Are You A Capitalist?

[Ophiolite]

But you are investing labour not capital. That makes you a worker, not an owner, and not a capitalist.

 

Then you need to figure out what a task is worth.

This is where it all breaks down.

I still don't understand your difficulty here. The value is set by the market, in a capitalist economy, and by government in a communist economy, and by a combination in a mixed economy.

What do you mean 'it breaks down'? The planet is crisscrossed by ships, planes, trains carrying goods valued this way. What isn't working?

[YT2095]

then how does the Economist reconcile playing Golf for a day in terms of efficiency, and me growing some of my own food?

 

I enjoy it just as much, and I can easily reconcile my efforts to gain ratio, can they say the same?

[albertlee]

fo my second post, it is this:

 

In Netherlands, an employee can be idle if he/she feels unconfortable, even if it is not physical, fo eg, metal stress.... and the company still has to pay the slalary, if it refuses, the employee often get mad and sew the company, and much more often, the company looses....

 

The idea yielded as the time passes is their interpretion of "equality", give you an idea, when post a job offer on NewsPaper, you could only give the information refering to the job, you are not allowed to say what do you want your employee to be, for eg, age range, female or male, height,...etc..., otherwise you will be considered disrespecting other people....

 

 

Dude, is Dutch government Robin Hood??!

 

ps, I have been in Netherlands for 2 yrs with my parents working in their company, and often heard them discussing this kind of issue with their collegues to friends

[syntax252]

fo my second post' date=' it is this:

 

In Netherlands, an employee can be idle if he/she feels unconfortable, even if it is not physical, fo eg, metal stress.... and the company still has to pay the slalary, if it refuses, the employee often get mad and sew the company, and much more often, the company looses....

 

The idea yielded as the time passes is their interpretion of "equality", give you an idea, when post a job offer on NewsPaper, you could only give the information refering to the job, you are not allowed to say what do you want your employee to be, for eg, age range, female or male, height,...etc..., otherwise you will be considered disrespecting other people....

 

 

Dude, is Dutch government Robin Hood??!

 

ps, I have been in Netherlands for 2 yrs with my parents working in their company, and often heard them discussing this kind of issue with their collegues to friends [/quote']

 

Where did you live before you went to the Netherlands?

[albertlee]

Well, I am a Korean, but before Netherlands, I lived in HongKong.....

 

I wish my next move will be in USA

[reverse]

But you are investing labour not capital. That makes you a worker' date=' not an owner, and not a capitalist.

 

 

I still don't understand your difficulty here. The value is set by the market, in a capitalist economy, and by government in a communist economy, and by a combination in a mixed economy.

What do you mean 'it breaks down'? The planet is crisscrossed by ships, planes, trains carrying goods valued this way. What isn't working?[/quote']

 

because the person In the US who buys the kids bike made in China thinks it's a good deal because it seems inexpensive, but the "cost of labour" part of the goods estimate is being falsely calculated but the person in the US as if it were in US terms. The capitalist is using this miscalculation to overcharge the worker.

 

And…

 

now the person who has bought the bike goes home to find that he has been fired from his job at the rubber factory because the local bike manufacturing plant is closed, apparently local bikes aren’t selling because there are cheaper (lower quality) bikes around.

Turns out that the guy would have been better of paying slightly more for higher quality American bike and been assured employment and reliable products than taking that small instant saving.

 

I could see this when I was ten years old

is it a mystery to everyone else?

[reverse]

Well' date=' I am a Korean, but before Netherlands, I lived in HongKong.....

 

I wish my next move will be in USA [/quote']

 

Well' date=' I am a Korean, but before Netherlands, I lived in HongKong.....

 

I wish my next move will be in USA [/quote']

 

Hi Albert, there was a Korean exchange student living here for a while last year.

He was full of fire just like you.

He loved sponge bob.

We got on very well.

I think he was too much trouble for his parents so they sent him away a lot.

 

One thing about life,

as you get older people become more valuable and objects start to become very boring.

[reverse]

how do you draw that conclusion?

 

I don`t want to go into an Anarchist rant' date='

 

[/quote']

 

The Indian god Shiva stands with her/his many arms creating the universe with a dance of life.

under her foot is a creature she is squashing representing chaos.

is anarchy chaos?

[Tetrahedrite]

Firstly, I believe that on the extreme left, communism is no worse than strong capitalism on the extreme right. Both lead to corrupt societies were exploitation of the majority abounds.

 

The problems with communism and to a lesser extent socialism are well documented and have been discussed at length on this forum. Even with its problems, I believe socialism is a noble idea, that all people in a particular society are equal, and no person is better than anyone else. The concept of looking after all members of a society, rather than just those who can afford it, particularly appeals to me. This system is particularly susceptable to inefficient use of resources and manpower however.........

