What should replace capitalism?

Great Debates
262

Very very 100% sure. When Prince William has a kid, or the Saudi Royal Family squirts out another one, that child will be born into a situation. For a long time (and even sill) in India the family you are born to dictate what your life will be.

To suggest America falls into that sort of situation indicates a level of unawareness of the world outside your bedroom walls.

The very simple fact that a child born in the US, to the worst possible poverty, can still go to free public school breaks all of the barriers a kid growing up in the Congo will face. That child can work hard and either become smart, get into sports, or get fake boobs. Either way, a child growing up in America has options that transcend their genealogy.

Uh, okay, wake me in 40 years, we’ll talk then.

You intentionally skipped over the middle two: have a skill, earn commissions. Labour has never, nor ever will, be a source of riches. The very nature of it prevents reaching even the middle class dream.

I get that there was a time in US history where a lot of guys could work a meaningless job and make a reasonable salary. I hate to be the one to tell you this but it was a short lived fantasy. Following WWII there were no other industrialized nations left. Everyone was either broke or bombed out, or both. Combine that with import tariffs on manufactured goods and of course general labour was going to seem like it was making money. But you’ll notice as soon as Germany and Japan rebuilt their factories they were making better products. And as soon as the US removed their tariffs no one wanted American automobiles.

The lesson here is don’t be general labour. Get a skill, and use that skill. Or figure out a way to make money off the people investing or developing their skills.

Consider a singer that writes a great song. She has a skill that will make a lot of money. But time in a recording studio requires capital. And once recorded requires someone to market the single. Those three people will make a lot of money and enjoy middle class utopia.

The guy hired to copy the song, over and over, to punch out a thousand CDs an hour, he’ll make nothing. No economic system in the world is going to reward him for pushing the button.

Of course, because the product they are producing is worth less and less. Pick any object currently in your line of sight: your computer mouse.

So some guy is making a computer mouse and earns $20k a year. Next year, people don’t want that same mouse any more, so what is supposed to happen to him? Force people to buy a crappy 1990’s mouse?

Eventually, someone with skill designs a mouse with 3 buttons instead of 1. Optics instead of a ball. Bluetooth instead of a cord. The guy is still making a mouse, but now someone else improved it and continues to make money. There is no justification for paying him more. He’s still doing the same job. He could have come up with a better mouse [trap] but instead he’s content to sit on a factory line and punch of plastic parts.

Like I said, don’t be replaced by a machine. If you can’t come up with capital to invest, be the guy that comes up with the machine. Or be the person that sells the machine. Just don’t be the guy that watches the machine work. There’s no money in that, never has been*, never will be. *except for a brief period of time when the US was the only place making machines.

Bull shit. That money has to be invested into something that people will buy. That something needs to be designed, built, and sold. The person that designs it will get paid handsomely because she has skill. The person that sells it will get paid commissions. The person that makes it is just doing what some else told them to do. Don’t be that guy.

Have you ever noticed that U2 concert tickets always sell out. They are (I believe) currently the highest grossing concert in history. But I can play their music, in fact I can play it just as good because I can put their disk into a player and have people listen to it. Why won’t people pay me to play a U2 disk?

Or skill. Otherwise, what good are you? Why should you earn an income? What am I paying you for?

So without skill or talent, what do you expect to do with their wealth?

No they aren’t. Maybe in 15th century Britain, but we’re hardly there (yet). Get seeds, grow something, sell it.

Then, what you’ll learn is that there is very little money selling tomatoes, what you need to sell is a product like marinara sauce. Same 5 tomatoes, but now it’s worth more money.

But if you are going to make a marinara sauce people want to buy, you’ll need skill and marketing. Being the guy that picks weeds never has nor ever will earn more than subsistence wage–unless of course you are skilled at it…

263

So are you trying to say the US has a caste system? Do you know what a caste system is?

