 |
| |
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't think this invisible hand of the market is as magical as some people make it out to be. First of all, "the market" can fail in many different ways. Secondly, "the market" does not allocate resources optimally or even reasonably, in fact, a lot is wasted in competition.
. |
This is extremely debatable. In matter of technology competition is efficient; I dont know of competing technologies eliminating a significantly better tech than the one finally adopted. When comparing the efficiency of central planification with competition, we observe that central planification can work satisfactorily for raw materials and heavy industry, but fails to master the risk of erroneous directions, which is aggravated by the almost impossibility to correct errors. On the other hand, competition waste some efforts, but the efforts wasted indicate wrong directions, and progressively but quickly enough, the greatest efforts are on the right direction.
The micro computer industry is a fine example of the efficiency of the savage competition : in 20 years, starting from the ground, this industry has changed the world. Interestingly, the centralized economies have produced nothing in this area, everything coming from the competitives economies.
Last edited by DAVOUT on 16-06-2003 at 18:37
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
Lots to reply to since I hit the sack last night….where to start, where to start….
Kid: As MtG already told you, “will” is not subject to debate. The amount of effort and persistence used in the pursuit of your particular “road map” will by and large determine the amount of improvement. A perfectly valid choice is to not follow the road map at all, and comes (predictably) with no improvement whatsoever.
Of course you won’t debate that point….there’s nothing to debate. Having already agreed that such plans can be made, all that remains is the plan’s execution. Your ideology doesn’t trust the individual, however, and so rather than relying on individual initiative to succeed, you would simply have the state mandate to the collective. Someone who HAS succeeded should give it up to equalize things.
And this notion of equality you keep going on about is very interesting as well.
Equality is obviously a very big thing with you. So much so, that you spend an inordinate time worrying over, and fretting over the possibility that someone out there might have more than you. This rubs you the wrong way. Again, not trusting the individual (including, apparently, yourself) to go out and even things up via effort, you’d again rather simply have a gulag set up someplace to put those shamelessly rich folks, take what they have created and make things even again that way. How is that “fair” to those you are robbing at gunpoint? Oh, but they’re just individuals, right? So that makes it okay?
Then, after you decree this bizarre sort of equality, you go on to say that you DO believe that people should be compensated according to their efforts…just without the wide income disparity that exists now. Do you not see how that runs counter to the whole rest of your “theory”? I mean, if everything has to be equal at the end of the day, and you’re paying people differently according to their efforts, you are setting yourself for the same problem you perceive right now. Is it not the case that those who have more will use their surplus to figure out new ways of exploiting the masses? So what will be the solution then? Ship them off to the gulag too?
Gepap: While what you say is true, the biggest, most robust and vibrant capitalist-oriented economies exist IN democratic environments. In looking at the comparative history of the two economic systems, one has thrived and flourished. The other has not. That history is what validates capitalism. It has proven to work. Communism has not. Ever.
The people we’re debating with do not want “some” socialistic brakes put on the capitalist system, they want wholesale change and the dismantling of the current system in favor of state (er…”worker”, excuse me) control over everything. Yes, there are a few areas of the economy are better off for a measure of socialization. Note that phrase, “a few areas” (as opposed to the whole hog) and “a measure of” (as opposed to absolute state control).
Slavery: Different issue, but related, I agree. Slavery is evil because it subverts the individual. They’re not “people” anymore….they’re property. That sounds pretty similar to the great anthill communist collective we keep hearing about. The individual is subverted. He no longer exists. There’s only the group. Same story, different veneer.
UR: Yep, The Shrub’s family connections gave him his opportunity, that’s true (and what I’ve said from the beginning), but he still had to go out and campaign and get votes (or, depending on who you talk to, bribe people to change the votes). Had he not run a decent campaign (which is work, btw), had he some better competition, all the connections in the world would not have gotten him into the oval office.
Nope…I’m not implying that those who fail don’t work hard enough or aren’t smart enough. I’m simply saying that if I succeed and you don’t, how have you helped me succeed? And why should I be forced at gunpoint to give up what I’ve worked for for you?
If economics was zero-sum, then no new wealth would have been created. New wealth is created in the economy daily. Saying that economics is or can be zero-sum is among the most absurd things I have ever heard you say. Care to give an example?
