Communism v. Capitalism

[perspective]

*Originally posted by msmith537 *Gates runs Microsoft. If you think its so easy to run a billion dollar company or any company for that matter, go do it.

LOL. Well look, I never said it was easy, but brain surgery isn’t easy either. How many billionaire brain surgeons do you know of? It seemed to me you were ready to credit him with godlike powers. Bill Gates could retire right now and that probabably wouldn’t change microsoft noticably to any of us. Yet somehow he would still have the rights to a hefty share of the profits from other people’s labor. It doesn’t make sense to me.

This “means of production”/“laborer” stuff is bullshit anyway. For every billionare CEO there are probably hundreds of people who own the “means of production” of little mom and pop stores who probably make no more money than I do as a “laborer” in a big corporation. A capitalist economy allows an entire spectrum of socio-economic achievement.

First off, a mom and pop store is a retail outlet, they don’t really produce anything besides their labor. They also may or may not own the store that work out of.
Here’s another stat from the earlier document

the average entrepreneur (is) in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution

I don’t see any “bullshit” about 40% of the US population scrabbling by with 1% of the wealth. Would you characterize almost half of the US population as simply lazy and undeserving?
How about 5% controlling 55% of the wealth? This statistic is mind boggling. What’s the rationale? I honestly don’t see why people should have that kind of wealth, and the fact that they seek such large amounts only makes them appear sick to me.

You aren’t proposing anything. You are simply hopeing that everyone will chip in and do the work. I am telling you that every society needs some mechanism to to allocate labor to those tasks that need it most. …
And what does it matter if Bill Gates or the Ministry of Labor own the means of production. I still have to do what they tell me at work or I don’t get paid.

Ok so society needs a mechanism to allocate labor. I think that people will need to meet their demands individually with each other. In general don’t feel a need to tell them how to do it. But if someone is making a ridiculous profit off of other people’s poverty and limited opportunities, I think that there is something wrong. People’s lives are not commodities.
I’m not happy with capitalism even in it’s watered down form in the US. Centralized planning from an authoritarian government is not the only alternative to capitalism. No, I don’t have a plan for how each of 6 billion people are going to get their needs met. I’m not even proposing radical goverment change at the moment. I’m saying that we should reconsider the values that a capitalist society promotes and try work towards a more humane way of living together. I think that this humane way would more closely resemble the ideals of communism.

[erislover]

People’s lives are not commodities.

Oh?

[Colinito67]

*Originally posted by monica *
**Colonito67: I would just like to point out that when you said that giving students a writing assignment and expecting them to do it without incentive of a grade is ridiculous, you weren’t fully accurate. As a student, I am never given assignments without benifit of a grade; however, I do often go above and beyond the criteria without expectations of extra credit. I also, when bored, sometimes take the initiative and research a subject interesting to me, an activity which is not at all required nor does it in any way shape or form raise my GPA. **

I think you misunderstood me. I am actually in favor of not giving grades at all, but rather “grading” simply on attendance. Like Pirsig found out in “Zen and the ARt…”, the students who didn’t do the reading got quickly disillusioned in class and dropped out. the majority of kids became more vocally active and interested in the reading as a result of not having grades.

I think we are on the same side here. The guy I was arguing with on the subject is the one you want to talk to about this.

colin

[Tretiak]

*Originally posted by dal_timgar *
**
searched HUMAN ACTION for obsolescence to see what it said about “planned obsolescence.” got no hits.

must be garbage. **

I found planned obsolesence in a book that also featured stories on the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

[pldennison]

I don’t see any “bullshit” about 40% of the US population scrabbling by with 1% of the wealth. Would you characterize almost half of the US population as simply lazy and undeserving?
How about 5% controlling 55% of the wealth? This statistic is mind boggling. What’s the rationale? I honestly don’t see why people should have that kind of wealth, and the fact that they seek such large amounts only makes them appear sick to me.

Ah, good ol’ class warfare. I love the smell of class warfare in the morning! So somebody else has something you don’t, they must be “sick”? Tell me again why this opinion is any more valid than any other?

