Communism and Islamism, Holding Hands

[Tony]

What I'm saying is that a basically free-market economy has already proven itself to be the best system in the world...

I'd be interested in how you define "best". American's spend too much time and energy chasing money and working to enrich other people. Personally, I'd rather enjoy my life and have fun instead of wasting it working 40 hours a week to make someone else rich. In that regard, it is most definitely NOT the best system.

 

[TriangleMan]

I've been trying to find that T-shirt online but haven't had any success. I'm wondering if there is any wording below the picture of Osama - for all we know the old guy is wearing one of those "wanted dead or alive" T-shirts.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'd be interested in how you define "best". American's spend too much time and energy chasing money and working to enrich other people. Personally, I'd rather enjoy my life and have fun instead of wasting it working 40 hours a week to make someone else rich. In that regard, it is most definitely NOT the best system.

What you describe is not an economic system, but rather what choices people make within the system. Capitalism is quite capable of accomodating people who value free time very highly. But unlike other systems, it doesn't make that choice FOR you, you both have to AND get to make that choice yourself.

 

[Ziggurat]

Furthermore, it must be noted that capitalism doesn't really even hold your "contribution" principle as its central tenet. It really has nothing to do with it. What it follows at its heart may be described thusly: the more money you can get voluntarily forked over to you, the more you deserve.

And how, pray tell, do you convince people to voluntarily hand over money to you? By providing them with something that they find more valuable than the money they gve you. That's how capitalism works. And that encourages the creation of wealth: for if you can create things of value from things of less value, then you can make money. Hence, the more you contribute to society by creating wealth, the wealthier you will be. So even going by what you said, we still arrive back at what I said. You state this as if it's a shortcoming, but it's not. Because the alternative to convincing people to voluntarily give money to you (again, something you can only do by giving them something of value) is to force them (via the government) to give money to you, ala socialism and communism. And you somehow think that's a better alternative? Please. Come back when you've got something real to say.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem is how you didn't want to talk about the unfairness in certain people being able to work less and earn more whether it be for reasons of serendipity, difference in ability, etc. For instance, you cannot compare the conscientiousness of a mentally healthy person with that of someone severely depressed. For the amount of effort it takes the former to do his/her job, it might take the same for the latter to just force himself/herself out of bed. Then we can get into quadriplegics...

Yes, I didn't want to talk about unfairness, because that sidetracks things. I'm perfectly aware that capitalism is unfair, and never made any claims to the contrary. You seem to take it as a given that fairness should be a central tennet of society, but why should that be so? It's completely fair if everyone is miserable and destitute, but equally so. I don't want to live in such a world. I'll gladly take prosperity, even if neighbor is ten times as wealthy as I am and doesn't deserve it any more than I do, over fair poverty. Yes, fairness has value, but there are plenty of things that aren't worth giving up to try to achieve it. Because life will never be fair, regardless of how many strangulating government programs you institute to try to make it so. Only the immature are unable to accept that.

 

[Jocko]

I'd be interested in how you define "best". American's spend too much time and energy chasing money and working to enrich other people. Personally, I'd rather enjoy my life and have fun instead of wasting it working 40 hours a week to make someone else rich. In that regard, it is most definitely NOT the best system.

Then Tony, you are what people used to call a "bum."

 

[jj]

Then Tony, you are what people used to call a "bum."

So, then, if someone doesn't work a 60 hour week, making money for someone else instead of themselves, they're a "bum"?

What a curious definition that is.

 

[Batman Jr.]

And how, pray tell, do you convince people to voluntarily hand over money to you? By providing them with something that they find more valuable than the money they gve you. That's how capitalism works. And that encourages the creation of wealth: for if you can create things of value from things of less value, then you can make money. Hence, the more you contribute to society by creating wealth, the wealthier you will be. So even going by what you said, we still arrive back at what I said. You state this as if it's a shortcoming, but it's not. Because the alternative to convincing people to voluntarily give money to you (again, something you can only do by giving them something of value) is to force them (via the government) to give money to you, ala socialism and communism. And you somehow think that's a better alternative? Please. Come back when you've got something real to say.

I'd read a book on P.T. Barnum if I were you.

Also note, for example, how fast-food restaurants and concession stands in movie theaters purposely fill their drinks up with worthless ice to maximize their profit margins, or how the people that make television commercials for mail-order products will drop off a penny from a $20 price tag to fool you into thinking you are paying a great deal less than what you actually are. There's an awful lot of business artifice going on for your "contribution" idea to be genuinely entertained by the system.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I'm perfectly aware that capitalism is unfair, and never made any claims to the contrary. You seem to take it as a given that fairness should be a central tennet of society, but why should that be so?

Um, so you'd be equally happy having a crazy dictator run your life because fairness isn't important? We've been running from the thralls of inequity for as long as history goes back, and all of a sudden fairness is put on the backburner because capitalism is so special?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I'd read a book on P.T. Barnum if I were you.