Your article, although interesting, simple says the US isn’t as mobile as Canada, but is similar to Britain. Not at all what I was saying, and simply speaks to a lack of perspective. It’s a comparison of industrialized nations. As a Canadian I have no problem laughing at all of you, but the fact still remains that the US does not have a caste system, and children born into poverty have opportunities children in Africa/India/China don’t.

All that article says is that it’s not a guarantee, to that I say duh. To say it’s the least mobile industrialized nation is like saying its the slowest race car, or thinnest sumo wrestler. Perspective, try some, you’ll like it.

264

Except that what I actually realize is that globally it’s must worse than 200million. India and China have added so many new bodies to the workforces there is no alternative to a lowering of labour wages. It’s a relatively new phenomenon that we’re all getting used to. Hell, if the Amish in the US decided on Monday that they wanted to join the IT sector we’d all be fucked. The economy can’t take on huge changes like that.

Have you read Who Moved My Cheese yet? Maybe start their before you and your merry bunch try to storm the castle.

265

I would if in fact I was posting any “Pollyanna” shit at all. Well, that and the fact I don’t take orders from you.

Shifts in the nature of the economy cause displacement of workers. In the long run the jobs will be replaced, but in the meantime some people do, in fact, get screwed pretty badly, and they and their families need to eat. That’s why one hopes a society will have social programs and education to mitigate the effects of such things. If your country has shitty social programs you need to elect better politicians.

I suspect the difference is that you’re in the habit of just making ridiculous nonsense up, as evidenced above.

The work week went from 60-70 (or more) hours per week to 35-40 hours per week because of labour regulation, collective bargaining, and labour unions, plus the benefits of market forces and automation making it economically feasible to get more work done in less time. If you want to return tothe days of sweatshops and work farms, I don’t think you’re going in the right direction.

If having employees robbed of benefits by playing tricks with working hours is a problem, I would suggest that automation is not the problem so much as a lack of oversight in existing labour law. Elect better politicians.

If they could simply jack prices up, explain to me, using evidence and logic rather than orders and drunken ranting, why they ever would have left the gas prices lower before. Or why the gas prices ever go down. Why did gas prices drop so dramatically in 2009? Why were they low in the late 90s after having been quite high in the early 80s… shouldn’t the price hikes in the early 80s have stuck?

Damned brown people again, huh?

266

Why is it Americans consistently vote against better social programs? If you read enough of these threads you get the sense that Republicans exist to make the rich richer, yet if true, why do they garner so many of the votes? In the end, poor people have no problem voting against what would seem like their self interests.

Reading through the link Der Trihs posted, there seems to be an overwhelming resistance to improving quality of life. But that article is comparing the US with other capitalist countries.

Clearly capitalism isn’t the problem.

267

Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. Americans are born into situations that some are able to change for themselves. Not all, but many can. This is better than in most countries, and at no point did I mean to imply that the USA is just like Saudi Arabia or India or the Congo. What I was trying to say was that those in the USA are not immune to being born into unalterable situations.

I personally know people who were born into poor families, who had to work from the age of 7. Despite being extraordinarily smart, they did poor in school since they worked 30-60 hours per week in addition to going to classes full-time. They did this so they had a roof over their heads and so that their families didn’t starve. Since they never had an opportunity to develop more marketable skills, they currently work 60+ hours at commodity jobs, and still can’t save up a dime for themselves, let alone their families. There are no laws or social rules holding them back - as there are in other countries - but there are no opportunities/options either.

By labour I meant selling one’s *time *for money. I didn’t mean physical and/or skilless labour. I include skilled work, professional careers, trades, etc in this category since they either pay hourly, monthly, or yearly.

The definition of “skill” changes over time. It was unheard of 200 years ago for someone to start school at 5, get out of highschool at 18, do a 4-year university program, get a 2-masters by 24, and do a 5-year PhD for 29. This person will earn his first paycheque at 30.

Of course that’s an extreme example. But even where I live now, you can’t finish med school or law school before 26-27. An ordinary undergrad is now required for menial office work (whereas previously it was highschool, or even less) requires the age of 22. The definitions of “skilled” and “unskilled” have been changing over time, raising the bar constantly. The first year a person can engage in “skilled” full-time labour is being pushed further and further back. (The reasons for this vary and maybe complex, but this is just something to keep in mind.)