And throwing around percentages in isolation is pretty meaningless unless you’re going to mention how big the pie is in the first place. If that 1% keeps that 40% in a decent living, what does it matter who has the other 99%? Equitability for its own sake is just silly.

[perspective]

*Originally posted by pldennison *So somebody else has something you don’t, they must be “sick”? Tell me again why this opinion is any more valid than any other?

Thanks for asking. I believe that people who strive after money above and beyond their personal needs exhibit obsessive behavior. This isn’t about owning a fancy car this is about having so much money car buying doesn’t even register a blip on the radar screen of your expenses. The wealth is an abstraction of their power and control over other humans. It’s collected for it’s own sake much the same way that people collect stamps. Collecting stamps is no big deal until it starts to affect your relationship with other people. If you’ve come to see people as simply a source of more stamps or as admirers of your stamp collection even though you don’t even look at your stamp collection anymore because it’s too big, you’ve crossed the line into obsession.
It’s much like the alcoholic, they’re not drinking that 14th beer of the night because they’re enjoying it. They’ve succumbed to an addiction that has a life of it’s own. Now if alcoholism is a sickness, does that mean it should be illegal? No, but we shouldn’t glorify reckless inconsiderate behavior and if there are grave consequences that affect other people such as drunk driving we may have to take action.

And throwing around percentages in isolation is pretty meaningless unless you’re going to mention how big the pie is in the first place. If that 1% keeps that 40% in a decent living, what does it matter who has the other 99%? Equitability for its own sake is just silly.

Well since the study I quoted was concerned with the percentage relationship it would be hard for me to make a direct correlation. However, according to the US census bureau about 11% of the US was living in poverty in 2000. So not everyone is fine and dandy thank you.
As far as what a decent living is, I’m happy to see some concern towards that subject. Above the poverty line isn’t enough for me especially when many people are staying above the poverty line by working 2 jobs.

How could 5% of the population create 55% of the wealth? They didn’t obviously, they’ve simply been able to manipulate it to their advantage. Why should they be allowed to do so? Just because we all crave to manipulate and control people as well?
Do we have to have billionaires to have modern technology? I don’t think so. How many science nobel laureates are billionaires?

[Arjun]

many of the ppl here focus on the idea that if we all have the same, there is no incentive to improve. if we all have Hunda’s then nobody will work to deserve a Lexus. but do we really need to fill our lives full of the pointless objects to prove our success. one of the many things a capitalistic economy has done to us is make us crave objects without putting much thought into why.

Calvin Klien puts thier name on a cheap piece of crap made by some 10 yr old kid and sell it for $100s, because its good quality? no, cause they realize all the rich kids need to prove thier rich.

there are so many other areas of life that in american society that go untouched becasue ppl are all worked up about the new riding lawn mower that thier neighbors just bought. yes, some will realize that without incentive there is no need to work (which is why i put my faith in socialism). But, IMHO, in america ppl are so worked up over showing their wealth that they’ve lost site of what really matters. it a capitalist cut throat society bussiness have started asking employees to bring their work with them (heard on local news channel). theoretically we work to support our life and entertainment, then theres something wrong with working when you’re supposed to play.

*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers *
**

Well, as long as we’re not being Luddites, here, there’s something a bit odd about using a computer to register discontent at technology. **

:smack: Doh

[erislover]

I guess it just doesn’t bother me that some people are more wealthy than I, or that some people are smarter than I.

[Liberal]

searched HUMAN ACTION for obsolescence to see what it said about “planned obsolescence.” got no hits.

must be garbage.

A tip of the hat to you, sir. There might likely have been no more ignorant an assertion since the dawn of man. When a man pokes out his own eyes to avoid seeing, it is a remarkable thing.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by dal_timgar *
searched HUMAN ACTION for obsolescence to see what it said about “planned obsolescence.” got no hits.

must be garbage. **

This nonsense about “planned obsolescense” is garbage. All planned obsolescense means is that companies plan for the fact that after a certain period of time, someone is ging to invent a better light bulb.

Depreciation is just an accounting cost. EVERYTHING has an expected usable life span. Eventually, it wears out or becomes obsolete. Why would you pay less for a 30 year old building vs an equivalent brand new one? Because the older one isn’t going to last as long and it probably doesn’t have all the services of the new one.

