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:45 PM

Quote:
You have stated quite explicitly that in socialism, I can not own a house.

WHAAAAT???????? I said that EXPLICITLY???

WTF are you talking about????? Please quote me, because that is absolutely NOT TRUE. Houses are not "means of production" so I don't know WHAT you're thinking!

----------

Tony, I apologize for putting in that remark.

I know... it's really hard to absorb someone else's viewpoint, especially if it start with an entirely different framework of assumptions. That is why I try to get to definitions, and why I question them so aggressively: where they break down, when they shade from one thing to another, under what circumstances they no longer hold, how they would behave in a different context.

One of the problems I'm having... and I don't have access to economists very often so this is not a solution for me... is that I see systems which do not seem to have any names attached. For example, the concept of "mixed economy" is terribly misleading when applied to the EU. In our current loosey-goosey mental framework, people call the EU socialist, and call socialism "communism". In reality, "socialism" has nothing to say about either wealth distribution or ownership of personal goods, but much to say about production. I DON'T have a word for what they do in the EU. And when words are missing, thoughts are muddled and important concepts are conflated. So lets' make up a word for the EU approach - let's call it capito-distributivism (or something like) because it is a system of capitalist (and some socialist) production which uses aggressive wealth redistribution to save capitalism from collapsing on itself (as it inevitably does, being an unstable system).

Using the same sloppy models, in today's thinking any activity which benefits a person in a milieu of private ownership (even if that ownership is of personal goods) is called "capitalism"

No wonder peeps think that capitalism began when someone first traded a skin for a basket! No wonder "capitalism" is touted as the font of all wealth! Capitalists have definitionally appropriated all the positive aspects of human economy- production, trade, saving, innovation, division of labor, increase in living standards-
as their own, despite the FACT (yes, its a FACT) that these activities existed well before capitalism.

That all-encompassing, all-consuming definition of capitalism doesn't leave much left over, does it? So logically, it follows from that whatever is outside of the realm of capitalism MUST be detrimental. Because, hell, once you've eliminated "capitalism" you've eliminated the whole concept of working for gain, you've eliminated private property, you've eliminated innovation, or in some way violated some precept of "human nature". Right??? So then you're in terra incognito, conceptually: a mental space which doesn't look terribly practical or rewarding.

The only problem is... its not true. Production, innovation, saving, advances in technology, trade, working for benefit, privately-owned goods- will continue under other economic systems- just as they existed before capitalism. And possibly, these processes will be even more robust. Because purpose of alternate systems- like socialism and economic democracy- is not to make people equally poor but to make everyone RICH. To reward people so they keep more of their production in their own hands... more authority, more reward, more responsibility.

------------
Done

ANTHONYT

Monday, October 26, 2009 2:37 AM

"Your idea of freedom is completely conflated with business' freedom. You look at their freedom, and imagine that it is your own. I think it comes from your family history of having owned land in Cuba - a VERY RARE occurrence BTW- which made your family small capitalists* (*They owned means of production). That, combined with hard work, provided a reward."

Hello,

This is the place where you specifically stated that owning a house was 'small capitalist.' Presumably because they kept dozens of fruit trees and a chicken coup in the back yard?

Of course, you also said it was 'very rare' to own a house in Cuba at the time, which is untrue, but I forgive this sin because there's no reason for you to know any better.

--Anthony

P.S. Getting definitions is what our whole conversation has been about. I am trying to extract, one example at a time, exactly what socialism is. And some of the answers (like the one quoted above) give me pause.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Monday, October 26, 2009 5:16 AM

There is a difference between owning land- sufficient land to produce enough to sell or trade- and owning a "house". As far as land ownership in Cuba prior to the revolution

Quote:
The comparisons between 1946 and 1959 show two irrefutable facts about pre-1959 Cuban agriculture. First, both latifundia and minifundia, so damaging for agricultural development, coexisted side by side. Second, agricultural land ownership had become even more concentrated in the period that preceded the revolution. While in 1946 about 8% of the farms were 100 hectares (about 250 acres) or more in size, by early 1959 the same percentage of farms had 402.7 or more hectares (about 600 acres). The existence of latifundia was a clear violation of the 1940 Cuban Constitution...Sugarcane farms dominated in terms of total income, share of income from main crop, total number of farms, and share of total farms [Article 90]

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE479

ANTHONYT

Monday, October 26, 2009 6:05 AM

Hello,

I'm not sure what impressions you have of my family's land, but it was a house with a big yard. Several dozen fruit trees. A chicken coup. A big dog, too, before it was killed.