 

Capitalism on the other hand seems to reject the notion that anybody in society has a responsibility to (for) the rest of the population. In this way capitalism can be viewed as quite isolationist. The main problem is that it is driven by profit, above all else. The view of the corporation is that if it doesn't make money, it isn't worth doing. This is why I reject the suggestion that capitalism is the solution to the world's problems. Corporations maximise their profits by exploiting the environment and/or the workforce. Any form of government control is frowned upon. A person in favour of capitalism would be happy to see most of the government's functions turned over to private corporations (AKA privatisation).

 

Privatisation is really what upsets me. When a particular asset/company is owned by the government, it is in fact owned by everyone in that society. All of the profits of that asset/company are, in effect, given back to everyone. If the particular company makes a loss, it is no big deal as the asset/service is valuable to everyone. But when the asset/company is privitised, the only people who get the profits are those who are rich enought to invest in the company. The rest of the population gets nothing. They will most likely have to pay more to utilise an asset/service in order to maximise the shareholder's profits. The company is also not going to undertake any project which, all though it might be very beneficial to the society, will not make a profit. Everyone losses, except the minority that can afford shares.

[reverse]

Tetrahedrite

 

I absolutely agree.

 

Were the problems with Socialism that it creates a few lazy people who exploit the hard work of others and loose incentive due to being given things for free?

 

( by any chance )

[budullewraagh]

it depends on what socialist principles are adopted. there are some aspects that are very effective and others that are less so

[atinymonkey]

I could see this when I was ten years old

is it a mystery to everyone else?

 

I love that. Assuming the world was as simple as a 10 year old perceives it.

[syntax252]

Privatisation is really what upsets me. When a particular asset/company is owned by the government, it is in fact owned by everyone in that society. All of the profits of that asset/company are, in effect, given back to everyone. If the particular company makes a loss, it is no big deal as the asset/service is valuable to everyone. But when the asset/company is privitised, the only people who get the profits are those who are rich enought to invest in the company.[/u'] The rest of the population gets nothing. They will most likely have to pay more to utilise an asset/service in order to maximise the shareholder's profits. The company is also not going to undertake any project which, all though it might be very beneficial to the society, will not make a profit. Everyone losses, except the minority that can afford shares.

 

I don't think it is fair to say that the only people to benifit from the profit of a company are the shareholders, because the employees have jobs that they would not have absent the capitalists.

 

I also do not agree that privatization is injurious to the economic system because competition between the several manufacturers of any specific product tends to keep costs down and quality up, benefiting the consumer as well as the shareholder.

 

Also, in the world of today, we in the working class find ourselves invested in many of the companies that we work for through our 401Ks as well as other investments that we might make privately.

 

So, in my opinion, what works best is a market economy in which prices are established by the consumers willingness to pay and the workers willingness to provide the labor and the price of that labor being established through collective bargaining, with a body of law to make sure that everyone plays by the rules.

 

In short, a blend of Capitalism and socialism with a democratic method of electing representatives to impliment laws to oversee those elements.

 

It seems to have worked quite well for us here in America.

[reverse]

I love that. Assuming the world was as simple as a 10 year old perceives it.

 

The big kid got to rule the sandpit.

Only a group of us would intimidate him into fair play.

Some kids had a good lunch, some had none.

We shared our lunch.

We traded our stationary and bubble gum cards.

We built sand pit roads and marvelled at the frogs as they emerged from tadpoles.

It’s still the same, just concealed.

[paleolithic]

Budullewraagh

Nice!

Check the original meaning of the word bourgeoisie' date=' you may be surprised.

So if pure Capitalism guarantees the workers to total exploitation, how come everyone supports it so strongly?

[/quote']

 

Well first of all not "everyone" supports it, do some research and you'll probably laugh at how many people hate capitalism, even more, how many people hate capitalism and don't know it.

 

It may seem as though in America everybody is willing to voice there strong willed support for capitalism, when many of these idiots don't know exactly what it is, it's simply the nationalistic proletariat, only supporting it because it's the politics (or rather economics) of the national party. You could see the same behavior in the Soviet Union, with people willing to kill any "traitor" who didn't believe in the communist ideals of Comrade Stalin

 

For my comment on how many people hate capitalism and don't know it, I'm referring to all the famous cartoons and movies that have displayed evil characters as unlabeled capitalists. Like in that old Looney Toones cartoon I think, or something like that, there was a business man going in between two hills, on each hill there was a family of rednecks/hillbillies/whatever who were locked in a feud against each other. The businessman would go back and forth to each family, every time selling a bigger and better weapon to them to supply them against each other. The two families eventually found out what he was doing and chased him out together, and then they lived happily ever after.

 

ANYWAYS, my point there is, that in all those little cartoons and movies, there always seems to be a bad guy everybody hates who is motivated by greed and screws everybody over for a wad of cash, In other words the capitalist trying to force maximum efficiency for maximum profit at the expense of the worker. The beginning of Schindler’s List also applies.

 

And yes my post is biased.

 

Capitalism: An economic system based on private ownership and profit.

[atinymonkey]

The big kid got to rule the sandpit.

Only a ......................

........ the same' date=' just concealed.[/quote']

 

Yes, yes. Go play in the sandpit, there's a good chap.

