Whats so bad about socialism?

WMT1 said:

You don't have a "right" to education. But thanks for demonstrating one of the problems with setting bad precedents. Fostering the belief that you do have a right to these things is one of the unfortunate effects of those socialist traits you're asking about.

Ok, taking it at face value there, tell me...

Do you think that there is any value for a 60 year old person in paying taxes to educate college students?

Do you think there is any value in a 20 year old mean-young-conservative paying for heathcare for the 60 year old person?

Let's leave rights out of it, which, if either, of the above, are good long-term investments?
 
The main problem I see is that it is a simplistic and narrow approach to complex problems that require flexibility. This is why pure socialism and pure capitalism inveitably fail.

Now purely socialistic/mostly socialistic countries do have certain strengths: universal healthcarem cheap/efficient public transportation, little to no unemployement, excellent education.

But they fail, compared to capitalist nations in the realm of: luxuries, invention in the field of luxuries, producing more overall wealth and other areas of innovations.

I really can't say why this is for sure. But that's what history, has for the most part shown. I suspect because the government can't take as many risks as a company: it's one thing for a company to lose on a risky venture, it's another thing entirely for the government to do so. Cooperations can also increase wealth with their concern for profit, whereas governments are supposed to be above the profit motive.

Though there is probably a variety of reasons, none of which I'm sure of. (And that nobody can be sure of until the invention of psychohistory perhaps.)

Also there are two attitudes towards socialist programs as I see itL Egalitarian and meritocratic.

I am more meritocratic, which means in what government programs we do have should be used for equal oppurtunity, not just equality no matter your position. It likewise means in what government programs we do have, we should pay on how well people do and reward on the basis of merit in their field.

Also I believe we should tweak the system to reward merit, or what society and ethical scientists deem as admirable/valuable behavior and character. This has the advantage of encouraging behavior society as a whole value most. It also avoids detering gifted people from such pursuits by making them feel ignored/not rewarded at all. I know a person, lets say a teacher, a philosopher, a logician shoud be motivated by their love of their profession/subject, not money. But there is a difference between something being a motivation and deterence. They have to make a living just like everyone else, and if they have to get odd jobs just to make ends meet, while big tobacco gets a free ride: something is not just or right. Unless that is our society has decided it values tobacco more then it does philosophy and education: in which case I believe we need reform.

I also believe we should accord special priveleges with admirabble behavior. I believe eventually we should make it so you have to take tests in order to vote, carry a gun, people that want kids, etc. I believe it absurd that we test something like driving, as a "priveledge" but let two things, far more important in their ramifications and overall effect on society: voting and parenting, just slide. (Notice the difference between right and priveledge is a value judgement). Or we should tax people who have a criminal history more, and those who are upstanding less.

Ultimately I believe in a mixed economy sprinkled with some meritocratic socialism.

This has the value of being flexible, getting the best of both worlds, and advocating certain behavior within the confines of a free market.
 
If we have a "right" to education, then why not healthcare.


We dont have a "right" to education. "Education" has become a mandate.
 
WMT1 wrote:

Those traits tend to involve forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for.

You don't have a "right" to education.

Redcoat:
Need should not trump ownership. Just because someone "needs" something should not dissolve the provider of the good or service from their right to charge for it.

Fine, the same arguments can apply to police protection. Why should the wealthy subsidize a police force disproportionately sent out to impoverished districts that pay much lower taxes (and hardly any by comparison). Well, that's in theory at least; everyone knows response times to Beverly Hills and Bel-Air differ significantly from South Central (even though most homicides are committed here).

Ideally though, everyone pays for their own police protection, and if you can't afford it, well, tough luck. Purchase a gun maybe?

What makes ownership so special and morally off-limits? In other threads I've brought up the issue of legitimate ownership (how it comes to being), especially land ownership, but no one has yet to offer a substantive answer.

We've setup a system where rich people get multiple cosmetic surgeries, and poor people needlessly suffer because they didn't catch an physical condition soon enough.

A doctor's line ought to be determined by need, not ability to pay. It's incredible that we even seriously discuss this point of view in the 21st century.
 