The small scale agriculture was essential to surviving the lean times when the sugarcane factory was off-season. Sometimes the fruit was traded for other things needed.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GEEZER

Monday, October 26, 2009 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

It is less fun when you have a long discussion with someone, trying to absorb a foreign concept, and they come back with, "Hey, I consulted an expert friend of mine, and his expert opinion is that you're an idiot and I shouldn't talk to you."

The alternative statement is often, "Hey, I'm an expert in this field, and my expert opinion is that you're an idiot and not worth talking to."

It discourages further discourse, yannow?

Looks like the folk you're describing must be graduates of the Hugo Chavez School of Diplomacy.

Quote:
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has insulted Colombia's defence minister over comments critical of the country's anti-drug trafficking efforts.

In his weekly TV programme, Mr Chavez said that Gabriel Silva must be "mentally retarded".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8325358.stm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Monday, October 26, 2009 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

It is less fun when you have a long discussion with someone, trying to absorb a foreign concept, and they come back with, "Hey, I consulted an expert friend of mine, and his expert opinion is that you're an idiot and I shouldn't talk to you."

The alternative statement is often, "Hey, I'm an expert in this field, and my expert opinion is that you're an idiot and not worth talking to."

It discourages further discourse, yannow?

Looks like the folk you're describing must be graduates of the Hugo Chavez School of Diplomacy.

Quote:
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has insulted Colombia's defence minister over comments critical of the country's anti-drug trafficking efforts.

In his weekly TV programme, Mr Chavez said that Gabriel Silva must be "mentally retarded".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8325358.stm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Sheesh - he shoulda just called him a socialist. Oh, wait - they only do that when they're trying to slander somebody in THIS country... Well, maybe he coulda called him a MUSLIM. Oh. Yeah, again, that's really only considered an insult here. Maybe Chavez could have compared him to Hitler. Or Stalin. Or Mao.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

SIGNYM

Monday, October 26, 2009 9:00 PM

Quote:
Hello, I'm not sure what impressions you have of my family's land, but it was a house with a big yard. Several dozen fruit trees. A chicken coup. A big dog, too, before it was killed. The small scale agriculture was essential to surviving the lean times when the sugarcane factory was off-season. Sometimes the fruit was traded for other things needed.

Then its not capitalism. (unless your family paid wages to someone to help grow food.)

People have a very overarching definition of capitalism. They have the Cliff Notes version: private ownership of the means of production and they think to themselves Hey! I built a computer once and sold it. That's capitalism! or "I own my house, I own myself. Those are means of production so THAT must be capitalism or Everybody works to get something. Some people want more. Some people try to figure out better ways of doing things. That's capitalism!

But to belabor a point: That's not capitalism. Capitalism has features which make it distinct, unique from other economies. Under manorialism, for instance, the land was owned by a lord. The peasants (who, by definition are landless... there is no such thing as a landowning peasant) worked the land, the lord "owned" the produce and "paid them" for their service by giving back some of the produce. How is this different from capitalism, in which the workers work on the lords "manor" (factory), the lord (owner) has possession of their output, and pays them a portion of what they've produced??

Well, under manorialism the peasants couldn't move from the land, the lord could not sell his holdings, and payment was made by goods, not money. So it's important to make distinctions between different economic forms: they're NOT all the same! Its complicated by the fact that the current system has other economic forms still embedded within it: The family, for example. We still have small business owners. We still have barter. Economic progress is like our technological "ages": fire, agriculture, stone, bronze, iron, steam. Just because we'd advanced to the steam age doesn't mean we gave up using stone or forging iron or growing grain.

FWIW- if it makes you feel better my economist acquaintance smacked me upside the head figuratively speaking and said: DUMMPKOPF! Feudalism is the political form! Manorialism is the economic form! and had a few other choice comments on my posts. So....

BTW- Just like the system in the EU, which we mistakenly call socialism, there is really no word that I know of to describe a system in which virtually everyone is their own boss and business-owner. Its not capitalism because capitalism is characterized by wage earners. Entreprenuerialism, maybe?