Why do computers become obsolete every 18 months? Because the technology is improving so quickly, not because of some conspiracy between Dell and Toshiba.

*Originally posted by dal_timgar *
Adam Smith is usually promoted as a hero of the capitalists, but Adam Smith disapproved of what he called “joint stock” companies. a “joint stock” company is what we now call a corporation. in 1886 the US supreme court decided that a corporation was a person. Adam Smith died in 1790 and wasn’t told. a corporation is a form of collective ownership. a corporation is a form of communism. LOL!

1. A corporation is characterised by having its own legal identity that limits the liability of its owners, by the issuance of shares of stock and by being a going concern. There are many types of corporations, of which a joint-stock corporation is just one.

2. A corporation is only collective ownership if you own stock in the corporation. Ownership rights within the corporation are based on % of ownership. I own a few shares of MSFT. That does not means I have the same rights withing Microsoft as Mr Gates who owns significantly more.

3. Do you enjoy the corporate lifestyle? Do you like being told what to do and what to wear and where to go and who to socialize with? Wold you want to work in a corporation where you couldn’t quit or find a better job because the entire country is that corporation? If that is communism, why are people so in favor of it?

4. As I already mentioned, the corporate society is not one based on equality. There are classes and levels just like everywhere else.

[erislover]

Depreciation is a funny thing, though. Anyone know why economists consider depreciation of company assets in the grand scheme of things but why my car’s depreciation somehow is meaningless?

That sort of bothers me.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by erislover *
Depreciation is a funny thing, though. Anyone know why economists consider depreciation of company assets in the grand scheme of things but why my car’s depreciation somehow is meaningless?

That sort of bothers me. **

Depreciation is generally something that concerns accountants and financial analysts, not economists. There are several reasons. The biggest reason is that you don’t want to overstate the value of the company. ie If you purchase a widget press in 1982 for $100,000 and it has a useful life span of 20 years, it is misleading to report it’s value as $100,000 in 2002. You could, I suppose. I’m not a CPA so I don’t know all the rules. But its to your advantage to write off the $5000 per year depreciation expense for tax purposes.

Unless you want to claim the depreciation of your car on your income tax (which I don’t know if you can or not) I can’t think of a useful reason for you to care about the depreciation of your car until you try to resell it. The simple fact of the matter is that an old car is not worth as much as a brand new one. At the very least, people don’t want to pay the same price for the same car plus 40,000 miles of wear and tear, the pine-scented air freshener smell and the cigarette burns in the seat. Depreciation is just an accounting method of tracking this decrease in value in financial statements.

[Colinito67]

*Originally posted by msmith537 *
**
Why do computers become obsolete every 18 months? Because the technology is improving so quickly, not because of some conspiracy between Dell and Toshiba.
**

But it works out really well for Dell and Toshiba, and really expensive for us. If I were to found a communist society, or even a commune, I’d supply every citizen with a sort of “blank computer slate.” The computers would come with the best packages as currently possible, but memory, RAM, disk drives, etc. all would be easily upgradable. Everyone would recieve upgrade packages as technology improved a certain amount. Thus, when technology improved, everyone would reap the benefits, in a very cheap and easy way to implement.

Computers could be funded (in a larger society such as the US) by cutting down extraneous funding. Good money management, not based on convuluted moral ideas and hysteria-driven political ideology, but based on the fact that we want everybody to be well taken care of. For example, the War on Drugs costs us billions every year. We spent over $250 billion on the War on Drugs between 92-96. (I believe). We spend hundreds of billions a year on the military and “defense.”

The initial cost of the computers would be the biggest cost. If, say, it cost $1000 a person to fund, and we have somewhere around $250 million (and, of course, the computers would be per-family or perhaps 2 per-family, with the free computer at age 18). Shaving a hundred billion off each program (and some money off similar over-funded programs) would cover the initial cost The program, I think, would be relatively cheap to fund after that.

If it were a commune, we would have some sort of marketable good that supplied us with money. We would attempt self-sufficiency, with a small farm, etc. Considering there wouldn’t be that many people (less than 200 for sure), it would be feasible to start a similar computer system as above.