Cain said:
WMT1 wrote:

Fine, the same arguments can apply to police protection. Why should the wealthy subsidize a police force disproportionately sent out to impoverished districts that pay much lower taxes (and hardly any by comparison)...

What makes ownership so special and morally off-limits? In other threads I've brought up the issue of legitimate ownership (how it comes to being), especially land ownership, but no one has yet to offer a substantive answer.

We've setup a system where rich people get multiple cosmetic surgeries, and poor people needlessly suffer because they didn't catch an physical condition soon enough.

A doctor's line ought to be determined by need, not ability to pay. It's incredible that we even seriously discuss this point of view in the 21st century.

I think that the argument for police protection is the same as the arguement for (minimal) state-provided schooling and (minimal) no-cost health care: it is necessary for society to function. It is true and necessary (but not necessarily fair) that the people with the most money end up funding more than their "share" of the gov't provided services that go out to everyone. This is - in my mind - just a fact of life.

The difference with socialism is that - as I see it - your asking the wealthy to fund more than just a minimal amount to keep society going, you're asking them to make everyone "happy" and make everything "convenient".

The reason ownership trumps need is that, in a capitalist system, you must (for the most part, celebrities and corporate criminals exempted) either work for your money or gamble money in a corporate venture to gain it. In either case, you've earned it. Taking that away because someone else says they need it (but obviously hasn't earned it, since, if they had they wouldn't be asking you to give it to them) is in effect stealing your work.

America provides everybody with opportunities to be successful. Some make use of these opportunities and become wealthy. Others do not.

Regarding the cosmetic surgery: if rich people want to spend their money foolishly, who are we to criticize?

If a doctor's sevices should be administered based on "need", then why stop there? I own two vehicles - a newer car, and an old truck. Someone certainly exists out there without a car. Do I "owe" them one of my vehicles based on their "need"? Of course not. If you start using "need" as your criteria for ownership, then the logical conclusion is that things are only "fair" when everyone has exactly the same things. This doesn't sound like the type of society that would function well.

Just my thoughts - criticism and commentary are invited,

Peace.
 
RedCoat said:

It is true and necessary (but not necessarily fair) that the people with the most money end up funding more than their "share" of the gov't provided services that go out to everyone. This is - in my mind - just a fact of life.


Peace.

Is that really true? We tend to limit our thinking of services to fire, police and schooling but the government does much more.

For example if you area Richy Rich wealthy business owner you are proabably using the court system more than Poor Joe worker, your delivery trucks use up the roads more than Joe Workers little car, Richys employees use the airports for business travel ona daily basis while Joe may fly once per year, then there's the whole financial infrastructer in place to ensure the safety of Richys assets and investments.

Richy may not have his kids in public school but he is benefiting from many gov't provided services.
 
Tmy said:


Is that really true? We tend to limit our thinking of services to fire, police and schooling but the government does much more.

For example if you area Richy Rich wealthy business owner you are proabably using the court system more than Poor Joe worker, your delivery trucks use up the roads more than Joe Workers little car, Richys employees use the airports for business travel ona daily basis while Joe may fly once per year, then there's the whole financial infrastructer in place to ensure the safety of Richys assets and investments.

Richy may not have his kids in public school but he is benefiting from many gov't provided services.

The statistic that I'm thinking of (and this may be a few years old) is that the top 5% of earners provide 50% of the federal gov't tax income. The lower 50% of earners provide 5% of the tax income.

Assuming that this is still true, then everyone should be thankful that "Richy Rich" (your term) pays his or her taxes.

As a side thought - aren't Richy Rich's trucks providing truck driving jobs for Joe Worker? If Joe Worker doesn't want to drive trucks, why doesn't he start a company to compete with Richy Rich?

Peace.
 
RedCoat said:


I think that the argument for police protection is the same as the arguement for (minimal) state-provided schooling and (minimal) no-cost health care: it is necessary for society to function. It is true and necessary (but not necessarily fair) that the people with the most money end up funding more than their "share" of the gov't provided services that go out to everyone. This is - in my mind - just a fact of life.

The difference with socialism is that - as I see it - your asking the wealthy to fund more than just a minimal amount to keep society going, you're asking them to make everyone "happy" and make everything "convenient".