SIGNYM

Monday, October 26, 2009 9:14 PM

So, Geezer, do you have anything TOPICAL to say??

Of course not.

You just hope to make the message go away by attacking the messenger. As usual.

ANTHONYT

Monday, October 26, 2009 9:22 PM

Hello,

So the defining moment of capitalism happens when I hire someone to work for me? Like, if a neighborhood boy was hired to tend to the chickens in the chicken coup?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 26, 2009 9:40 PM

"Like, if a neighborhood boy was hired to tend to the chickens in the chicken coup?"

Or to cut my lawn....

RUE

Monday, October 26, 2009 10:11 PM

Wulf - are you simple ? Not the lawn. The lawn is not a means of production.
(Looks like you failed reading comprehension 101 --- again.)

MAYBE the chicken coop. It depends. Let's expand it and modernize it a bit to see where it fits. I own a mega-chicken coop of 1 million chickens. I sell the eggs from which I hope to make a profit. I hire people to work my chicken coop. They do not share in the ownership or profit. That, I think, would be capitalism. Scale it back down. Is that the kind of chicken coop you were thinking of ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Monday, October 26, 2009 11:10 PM

Hello,

Well, does scale matter? I mean, at what point does it reach critical mass and become capitalism? How many chicken eggs must I sell, or chickens must I own, or workers must I hire?

For instance, if I get twenty eggs per day with the chicken-tenders aid, and sell them for twenty dollars, and pay the chicken-tender five dollars, is that capitalism?

And am I taking advantage of the chicken-tender in this scenario?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:04 AM

Quote:
So the defining moment of capitalism happens when I hire someone to work for me? Like, if a neighborhood boy was hired to tend to the chickens in the chicken coup?

Yes, I think so. I'll look it up. This is a challenging question!

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:43 AM

Okay, so after some looking up, there appear to be competing definitions of capitalism. The one thing they all have is what is called "commodification". Everything- land, tools, and goods- became commodities which could be bought and sold. Most notably, LABOR is turned into a commodity, which can be bought and sold for money. Apparently, this step happened last.

So capitalism really comes about when there is widespread wage labor and a competitive labor market. One person (Polanyi) traces it back specifically to 1834 with England's welfare reform act, because up until then "labor" was still bound to "parishes" and parish-based welfare. After that, people could (and did) migrate widely in search of jobs, and competed in the labor market for work.

However- Tony, scale does matter. The assumption about capitalism is that MOST people are required by circumstance to work for a wage.

When most people think of "capitalism", they think of their "ideal capitalism": a system of primarily small business-holders and indepedent farmers. But if "most" people are self-sustaining, then its not capitalism. Maybe I'd call it entreprenuerialism for clarity.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:49 AM

Hello,

It's becoming increasingly hard for me to nail down precisely what socialism and capitalism are. Every time someone tells me "Socialism is X and Capitalism is Y" there seems to be some kind of contradiction, caveat, or exception. My web sources vary widely in what they consider Capitalism and Socialism to be, and words like Mercantilism used in this thread seem to have widely different meanings in online encyclopedias.

I don't feel much more enlightened now than when I started this discussion. Except in this- I don't think anyone ought to be shaking their head at anyone else for not knowing what these words mean. It seems to be subject to interpretation.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:55 AM

Sig,

This is pretty on target, and capitalism is a pretty appalling system. Not generally as bad as socialism, but probably a close second.

A couple points to nitpick:

1. The commoditization of land was the more radical step. This is why America was destroyed, and slavery was instituted: To convert America that was into money through cash crops such as cotton and tobacco.

2. Capitalism has its origins in ancient Egypt. It was inherited by the Roman Empire after the conquest of Egypt. Initially, Egypt had a wheat-trade based system, which was abstract trade but not capitalism, since it wasn't generationally persistent.

It was the switch to the gold standard, which probably came from the influence of the Saharan Mande civilization that transformed ancient Egypt into a persistent capitalist society. Rome took this, the greek system of fiat coinage of abstract value, and created the corporation, making the capitalist system as we know it today. Capitalism suffered a pretty major blow in the industrial revolution, as for the first time, people outside of the status quo were capable of generating enormous amounts of wealth. This was squashed through the creation of the stock markets, which allowed capital, ie, the banks, to own industry, and also through nationalization, which allowed monarchies and later socialist states, to own industry. Now capitalism has another major setback: The information revolution.