There are other possibilities, ones that could ensure that all people have a good standard of life. Too often in this thread I felt that words like “poverty” were too dehumanized. I work at a small (650 employees or so in 3 cities) corporation, and of course talk to a lot of people on cigarette breaks and such. I’m on good terms with a lot of people, some of them ‘supervisors’ and ‘team leaders’ that make a lot more money than me. Most people are broke before their next paycheck. They basically make just enough to squeak-by, with no extra money for vacations or even the unexpected expenditure (often involving cars). It sucks. You are chained to a job because you need to pay your bills and basic costs. You (often times) do not enjoy your job, and don’t even have the leisure time (or means to enjoy the leisure time as you see fit) to bask in the warming glow of life.

I’m not jealous that other people have more money, as erislover suggested, I’m simply disgusted that so many people can live under horrible conditions while a small minority has money that they couldn’t even spend (despite the fact that they pay 20x the amount that we pay for the same goods/needs).

[Liberal]

In the above mentioned book, Human Action, in Chapter XVI, Section 4, Mises discusses cost accounting and depreciation. He concludes with:

Attempts to establish cost accounts on an “impartial” basis are doomed to failure. Calculating costs is a mental tool of action, the purposive design to make the best of the available means for an improvement of future conditions. It is necessarily volitional, not factual. In the hands of an indifferent umpire it changes its character entirely. The umpire does not look forward to the future. He looks backward to the dead past and to rigid rules which are useless for real life and action. He does not anticipate changes. He is unwittingly guided by the prepossession that the evenly rotating economy is the normal and most desirable state of human affairs. Profits do not fit into his scheme. He has a confused idea about a “fair” rate of profit or a “fair” return on capital invested. However, there are no such things. In the evenly rotating economy there are no profits. In a changing economy profits are not determined with reference to any set of rules by which they could be classified as fair or unfair. Profits are never normal. Where there is normality, i.e., absence of change, no profits can emerge.

[erislover]

Colinito67

But it works out really well for Dell and Toshiba, and really expensive for us.

How so? Two thousand dollars will get you a computer that, in principle and in practice, could last you for 4, maybe 7 years. Heck, I just saw an offer from Dell that dropped my jaw… $1179 for a 2GHz computer (pentium), printer/scanner/fax/copier, 19" moniter, and a speaker system.

How much are you willing to pay for such a system that this is priced unfairly?

Good money management, not based on convuluted moral ideas and hysteria-driven political ideology, but based on the fact that we want everybody to be well taken care of.

I had no idea that hysteria-driven politics so affected the price of computers. And I also had no idea that we currently don’t want everyone taken care of.

For example, the War on Drugs costs us billions every year. We spent over $250 billion on the War on Drugs between 92-96. (I believe).

I hate the War on People, too, but I hardly think that it is the result of hysteria or convoluted morals. Morals, yes, just not convoluted.

We spend hundreds of billions a year on the military and “defense.”

Why is defense in quotation marks? Are you saying that America can’t defend itself from external forces, or are you mocking the spending of defense funds on weapons used to attack ideological enemies?

I take it Colinito’s communist country wouldn’t have a standing army?

If it were a commune, we would have some sort of marketable good that supplied us with money. We would attempt self-sufficiency, with a small farm, etc. Considering there wouldn’t be that many people (less than 200 for sure), it would be feasible to start a similar computer system as above.

Shave off a few hundred billion to fund a program that gives out computers?

It sucks. You are chained to a job because you need to pay your bills and basic costs.

I agree that I am chained to working, not chained to my job, but yeah. Sometimes I don’t like the feeling. But my solution to that does not entail walking into people’s bank accounts and taking the money.

I’m simply disgusted that so many people can live under horrible conditions while a small minority has money that they couldn’t even spend.

There are many problems in the world. Solutions are often contradictory. You want everyone to have the same standard of living, and feel that somehow if we spread the wealth around it would accomplish that. But the standard of living is based on more than just how much money you have to spend. True, I can’t afford to live in a one-bedroom apartment in the city I live in. But that fact does not drive me to feel that the wealthiest one percent has somehow taken what I deserve from me and left me with this.

