Corporation Watch

[zamboe]

Where the hell did you get the absurd idea that it has anything to do with an employee's savings? Employees make a "profit" from their own work. Company owners make a profit from other people's work. That's a huge difference.

No difference at all.

Both parties make profit. That's called business / deal. Win-Win situation.

Besides company owners make a profit from their capital, not from other people's work, people's work provide profit for themselves. Simple as that.

[Nyarlathotep]

Edric O, if someone comes up with an idea, and a corporation decides to produce that article, what would be a good payment for the idea ?

I'm not against your way of thinking, but you can't think of any compensation (money wise) for that persons idea. So why not have him/her share with every product sold ?

One time payment for ideas would only result in immense amounts of money payed for just ideas. Give the person a certan percentage of the profit and if the idea is really good, it shall be rewarded so. If the idea stinks, it will be rewarded that way (IE not receiving money for it). Excelent way of business if you'd ask me..

[SurlyPIG]

Edric, you seem to think that when a worker makes a product, they did it 100% by themselves and deserve 100% of the profit. That is not so. They are supplied equipment, training, space, and materials to make that product, so they obviously can't do it by themselves or they would have done so. And for the record, in secondary industry, profit margins are very, very slight. Typically, 0.5-1%. The rest goes to the worker, minus the cost of transportation of goods, and the cost of materials.

Actually, Ace, the vast majority of progress (and the vast majority of human history) occured under slavery-based societies or under feudalism. Capitalism has barely existed for a few hundred years. That's why the argument that "capitalism is human nature" is quite ridiculous. If capitalism is human nature, then how come we lived for thousands of years without it?

The "natural order of capitalism" is just a modern version of the "divine right of kings". The ruling class tries to legitimize itself by appealing to a higher authority (such as God or nature).

Hah! Horse-drawn carraiges and slave labour isn't what I call progress. Look around you. Nearly everything you see started with an idea that emerged since the birth of the free market. And it's no coincidence that the concept of human rights emerged under a mixed capitalist economy, and true democracy has only stuck around in such a system. The list goes on...

[Wolf]

Edric; aren't corporations owned be people as well? (this is somewhat sarcastic. Reminiscent of the "terrorists are people, too!" joke)

A present-day US government cannot handle the social services required to make socialism a reality. Currently, 70% of US revenue goes to Social Security and Medicare. Also, whenever you buy a porduct, 80% of that product's price goes to wages. It doesn't seem to me that things are as bad as you say. But, I ask you again, what is YOUR plan for moving the world to socialism. I mean, seriously. I'm sure you have a plan, or something, or some abstract idea on how to put theory to practicaly use. Besides, I'm curious now.

However, on privitization. I think I see your point. By further tying corporations to government services, you increase corporate influence and dependence on the government. I think you're right, but not for the reasons you think you're right. It isn't taking power away from the people that isn't there to begin with.

[Edric O]

Edric, you seem to think that when a worker makes a product, they did it 100% by themselves and deserve 100% of the profit. That is not so. They are supplied equipment, training, space, and materials to make that product, so they obviously can't do it by themselves or they would have done so.

Yes, the owner invests a certain amount of capital in his business at the beginning. He buys all those things you mentioned. But his investment is limited and his profit is unlimited. That's the problem.

Usually, the only reason why the workers can't make the product by themselves is because they can't cover the cost of that initial investment. In socialism, those would be covered by the state.

And for the record, in secondary industry, profit margins are very, very slight. Typically, 0.5-1%. The rest goes to the worker, minus the cost of transportation of goods, and the cost of materials.

Well, what can I say? That's very good. I'd say it's not quite good enough, but then you'd accuse me of asking too much...

And, of course, the real question of how that money is being distributed among the various employees...

Hah! Horse-drawn carraiges and slave labour isn't what I call progress. Look around you. Nearly everything you see started with an idea that emerged since the birth of the free market. And it's no coincidence that the concept of human rights emerged under a mixed capitalist economy, and true democracy has only stuck around in such a system. The list goes on...

And the ideas that emerged since the birth of the free market wouldn't have been possible without the ideas and the technology of earlier ages. We wouldn't have cars if no one invented the wheel.

The capitalist free market itself was only made possible by the technology that was invented under feudalism.

Every new economic system is the natural consequence of the technology and ideas created by the previous one.