Or advocates of a nationalized system could argue that you have a faulty understanding of "minimal." Why bother educating people up to grade 12? Why not 11, or 10, or 9? Why isn't a fifth grade education "minimal"?

A normative conclusion does not follow from a "fact of life." Supposing everyone was given more extensive care than now, and we considered this normal, would the same argument apply?

The reason ownership trumps need is that, in a capitalist system, you must (for the most part, celebrities and corporate criminals exempted) either work for your money or gamble money in a corporate venture to gain it. In either case, you've earned it.

That's an empirical claim that I emphatically disagree with.

Taking that away because someone else says they need it (but obviously hasn't earned it, since, if they had they wouldn't be asking you to give it to them) is in effect stealing your work.

Wealth is not created in isolation by individuals; it's created by society. I do not enjoy a certain standard of living because of my own efforts, nor do you or anyone else. To think otherwise is pure hubris. A teacher in Seattle, Washington makes "earns" more money than a teacher in Managua, Nicaragua, but I hardly doubt the former works much harder than the latter.

America provides everybody with opportunities to be successful. Some make use of these opportunities and become wealthy. Others do not.

It does not afford everyone an equal opportunity (or anything approaching equal opportunity). If one segment of the population has advantages -- inheretance in terms of money or even genes -- then we could hardly say these gains have been "earned" in any meaningful sense.

If a doctor's sevices should be administered based on "need", then why stop there? I own two vehicles - a newer car, and an old truck. Someone certainly exists out there without a car. Do I "owe" them one of my vehicles based on their "need"?

I have a bottle of water sitting on my desk that I do not need to drink, but I'm sure some one somewhere desperately needs it. Does that mean I send it off? The example suffers from distributional messiness and assumes a degree of ownership without argument. It's also relatively trivial compared with healthcare. No one's arguing that people are entitled to vehicle ownership.

Robert Nozick, responding to a famous essay by Bernard Williams on health care, asks if barbers should cut people with long hair because they're in "greater need." Or, he says, should people with two good eyes be forced to donate one of their eyeballs to a blind person.

Or maybe I "need" a beautiful movie star to kiss me.

Built-in assumptions -- assumptions I believe that are unwarranted -- prevent Nozick and others from seeing how ownership over the external world requires greater justification, and how wealth is socially created.

Let me just point out there are at least two separate and distinct arguments one can make for universal health care:

1) it promotes efficiency (market failure arises for reasons mentioned in a prior post).

2) moral reasons: ownership is arbitrary, and (so far) unjustified.


Of course not. If you start using "need" as your criteria for ownership, then the logical conclusion is that things are only "fair" when everyone has exactly the same things. This doesn't sound like the type of society that would function well.

No it doesn't. "Need" probably leads to visibly different outcomes. Some people need to park close to the grocery store because they're handicapped. Others can walk greater distances without much effort.
__________________________________

Federal income taxes only pay attention to one side of the story. Most people actually pay more in payroll taxes (highly regressive) than Federal Income Taxes.

Adapted from my earlier post in a thread titled "tax cuts for the wealthy:

Okay, let's say we have a society consisting of only ten people: one person makes 100,000 dollars a year; the other nine pull down $10,000 per annum. Everyone pays a flat rate of 10% on their income.

$10,000
+$9000
$19,000

Notice that the top 10% still pays more than 50% of the taxes.

I suppose you'd want everyone to shell out the same in dollar amounts (if at all).

The government must provide public goods (non-rival, non-exclusionary) BECAUSE of market failure. Adam Smith recognized this long ago in the case of police, national defense, courts, schools, roads and canals.
 
As a side thought - aren't Richy Rich's trucks providing truck driving jobs for Joe Worker? If Joe Worker doesn't want to drive trucks, why doesn't he start a company to compete with Richy Rich?

That's the whole point.

If person X has no money to start a business with and person Y has an established business and makes millions of dollars and have money to develop his business than how can person X just start a business and compete? He can't.

The only way he could would be if peron Y is just extremely incompotent.