We do live in interesting times. Remember, no matter what incoming bent you may have towards all these loaded words, all are to be looked at with utmost scrutiny. A lot of people support socialism because it is preached in universities by socialists, but it's really little more than a religion, where the state takes the place of god. Part of the problem here is that we live in a society of false dichotomies: Coke vs. Pepsi. The reality is you can like or dislike both, in fact, they are so similar, it makes little sense to do anything but like or dislike both, but we are pushed to choose one over the other. Ergo, just because capitalism is evil, doesn't make socialism good. If anything, going on the historic record, socialism is more evil, but that by itself will not lead me to support capitalism.

I see free trade and the free market as separate from either. We need some form of abstract exchange, because barter falls apart when you think about it: I need some roofing done. Sure, I have a lot of skills, but what if the roofer really wants a new car. I can't build him one. This would get incredibly complicated very quickly. Still, we shouldn't have a system that allows persistent wealth to be passed down through the generations, or anything to be able to be destroyed simply to turn it into abstract capital, nor should absolute power to be trusted to anyone, or a system of universal cooperation be enforced to the point where we all must fall in line with our leaders, especially lest they be insane, which seems to be eerily common.

just my two cents

ETA:

Take George W. Bush vs. Saddam Hussein. I would consider these to be very run of the mill capitalist and socialist leaders. I can find much much worse, as well as much better, leaders, but they both betray the flaws in their systems.

No one in their right mind would want either one. It's easy to say "Well, we could have a better capitalist/socialist." Well, sure, you could. But you could also have much worse. You really can't rely on just getting a better leader, it's always going to be a role of the dice. I'm holding out for a much better system: One in which a bad leader doesn't automatically result in rampant death, destruction and economic collapse.

GEEZER

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, Geezer, do you have anything TOPICAL to say??

Of course not.

You just hope to make the message go away by attacking the messenger. As usual.

Siggy. You making that remark is about the funniest thing I've seen here in quite some time.

I tried being topical at the top of this post and, since I didn't sing the same song as the choir, got called "Dick" for not being agreeable, and someone (now who could that have been?) responded with "ahhh... ahhHHH... aaAHHHHHH... AHHHHHH!!!... BULLSHOID! 'Scuse me! That was a sneeze, not a comment!". So following your example is wrong?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

It's becoming increasingly hard for me to nail down precisely what socialism and capitalism are...

It is, isn't it. And it gets even more difficult when folks with an agenda to advance go shopping for an outlier definition that fits in with their pre-conceptions (easy to find on the Net), require everyone else to accept that definition without question, and then use it to "prove" their argument.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RIVERLOVE

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:02 PM

Joey Lieberman has emerged from hiding under his "I support McCain rock" to play spoiler against Govt. healthcare.

Sarah Palin's un-released "book" is shattering pre-order records, and she is being discussed by the pundits almost in a serious way.

George Bush is now on a lecture circuit, speaking about leadership and God, and people are paying a lot of money to hear him.

HAS A PAX-ISH CHEMICAL BEEN RELEASED INTO THE AIR?

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:34 PM

No, but there's been a lot of fluoride put in the water.

Ooooooh.

RUE

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:11 PM

"Hello, Well, does scale matter?"

I was putting it into a different context to help me think about it. Something which might be hard to categorize in one form might be easier to categorize in a more familiar form.

It comes down to - is the chicken coop a business ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:19 PM

"Insurance for everyone is gonna cost everyone more money ..."

Not true. 30% of all (private) insurance dollars go to profit, exec salaries and benefits, and paperwork. Take that off the top and insurance becomes cheaper. And if there is a public OPTION you may OPT to use it. In which case you may OPT for the cheaper insurance.

"... (except the folks the government gives it to for free, which ain't gonna be you or me)."

The ones who need their insurance to be free - already get it through the government. You are already paying for them, except in the most expensive way - ERs and medical crises.

In another thread I linked a long article about WHAT drives health costs up. And it is doctors who are practicing medicine to make as much money as possible, and not to get their patients as healthy as possible. That means more tests (especially if they own a stake in the lab or bought the imaging equipment), more procedures like surgeries and treatments, and less co-ordination with other doctors. The Cleveland Clinic, which provides some of the best care aound, also has some of the lowests costs. And extremely expensive care by money-motivated doctors gets worse results.