He's worth reading about, but if you start with the assumtion that he ripped people off, you miss the point.

He didn't. He entertained them. He created value through marketing. His customers were satisfied.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Also note, for example, how fast-food restaurants and concession stands in movie theaters purposely fill their drinks up with worthless ice to maximize their profit margins...

Ice isn't worthless. I bet if you figured the cost of the electricity to make it and the machinery to keep it, its cost would be comparable to or greater than the soda it displaces. The largest cost of the soft drink is the rent on the building and the salary of the kid who serves it to you.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
, or how the people that make television commercials for mail-order products will drop off a penny from a $20 price tag to fool you into thinking you are paying a great deal less than what you actually are.


There's an awful lot of business artifice going on for your "contribution" idea to be genuinely entertained by the system.

Shaving a penny off the price is a psych trick, nothing more. Nobody is really fooled into thinking they're getting a great deal, but it is easier to buy something for "less than" $20.00 than it is to buy it for $20.00.

As far as "contribution" is concerned, the contribution isn't always physically creating something of value, it's often performing a valuable service. In the example of mail order products, the service is putting the producer in touch with his market and helping him to move more merchandise.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Um, so you'd be equally happy having a crazy dictator run your life because fairness isn't important?

I think he was pretty clear he was saying that fairness is important, just not most important. A system where everyone is poor but equal is not as good as a system where most people are wealthy, but some are poor.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
We've been running from the thralls of inequity for as long as history goes back, and all of a sudden fairness is put on the backburner because capitalism is so special?

No...for all of recorded history fairness has been on the back burner. It's never been a priority for anyone until the last century. Where it has been made a priority then, it hasn't worked very well.

 

[Batman Jr.]

He's worth reading about, but if you start with the assumtion that he ripped people off, you miss the point.

So his advertisement for a "six-foot-tall man eating chicken" turning out to be a "six-foot-tall man" sitting down for a healthy portion of poultry in front of an audience wasn't duplicitous? And I guess neither was the "Fejee Mermaid" hoax? We crack down on the Uri Gellers of the world, but since Barnum was a bastion of capitalism and "marketing" and he supposedly "entertained" people, it's okay by you to excuse his fraudulence. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by Mycroft
Ice isn't worthless. I bet if you figured the cost of the electricity to make it and the machinery to keep it, its cost would be comparable to or greater than the soda it displaces. The largest cost of the soft drink is the rent on the building and the salary of the kid who serves it to you.

Leave costs like the rent of the building and the salaried employees out of this, because they are irrelevant to my point.

And I'm supposed to expect that they take soda that's already cold and jack up their costs with ice? Come on. I think this calls for a good "Mencken issue" horselaugh.

Originally posted by Mycroft
As far as "contribution" is concerned, the contribution isn't always physically creating something of value, it's often performing a valuable service. In the example of mail order products, the service is putting the producer in touch with his market and helping him to move more merchandise.

Yes, I realize that. You don't get my point. I'm not discounting the value of a service someone provides. I reject the feigning of value. Whether we're talking about the psychological tricks employed by ad agencies, or the publicity machines that launch the careers of people like Ashlee Simpson, we can see how rampant this illness of fakery pervades our society.

Originally posted by Mycroft
I think he was pretty clear he was saying that fairness is important, just not most important. A system where everyone is poor but equal is not as good as a system where most people are wealthy, but some are poor.

Alright, what I said before was wrongheaded of me and kind of an inadvertent strawman. That being said, if the problem is that there aren't enough resources to be spread around in a fair manner, then I would think our means of production ought more to be concentrated on than the type of economic system we're using, so that we can both have a fair and generous environment to live in.

 

[Tony]

Then Tony, you are what people used to call a "bum."

Funny, you're what people used to call a "slave".

 

[Jocko]

Funny, you're what people used to call a "slave".

Yeah, you just go on harping about the "squares" and "selling out." Just try to spend my tax money on something more constructive than tie-dyes and lava lamps.

No, I cannot solve your problem, only you can Mr. Lebowski. I
suggest you do what your parents did - get a JOB sir. The bums lost, Mr.
Lebowski, do you hear me! The bums WILL ALWAYS lose!

From the Big Book of the Big Lebowski, which teaches us that people like The Dude are fine on screen but a pain in the ass to have in your neighborhood.

 

[Jocko]

That being said, if the problem is that there aren't enough resources to be spread around in a fair manner, then I would think our means of production ought more to be concentrated on than the type of economic system we're using, so that we can both have a fair and generous environment to live in.

Marx just rolled over in his grave.

 

[Tony]

Yeah, you just go on harping about the "squares" and "selling out." Just try to spend my tax money on something more constructive than tie-dyes and lava lamps.

Huh?