Furthermore, we know that having large companies is a good thing in mnay ways, so why should we keep saying that if people want to be successful they have to start their own business, when we know that cooperation through coroprations is a good thing.

The solution is to just allow for greater public ownership of corproations and for emplyers to be more fair. We do no good by making a system where everyone is so unfair to the employee that everyone tried to be an employer. Damn, just treat the employees right and share ownership and lets all make some progress.
 
Malachi151 said:



The only way he could would be if peron Y is just extremely incompotent.


All person X has to do is buy 10MB of web space and a book on html. Now more than ever the startup costs of a small business are smaller than ever.
 
If you ever wanted to see a good idea or program blown to hell, put the federal government in charge of it.

Government is busy enough doing the things demanded of it by the constitution, it has neither the constitutional right nor the ability, really, to run programs that are better left to the individual, or local/city/state authorities.

Socialism works...if you'd rather the government taking care of you than you taking care of yourself.

Where have all the proud, rugged individualists gone? :confused:
 
corplinx said:


All person X has to do is buy 10MB of web space and a book on html. Now more than ever the startup costs of a small business are smaller than ever.

Yeah, its just that easy :rolleyes:

That was called the stock market scam of the late 1990s, that bandwagon is overwith.
 
Malachi151 said:

The solution is to just allow for greater public ownership of corproations and for emplyers to be more fair. We do no good by making a system where everyone is so unfair to the employee that everyone tried to be an employer. Damn, just treat the employees right and share ownership and lets all make some progress.
That is a fair statement on a small scale. In Jack Stack’s The Great Game of Business he describes a system of company ownership that, because of Capitalism, works well. At his facility the corporation is owned by the employees. In this system the owners/employees are motivated to achieve because they have a stake in the system on a small scale. They are able to see (through their education/understanding and open-book nature of the business), on a day to day basis, the application of their work and how it effects the operation of the company. If they can see the company failing they can do their part to improve it. Their main motivation, of course, is that if they fail to do their job the company will fail and the employee then have no employment or no income (unemployment aside). Of course since I have not read the book in some time there are issues that I can not respond to in this system, hiring/firing and such.

This, however, is a far cry from being owned by the public at large. Why would the employee continue to produce at a great rate if there was a cushion for him/her to fall onto if the company failed? Why not take the free ride?
 
If you ever wanted to see a good idea or program blown to hell, put the federal government in charge of it.

First of all socialism does not require that the government do anything other that regulate wages, all work can stay in the private sector.

Secondly, may I refer you to:

http://thomasash.hypermart.net/politicsandsociety/kangas-libeconomicrecord.html

http://thomasash.hypermart.net/politicsandsociety/kangas-govsuccessstories.html

Settling the West: The U.S. government played a vital role in settling the West, including massive land purchases and giveaways, the Homestead Act, the Pony Express, agricultural colleges, rural electrification, telephone wiring, road-building, irrigation, dam-building, farm subsidies, and farm foreclosure loans.



Funding Railroads: In the late 19th century, the government gave away 131 million acres in federal land grants, at enormous cost to itself, to railroad companies to build their railroads. Four of the five transcontinental railroads were built this way. To help them, Congress authorized loans of $16,000 to $48,000 per mile of railroad (depending on the terrain).

Telephone Infrastructure: The early telephone companies couldn't afford to wire communities for telephone service themselves, so they turned to the government for help -- and government funding wired nearly the entire nation.

Eisenhower's Interstate Highway Program: This massive 1950s program paved an entire continent with highways, bringing undreamed of economic change, and allowing the middle class to resettle from the cities to the suburbs.

Rural Electrification: In 1935, only 13 percent of all farms had electricity, because utility companies found it unprofitable to wire the countryside for service. Roosevelt's Rural Electrification Administration began correcting this market failure; by 1970, more than 95 percent of all farms would have electricity.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (New Version): Once a bureaucratic joke, today FEMA has won widespread praise for its response to natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and tornadoes. No private business could wait the long intervals between disasters like FEMA does, or bring relief to entire cities or states.