This will become harder and harder and harder to do over time. More and more “skilled” jobs are being replaced. Eventually even doctors and lawyers will be replaced by computers and machinery. I suspect one will need 40 years of schooling in order to have the minimum level of skills to be employable at all.

Until their jobs get replaced. You are under the notion that only “unskilled” jobs get replaced.

Eventually the singer, the audio mixer, the cover artist, the marketer, and the distributor will join him.

I agree with staying ahead of the game. It’s hard to do for some people, especially those in middle-age without valued skills. But this wave will get wider and broader with time and everyone - except those that own significant capital - will be swept away.

  1. Computers are designing more and more things. Mainly just computers, but eventually that will broaden. Soon they will create cars, planes, furniture, toys, art, music, etc - completely independent of human influence… with the exception of those that invested and provided the capital (and who will reap the full rewards).

  2. Sales are getting more and more automated. I buy stuff through online stores. Who gets a commission when I buy from Amazon or from Best Buy Online. Lots of sales now are computer-to-human. Eventually, it will be computer-to-computer: the human element will be completely removed. Who will get commissions then (if any)? In the financial industry this is already taking place, for example.

I think what you are saying is logical, and good for the immediate future… but in the next few decades, all “skilled” labour will be replaced. This will leave only one way to generate wealth: capital investment. Unless you have capital, you will be totally powerless.

Now I know what you’re gonna say. “Didn’t we say in the 40s and 50s that there will be no work left 'cause robots would do everything for us!? And look, there’s still stuff for people to do now!” To that all I have to say is: It’s a question of when, not if. Already, as I have shown, you need to spend twice as much time in school as in the past, in order to have marketable skills. Eventually someone will have to stay in school until the age of 30… then that will be pushed to 40. Eventually, computers will do everything.

When that point comes… what exactly will we as a society do? I understand that this may seem like some vague theoretical exercise, but I believe it has value since we are seeing these trends right now.

Have the resources to acquire food, water, shelter, electricity, etc.

The rich will reach a point where they can take care of themselves. They will no longer require us to be wage-slaves for them. More and more of us will become useless for the rich. Eventually we will all become useless… and only their charity will keep us alive. Hopefully the state will take a portion of their wealth, and take care of us (assuming the state represent society as a whole, and not just the rich). But potentially, as we approach such a time in the future, the people may revolt.

It is society, after all, that allows the rich the privilege to accumulate their wealth. Property is not a right.

268

It’s the poor that vote against healthcare, against social programs, etc… this is true. It’s very strange, I agree. It’s probably because they’ve been convinced that the best way for their lives to improve is to give tax breaks to the rich and let the money somehow “trickle down” to them. Also, the American dream that everyone has the potential to become whoever they want leads to the conclusion that if you are poor then it must be your fault. (Americans love to blame victims, even if it’s themselves.)

If the poor are too stupid to vote and change the laws to their benefit, does that mean they deserve poverty though? Does that mean the government’s job is no longer to protect and serve them? Did they vote away their representation?

I agree with your statement, however: If the government is doing it’s job (to represent all of society’s best interests), then capitalism isn’t nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

I understand your zealous and fervent defence of capitalism. But you sound a bit like those who defend communism. Communism is GREAT in theory… poor in practice however, because of bad government. Same applies to capitalism.

269

What is it with this “opposition to x = hatred of brown people” crap?

There are brown people in the United States too, you know, and they suffer the consequences of OPEC; in fact they suffer disproportionately. Maybe you have a problem with the brown people here? :rolleyes:

270

Don’t even bother explaining the existence of multi-generational poverty. It’s always the poor’s fault.

271

They own the methods of dissemination. There are 6 corporations that own and control nearly all the magazines, newspapers and TV stations. They have the ability to control the message . You will not get a fair and even news.
I(t is like the oil and power companies. They run great commercials extolling their love of the environment and their support of small businesses around the globe. If they run them enough, it will stick. I am sure people on this board think they are agents of good and really want to clean up the world.

