Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1170323310[/unixtime]]
Endovior wrote:...as each person wants as many of those resources as possible...
This is easily the stupidest fvcking thing I have ever read. Do you even know any other humans? Are you channeling Ayn Rand?
Anonymous Coward
Firstly, I'm referring to the fact that people, in general, want MORE. If you DON'T want more, and would, say, refuse a billion dollars if it were offered to you on the spot, then you are either lying or some kind of freak.
Secondly, yes, yes I am. I'm very proud of it, too.
OrionAnderson at [unixtime wrote:1170333894[/unixtime]]"The main problem with Socialism is the lack of a working price system. Under Socialism, the advantages of a free market pricing system are abandoned due to government decree: assuming money is permitted at all, prices and wages are set to arbitrary sums by bureaucrats."
I'm pretty sure that's NOT how European Socialist countries work, for the most part. You might want to look into the EU a little more.
"This cooperation is beneficial for some, but those with which you are cooperating are still competing with others. If you run an auto repair shop, you're competing with the one down the road; if you run Ford, you're competing with Toyota. At any level you may care to examine, you are likely cooperating with a group of individuals; but your group is in competition with other groups."
The thing is that free-market capitalism isn't really about competition in the long run. Eventually someone gets enough money to buy their competitiors, or buy the government, or both. Capitalism is a lousy system for insuring competition, but a good system for allowing the rich to consolidate all the wealth and power.
"Do imagine your society, and remember what I said about government-mandated prices."
Well, first off, remember that this was a very crude example.
"All the janitors in your country will starve to death, because nobody can afford to pay a janitor $50000."
Not so much-- the unemployed get $50,000 too.
Regarding the EU, they're still by and large a mixed economy; similar to our own, but leaning further to socialism then we are. The further they lean, the worse these problems get.
Regarding free market capitalism, what are you smoking? It's entirely about competition, and buying out your competition is PART of the competition in the literal "big fish eats little fish" sense. Also, it's worth noting that buying your competitors isn't always a good idea; if your competitors are doing a lousy job of it, then it doesn't help you to pick up their mess; just wait for them to fall on their faces, then pick out the choice bits from the bankruptcy sale. As far as the government goes, I've already said that political corruption is an artifact of statism, not capitalism.
So far as your example state, if everyone makes at least $50000, regardless of whether or not they have a job, then who the hell would ever work as a janitor? Why slave around all day when you can get exactly the same reward for staying at home? Same for all the other low-income band jobs; resulting in economic collapse. Not to mention the fact that, since the government's pulling huge amounts of money out of it's ass to pay everyone welfare, the currency's worth shit, which ALSO causes economic collapse.
OrionAnderson at [unixtime wrote:1170335330[/unixtime]]Hate to double post, but using economic theory to justify capitalism is total bullshit. here's why:
A: These theories don't necessarily correspond to anything real. Some Econopmic theories seem to hold up pretty well when compared to evidenc,e but tohers don't. Most of them are just plain made up, and do stupid shit like assuming everyone is a rational actor.
B: Even standard economic theories don't really justify free market capitalism.
You see, a free market promises ideal distribution fo goods only sometimes. There are many, many things, which economists will agree can interferere with it.
Monopolies and Monopsonies unfairly raise profits, thus causing too little of a product to be bought. But some products, which are efficiently produced in bulk, a re"natural" monopolies.
"Externalities" occur when my actions affect your well-being. If I pollute, it hurts me, but it hurts you too, but since I don't have to pay for that, I end up polluting too much. If, on the other hand, I vaccinate my kids, that makes *your* kids healthier. But since I don't get paid for that, everyone is undervaccinated.
"Free Rider" problems arise when somethgin is basically a public good that can't be owned. Clean air is the obvious one, and town festivals. But there's more. Healthcare, for instance, is basically a public good, because plagues and whatnot ar ein nobody's interest.
Finally, you have goods which simply don't work right under a free makret because the demand is messed up. Liek drinking water. You need it to live, so you should be willing to pay all your wealth for it, but in practice most people don't want that to happen. Health Insurance is another one-- the better we get at predicting illness, the harder getting health insurance becomes for those who actually need it. The healthy people drop out of the program and premiums rise until sickly people aren't getting insurance so much as a financning plan.