[Pangloss]

Greed is such an easy target, isn't it?

[syntax252]

Greed is such an easy target, isn't it?

 

Don't be too hard on greed. If it were not for greed, humankind would never have invented the pocket.

 

We also would still be sitting before the mouth of a cold dark cave.

[Pangloss]

On the contrary, my sentiments run towards libertarian and objectivist ideals. I was being sarcastic. ;-)

[albertlee]

Hi Albert' date=' there was a Korean exchange student living here for a while last year.

He was full of fire just like you.

He loved sponge bob.

We got on very well.

I think he was too much trouble for his parents so they sent him away a lot.

 

One thing about life,

as you get older people become more valuable and objects start to become very boring.[/quote']

 

 

reverse, are you from America??

 

I am not full of fire, some times we have to say right things against the the bad

 

I am North Korean, but I live in HongKong most of my life, so I feel more like Chinese than Korean, I can speak better Chinese than Korean (actually I can only speak very little Korean)

 

Albert

[Tetrahedrite]

I don't think it is fair to say that the only people to benifit from the profit of a company are the shareholders' date=' because the employees have jobs that they would not have absent the capitalists.

[/quote']

This really is a mute point, in the context of what I was talking about. The very same people (and probably more) would have had a job pre-privatisation. The fact is (in Australia at least) privatisation leads to massive job losses in an effort to maximise profits.

 

I also do not agree that privatization is injurious to the economic system because competition between the several manufacturers of any specific product tends to keep costs down and quality up' date=' benefiting the consumer as well as the shareholder.

[/quote']

On the contrary, our telecommunications and energy were privatised, resulting in massive job losses, increased prices, and inferior service (especially in regional and rural areas). This comes back to what I was saying, it is not as profitable for these sectors to operate in the regional areas, so they don't. These people had service before, how has the privatisation benifited them?

 

Also' date=' in the world of today, we in the working class find ourselves invested in many of the companies that we work for through our 401Ks as well as other investments that we might make privately.[/quote']

America really is a strange place. Here you would be hard pressed to find a working class person defending a capitalist ideal. It really does demonstrate how far to the right all of the USA sits in terms of their political standpoint. I saw a documentary the other day where American foundry workers (ie low paid workers) were defending GW Bush's tax cuts for the rich! I couldn't believe it!

[reverse]

Yes, yes. Go play in the sandpit, there's a good chap.

 

Bernard , Bernard from "black books" isn't it?

 

 

please explain how my oversimplification of the situation leads to errors in judgement.

 

You could start with the cowry shells cast in gold by the ancient Egyptians ,

 

or from the Phoenicians crossing the Mediterranean to trade their purple cloth,

 

or even throw in some statistics from the world bank on import to export ratios between nations…

 

maybe even with Jesus throwing the money lenders out of the temple or the religious laws forbidding interest to be charged within certain groups….

 

I don’t mind what angle yo attack it from, any cohesive point of view on how capitalism actually works will be good.

 

Perhaps the bell , the cannon and the steam engine?

[reverse]

 

I am not full of fire' date=' some times we have to say right things against the the bad.

 

 

 

Albert[/quote']

 

Oh Hi Albert,

I know your aren’t full of fire,

I had a feeling you were being loyal to your parents.

I bet if you ask them they will say that there is so much more to running a company than the things you hear them complaining about.

There will be lots of good things as well,

It’s just that people don’t go around talking about them as much.

[syntax252]

This really is a mute point, in the context of what I was talking about. The very same people (and probably more) would have had a job pre-privatisation. The fact is (in Australia at least) privatisation leads to massive job losses in an effort to maximise profits.

 

I can't comment on the Austrailian economy, because I am an American. I just happen to know that it works here, I don't know why it wouldn't work there.

 

 

 

On the contrary, our telecommunications and energy were privatised, resulting in massive job losses, increased prices, and inferior service (especially in regional and rural areas). This comes back to what I was saying, it is not as profitable for these sectors to operate in the regional areas, so they don't. These people had service before, how has the privatisation benifited them?

 

Again, what happened is Austrailia is contrary to what happened here, I would guess that you need more privatization with more competition, not less.

 

America really is a strange place. Here you would be hard pressed to find a working class person defending a capitalist ideal. It really does demonstrate how far to the right all of the USA sits in terms of their political standpoint. I saw a documentary the other day where American foundry workers (ie low paid workers) were defending GW Bush's tax cuts for the rich! I couldn't believe it!

 

Well the lowest rate in income tax went from 15% to 10% under Bush's "tax cut for the rich" resulting in about a 1/3 saving for the lowest tax payers. Maybe that has something to do with the support he got from the working class--and his re-election?

[reverse]

Individual Australian wealth has grown 80% in the last three years.

 

Two thirds of that is in the value of their housing.

 

On the down side, their trade deficit as never been worse.

 

Seems to me that if you live in a house it doesn’t matter what it’s worth.

Not at least till you sell it, and then where will you live?

 

Maybe a tiny monkey will swing by for a comment.