Edric; aren't corporations owned be people as well? (this is somewhat sarcastic. Reminiscent of the "terrorists are people, too!" joke)

Well, dictatorship governments are run by people, too... :)

A present-day US government cannot handle the social services required to make socialism a reality. Currently, 70% of US revenue goes to Social Security and Medicare. Also, whenever you buy a porduct, 80% of that product's price goes to wages. It doesn't seem to me that things are as bad as you say. But, I ask you again, what is YOUR plan for moving the world to socialism. I mean, seriously. I'm sure you have a plan, or something, or some abstract idea on how to put theory to practicaly use. Besides, I'm curious now.

The government can't stay the same under socialism as it was under capitalism, obviously. In order to establish socialism, the US government would need to be expanded, made more democratic than it already is, and it would also need to undergo some serious structural changes (a special branch for economic planning would need to be established, government priorities should move away from war and towards the welfare of its citizens, and the whole thing should be made more efficient).

But right now, capitalism is going through a period of prosperity. In the US and the other advanced countries, things are going really bad for only a minority of the population. The majority sees no reason to change the system, so the system will not change any time soon.

However, one of the inevitable effects of capitalism is that periods of prosperity alternate with periods of decline. Real economic changes can only be made in the periods of decline, when the vast majority of the people are very unhappy and angry. So the general "plan" for reaching socialism is simple: We must build a strong communist movement, and be prepared for the next period of major decline. When we get our opportunity (known as a "revolutionary situation" to marxists), we should use whatever means are available (preferabely peaceful ones) to achieve the transformation of capitalism into socialism. And we must defend democracy at all costs - remember what happened in the last period of major decline! (the 1920's and 1930's)

However, on privitization. I think I see your point. By further tying corporations to government services, you increase corporate influence and dependence on the government. I think you're right, but not for the reasons you think you're right. It isn't taking power away from the people that isn't there to begin with.

Actually, the main point is that all those services should always be free of charge, so that they are available to everyone, including the poorest of the poor. If you privatize them, they are no longer free.

And the second point is that privatization takes away power from a democratic organization (the government) and gives it to undemocratic organizations (corporations).

[Edric O]

No difference at all.

Both parties make profit. That's called business / deal. Win-Win situation.

Besides company owners make a profit from their capital, not from other people's work, people's work provide profit for themselves. Simple as that.

Except that one party (the owner) gets the lion's share, while the other party (the workers) don't even get the full value of their work. That's not exactly what I'd call "win-win"...

And the capital brought in by the owners is a limited sum of money. You think it's fair that they make unlimited profit from it?

Edric O, if someone comes up with an idea, and a corporation decides to produce that article, what would be a good payment for the idea ?

I'm not against your way of thinking, but you can't think of any compensation (money wise) for that persons idea. So why not have him/her share with every product sold ?

The payment wouldn't be given right away, of course. Just like in capitalism, you have to wait until the idea is actually put into practice before you find out how much it's worth.

And if a corporation gets exclusive rights of the idea, then we haven't solved anything. The point is to make it public property, so that anyone can put it into practice and/or benefit from it, while at the same time rewarding the inventor.

One time payment for ideas would only result in immense amounts of money payed for just ideas. Give the person a certan percentage of the profit and if the idea is really good, it shall be rewarded so. If the idea stinks, it will be rewarded that way (IE not receiving money for it). Excelent way of business if you'd ask me...

As a matter of fact, one-time payments would greatly encourage innovation. In capitalism, if you have one successful idea, you can live off the benefits from that one idea for the rest of your life, and just keep making minor tweaks and improvements to it rather than come up with new ideas. See Microsoft as the perfect example.

In socialism, you can't just live off one idea forever. Eventually the money runs out, and you are motivated to think of new inventions. This moves society forward.

[note to Ace and Wolfwiz: see my reply on the previous page]

[zamboe]

No difference at all.

Both parties make profit. That's called business / deal. Win-Win situation.

Besides company owners make a profit from their capital, not from other people's work, people's work provide profit for themselves. Simple as that.

Except that one party (the owner) gets the lion's share, while the other party (the workers) don't even get the full value of their work. That's not exactly what I'd call "win-win"...

And the capital brought in by the owners is a limited sum of money. You think it's fair that they make unlimited profit from it?

"Lion's share"......unless you can prove it with numbers...it will only remain as your perception.

"Full value of their work"....... There is no full or partial. Just a value.

"limited sum of money"........ you should go over your concepts about capital.

"unlimited profit from it"..... only capital isn't sustainable in time, but when you mix it with owner's work then you have an unlimited profit.

[Edric O]

Seeing how the numbers are different for each company, I'd have to go over several thousand cases to "prove" anything to you...

