 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
Yeah yeah. Kid's thread got threadjacked to death, and is almost at 500 anyways, so we need a new one.
I'm trying a bit of a different approach here, as well...maybe its the meds, but I have been attempting to look beyond the dry and dusty arguments for the utopia and the bloody means by which it must come about and see what lies beneath.
At the core of it, I think Kid said it very well. He is afraid of Capitalism.
Now personally, I think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but in the same breath, I can understand that fear, especially if it has been reinforced by mistreatment from haughty managers or other bosses, and the rollercoaster ride the economy takes some people (myself included) on. It ain't easy, and it ain't something that everybody has the stomach for, I guess.
And, I have always been quick to fess up to Capitalism's many failings.
Like any human system, it is imperfect, and those imperfections express themselves in stark, harsh ways in the world. Capitalism has been the cause of rampant pollution, blatant cheating, lies, wars, theft on scales never before imagined...the works.
All true.
Sadly, the alternative systems that have been tried have met with even greater failures than these (if we look in similar timespans...it would be unfair to look at a ten year period of some other economic system and compare it to the whole history of another).
The combination that seems to work best in the world is pluralistic democratically minded societies tending toward free market economcies (with varying degrees of controls, and the size of the social safety net varying in each).
Now, detractors of the system choose to look at capitalism's failings and point to them as the reasons for dismantling the system.
Valid approach, however, it then falls to them to demonstrate how and why their propsed replacement for the current system would be any better.
As a supporter of the capitalist system, I tend to look at the other end of the spectrum, celebrating the wealth of opportunity awaiting those with talent and ambition.
At the negative end of the spectrum, we see detractors of capitalsm decrying all capitalists as evildoers who seek to enact a form of modern day slavery, while at my end of the spectrum, I see the capitalist as an enabler, a facilitator of wealth generation and opportunity, who has a vested interested in helping others achieve success, with the understanding the "economics" is not a sum-zero game, and as the SIZE of the pie grows, so too, does the ability to subsidize the aforementioned social safety net. Such a situation creates additional opportunities for wealth, and in ways that are simply nonexistant in the "enslavement" scenario so often pointed out by capitalist's most ardent detractors.
It is true, the rules of the game are flexible, and they CAN BE twisted to these ends, but IN THE END, the most efficient approach will win out (the nature of the market), and the most efficient approach is to help others achieve wealth and independence, not create slaves.
Idealistic? Perhaps to a degree, yes, but certainly not nearly as starry-eyed a view as those who still pin their hopes on defunct ideas from another era, IMO.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:17
|
|
I have recently become aware that many people use the words efficient and effective interchangably; saying one when they mean the other.
Also, is the true goal of an economic policy wealth more so than independence?
Does a capitalist society supply this most effectively or most efficiently?
I would be one to say that a capitalist society is very wasteful with money and is therefor not very efficient. However, in most situations it obtains it's intended goal, whether that be independence or wealth... Thus, it would be effective.
IMO, a socialist economic policy may be more efficient in the long wrong, but is incapable of being effective without a reduction in the efficiency when applied to a larger scale, and the larger the scale the lower the effectiveness and the lower the efficiency... maybe not linear, but close as the scale approaches some value.
Capitalism, however, does not react that way. It can untie the pairing of effectiveness and efficiency if it so desires. However, we have not reached the magnitude of an economy in order to do so (though some environmentalist would beg to differ).
Why is this?
Opportunity and Motivational factors
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
Ag, sorry to burst your bubble, but if Capitalism were the cause of all these problems, then there would have been no war, and no pollution at any time prior to its existence, or under any other economic system since (ie, Communism, Feudalism, Tribalism, NameYourismhere).
As this is clearly not the case, I consider your point to be well and duly disproved.
Capitalism may have created a situation where the rate of pollution increased (and it surely did), but that's not nearly the same thing as outright causing it. Same with wars. Given the sudden rapid efficient use of various resources, it (capitalism) may have given rise to the sudden realization that a certain region held strategic value, but this is hardly the same as capitalism CAUSING the wars. Less efficient economic systems are "slower" in this regard.
Arrian - Agreed....I think we also need a Left v. Right thread to do some fundy bashing!@ 
Japher - In general, I agree, but I would contend that the market is *ferociously* efficient at directing money, and very punishing to those who attempt to go off in dead-end directions.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Ag, sorry to burst your bubble, but if Capitalism were the cause of all these problems, then there would have been no war, and no pollution at any time prior to its existence, or under any other economic system since (ie, Communism, Feudalism, Tribalism, NameYourismhere). |
Um... where did I say that? I said that capitalism causes these problems. Other systems may also cause the same effects - that doesn't mean that capitalism is not to blame for the effects that it causes, or that we have to search for some other universal cause. Many different causes may produce similar effects.