Human Genome Project: The government provides the money and the organization for this 20-year project, which will give medical science a road-map of the human genetic code. Researchers have already found genes that contribute to 50 diseases.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: This legendary American organization, popularized by the movie Outbreak, isolates and wipes out entire plagues and diseases that strike anywhere in the world. "The CDC," says Dr. James Le Duc of the World Health Organization, "is the only ballgame in town."

The Internet: In the 1960s, the government created ARPANET, which was used and developed by the Defense Department, public universities and other research organizations. In 1985, the National Science Foundation created various supercomputing centers around the country, linking the five largest together to start the modern Internet we know today.

The Federal Reserve System: Using Keynesian policies to expand or contract the money supply, the Fed has completely eliminated the depression from the American economic experience in the last six decades.

Employee Rights: Over strong opposition from business leaders and conservatives in Congress, liberals passed all the laws that workers take for granted today. These include the elimination of child labor, the creation of the 40-hour work week, overtime pay, paid vacations, the minimum wage, workers' compensation, worker's insurance programs, Social Security, organized labor rights and worker safety and health laws.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an alphabetical list of other government accomplishments. It hardly scratches the surface:

AmeriCorps: In exchange for volunteer work in the community, students receive $5,000 credit for college. An IBM study shows that for every dollar invested in AmeriCorps, the return is between $1.60 and $2.60.

Ban on Leaded Gasoline: The oil industry fought this ban tooth and nail. But a few years after the ban, the level of poisonous lead in children's blood fell 37 percent.

Ban on CFCs: The chemical industry initially opposed efforts to ban this refrigerant chemical, which destroys the life-preserving ozone layer. Only government treaties and repeated scientific warnings forced them to change.

Ban on DDT and PCBs: Industry did everything in its power to stop the ban of these highly poisonous pesticides, which devastated wildlife populations. But from 1970 to 1983, the amount of DDT in human body fat fell 79 percent.

Bureau of Economic Analysis: This agency provides all the economic statistics that Congress, the executive branch, the Federal Reserve, the stock and bond markets, private industry and the entire economy depend on to make their analysis. Private industry could never do such an enormous job.

Clean Air and Clean Water Acts: By 1970, three fourths of America's rivers were undrinkable and unswimmable. Air quality in cities contributing to spiraling lung-disease rates. Over industry opposition, these Acts turned the environment around and visibly cleaned both our air and water.

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Each year, products kill 21,700 consumers, injure 28.7 million more, and cost society $200 billion. It would be far worse without this watchdog agency screening 15,000 products a year for safety.

Cooperative Extension Service: The CES gives American farmers the latest and best agricultural information and scientific research. Experts credit it for turning them into the most productive farmers in the world.

Environmental Protection Agency: This agency monitors and controls pollution caused by solid wastes, pesticides, toxic substances, noise, and radiation. It has been in constant conflict with business, because it's usually cheaper for businesses to just dump pollution than treat it.

Federal Aviation Administration: Whatever its shortcomings (which stem from underfunding), the FAA has made our skies far safer than the free market would make them. The FAA not only controls air traffic for safety, but enforces safety regulations (which airliners are constantly trying to skirt to increase profits).

Federal Deposit Insurance Commission: During the Great Depression, a run on banks resulted in 10,000 bankruptcies and over $2 billion in lost deposits. Today, the FDIC insures bank deposits and makes a repeat performance completely impossible.

Federal Home Loans: This agency helps half a million Americans buy homes each year by guaranteeing their mortgages. Without them, millions of first-time buyers would have been denied home loans.

G.I. Bill: One of the most successful programs of all times, the G.I Bill sent an entire army of young men to college after World War II. It proved so valuable that the program continues to this day.

Head Start: This legendary program provides pre-schooling, nutritious meals, medical and dental care and other services to young children in their critical developmental years. More than 200 studies have found that it works.

Meals-on-Wheels: This highly popular program brings hot meals to the doorsteps of elderly people who cannot fix their own or leave their homes. Nearly a million senior citizens alleviate hunger or starvation thanks to this program.

Medicaid: This program provides health care to the elderly, disabled and poor. It covers half of all the people in nursing homes.