Yes…the Russians launched the first satellite into space. Whooptedoo! And to think, it only cost them a few million of their citizens, and the deaths of a few score scientists to get the rest “properly motivated” to do the work of the party bosses. Impressive. And we’re not against some central control, by the way. The tax system itself is centrally controlled. Just don’t tell me that when I come home after a hard day’s work, you and your cronies will be waiting for me at my door to take your cut of what I worked for. I promise you’ll wind up with a few less teeth…
And I’m not talking about making everyone wealthy. I am talking about everyone having the opportunity to improve themselves.
If I’m waiting tables at three bucks an hour, I can take night classes and get MS certified, and land a 70k a year job. That’s a big step up. Am I fantabulously wealthy? Nope, but I’m a helluvalot better off than I was. And if I keep applying myself, it’ll get even better.
But again, it’s a lot easier to simply take the riches away from those that already have them. That way, I don’t have to learn many new things (well, how to aim and shoot a gun, maybe, but hey! That’s a lot less work than actually going out and making my own money!)
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Gepap: While what you say is true, the biggest, most robust and vibrant capitalist-oriented economies exist IN democratic environments. In looking at the comparative history of the two economic systems, one has thrived and flourished. The other has not. That history is what validates capitalism. It has proven to work. Communism has not. Ever. |
Actualy, look at Hong Kong. It has never been a true democracy, and neither has Singapore, yet both are very vibrant capitalist economies.
quote:
Slavery: Different issue, but related, I agree. Slavery is evil because it subverts the individual. They’re not “people” anymore….they’re property. That sounds pretty similar to the great anthill communist collective we keep hearing about. The individual is subverted. He no longer exists. There’s only the group. Same story, different veneer. |
Actually, no. You see, you conflate a communistic economic model to a totalitarian political model. They do not have to live side by side, just as democracy and capitalism don;t have to live side by side. You keep pointing out the failures of a single party totalitarian political structure as if it were part and parcel of a centralized or coopt, cooperative economies. They aren't. as for people as property: one of the places in the world today you have few rights (with all the rght you do have government mandated) is in the workplace. You are not primarilly a "person" anymore, you are a consumer or "labor", a number and a statistic for economists to study. I think you forget the Romantic notions of someone like marx (which did not fit very well with his scientific side)
quote:
And I’m not talking about making everyone wealthy. I am talking about everyone having the opportunity to improve themselves. |
And you had that oppurtunity because? Imagine if you had had a significant accident in your youth, while poor. Could your family have afforded you the best care? And if they hadn;t, for reasons having nothing to do with your drive and abilities you would perhaps not had the same chance. The fact there is such a thing as medicaid and medicare have nothing to do with capitalism a whole to do with democracy.
quote:
If I’m waiting tables at three bucks an hour, I can take night classes and get MS certified, and land a 70k a year job. That’s a big step up. Am I fantabulously wealthy? Nope, but I’m a helluvalot better off than I was. And if I keep applying myself, it’ll get even better. |
And if everyone went to school and got MS qualified, you would not make 70k a year, now would you? If everyone could do MS, you might as well get paid 3 bucks an hour doing so. The system needs low wage workers: as i said before, not everyone can even be confortable: who then cleans the blankets? yet becuase anyone can in theory clean floors (even if most people won't), you can pay the guys doing it squat. In your world Vel, can everyone make 70k? nd if so, what would 70k buy you?
quote:
But again, it’s a lot easier to simply take the riches away from those that already have them. That way, I don’t have to learn many new things (well, how to aim and shoot a gun, maybe, but hey! That’s a lot less work than actually going out and making my own money!)
-=Vel=- |
Actually, crime is very difficult to pull of successfully, and it has great inhrent risks. I mean, the guy you rob could always have a gun, or a knive, or fight back, forcing you to shot them, thus gpoing from a robbbery charge if caught to murder. Bernie Ebbers had to be smart, as did all the folks of Enron, to make as much as they did, now didn't they?
And then there is the question of what is wealth? Why should thewre be a "legal" and an "ilegal" way to make it? If I can successfuly rob you of your wealth, why should I not be as entitled to it as you were? I did do something to get it, not just sit around. I worked to rob you, i planned, I executed, and I won. I bea you, porved better than you, so why am I, the thief, not entitled to it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
Gepap: I am not conflating anything into anything. The communist credo (as has been implemented EVERY TIME it has reared its unworkable head) has been full state centralized control. Yep…the workers control the means of production. One party system, run by the workers, so state control = worker control. That’s the way it’s been implemented every time it has been tried. It’s not some phantasm I’m pulling out of thin air, it’s the way it is! And IN the model as it has been constructed, the people were as good as slaves. The individual was meaningless. Nothing has changed. Those are the same exact arguments we’re hearing from our Comrades in this thread. Forget the individual, look at the group.