I have no idea what you're talking about with "There is no full or partial. Just a value." In order for a company to make profit, workers' wages have to be lower than what they actually earned through their work. That is one of the major reasons why capitalism is unjust.

And when the owner is also a worker, he obviously deserves to be paid for his work. But there's a difference between being paid for your work and extracting profits from other people's work.

[SurlyPIG]

Yes, the owner invests a certain amount of capital in his business at the beginning. He buys all those things you mentioned. But his investment is limited and his profit is unlimited. That's the problem.

Usually, the only reason why the workers can't make the product by themselves is because they can't cover the cost of that initial investment. In socialism, those would be covered by the state.

Have you ever heard the phrase 'it takes money to make money?' It's also true that it takes money to make money. The amount of money an investor can make is limited by the size their investment. It's practically a law of physics!

If business ventures were covered by public taxdollars, then every Tom, Dick and Harry that thinks he has an idea will be blundering away resources that would be better used elsewhere. And who has the right to decide which ventures deserve your money and which ones don't, and how much they deserve? It should be up to individuals whether or not they want to invest their money in somebody else's ideas.

Well, what can I say? That's very good. I'd say it's not quite good enough, but then you'd accuse me of asking too much...

And, of course, the real question of how that money is being distributed among the various employees...

It varies depending on the nature of the industry, but typically, if you take the net profit value of any product (cost of materials, transportation, workspace, neccesary energies etc, but not the cost of labour), typically, between 98 and 99.5% of it goes to the worker, the rest to the owner. Owner's earnings vary from business to business, but typically the profits are larger as you go up the industry scale, so primary industry profit is like 0.5%, then 1% in secondary, then 1.5% in tertiary.

Every new economic system is the natural consequence of the technology and ideas created by the previous one.

Naturally. I'm not saying otherwise. What I'm saying is that progress has occurred more rapidly since the emergence of the free market economy, and that the progress accelerates perpetually. Although I must admit it has slowed since the emergence of globalisation.

[Edric O]

Have you ever heard the phrase 'it takes money to make money?' It's also true that it takes money to make money. The amount of money an investor can make is limited by the size their investment. It's practically a law of physics!

Actually, no. You could invest a tiny amount of money to open your own shop at the street corner, and end up owning a massive corporate chain doing business in dozens of countries. Or you could pour millions of dollars into a project that turns out to be an abysmal failure.

This just goes to show the random nature of the capitalist distribution of wealth.

If business ventures were covered by public taxdollars, then every Tom, Dick and Harry that thinks he has an idea will be blundering away resources that would be better used elsewhere. And who has the right to decide which ventures deserve your money and which ones don't, and how much they deserve? It should be up to individuals whether or not they want to invest their money in somebody else's ideas.

Err, Ace, you do of course realize that the socialist economic model is the planned economy, right? No one ever said that the government should go around spending money on every crazy idea that comes up. Efficient use of resources is exactly what a socialist planned economy is best at. The old Soviet economy failed only because it had utterly incompetent planners in its last few decades, who were chosen for political reasons. In the end, the Soviet Union proved that socialism and dictatorship can't mix.

As for who has the right to decide which industries and government departments should get more funding than others - the people have the right to decide that, of course. That's what democracy is for.

It varies depending on the nature of the industry, but typically, if you take the net profit value of any product (cost of materials, transportation, workspace, neccesary energies etc, but not the cost of labour), typically, between 98 and 99.5% of it goes to the worker, the rest to the owner. Owner's earnings vary from business to business, but typically the profits are larger as you go up the industry scale, so primary industry profit is like 0.5%, then 1% in secondary, then 1.5% in tertiary.

Very well, I'll take your word for it. Of course, it should be noted that even with those numbers, 1% from each employee can amount to a hell of a lot of money if you've got, say, 1000 employees.

Naturally. I'm not saying otherwise. What I'm saying is that progress has occurred more rapidly since the emergence of the free market economy, and that the progress accelerates perpetually. Although I must admit it has slowed since the emergence of globalisation.

Indeed. But since progress accelerates perpetually, it's logical that when you look back you'll always see that progress has occured most rapidly in the most recent economic system. In our case, that's the free market.

[Caid Ivik]

Let me add my words here too.

"Actually, no. You could invest a tiny amount of money to open your own shop at the street corner, and end up owning a massive corporate chain doing business in dozens of countries. Or you could pour millions of dollars into a project that turns out to be an abysmal failure. This just goes to show the random nature of the capitalist distribution of wealth"

At first sight, it looks like a "randomness". But there are some laws of economy too, when you hit the right point of demand, you have income. Fortune is needed always, but if you try to find it, you will prevail. Income will raise but to enlarge it, you must sacrifice some of it to establish new branches. And, if demand is still large, income exponentialy raises. But still, more branches you create, more money you must spend in it. This was Ace's point.