Medicare: Before Medicare, half our nation's senior citizens did not have any health care coverage at all. Now 99 percent of them do. Medicare passed in 1965, after one of the largest Congressional battles in history -- fueled, of course, by the insurance industry.

National Aeronautical Space Administration: A classic example of a long-term research and development program that no business could ever afford. Today we have communications, weather and scientific satellites that have revolutionized our daily lives, all thanks to NASA.

National Academy of Sciences: This is the premier scientific body in the United States, comprised of 1,800 of its best scientists. Membership is one of the highest honors of a scientist's career. The Academy's duty is to advise the government on scientific and technical issues, and to help coordinate scientific research in the U.S. It also commissions review panels on controversial issues and often gets to the bottom of them.

National Crime Information Center: This is a centralized federal computer service that provides police and criminal justice organizations with instant information on criminals. It tracks 400,000 wanted persons, and handles 1.3 million inquiries a day.

National Parks: This system oversees 369 national parks comprising 83 million acres. It is one of the most effective -- not to mention popular -- conservation efforts in our nation's history.

National Performance Review/"Reinventing Government": This is Al Gore's ambitious program to computerize and streamline government, borrowing techniques from high-performance private companies. It has already saved $58 billion and cut 200,000 workers, with much, much more to come.

National Weather Service: This agency not only gives you your daily weather reports, but saves the lives and/or livelihoods of pilots, sailors, farmers and those in the paths of destructive storms.

Peace Corps: Created by John F. Kennedy, this program sends 7,000 Americans a year out to developing countries to help them with everything from health care to farming techniques. Even conservatives like it, because the participants provide social, economic and political information to our intelligence agencies.

Police and Criminal Justice System: This may seem obvious, but it's also one of the best examples that government plays a vital role in society, one that could never be privatized. This is one of the best counter-arguments against pure anarchy.

Public Libraries: In 1992, America had 15,870 central public libraries and their branches, with nearly 700 million books and serial volumes in circulation. A University of Minnesota/Gallup survey found that 88 percent of all Americans consider public libraries "very important" as an educational support center for students of all ages.

School Lunches and Breakfasts: This program provides low-income kids with a third to a half of their daily nutrition. Since the program began, low-income kids have markedly improved their school performance and attendance. A classic example of how short-term public aid results in life-long individual benefits.

Securities and Exchange Commission: Before this agency was created, insider-trading and deceptive stock dealings ran rampant on Wall Street. The SEC enforces full and honest disclosure of all stock transactions, and fights to curb insider trading.

Social Security: Before 1935, retirement condemned huge numbers of old people to starving in the streets. Social security eliminated this ugly sight by providing them with a pension. Johnson's expansion of Social Security in 1966 reduced senior poverty even more, from 30 to 12 percent.

Student Loans and Grants: In 1993, the major federal student financial assistance programs awarded $25.7 billion in aid to students who could not otherwise afford college. Thanks to this program, it is a student's intelligence and drive -- not money -- that is more responsible for getting him or her through college.

The U.S. Armed Forces: Love 'em or hate 'em, the U.S. Armed Forces have won every war they ever fought. Even in Vietnam, they won the vast majority of their battles.

Where have all the proud, rugged individualists gone?

And this is what you don't get. Capitalism is a self defeting system. Through the process of capitalism all resources become owned and exploited and ownership becomes consolidated. Once that has happned, it then becomes difficult for new growth to take place.

America is about 200 years old, but really if you look at the whole country less than that, more like 150. It was a vast wilderness where it was easy to go out an dgrab resources and get to work. Now it is no longer that way. Over time it will be even less that way. In the 1800s you got off the boat with nothing, hithched a ride west, workedd for a farmer for about 6 months, bought a horse and get and laid claim to free land, found gold on it, then you were rich, maybe you had to kill a few Indians along the way.

You can't do that now. the computer revolution created a new "gold rush", a new boom, but that got grabbed up quick, in like 10 years, not its all populated by the big boys too.

As the economy matures and developed the entry level into the system gets higher and higher. It gets harder and harder to start a business. People become more and more dependant on those who have already achieved success before them.

There is no way around it, except, of course socialism or redistribution of wealth. When America was founded there was no need to redistribute wealth because it was all free for the taking by anyone. Now, it no longer is.
 