Those are the FACTS - as opposed to your usual bullshit.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Hello, Well, does scale matter?"

I was putting it into a different context to help me think about it. Something which might be hard to categorize in one form might be easier to categorize in a more familiar form.

It comes down to - is the chicken coop a business ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Hello,

Well, that's a good question, Rue. Is making a little money, or making ends meet a little better, by selling eggs on the side a business?

What if the neighbor's kid is hired to pick all the fruit, and then I have a garage sale where I sell the fruit? Is that a business?

And would this be outlawed in a socialist style of government, if the government is supposed to control all means of production?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:43 PM

"Not true. 30% of all (private) insurance dollars go to profit, exec salaries and benefits, and paperwork. Take that off the top and insurance becomes cheaper. And if there is a public OPTION you may OPT to use it. In which case you may OPT for the cheaper insurance."

Hello,

I am pleased with the idea of having *optional* insurance provided by the government. I enjoy the thought of having freedom of choice. More choices can only be better.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:53 PM

Quote:
I don't feel much more enlightened now than when I started this discussion. Except in this- I don't think anyone ought to be shaking their head at anyone else for not knowing what these words mean. It seems to be subject to interpretation.

It is. Enough books have been written on the topic to fill a section of library shelves, and if you look at the topic of economics in general, you could fill a small library.

But I believe we ARE more enlightened than before, because at least we know that the definition is not an easy one, and we've questioned our assumptions. To me, that's progress.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:58 PM

Quote:
Siggy. You making that remark is about the funniest thing I've seen here in quite some time. I tried being topical at the top of this post and, since I didn't sing the same song as the choir, got called "Dick" for not being agreeable

Not by me, so why are you singling me out???

Quote:
and someone (now who could that have been?) responded with "ahhh... ahhHHH... aaAHHHHHH... AHHHHHH!!!... BULLSHOID! 'Scuse me! That was a sneeze, not a comment!". So following your example is wrong?

Your assumption about the availability of healthcare to pre-existing conditions was way off the mark. I also followed that comment up with two very concrete, personal examples demonstrating that you were wrong... comments that you didn't refute. The person not being topical here is ....???

Quote:
It is, isn't it. And it gets even more difficult when folks with an agenda to advance go shopping for an outlier definition

Which outlier defintion are you referring to, Geezer? Instead of arguing by insinuation, just make your point, and make it honestly.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:15 PM

Quote:
Well, that's a good question, Rue. Is making a little money, or making ends meet a little better, by selling eggs on the side a business? What if the neighbor's kid is hired to pick all the fruit, and then I have a garage sale where I sell the fruit? Is that a business? And would this be outlawed in a socialist style of government, if the government is supposed to control all means of production?

I think yes, yes, and it depends.

Yes, its a business if you sell eggs on the side. No, its not capitalism if you are the owner AND the worker at the same time. Even in Russia, when farms were collectivized, people had their small plots of land which they cultivated. It doesn't even begin to look like capitalism until you start paying somebody else- in money- for their work. Whether or not it would be outlawed by a socialist economy or not would depend on how strictly the economy is regulated. It seems to me than an exception should be made for small businesses (under 5 people) because this size seems unlikely to engender the huge discrepancy in wealth and power which businesses and monopolies enjoy.

I personally would like to see everything larger than about 5 people to be organized as a cooperative business (a business of co-owners), and certain businesses which are necessarily large and virtual monopolies (eg power transmission, water supply, sanitation, roads, canals, communications etc) to be government-run.

BTW, in doing some reading, I found that even Adam Smith assumed that these "larger" fuctions (transportation etc) would be government-run, so even Adam Smith didn't advocate laissez-faire capialism.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:33 PM

River,

lol

Actually, yes, but I read it wasn't so much money, that you could get Bush as a consultant for $19. Sarah Palin is running for president, so of course they're taking her seriously. Someone is putting her up to it, probably to split the xtian vote. I'm banking on them miscalculations and not taking in the mayan 2012 factor, and she might actually win.

Joementum is just whining for attention.

KWICKO

Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Hello, Well, does scale matter?"

I was putting it into a different context to help me think about it. Something which might be hard to categorize in one form might be easier to categorize in a more familiar form.