"Err, Ace, you do of course realize that the socialist economic model is the planned economy, right? No one ever said that the government should go around spending money on every crazy idea that comes up. Efficient use of resources is exactly what a socialist planned economy is best at. The old Soviet economy failed only because it had utterly incompetent planners in its last few decades, who were chosen for political reasons. In the end, the Soviet Union proved that socialism and dictatorship can't mix. As for who has the right to decide which industries and government departments should get more funding than others - the people have the right to decide that, of course. That's what democracy is for"

Referendum about every lei in economy, that's utter nonsense. Planners were usually economists and their incompetence was here just because the state had no right to steal property they were working with. Economical engineering is slowering, stagnating. And if it isn't even led by experts, it is destructive.

"Very well, I'll take your word for it. Of course, it should be noted that even with those numbers, 1% from each employee can amount to a hell of a lot of money if you've got, say, 1000 employees."

I guess in one branch work about 20 people. Let's say they have one over them, who must take some sum, now we have i.e.management for one city controlling 5 branches. And then central management for republic. I think that division is rather bigger now. And I talk only about a state-wide company.

"Indeed. But since progress accelerates perpetually, it's logical that when you look back you'll always see that progress has occured most rapidly in the most recent economic system. In our case, that's the free market"

Free market is (excl.civil sector of 2nd half of 20th century in eastern Europe and China) on the world from its beginning. So you are true.

[Sneakgab]

''Indeed. But since progress accelerates perpetually, it's logical that when you look back you'll always see that progress has occured most rapidly in the most recent economic system. In our case, that's the free market. ''

You could say though that the rate at which the rate tecknology increases has jumped with the start of the free market... However you could say this about the rennaisance, classical era, even with the begginings such things as the iron age.

The only era that the rate at which the rate tecknology increases has not significantly jumped was the medieval era..

''Economical engineering is slowering, stagnating. And if it isn't even led by experts, it is destructive.''

If that statement was true, then the powerful kingdoms of the middle ages would not have come to exist, because their economies were planned

Looking further back, let us look at the age of Rome. Rome had a planned economoy and was extremely powerful.(Yes, Rome has the begginings of a republic, but the economy was still a plannned/controlled one)

Their foes over the Rhine, the german barbarians, did not have a planned economy and consequently , though the barbarians were not poor, they were not rich either

''"Very well, I'll take your word for it. Of course, it should be noted that even with those numbers, 1% from each employee can amount to a hell of a lot of money if you've got, say, 1000 employees."

I guess in one branch work about 20 people. Let's say they have one over them, who must take some sum, now we have i.e.management for one city controlling 5 branches. And then central management for republic. I think that division is rather bigger now. And I talk only about a state-wide company.''

The problem is, that with companies this huge, 1% is still quite a bit... since you usually have a ''big boss'' at the top in charge of thousands of workers. Like Edrico said, it depends on the distribution of money amongst the various managers, worker overlookers (:D the word is on the tip of my tounge:D) and actual workers who all work for the CO/company head/whatever). It remains true though that somebody/small collection of people who is/are profiting from somebody else's work (Wether that person be head manager or just a manager of a branch... as the manager of a branch get's his salary from the head manager who got his money from the work of his labourers) get 1% of the value of the labourers product. Most of this 1% goes to the head... and 1% of say 2000 workers products means that this head CO is still about 20 times richer than his workers.

You could say that the branch managers do actual management work so they to are having the value of their work (service in case) being exploited by the head manager, however their returns are greater than the value of their work because they get their money from the person who exploits all the labourers and therefore can easily afford pay his small group of branch managers more than the value of their work

And remember that this is an extremely generous situaion (1%? only around a thousand or 2 thousand workers?)

Look at Bill gates, surely he is thousands of times richer than the guy on the production lines putting together the pentiums, and one of his sub-managers is

probably hundreds of time richer than the same workers, so obviously more than 1% of the value of the labourers product is being taken away in such a situation

[Edric O]

I mostly agree with Sneakgab here, but I have a few things to add:

Caid, of course that there are specific laws governing the economy on the large scale, but on the individual human scale, your personal fate is almost entirely random. It's true that hard work, determination and good ideas can give you a better chance, but they don't guarantee anything. And it's also true that things like greed, selfishness and the complete lack of moral values can give you an even better chance of succeeding in capitalism...