Malachi151 said:


That's the whole point.

If person X has no money to start a business with and person Y has an established business and makes millions of dollars and have money to develop his business than how can person X just start a business and compete? He can't.

The only way he could would be if peron Y is just extremely incompotent.

I have to disagree...

There are many ways that a person can create an 'upstart' business. There are 'new' markets that a person can enter, there are banks and venture capitalists willing to invest (probably fewer now after the .com bubble burst, but they still exist.)

And while I don't expect an 'upstart' company to compete immediately with a high-earning established company, there is no reason that they cannot compete in the near future.

Look at the list of the richest people in Forbes magazine... Many are 'self made' millionaires (Gates, Ellison, etc.) Others may have inherited part of their fortunes, but they continue working to make it successful.
 
Malachi151 said:


Yeah, its just that easy :rolleyes:

That was called the stock market scam of the late 1990s, that bandwagon is overwith.

You keep rolling your eyes slick. The stock market scam was zero value companies and bad business plans.

There were many entrepreneurs using small web sites to sell anything from pool chemicals to computer parts. I had a case study in business school about a guy who sold pool chemicals. He would browse the latest prices, undercut them, collect orders. At 4pm every day he would go buy a large wholesaler, buy the chemicals and then ship them.

His startup costs were very low. His story is but one of many.

There is nothing more annoying than someone who is ignorant of a subject acting juvenile (rolling their virtual eyes in your case). Perhaps you could find a web forum for reactionary anti-business people so you won't need be bothered with facts?
 
Ah, the Horatio Alger fallacy. The notion that everybody can be the exception. It works as well in capitalism as it does in lotteries.-- Mike Huben

A Time poll conducted in the year 2000 showed that 19% of people actually think they're in the top 1%. A further 20% believe they will be there one day.

(A gushing editorial in the WSJ a few months ago cited similar numbers from a then recent Gallup Poll.)

This is just another instance of the Market-God at work. Those who are faithful believers will get rewarded for their piety.

John McMurty draws parallels between market fundamentalism (espoused daily here on the JREF forums) and more typical religious fundamentalism:

A theological doctrine, like a science, is an organized system of ideas which is intended to make sense of reality in terms of the principles it advances. But what distinguishes a fundamentalist theology from a science or other learned discipline is that:

1. It posits an invisible Supreme Ruler whose order of rule and laws are conceived as universal, inevitable, and absolute;

2. This order of rule and its laws are conceived as immutable and inalterable, and any interference in their nature or structure is construed as abhorrent;

3. The Supreme Ruler rewards those who are disciplined in their adherence to this order and its laws, and is unforgiving to those who rebel against, violate, or fail to submit to getting its fundamentals right;

4. Happiness and prosperity are the rewards of the Supreme Ruler, and are distributed to all subjects in proportion to their competitive satisfaction of the order's demands; while poverty, degradation and suffering are the punishments which inevitably befall all peoples of the world who in any way flout, shirk or do not adapt to its order's demands;

5. There are perfect states of equilibrium of the Ruler's eternal order which do not exist and are never attained, but which all the Ruler's subjects must understand as the optimums towards which the system tends if not interfered with by the atheist plans and insubordinations of governments and unbelievers.

6. If necessary sacrifices are made by a society to ensure that its fundamentals are right and in proper adjustment to the Supreme Ruler's re-structuring demands, then prosperity or miracles will transfigure that society by the workings of the Supreme Ruler's invisible hand;

7. Whatever facts of life disaster may seem to contradict the necessity and validity of the Ruler's order of rule only appear to conflict with them, and can always be explained and corrected by more rigorous understanding and application of the order's discipline, austerity and sacrifices;

8. Those who doubt or criticize the perfection of the design of the Ruler, the justice of the order's distribution of goods or punishments, and the global inevitability of the system's rule are repudiators of the only hope for human salvation and prosperity, and are to be known as heretics and subversives;

9. Although denominations and sects may fight among one another to determine and declare what the Supreme Ruler truly prescribes and prohibits to His subjects, they are united in their abomination of all that obstructs, creates barriers to or builds protective walls against the free circulation of His Word and His Laws;

10. Any and all societies, parties or governments which seek to live by any alternative order of social life organization than ordained by the Supreme Ruler are the declared Enemy of the Ruler and of the freedom of humanity, and are to be warred against until expelled from the community of nations and destroyed as the forces of evil.