 

[Jocko]

Huh?

Sigh...

American's spend too much time and energy chasing money and working to enrich other people. Personally, I'd rather enjoy my life and have fun instead of wasting it working 40 hours a week to make someone else rich. In that regard, it is most definitely NOT the best system.

Short term memory loss is a bitch, ain't it?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'd read a book on P.T. Barnum if I were you.

Also note, for example, how fast-food restaurants and concession stands in movie theaters purposely fill their drinks up with worthless ice to maximize their profit margins, or how the people that make television commercials for mail-order products will drop off a penny from a $20 price tag to fool you into thinking you are paying a great deal less than what you actually are. There's an awful lot of business artifice going on for your "contribution" idea to be genuinely entertained by the system.

Oh my GOD! People pay too much for soda at the movie theater! The world is coming to an end! Capitalism is evil because the guy down at the ciniplex put too much ice in my Mountain Dew!

Please. Yes, there's tricks to advertising. But you still need to produce something, and if you ever want people to buy from you again (a pretty damn common requirement for businesses), that thing better still be worth it even with all the tricks.

Um, so you'd be equally happy having a crazy dictator run your life because fairness isn't important? We've been running from the thralls of inequity for as long as history goes back, and all of a sudden fairness is put on the backburner because capitalism is so special?

What a complete strawman. I wouldn't want to live under a dictator, because I believe in freedom, and that SHOULD be a central tennet of society. I'm not putting fairness on the backburner, it's ALWAYS been on the back burner, and every attempt to put it on the front burner has ended in violence, tragedy, and more than enough unfairness left over anyways (see: Soviet Union). And yes, capitalism is special: it has produced more prosperity AND freedom than any other system. I value both. But all you can whine about is how it's not fair. Well, grow up already.

 

[Tony]

Short term memory loss is a bitch, ain't it?

Not really.

I said "Huh?" because what you said was completely irrelevant to my post. I never said anything about "squares", "selling out" or tie-dye. I suggest you take a break and come back when you're not plauged by delusions.

 

[Tony]

It's a matter of emphasis. Again, I don't think where it was distributed is the important factor in this. Yes, you are correct, the redistribution to private individuals is not communist. But I consider the seizure of the land, not its subsequent fate, to be the important point here. Destroy property rights by such seizures and it doesn't matter who you give the land to afterwards, you're still going to ruin your economy. And regarding the seizure part, it might as well have been communist. But whatever your emphasis, it's undeniably leftist.

You should inform Religious Reich figure Tom Delay that he's being a "leftist" when he seizes land for the Katy Freeway expansion. No, the seizure of land (we euphemistically call it imminent domain here) is something both leftists and rightists do.

 

[rikzilla]

Tony,

The PC that you are currently sitting in front of was provided to your local library through tax dollars. Tax dollars provided by people who work for a living. The PC itself was invented by engineers who spent long hours in school to learn their jobs, then worked for a living. The operating system of that PC was created by Bill Gates who knew a little something about protecting his intellectual property....he no longer works for a living much because he's worth many, many billions of $.

Oh the inhumanity of Bill Gates controlling more resources than several third world nations!

So here he is, the capitalist boogeyman himself! The Evil Bill Gates! Yet without his operating system (or the OS's of other similarly capitalist programmers) this medium of communication we are currently enjoying so much would not exist. Without the promise of reward why would Bill Gates, etal have bothered to create all this? A: They wouldn't have.

It's true the wealthy do not always deserve their wealth...but capitalism is surely more fair than the old ways of aristocracy. Real capitalists do not just gather wealth....they create wealth. This is why we were always ahead of the Soviets. We were great at innovation and invention because of the capitalist incentive. They were merely great at espionage and reverse engineering. Their system guaranteed they'd always be a step behind. The fall of the Soviet Union is a fine example of philosophical Darwinism. Capitalism is superior...until something more superior evolves.

Here's a hint; the guy who's gonna create something better than capitalism is not sitting on his ass right now collecting a gov't dole and bitching about "the Rich".

-z

 

[Ziggurat]

Alright, what I said before was wrongheaded of me and kind of an inadvertent strawman. That being said, if the problem is that there aren't enough resources to be spread around in a fair manner, then I would think our means of production ought more to be concentrated on than the type of economic system we're using, so that we can both have a fair and generous environment to live in.

And we get back to the basic fallacy of leftist economics: there IS no fixed pool of resources, just as there is no fixed pool of wealth. Rather than concentrate on spreading those resources around "fairly", why not instead seak to expand that pool? That's what capitalism does. What you propose has been tried, and it inevitably stagnates or fails. Who decides how to concentrate the means of production? How do they make that decision? How do they change those decisions over time? Oh, but let's not worry about such mundane "details", shall we? After all, our shiny new system will be FAIR. All animals are equal. Four legs good, two legs bad.