272

So what you’re saying is the poor vote against their self interest because the rick trick them?

In a democracy, you get the government you deserve. Health care was put to a vote, and people rejected it. Gay marriage was put to a vote, people overwhelmingly rejected it. Hell, even a tax cut for everyone but those over $250k was rejected because it was still seem as “a tax increase.”

It used to be that the poor had no voice and got shit on. Then we decided they should get representation, so when asked, they choose to get shit on. What do you suggest, we force them to be more productive?

273

The government should protect the interests of society, even if the majority vote against it.

The reason why people don’t vote on individual issues is because people don’t know what’s in their own best interests. People merely vote for representatives. If those representatives take actions that are not in the best interests of the public, then they aren’t doing their jobs… doesn’t matter what the people who elected them say/do.

274

It’s certainly very curious. There are entire books written about it.

Of course, Americans, like anyone else, DO ote for social programs if the social programs benefit them, which is why old people are such well-bribed voters; the USA’s biggest social programs are for old people. Old Americans who don’t want single-payer health insurance for anyone else generally want it for themselves.

But I guess the answer to your question is generally that people will sometimes votes according to issues other than their economic well being. I was in Florida last week and had the misfortune of spinning around the AM dial while trying to find a traffic report in Tampa. Every second station was a Christian station, and as near as I can tell, the only things they talked about were:

  1. Homos are evil,
  2. You should not vote democrat because Democrats support evil homos, and
  3. Oh, and Moozlims are evil, too.

I wish this was an exaggeration but it’s really not. The obsession with homosexuality was astounding.

If people vote based on an irrational terror of homosexuals and Muslims, well, they might not be thinking enough about the conomics of health insurance.

275

We have Obamacare, the takeover of our great and fair health care system, by a socialist. Obamacare was passed over the objections of the people who hated it so he could break the government. He is responsible for the economic mess and unemployment. Bush left everything fine. The Dems, like Clinton are tax and spenders who increase the deficit. The Repubs are fiscal conservatives who like balanced budgets and shrink the government when they are in power.
Yep, Fox Gnus keeps me informed.

276

Do we want to government to go against what the majority want? That doesn’t sound like democracy.

277

60% of the people vote to arrest, imprison, and execute the other 40%. What should the government do?

278

If it’s constitutional I guess they have no choice. Where do we draw the line? What would we say if the government did was 60% voted against?

279

The people should state what they WANT, not HOW to get it. They don’t understand economics, for example, and therefore shouldn’t be a part of the economics decisions.

The public should vote on who is more successful giving them what they want.

As for executions… I believe there should be certain limits to elected power. A constitution of some sorts, or a basic national legal document, is a good thing.

280

Thank you, this is what I was trying to get at. If you skim through posts by Le Jacquelope you’ll notice two overlapping issues: one is a complete and utter lack of any economics knowledge what so over, the other is the insistence that 86% of Americans agree with him–that is to say, 86% of Americans have a no knowledge of economics.

The conclusion is that people don’t know what they want much less how to get it. So it should come as no surprise that people are using that to nefarious ends.

5 years ago people wanted bigger houses, with a lower interest rate, an no money down. They wanted cheaper electronics imported from China. They wanted $1/pound beef that came from feedlots. They wanted the stock market to reach record highs in as short a time period as possible.

This is exactly what the voted for, either through elections or with their wallets.

281

I understand what you’re saying. People are somewhat responsible.

However, it should be the job of the government to look a bit further into the future. No matter what people vote for/on, the government should not be allowed to do certain things that would lead to harm - harm that if the electorate understood, they might reconsider. Of course, this brings up issues of trust… and since no one trust politicians, this may be a problem.

Ultimately, the government should do what’s in the best short and long-term interest of the populace. The populace should get to vote on whether their politicians are doing a good job. But in the case of some countries the government screws over the citizens, knowingly, and uses the excuse that “the voters told us so!” - This is something that is not okay.