About referendums, keep in mind that they would be far easier, faster and cheaper to hold if we used portable voting machines similar to mobile phones. That way, you could hold hundreds of referendums at almost zero cost and taking only a few minutes of each person's time. And so you could simply ask the people what they want before making major economic decisions.

As for your claim about free markets, I think Sneakgab covered that one. Although the economies of Ancient Rome and the Middle Ages don't really have much in common with the modern planned economy, they don't have much in common with the modern free market, either. Both the "free market" and the "planned economy" (as we know them) cannot exist in a pre-industrial age. Capitalism and the free market were the products of the industrial revolution.

[Caid Ivik]

If something isn't guaranteed, it doesn't mean it is fully random. It just gives more adrenaline. In fact you have nothing guaranteed, when you walk on a street you can't know when one idiot will miss brake and and ride over you. You can use "cheats" like you have counted, but this will lower your own honor. How much importance do you put on own conscience, that's your thing. For me it is over wealth. Reading in every magazine about my faults would disturb me...not saying about financial police.

This is a nice thing, voting trough mobile phones. Well, let's leave hacking problem and possible changes trough provider cartels, it is still a weird thing. Most people would feel being rather annoyed and still you will have the rule which is always - rule of those, who want.

Can you describe me how limited was ancient market? If we don't count strategical prohibitions and security problems (pirates etc.), which are also nowadays. Difference between Schengen system and a medieval way between Scandinavia, Novgorod, Khazar and muslim lands is minimal. Only security is else.

[SurlyPIG]

Actually, no. You could invest a tiny amount of money to open your own shop at the street corner, and end up owning a massive corporate chain doing business in dozens of countries. Or you could pour millions of dollars into a project that turns out to be an abysmal failure.

This just goes to show the random nature of the capitalist distribution of wealth.

The thing is, in order for that tinyshop at the end of a street to make anything substantial, the profits would have to be re-invested in expanding the business. As I said before, it takes money to make money, and it takes more money to make more money.

Err, Ace, you do of course realize that the socialist economic model is the planned economy, right? No one ever said that the government should go around spending money on every crazy idea that comes up. Efficient use of resources is exactly what a socialist planned economy is best at. The old Soviet economy failed only because it had utterly incompetent planners in its last few decades, who were chosen for political reasons. In the end, the Soviet Union proved that socialism and dictatorship can't mix.

Or that socialism and humanity can't mix. Anyway, the sheer volume of the ideas that people come up would render even an ideal system of resource allotment unable to manage these ideas with any degree of technical fairness. 50% of all businesses fail. In all of these failures, it's people betting their own money on an idea. What in the world would make you think that people who don't have the same degree of knowledge of the idea or the business climate would do any better in predicting which businesses are good and which are bad. Some of the most doubted ideas of all time have been the most successful. And some of the seemingly brightest ideas have been dismal failures.

As for who has the right to decide which industries and government departments should get more funding than others - the people have the right to decide that, of course. That's what democracy is for.

I seriously doubt a rep democracy would ever be able to manage the entire economy of a group of any substantial size. A direct democracy on all such decisions would be no less of a disaster. The unattached masses cannot adequately decide such things for all of society.

Very well, I'll take your word for it. Of course, it should be noted that even with those numbers, 1% from each employee can amount to a hell of a lot of money if you've got, say, 1000 employees.

That's the idea. And it's not really 1% from every employee, it's more like 0.01% from each article. You'd be surprised how many prodcuts make pennies of profit per unit.

Indeed. But since progress accelerates perpetually, it's logical that when you look back you'll always see that progress has occured most rapidly in the most recent economic system. In our case, that's the free market.

Naturally. The question is, has the rate of that acceleration exceeded the mathematical expetation of previous perpetual acceleration? I think it has, in leaps and bounds, crawls and skids no less, but faster on average. It's all opinionated, of course. I have no empirical evidence to back up my claim, nor could any ever be observed, but that's what makes the claim impervious to deconstruction. :D

[Sneakgab]

''If something isn't guaranteed, it doesn't mean it is fully random. It just gives more adrenaline. In fact you have nothing guaranteed, when you walk on a street you can't know when one idiot will miss brake and and ride over you.''

So? That is exactly why we try to improve things

'' You can use "cheats" like you have counted, but this will lower your own honor. How much importance do you put on own conscience, that's your thing. For me it is over wealth. Reading in every magazine about my faults would disturb me...not saying about financial police.''