It comes down to - is the chicken coop a business ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Hello,

Well, that's a good question, Rue. Is making a little money, or making ends meet a little better, by selling eggs on the side a business?

What if the neighbor's kid is hired to pick all the fruit, and then I have a garage sale where I sell the fruit? Is that a business?

And would this be outlawed in a socialist style of government, if the government is supposed to control all means of production?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Hello,

I have lived places where you were only, by city ordnance, allowed to have a certain number of garage sales a year, or you were considered a "business". So if you were selling eggs at your "garage sale", you'd actually be a roadside stand, and therefore likely be a business.

I doubt that this is the kind of thing that would be outlawed in a socialist society; I think the idea there is that the government controls the MAJOR means of production, not every single individual means of production. Although it should be noted that it has in many cases been outlawed in a supposed "free market" capitalist society like ours. By law in most places, you can only do a certain dollar amount of "business" before you must start ACTING like a business. These laws are generally lobbied for by businesses. Often by very large businesses, who don't want any small upstarts trying to actually COMPETE with them.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

KWICKO

Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Not true. 30% of all (private) insurance dollars go to profit, exec salaries and benefits, and paperwork. Take that off the top and insurance becomes cheaper. And if there is a public OPTION you may OPT to use it. In which case you may OPT for the cheaper insurance."

Hello,

I am pleased with the idea of having *optional* insurance provided by the government. I enjoy the thought of having freedom of choice. More choices can only be better.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

I'm pleased by the idea of having options, too. I'd like to see a non-profit option, a single-payer option, the option of being able to join an insurance co-op, etc. We'll have to see how it all shakes out, won't we?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

GEEZER

Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not by me, so why are you singling me out???

I'm not. There's plenty of your cronies, as well as you, who use insult rather than topical response.

Quote:
Your assumption about the availability of healthcare to pre-existing conditions was way off the mark.

If that's your opinion then why not just argue the merits of your case rather than starting with the obligatory insult?

I get the feeling that your ideal RWED would be as follows:

PN posts stuff which everyone reads but ignores.

Every once in a while, someone posts "Capitalism (or Insurance Companies, or Bill Gates, or whatever) is Evil". The chorus responds with "Yea verily. Evil. Evil. Most evil indeed." If any apostate has the temerity to question this pronouncement, the cries of "Blasphemer", "Unmutual", "Dick", "Corporatist", etc. rain down until the unbeleiver decides it's not worth their time, and leaves. Peace and Kumbayas return and everyone feels justified.

Oh, and back to topic. The difference between you and a capitalist is that a capitalist wants folk to give him money in exchange for goods and services. You just want folk to give you money. If they don't, you expect the government to force them to give you money.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:03 AM

I'd like to see the sticker price on the product (the us healthcare system) go down from $4T, not up. Quality could us some work to.

KWICKO

Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not by me, so why are you singling me out???

I'm not. There's plenty of your cronies, as well as you, who use insult rather than topical response.

Quote:
Your assumption about the availability of healthcare to pre-existing conditions was way off the mark.

If that's your opinion then why not just argue the merits of your case rather than starting with the obligatory insult?

I get the feeling that your ideal RWED would be as follows:

PN posts stuff which everyone reads but ignores.

Every once in a while, someone posts "Capitalism (or Insurance Companies, or Bill Gates, or whatever) is Evil". The chorus responds with "Yea verily. Evil. Evil. Most evil indeed." If any apostate has the temerity to question this pronouncement, the cries of "Blasphemer", "Unmutual", "Dick", "Corporatist", etc. rain down until the unbeleiver decides it's not worth their time, and leaves. Peace and Kumbayas return and everyone feels justified.

Oh, and back to topic. The difference between you and a capitalist is that a capitalist wants folk to give him money in exchange for goods and services. You just want folk to give you money. If they don't, you expect the government to force them to give you money.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Yeah, Geezer, at least you're not being INSULTING, right?

What would YOUR idea RWED look like?

PN posts stuff which everyone reads but ignores.

Every once in a while, someone posts "Capitalism (or Insurance Companies, or Bill Gates, or whatever) wins again - YAY!". The chorus responds with "Yea verily. Evil. Evil. Most evil indeed." If any apostate has the temerity to question this pronouncement, the cries of "Terrorist", "Un-American", "Dick", "Communist", etc. rain down until the unbeleiver decides it's not worth their time, and leaves. Peace and Kumbayas return and Geezer feels justified.