The USA and the capitalist economies aren’t really “true” democracies either, but they’re a damn site more democratically minded than their communist counterparts. The freer and more open the society, the more fuel is given to the capitalist model. What is so hard to fathom about that?
If “everyone” was MS certified, then obviously the wages would fall. At the exact same time, however, with everyone being MS certified, there would be increasing demand for other skills, and wages in those areas would rise. I get the distinct sense that you know this already.
And if you’re actually touting robbery as a legitimate way of making money, join your local Communist chapter. I'm sure they'll need lots of help rounding us all up to ship off to da Gulag...
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAVOUT
This is extremely debatable. In matter of technology competition is efficient; I dont know of competing technologies eliminating a significantly better tech than the one finally adopted. When comparing the efficiency of central planification with competition, we observe that central planification can work satisfactorily for raw materials and heavy industry, but fails to master the risk of erroneous directions, which is aggravated by the almost impossibility to correct errors. On the other hand, competition waste some efforts, but the efforts wasted indicate wrong directions, and progressively but quickly enough, the greatest efforts are on the right direction.
The micro computer industry is a fine example of the efficiency of the savage competition : in 20 years, starting from the ground, this industry has changed the world. Interestingly, the centralized economies have produced nothing in this area, everything coming from the competitives economies. |
There are a lot of market failures, but the largest one is unemployment. Unemployment is a very serious problem in the world and it's going to get worse. People are unemployed, but people are hungry. It's absurd.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
Kid, you're absolutely right. No one has to follow my roadmap. In fact, there are a LOT of people out there, right now, using this failing, broken system you keep saying doesn't work, making their own road maps, and finding success.
There are also people out there mapping out their success and failing. That does not mean the system is broken, it means they need a better plan. If they can't make a better plan on their own, then they need help to make one. What they DON'T need is a handout. They need to be shown HOW to use the system and improve themselves through personal effort.
Capitalism works for those who choose to make it work for them, yes. And as it improves the lives of the individuals who choose to make it work for them, it improves the societal group as a whole.
Relative equality. So if I have more, you should just be able to come get it, right? Cos I mean, who's to say where that relative scale is, and if you feel slighted or shorted, then obviously I'm to blame.
Come try....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, you're absolutely right. No one has to follow my roadmap. In fact, there are a LOT of people out there, right now, using this failing, broken system you keep saying doesn't work, making their own road maps, and finding success.
|
ARGH! What is with this?! Seriously, why do you think this is a good argument. There are much more that fail. Open your eyes to reality man!
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Come try....
-=Vel=- |
Is anyone else getting insulted by Vel's attitude here? It's like "I got rich, if you're hungry don't ask me for help, just get rich like me."
You can figure it out in the Gulag Vel.
Last edited by Kidicious on 16-06-2003 at 22:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
My eyes are open, and what I see runs in direct opposition to what you are saying.
People are striving and succeeding. All? No, but more than are failing.
I live in one of the poorest states in the USA (third poorest, after Louisiana and Mississippi, to be specific), and here, in our dirt poor state, the standard of living is rising dramatically for nearly everyone.
Why do you suppose that is? Did someone slip something into the water supply here to suddenly make everybody smarter than the rest? Doubt it. What has been happening, however, is that people here took advantage of the big 90's boom to learn new skills, and even now, when the economy is sluggish, those skills are paying handsome dividends.
If it's not that way where you are, then my sincere apologies. Perhaps things will change. Perhaps you can help them change, not by demanding what I worked for, but by helping others make a better life for themselves.
And be offended at my tone if you want. I'm not saying that I'm against helping the poor. It's more along the lines that I'm "teaching a man to fish" rather than just giving him my fish. That's what you fail to understand, no matter how many different ways it's phrased. You just can't get it through your head, can you? It is more valuable BY FAR to teach others HOW to succeed than to simply force the wealthy to give up what they have worked for to those who can't or won't.
Harder, yes. But also worth a great deal more.
I do more than just pay my taxes (which, by the way, helps the very people you describe), I help them formulate plans for their own success. What do you do? Preach the gospel of the coming revolution?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-06-2003 18:26
|