Ever heard the saying: good guys fisnish last? In a purely capitalistic system you're chances of living a good life would be less than that of an evil scumbag despite you're honor and hard-work. Without needing to say it, this system isn't that good. If you don't think honor should be rewarded over greed and selfishness, don't you atleast think that hard-work should be rewarded over greed and selifishness?

''Quote from: Edric O on October 22, 2003, 16:38:21

Actually, no. You could invest a tiny amount of money to open your own shop at the street corner, and end up owning a massive corporate chain doing business in dozens of countries. Or you could pour millions of dollars into a project that turns out to be an abysmal failure.

This just goes to show the random nature of the capitalist distribution of wealth.

The thing is, in order for that tinyshop at the end of a street to make anything substantial, the profits would have to be re-invested in expanding the business. As I said before, it takes money to make money, and it takes more money to make more money.''

So basically, if you have money, you make more money by using that money without doing any actually work (of course you could get unlucky and lose everything, but that wouldn't exactly be a plus-point for capitalism either...)

''Quote:

Err, Ace, you do of course realize that the socialist economic model is the planned economy, right? No one ever said that the government should go around spending money on every crazy idea that comes up. Efficient use of resources is exactly what a socialist planned economy is best at. The old Soviet economy failed only because it had utterly incompetent planners in its last few decades, who were chosen for political reasons. In the end, the Soviet Union proved that socialism and dictatorship can't mix.''

''Or that socialism and humanity can't mix.'' That statement does not seem to have much sense to it... besides, socialism is all about humanity anyway

'' Anyway, the sheer volume of the ideas that people come up would render even an ideal system of resource allotment unable to manage these ideas with any degree of technical fairness. 50% of all businesses fail. In all of these failures, it's people betting their own money on an idea. What in the world would make you think that people who don't have the same degree of knowledge of the idea or the business climate would do any better in predicting which businesses are good and which are bad. Some of the most doubted ideas of all time have been the most successful. And some of the seemingly brightest ideas have been dismal failures.''

Trying to predict which ideas are worthwhile and which are not is superior to the random guessing and investment in capitalism by investors who do not work together... Just like with anything involving chance, you try to improve you're chances even if their will still be a chance that things don't go you're way...

Quote:

''As for who has the right to decide which industries and government departments should get more funding than others - the people have the right to decide that, of course. That's what democracy is for.

I seriously doubt a rep democracy would ever be able to manage the entire economy of a group of any substantial size. A direct democracy on all such decisions would be no less of a disaster. The unattached masses cannot adequately decide such things for all of society.''

A rep democracy free of corruption and complications that arise from the purpose of the planning of the econ not being for the people would probably be able to plan a fairly good econ eventually IMO. If you think the unattached masses cannot adequately decide such things for all of society then why do you think that such unattached masses should be allowed to vote on things that they often know nothing of?

''Quote:

Very well, I'll take your word for it. Of course, it should be noted that even with those numbers, 1% from each employee can amount to a hell of a lot of money if you've got, say, 1000 employees.

That's the idea. And it's not really 1% from every employee, it's more like 0.01% from each article. You'd be surprised how many prodcuts make pennies of profit per unit.''

Well, like Edrico said, I'll take you're word for it. Seems their is still enough money going around even with the fat cats of society that do not contribute to society

''Quote:

Indeed. But since progress accelerates perpetually, it's logical that when you look back you'll always see that progress has occured most rapidly in the most recent economic system. In our case, that's the free market.

Naturally. The question is, has the rate of that acceleration exceeded the mathematical expetation of previous perpetual acceleration? I think it has, in leaps and bounds, crawls and skids no less, but faster on average. It's all opinionated, of course. I have no empirical evidence to back up my claim, nor could any ever be observed, but that's what makes the claim impervious to deconstruction. ''

That's exactly what I was trying to say in my previous post, only that the rate of the rate of teck incr has jumped in most places in history and not just since the advent of capitalism

[Edric O]

Ace:

The thing is, in order for that tinyshop at the end of a street to make anything substantial, the profits would have to be re-invested in expanding the business. As I said before, it takes money to make money, and it takes more money to make more money.

And your point is...?

The fact that is takes money to make money (and therefore the rich can easily get richer while the poor have a very hard time climbing out of poverty) is an argument against capitalism, not for it.

Anyway, the sheer volume of the ideas that people come up would render even an ideal system of resource allotment unable to manage these ideas with any degree of technical fairness. 50% of all businesses fail. In all of these failures, it's people betting their own money on an idea. What in the world would make you think that people who don't have the same degree of knowledge of the idea or the business climate would do any better in predicting which businesses are good and which are bad. Some of the most doubted ideas of all time have been the most successful. And some of the seemingly brightest ideas have been dismal failures.