My existence is not a check for your ideology to cash.

[pldennison]

If I were to found a communist society, or even a commune, I’d supply every citizen with a sort of “blank computer slate.” The computers would come with the best packages as currently possible, but memory, RAM, disk drives, etc. all would be easily upgradable. Everyone would recieve upgrade packages as technology improved a certain amount.

You can do this right now. You can walk into any CompUSA store and buy an empty tower-style case for anywhere from $50 - $200, depending on the size and whether/what kind of power supply is included. You can then add components at your whim, and upgrade them whenever you like.

Of course, if you really know how computers work, at a certain point it becomes inefficient and time-consuming. Say you have two IDE controllers with a master and slave device on each: your hard disk, a DVD drive, a CD-RW drive and a Zip 100MB drive. You’re going to need a larger power supply. That means more waste heat, so you’ll need a more efficient heat sink and fan. More RAM? A faster chip? That means more heat. Eventually, you’re replacing the whole system at once anyway, and starting from scratch.

What companies like Dell and Intel and IBM do is sell you time and efficiency. By presenting you with a single, integrated package, you don’t have to put it all together yourself. They’ve sold you exactly what you’d have if you assembled it yourself, except they’ve done it for you, freeing you to do other things. And you can upgrade it whenever you want, either by installing new components yourself, having the dealer do it for you, or buying a new system.

Those are the kinds of efficiencies and choices that capitalism makes possible. Communism doesn’t. I don’t want to waste my time putting together computers and upgrades. I’m not good at it and as an activity it has low utility for me. So I pay H-P to do it. Still, nobody is stopping you from going the other route.

[msmith537]

erislover
How so? Two thousand dollars will get you a computer that, in principle and in practice, could last you for 4, maybe 7 years. Heck, I just saw an offer from Dell that dropped my jaw… $1179 for a 2GHz computer (pentium), printer/scanner/fax/copier, 19" moniter, and a speaker system.

How much are you willing to pay for such a system that this is priced unfairly?

I just thought I should throw it out there that under our market economy, I purchased a used computer from a friend last year for $300 (including 3d video and sound card and a stack of old games). For my normal use of surfing the web, checking email, playing mp3s and playing games like Age of Empires or Civ III, it is more than adequate. As much as I like new gadgets, I do not need much more than what I have. It is a waste of resources to give me a Colinito 67000 super computer if I don’t want or need it.

Colinito67 demonstrated another problem with communism. The tendency to treat everyone as if they have similar wants and needs. Are we expected to believe that a communist society will take into account the personal needs of each of its citizens? I don’t think so. Colinito67 assumes that everyone wants or needs a top of the line PC. As i have pointed out, that is not the case.
Colinito67 provides a straw-man with 2 variables. Reduce money for defense and law enforcement and increase money for PCs for everyone. That’s fine. In the real world, there are a lot more variables to consider. If you reduce money for the war on drugs, that will have an effect on law enforcement, health care, overall productivity and any number of other factors I can’t think of right now. The interaction between all the possible industries, services and products in a society is too complex to be planned by a central group. No planning committee or random planning between individuals can communicate information as rapidly as market prices.

Another thing. Companies like Dell are not external entities that drain wealth away from the system. They are integrated into the economy they serve. When Dell makes money off of your purchase, that money is used to pay workers and to pay for products and parts manufactured by other companies. All that money goes back into the economy.
The biggest complaint seems to be that there shouldn’t be super wealthy people. I see nothing wrong with the Gates and Dells and Thomases making fortunes off of great ideas. They give millions to charity and keep thousands of workers employed. I believe the problem is that we aren’t capitalist enough. I have a problem with CEOs whos pay is not tied to the performance of the company but receive millions. By not having ownership of the company they serve, they have no real incentive to ensure it’s success.

It also seems like the pro communist crowd feels that as if by magic, we will all be nicer under communism. That is a load of crap. If you want a society that is dependent on the “niceness” of people, capitalism would work just as fine as communism. What you really mean is that a communist society depends on people giving without receiving an equivalent value in return. That is just wastefull.