Finally, this economic theory keeps score in exactly one way: total profits. People can starve to death, and this theory is completely okay with that. But the fact is, poverty itself is the most toxic form of pollution, and costs the rich huge amounts of money to pay for prisons, police officers, emergency rooms, and more.
So far as using economic theory to justify Capitalism, I'll start by saying that you're stupid, and wrong. If you care to dispute me on this, follow
this link and read the book (available for free in PDF format). If you don't want to do that, keep listening, a lot of what I'm saying is based off the ideas in that book.
Who the fvck are you to decide 'ideal' distributions of goods, or 'fair' levels of profits? There is no such thing as 'unfair' profits, only the profits the market will bear. If the suppliers are willing to accept your price for their resources, and the workers are willing to accept your wage for their time, and the customers are willing to accept your price for your goods, then whatever you have left, you've fairly earned, regardless of absolutely anything else. Period. This doesn't change if you're the only one selling your goods; if everyone's willing, then it doesn't matter if you're making 10000% profits, because everyone's satisfied with the transaction.
Your 'externalities' and 'free riders' are irrelevant. You can whine and complain all you want about me being a 'free rider', but if I don't agree to your healthcare proposal, and refuse to fund it, if you try to take my money to fund it, I'll treat you like any other robber. Similarly, if I decide to clearcut and pollute and generally fvck up MY OWN LAND which I bought with MY OWN MONEY, there's not a damned thing you can do about it. It's MY LAND. You aren't even in the picture. You have no right whatsoever to complain unless what I'm doing gets into your property (say, I poison the water, and it gets into your well). When that happens, then you can can sue me. But not before.
So far as water goes... you claim it wouldn't work right under a free market. I say, try it. The only reason nobody cares is because the government regulates it, and then everyone takes it for granted. If such wasn't the case, then there'd be actual competition in the water market, and then people would start thinking about it.
So far as health insurance goes... I see no problem. Healthy people almost never use their health insurance, and might even drop out (although that's unwise, as accidents may still occur); as such, they shouldn't have to pay much for their insurance. Sickly people, on the other hand, with bone cancer or AIDS or some such life-ending thing that bounce in and out of hospitals continually are spending a red streak into whatever insurance they have; the insurance companies know this, so why in hell would they charge them the same low fees as they do the healthy people? Simple, they wouldn't, and don't. Doing so would be a bad investment. Same thing for car insurance, or any type of insurance; it's a risk-based business, so you charge based on risk. Arguing against that is foolish; if you stopped the companies from doing so, they'd go out of business.
So far as people starving to death, you're right. The theory is entirely fine with that. Same with competing theories, like communism. I'd also note that capitalism, in and of itself, does not require the rich to pay for any of that. Again, that's statism.
Zherog at [unixtime wrote:1170348442[/unixtime]]
Endovior at [unixtime wrote:1170319406[/unixtime]]
As an afterthought...
OrionAnderson at [unixtime wrote:1170301377[/unixtime]]Imagine a society in which absolutely everyone made between $50,000 and $100,00. There's plenty of room for competition there-- I mean, you could make TWICE as much money as the next guy.
It would still be much better than our current system, where CEOs make a hundred times a worker's salary and people starve in the streets.
Do imagine your society, and remember what I said about government-mandated prices. Price floors create surpluses; so if you insist that absolutely everyone must be paid at least $50000, then guess what? All the janitors in your country will starve to death, because nobody can afford to pay a janitor $50000.
(Refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_floor )
Aside from Orion's own reply, there's another flaw here.
Remember that in Orion's simplified system, there's also a
ceiling on wages. So, rather than a CEO making $2mil like they do now, they make $100,000. That's a "savings" of $1,900,000. That money could, in theory, be used to increase the salary of the janitor from his current measly $18,000 to the floor of $50,000.
Do note that there are a hell of a lot more janitors then executives; there aren't enough high-paid executives to fund all the low-paid nobodies, not by a long shot. Also, I note that another result of your plan is that all the competent executives go somewhere else, leaving your economy to be run into the ground by incompetent fools.