You're not thinking outside the box. What you've just described is a sort of market economy in which the state runs every business. That's ridiculous.

Businesses succeed or fail for capitalist market reasons. You are right that it would be practically impossible to try to predict the evolution of every single business at any given time. But no one has any intention of doing that! A planned economy is not a state-run market. The economic planners will not judge ideas by their business potential, but by the value of their practical applications. They will look at an idea and they will determine where it could be used and how much good it would do.

I seriously doubt a rep democracy would ever be able to manage the entire economy of a group of any substantial size. A direct democracy on all such decisions would be no less of a disaster. The unattached masses cannot adequately decide such things for all of society.

So a government made up of unelected officials can manage a planned economy, but if the same officials are elected through a democratic process then they magically lose their ability to manage the economy? ::) Please, Ace, if you really want to make unfounded assumptions, at least keep them logical.

As for taking decisions through a direct democracy, what I said was that the people should be allowed to decide the general direction of economic planning and which sectors should receive top priority. In other words, the direct democracy should be used for taking only the most general decisions, which lie well within the competence of the average citizen.

That's the idea. And it's not really 1% from every employee, it's more like 0.01% from each article. You'd be surprised how many prodcuts make pennies of profit per unit.

Of course. Not that it makes any difference...

Naturally. The question is, has the rate of that acceleration exceeded the mathematical expetation of previous perpetual acceleration? I think it has, in leaps and bounds, crawls and skids no less, but faster on average. It's all opinionated, of course. I have no empirical evidence to back up my claim, nor could any ever be observed, but that's what makes the claim impervious to deconstruction. :D

Well, I can't argue with the scientific method of the Wild Guess. ;D

[Edric O]

Caid:

If something isn't guaranteed, it doesn't mean it is fully random. It just gives more adrenaline. In fact you have nothing guaranteed, when you walk on a street you can't know when one idiot will miss brake and and ride over you. You can use "cheats" like you have counted, but this will lower your own honor. How much importance do you put on own conscience, that's your thing. For me it is over wealth. Reading in every magazine about my faults would disturb me...not saying about financial police.

Riiiight... I'm sure that people who starve to death really appreciate the adrenaline rush, and that every rich billionaire constantly worries about his honour and conscience. ::)

This is a nice thing, voting trough mobile phones. Well, let's leave hacking problem and possible changes trough provider cartels, it is still a weird thing. Most people would feel being rather annoyed and still you will have the rule which is always - rule of those, who want.

I'm not talking about your average mobile phones, of course! First of all, it would have to be a totally closed network, so no one can hack into it from the internet. Perhaps it would also be a good idea to wire the voting devices to self-destruct if anyone tries to temper with their circuits.

And since voting will be a matter of simply pushing a button, without having to leave the comfort of your own home, you'd get a lot more people voting than you do now.

Can you describe me how limited was ancient market? If we don't count strategical prohibitions and security problems (pirates etc.), which are also nowadays. Difference between Schengen system and a medieval way between Scandinavia, Novgorod, Khazar and muslim lands is minimal. Only security is else.

The market wasn't free because the vast majority of people weren't free. They were slaves (or serfs, if you're also talking about the Middle Ages). Also, it wasn't really a "market" in the capitalist meaning of the word. A lot of trade was done through bartering, the merchants weren't owners of the means of production, etc.

And keep in mind that there were many ancient empires (Egypt, for example), in which the economy was far closer to a modern planned economy than to any form of market. But the ancient world was neither capitalist nor socialist. The ancient slave-based economic system had different social classes, different relations between them, and so on. It was the predecessor of feudalism, which in turn was the predecessor of capitalism.

[Caid Ivik]

Not everyone is honest. But it is matter of time when such person will fall to hands of financial police. Also, people starve to death primarily because they aren't inside the market system. Such people are mostly refugees on brink of law, because states don't ensure their security.

It will be opened for voters. That means millions of people, how do you know that one of them won't find the frequency of signal and send a fake, but similar code to voting centre? And then, he will create a machine, which will make i.e.half million votes and victory is his. It will create a scandal, of course, when someone will find it out. But how they will cure this?

Medieval market was rather different. Not every country was feudal and not everyone in feudal world was also part of the system. Feudal lords usually did not trade at all, most of goods were done in free cities and then sold to merchants, which took it around i.e.Volga to other countries. Avoiding contact with feudals, because these took large taxes for passing. But still, there would be no special production, if these merchants won't exist. Only agriculture.