Of course, in your dream RWED, you'd also get to whine and complain about people namecalling and being insulting, by insulting them and calling them names. And you absolutely would not see the hypocrisy inherent in your own actions.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:36 PM

Mike,

very few real world events are discussed here. Mostly it's politics, an imaginary system where arbitrary collections of beliefs are assembled into sides so the people can bash each other over the head, which they do here daily. Thanks for lending a hand [/snark]

But seriously, the real illusion, besides the one that any of this issue debating has any effect on policy, is that there should be any policy at all. Politics is a completely artificial system, like the monetary system, or the Church, with no more reality than a game of Dungeons and Dragons. If we stop believing in it, it will go away. Much like addiction in that way.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'd like to see the sticker price on the product (the us healthcare system) go down from $4T, not up. Quality could us some work to.

Nancy Pelosi introduced a plan with a public option that they estimate will only cost 980-ish billion, and that will lower the federal deficit every year. Supposedly. I haven't read it, but that's the word from the Congressional Budget Office.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 29, 2009 7:58 PM

Quote:
I'm not. There's plenty of your cronies, as well as you, who use insult rather than topical response.

Actually, I don't. Even in the example that you cite below, my comments were topical. You simply chose to evade the topic and instead respond to....

Quote:
the obligatory insult

It was a joke, and it wasn't even directed at you.

Quote:
I get the feeling that your ideal RWED would be as follows:
PN posts stuff which everyone reads but ignores.
Every once in a while, someone posts "Capitalism (or Insurance Companies, or Bill Gates, or whatever) is Evil". The chorus responds with "Yea verily. Evil. Evil. Most evil indeed." If any apostate has the temerity to question this pronouncement, the cries of "Blasphemer", "Unmutual", "Dick", "Corporatist", etc. rain down until the unbeleiver decides it's not worth their time, and leaves. Peace and Kumbayas return and everyone feels justified

So, once again you resort to putting words in people's mouths and attributing thoughts and attitudes to others?

Appparently, you missed my actual posts about capitalism. So let me remind you of what I've actually said, as opposed to what seems to be echoing in your skull:

Capitalism is very good at some things, and production efficiency is one of them. In its expansionary phase, when profit is turned to reinvestment, new production technologies are implemented which allow more to be done with less. Another positive aspect is demand-driven production.

However, capitalism has some serious flaws. For one thing it is unstable because it aids the concentration of wealth, which causes demand to drop and the economy to slow down in a self-reinforcing downward cycle. Another problem is that it doesn't reward work, but instead rewards ownership and greed. A third problem is that market forces can't address the problems of "the commons".

I've had a fine time discussing the upsides and downsides of capitalism, the several possible alternatives which would preserve its positive aspects but eliminate the negative ones. But neoliberals, laissez faire capitalists, and capito-libertarians have elevated capitalism as the goal of our economy rather than one of several means towards prosperity, and refuse to consider the possibility that capitalism may not, after all, be the solution to all of our problems.

What about you?

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:20 PM

bump for Geezer

RUE

Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:40 PM

OK, I'll go along.

bump for Geezer

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:11 PM

I trust Pelosi as far as I can throw an elephant.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:29 PM

Heh. True enough.

But since you were talking about price tags, I thought I'd mention it.

KWICKO

Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I trust Pelosi as far as I can throw an elephant.

Then you still trust her more than I do. ;)

SIGNYM

Friday, October 30, 2009 12:06 AM

What I'd like to see are the real bills being debated. Yeah, I know... they're 1900 pages... subject to change... written in language that would put a meth head to sleep... but still. Transparency would be nice, 'cause all we have to go on are rumors and rumors of rumors.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 30, 2009 12:08 AM

I'm not sure how much it costs to buy Nancy Pelosi

SIGNYM

Friday, October 30, 2009 12:36 AM

Prolly less than it costs to buy Lieberman. Bet ya dollars to donuts Lieberman is looking at a nice, cushy consulting job with an insurance when he leaves the Senate at the end of his term. (Don't let the door hitcha on the way about, ya backstabbing maroon!)

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 30, 2009 3:04 AM

Ouch...

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2