Some systems may fail to work properly, and thus may cause bad effects. I think that when capitalism works properly it causes such effects.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
But why is there a competitive advantage in polluting in the first place? |
Isn't it obvious?
Let's say that ten companies are involved in heavy industrial production. They all have the same kind of equipment and all are competitive.
Then someone invents a new kind of machinery that improves production efficiency by 50%. The downside is that it releases large amounts of pollution into the atmosphere.
So. Each CEO of these companies has a decision to make. If he installs the machinery, he will gain a competitive advantage over the rival firms. If he doesn't, then one or more of the other firms will beat him to it and he will be at a competitive disadvantage.
So he has a decision to make. The possible range of decisions is contained in this schema:
1) I install the machinery, no-one else does. (best for me, I have big advantage)
2) No-one installs the machinery. (second best, no advantage but I don't spend the money installing the equipment)
3) Everyone installs the machinery. (third best, no advantage and I'm out of pocket),
4) I don't install the machinery, everyone else does (Worst: everyone else has a competitive advantage over me).
Since he can't control what the others do, he can only choose between 1 and 2 and 3 and 4, and since 1 is better than 2 and 3 is better than 4, it is rational to choose to install the machinery.
But everyone will do this, and we will end up with three. Since two is better than three, why doesn't everyone refrain? Answer: there is nothing stopping them and no reason to trust your competitors.
The result is an increase in pollution, which the companies do not pay for (unless some pinko commie goverment enacts pollution controls). Who pays for the pollution? Joe Public, by breathing it in.
Why don't the CEO's worry about breathing in pollution? Because they make so much money out of it that they don't care (they prefer the increase in income to the health risks). But Joe Public doesn't see any of that money.
Let's say pollution controls are enacted. This means that industry sectors that gain a competitive advantage from polluting will be at a disadvantage to those who don't. Hence, organizations like "The Coal Burners of America" will be formed to lobby the government to repeal the pollution laws. There's a lot of money to be made by polluting, so the bribes can get quite big. Joe Public can't afford to effectively bribe politicians, so the polluters get their way (look at what Bush has done).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
As i see it, capitalism is the right way, but not in it's pure way. Raw capitalism will of course pollute and abuse since that in the short term will give the highest profit, but i think that this is generally accepted as a wrong way of implementing capitalism.
Capitalism as such is a good tool as long as it is limited by certain rules. Those can be evironmental, related to workers etc. That is "don't pollute"; don't get your workers into harms way, or for that case, your neighbours.
If i'm not wrong, then most anti capitalists stiil se capitalism as it was implemented in british factories in the 18`enth century, and taht has nothing to do with todays capitalism.By law enforcement companies are either forced to not doing environmental damage or by taxation urged to act sensible. Capitalistic copanies don't pollute or do envirnmental damage because they want, but because it's the cheapest - raising the price for that and they stop.
Capitalism is also accused of hire and fire - well, that's only sensible. If they don't they end up going bankrupcy and then everybody looses their jobs. I certainly think it's better that a company continues with a reduced staff than it has to close down forever.
In the "good old days", companies and unions was deadly (litteraly) enemies, but in modern capitalism they actually supports each others. If a company is forced to reduce, then both copany and union takes their lot in reeducation and finding new jobs for the fired.
I know that it may sound like fantasy for some, but i don't care - it works here and we are in the top ten of the richest countries; has very little pollution (some left wing fantatics claims otherwise but can't prove it) and are stiil renewing ourselves (that is : when old production get oblsolete/moved to cheaper contries, then we find new things to do),
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
I have recently become aware that many people use the words efficient and effective interchangably; saying one when they mean the other.
Also, is the true goal of an economic policy wealth more so than independence?
Does a capitalist society supply this most effectively or most efficiently?
I would be one to say that a capitalist society is very wasteful with money and is therefor not very efficient. However, in most situations it obtains it's intended goal, whether that be independence or wealth... Thus, it would be effective.
IMO, a socialist economic policy may be more efficient in the long wrong, but is incapable of being effective without a reduction in the efficiency when applied to a larger scale, and the larger the scale the lower the effectiveness and the lower the efficiency... maybe not linear, but close as the scale approaches some value.
Capitalism, however, does not react that way. It can untie the pairing of effectiveness and efficiency if it so desires. However, we have not reached the magnitude of an economy in order to do so (though some environmentalist would beg to differ).
Why is this?
Opportunity and Motivational factors |
I'm interested in this post, but I can't grasp the central meaning.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-12-2004 02:04
|