[Edric O]

Caid, the point was that being greedy, selfish and immoral gives you a better chance of succeding in capitalism. I don't think the "financial police" has anything to do with that...

And the vast majority of the people who starve to death live in countries with no social welfare and a completely unregulated market. They are well inside the market system - not YOUR market system, of course, but a market system nonetheless.

Do you really think that half a million extra votes could go unnoticed? No one could possibly make a fraud THAT big and expect to get away with it. But anyway, I see your point. You have a legitimate concern, but you forget that the data sent by the voting machines will be encrypted. Finding the frequency won't do you any good - you'd have to also know the code. And I don't think I need to explain the kind of security measures that will be in place to protect that code. The system won't be fullproof, of course, but it will be far safer than the voting system we have now.

You are right about the medieval economic system. There are countless differences between feudalism and capitalism, which is why you can't compare the medieval "market" with the modern capitalist market (and why you can't compare ancient imperial "planning" with modern planned economies).

[Caid Ivik]

Being too greedy may be a sin, but you can't jail someone for it. As you can't jail someone just for hate, adulterous thinking or nonbelieving in your moral laws. In fact, the poorest farmer can be as greedy as Gates, difference is only in success... Starving people are inside a specifical form of market regulated by arms. I can't say that lowering of UN sanctions on such countries will help it. This is a political problem, governments aren't there simply doing their job.

Wow, you can encrypt it how you want, but if someone has so big intention, why he shouldn't invest more to decrypting devices? Government will have to create a large system of protection with many operators. And everywhere you have many people can be one corruptive.

[Sneakgab]

Being too greedy may be a sin, but you can't jail someone for it. As you can't jail someone just for hate, adulterous thinking or nonbelieving in your moral laws. In fact, the poorest farmer can be as greedy as Gates, difference is only in success... Starving people are inside a specifical form of market regulated by arms. I can't say that lowering of UN sanctions on such countries will help it. This is a political problem, governments aren't there simply doing their job.

The problem is that ammoral behaviour and attributes often get one farther in a capitalistic system than hard work and effort (Naturally, honor is worthless in a purely capitalistic system... thank our system is not purely capitalistic ;D)

Starving people are often not just those who live in countries with sanctions... though they often are. However, with globalization occuring and currently existing ''mega corporation'' growing I imagine that within a few years, even with the effect of sanctions worn off'' their will still be some poverty. Their are many countries that do not have sanctions on them but most of their populace is still poverty stricken (eg: African farmers losing what little money they have thanks to subsidies and the like... maybe not the best example but you get the general idea...)

[Caid Ivik]

Well, without honor you can have much even in communism: kill as much people as you can, and your equal wage will be able to raise! ::)

[Edric O]

Being too greedy may be a sin, but you can't jail someone for it. As you can't jail someone just for hate, adulterous thinking or nonbelieving in your moral laws. In fact, the poorest farmer can be as greedy as Gates, difference is only in success...

I wasn't talking about people, I was talking about the system. Capitalism is a system that rewards greed and selfishness far more than it rewards hard work and honesty.

Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are basic human rights. People have the right to be as greedy and selfish as they like. But the system should not encourage and reward those things. It should encourage and reward hard work and dedication.

Wow, you can encrypt it how you want, but if someone has so big intention, why he shouldn't invest more to decrypting devices? Government will have to create a large system of protection with many operators. And everywhere you have many people can be one corruptive.

On the other hand, more people mean less of a risk, since you'll never have a single person with too much power in his hands. If you have 100 people working on security and 5 of them are corrupt, they can't cause much damage before they are discovered. But if you have just 5 people working on security and all 5 are corrupt, you're screwed.

And like I said before, faking a traditional election is still MUCH easier than faking a high-security electronic one.

Well, without honor you can have much even in communism: kill as much people as you can, and your equal wage will be able to raise!

I guess it never crossed your mind that MURDER IS ILLEGAL, did it? ::)

[Caid Ivik]

Abusement of freedom can give you much. Same we can say about free economy. But why should we say that capitalism calls it reward? Reward is for anyone who became a part of production, who gave more, had more. His intentions are no business of politicians.

Bah, so you think your secret service is working properly? Well, ok, if you think. ONE person in a strategic office can do uncountable damage. Once you will find out, when you'll lose your selflie of "community power".

Murder is illegal. As well as inhonest financial machinations. That was the point, by the way.