For each logical space in which the term "the Supreme Ruler" or "the Ruler's order and laws" occurs, substitute the term "the global market" in these logical spaces. In this way, we can test whether and to what extent global market theory and practise fulfils the principles of a fanatical theological doctrine in its underlying structure of belief. Note that "theological" here is being used in a restricted sense. It refers only to an absolutist and vengeful theological doctrine, as distinguished from a theology which construes its God as open to different social orders, and not demanding continuous sacrifices and punishments of those it rules.

I'm sure everyone has a story about a guy they knew in high school, or how a friend's friend became super-rich through his website on the side. And we could find even more people who were "saved" by "Angels" when their car broke down in freezing weather, or the benevolent God who omniously warned someone, through a sign of course, not to board a certain plane. Everyone thinks they're going to become rich for reasons not unlike why they believe they're going to Heaven. The faithful are always rewarded -- eventually. If not, then you're insufficiently pious.
 
Cain said:
I'm sure everyone has a story about a guy they knew in high school, or how a friend's friend became super-rich through his website on the side.

This isn't about hearsay success stories. We are talking about what the internet has done for entrepreneurship. Are the startup costs for a virtual business less than a storefront business?

Yes.

Can a mail/order and internet business make headway against monopoly or oligopoly?

Ask Michael Dell.

The original issue was someone saying that a small businessman can make no headway against a corporate heavyweight. Its an assertion that is pure nonsense and you can find business case after business case refuting that.

Just because it is not likely, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And its certainly no miracle when it does.
 
John McMurty draws parallels between market fundamentalism (espoused daily here on the JREF forums) and more typical religious fundamentalism:

Which of course does not hold a candle to some marxist/socialist fanaticism. ;)
 
Segnosaur said:


I have to disagree...

There are many ways that a person can create an 'upstart' business. There are 'new' markets that a person can enter, there are banks and venture capitalists willing to invest (probably fewer now after the .com bubble burst, but they still exist.)

And while I don't expect an 'upstart' company to compete immediately with a high-earning established company, there is no reason that they cannot compete in the near future.

Look at the list of the richest people in Forbes magazine... Many are 'self made' millionaires (Gates, Ellison, etc.) Others may have inherited part of their fortunes, but they continue working to make it successful.

Okay, tell me this. How many new oil companies start up to compete with Exxon, and such? How many new American car companies start up to comepte with Ford and such?

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire, first of all, and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

Yes, when a new "gold ruch" happens then oppertunity is creates, however that oppertunity depends on some new area opening up that existing wealthy people fail to understand.

That's hardly something to build an economy on, and no way to plan for the future. Let;s see, our plan for the future is that some new thing will happen that people can take advanatge of, maybe, but we have no idea what it is or will be. :rolleyes:

The computer revolution was a kind of fluke. It was born out of the conservatisim of the 1950s, in such a way that those people were not ready to take advantage of new oppertunity because they were conservatives, so when oppertunity came it was liberals ad revolutionary thinkers that took advantage.

IBM failed to capatilize on their position which left the door open for others. Had more compotent people been at IBM there would be no Bill Gates or Michael Dell.

Let's look at Wal-Mart. and all the chains that have sprug up in America creating new wealth. That oppertunity was created out of the liberal economic policy of the 1950s and 1960s that kept big business down. Now that big business have taken over oppertunity is quickly disappearing again. Once Wal-Mart is installed in every city the oppertunity to repeat that type to thing will be gone.

Now, if you want to keep living in a fantasy and believing that our generation (I'm 28) has the same kinds of oppertunities available to it that previous generations had then keep telling yourself that, but the fact is, we don't. The cost of entry into business is getting higher. The computer revolution DID create a brief period of low entry cost, but of course you had to be inot computers, no other fields really had that kind of oppertunity.
 

Back
Top Bottom