[perspective]

*Originally posted by msmith537 *Colinito67 demonstrated another problem with communism. The tendency to treat everyone as if they have similar wants and needs. Are we expected to believe that a communist society will take into account the personal needs of each of its citizens?

Once again the tacit assumption that communism=totalitarianism. If you want to say that human nature will thwart any attempts at communism and turn it into a totalitarian state, make your case.

The interaction between all the possible industries, services and products in a society is too complex to be planned by a central group. No planning committee or random planning between individuals can communicate information as rapidly as market prices.

Does a classless society imply a central planning committee? How?

The biggest complaint seems to be that there shouldn’t be super wealthy people.

No the actual biggest complaint is that there shouldn’t be people living in poverty while there are super wealthy people. The second biggest complaint is that so much wealth in the hands of a few threatens the democratic process as much as any polit bureau. I can’t help but wonder if you are transferring your own jealousy onto others.

It also seems like the pro communist crowd feels that as if by magic, we will all be nicer under communism.

No, my assumption is that people have to learn how to cooperate then we can have communism. I believe people have a mutual interest in helping each other out. How we learn to get there is up to all of us. There’s no magic formula. It’s a matter people deciding that it’s worth the effort.

If you want a society that is dependent on the “niceness” of people, capitalism would work just as fine as communism.

Really? I thought capitalism relied on recognizing people’s greed.

What you really mean is that a communist society depends on people giving without receiving an equivalent value in return. That is just wastefull.

Actually that’s capitalism. It’s called profit. Someone buys a product for more than it costs to produce, hence there’s a profit. That’s wasteful.

I just went to a cooperative cafe last night. The food was cheap and good. Everyone that worked there was happy and satisfied to be doing so. It didn’t cost as much as a similar cafe run to profit a business owner who didn’t do any work. They even eliminated the need for a manager by making their own decisions. I wasn’t even expected to tip because they were already making enough money from the sale price. I benefitted as a consumer by not paying some capitalist do-nothing and they benefitted as workers too.

[dal_timgar]

if anyone found planned obsolescence listed in a book with the tooth fairy, why don’t you name the title and author of the book?

the book: Cultural Literacy by J. D. Hersch Jr. (c)1988 listed 5000 terms and concepts that EVERY AMERICAN should know included planned obsolescence on the list. William Bennet was on TV saying what a great book it was. probably didn’t check to see PO was mentioned.

THE DURABILITY FACTOR by Roger Yepsen (c)1982 said the term planned obsolescence originated in 1940 tho actually started in the 20’s but was called progressive obsolescence at the time.

THE AFFLUENT SOCIETY by Galbraith also mentioned PO and silly variations in cars.

corporations manufacturing trash don’t want to hire economists talking about PO. the economics profession has a vested interest in not discussing it. the 10th edition of ECONOMICS by Samuelson calls Galbraith an iconoclast and says he doesn’t have any disciples and talks about a GUILD of economists.

i’ve been in the electronics industry since 1972. switched from stereos to computers in 1978. you would have to be an idiot not to notice planned obsolescence, but it dependes on consumers being stupid. have you ever heard of economist suggesting that accounting be mandatory in highschool. notice how accounting is portrayed as being difficult and boring. it’s nothing but 5th grade arithmatic.
planned obsolescence is planned depreciation and bad for your net worth.

there are 3 types of planned obsolescence. i came up with these from observation, you won’t find them in a book.

1. true technological advance, i have no complaint about this but it does qualify as planned.

2. useless variations in styling. increases cost motivates idiotic consumers makes repairs more dificult and costly.

3. cheap construction. reduces costs, offsets styling costs increases maintenance costs and reduces lifespan of product. customer has to buy a new one making future profits for the corporation and investors.

now we have planned obsolescence of computer software and i found a computer book that agrees. Linux System Administration by Vicki Stanfield.

sorry guys, i’ve got my ducks in a row on this one. laser precision even. LOL!

Dal Timgar

[Liberal]

What do Galbraithians (whatever happened to Keynesians?) call it when, say, 20 million people buy new cars — whether because the cars are more advanced technologically, or because people like the new styles, or because people want a better quality car — as opposed to no people buying new cars?