What should replace capitalism?

Great Debates
342

That’s not an article it’s an opinion piece. It’s one guy’s opinion of 5 things he doesn’t like, that just so happens to match perfectly with your narrow world view.

An “article” would outline the pros and cons of the merger, present relevant facts, and either draw a logical conclusion, or allow the reader to form their own (assuming it isn’t set in stone).

Stop searching for biased stories that confirm your bias. If you think the deal is bad, look for reasons why it’s good so you at least know what’s going on. If one person stands to make a lot of money at least learn the guy’s name and how much he’s making.

Try this
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/21/technology/att_tmobile_merger/index.htm

343

Sure, controlling 80 percent of the market is not a monopoly. What kind of dream world do you live in?

344

It doesn’t matter what world I live in, a monopoly isn’t 80%, and I’m saying this as a guy that is willing to say it’s 90% despite being scolded repeatedly.

You think rich people control the message, but have you consider cleaning yours up? You might get more than Le Jacquelope to vote your way.

ETA I didn’t even mention monopoly so I don’t know why you brought it up.

345

Sorry, I misunderstood the comment. If no one making under $50k is payig taxes, then I highly doubt that there is enough money to pay for services. We don’t have enough money now.

346

Responses to your comments, more/ less in the order you posted. Quotes omitted for cleanliness:

emacknight:

If I had to do X work, and “The Man” paid me 50k to do it, I would consider starting my own business for 40k. I’d do this for a) the flexible hours and control of my workload, b) being my own boss and answering only to myself and my clients, c) the possibility to make a “significant profit” if it turns out I’m better at this than I thought. So in fact, yes, I’d be better off making less money. Many people would be better off, so long as they are in charge of the terms.

If I become rich and make a “significant profit” off of my own labour, and pay my taxes, then I view that as mostly fair and just. Those taxes should go to helping others. The problem I do have is with other people making a “significant profit” off of my own labour, while I get paid a fixed hourly wage.

In what countries is this the norm - where people work “for themselves”? Why might you not prefer it? Can you elaborate?

I’m not saying *everyone *would start their own businesses… just that many in the middle class would like to do so, have the skills, the drive, and a reasonably likelihood of success… but what they lack is capital. That capital is in the hands of the rich, making them richer. Why not share some of that capital, and let others get a foot in the door. This is not for everyone, obviously, and I think we agree on the fact that the poor and financially inept would not be good candidates for such a program. But allowing those with great ideas and great ingenuity to waste their potential, is… well… a waste.

As for running a business at a low rate of return… what I mean, is that the business would pay my salary, and those of my employees. It wouldn’t run at a loss, but would make enough profit so that reinvestment could be made (into new machines, software, etc). But me, as the sole owner, would still only make my fixed “salary”/profit. I’d invest in this (ie my own business), even if my rate of return in the business is less than a guaranteed government bond, or mutual fund.

Why does my “business need to grow with the cost of inflation”? Sure, I need to give raises comparable with the inflation rate… but then wouldn’t I just raise my prices to match inflation? What exactly does “growth” mean? Why does my scope and size have to get bigger? Why is it assumed that stability is only through growth? I still fail to understand. If my business is paying me a modest 50-100k, and banks aren’t giving out loans to businesses of such low profit/return, then do I really have anything to fear from competition?

As for the 70h/week: People do not want to work 70h/week for someone else. Some of those people, however, would be willing to work 70h/week for themselves. I have a friend who couldn’t stand working for an employer for 40h/week. I assumed they hated their work - but no! They started their own business, doing the exact same work, and now they put in 70+h/week without any trouble or complaints. They did this for the same/slightly-less pay for the first few years, without any trouble or complaints! There is definitely a psychological factor involved in working, and reaping the rewards of that work. 10 years ago I wrote a genius (okay, maybe just lucky, but I’ll stick with “genius” for personal reasons :slight_smile: ) bit of software: It only took me a couple of weeks, but the company made hundreds of thousands of dollars off of it. In addition to the $2000 I was paid for my time, I was given a $1000 bonus! What’s the point of working hard at a fixed-pay job? If you do really well, you don’t get proportionally compensated for it. Even if you don’t “make it big”, people want to be secure in the fact that if they do something right, then they will reap the rewards.

I’m not comparing middle classes, I’m just saying that the wealth of the American middle class is transferring to the developing world’s “middle class”. You disagree that the rich are insulated from this… but I believe that they are: The rich aren’t tied down to working in one country. They can invest elsewhere, and start businesses and partnerships elsewhere. Many developing countries will subsidize you if you are willing to start a business there (they’ll even declare actively farmed/lived-on land a “state park”, then give you a portion of it for free, and the displaced people can work in your sweatshops!). The rich can always find a good place to invest… the American working middle class, on the other hand, can’t exactly pick up and move to China or South America.

In regards to government sponsored education: Industry should decide. They should put money towards it, and the government would reimburse them when they hire their graduate.

In regards to providing food and housing and help to those working 70+hours/week for minimal pay: We do, but not enough. I grew up in an extremely poor immigrant neighbourhood. Kids missed out on the opportunity to go to college because they had to work to help support their families and pay rent and buy food. The lack of support for these families just made the cycle repeat, and it may repeat again with their children’s children.
mazinger_z:

I don’t understand what you mean by “code for ‘people want to be lazy’”? I believe that there are many people that would work harder for less money, so long as they are in charge of their own work/income/business. As for acquiring 100k, it might be difficult: Getting a 100k small-business loan is tricky if you don’t have an property. Saving 100k when you only earn 40k/year is also tricky, but doable, if you follow emacknight’s system. I wouldn’t invest 100k of my own money in someone else’s business, I’d rather put it into a bond. BUT, instead of either of those 2 options, I’d really rather just put it into my own business instead. Mirroring that, of course I don’t expect other’s to invest 100k in my own business either. But I believe some tax dollars could go to paying the bank’s interest or the bank’s insurance, to help make these sorts of things possible.

I would gladly pay more taxes if it meant that the quality of life for the average person increases. Even if mine decreases slightly, I’d still be okay with it. I can’t say this for everyone, however, obviously.

An 8%-return megacorp is a more effective allocation of resources and capital than a 4% local business. So what? If the people’s quality of life is higher with a 4% business, then we should take that route instead. And as I mentioned above, working for myself would give me a better quality of life - even with less income - than working for “The Man”. (This, I realize, is somewhat conditional on how much less income you make, and what kind of work you do - but the general idea is still valid.)

Both you and emacknight suggest I need to grow or die. But I still fail to see how/why. I’ll have to develop new products/services/etc… but I’d do that to remain stable. Why do I have to specifically grow using an economic measure? What does that even mean? I have to evolve, yes, but grow? That makes no sense to me. (Not that growing isn’t a good thing… but I don’t see it as necessary, at all.)

347

Speak for yourself. If you gave me a choice between working for myself for 40K with no savings and working a job for 40K with the opportunity to save, I and the great majority of people, I suspect, will take the job. I’d like to retire someday, and working for yourself sounds a lot more fun than it is.

348

That’s not a counter-argument, that’s a tantrum. Those cites aren’t terrible - they just show things that you don’t like to accept as fact. The facts that they present are accurate.

:rolleyes:

Take it to the Pit for all I care. I’ve got more bad news for you about free market capitalism. Don’t say your friends at the Economist didn’t warn you about this.

Now I’m sure you’ll sit there and claim the poll doesn’t show a drop in support for the free market. Your response to that, and your past responses to the skyrocketing support in America for tariffs, is a simple case of denial. You don’t want to come to grips with the implications of America turning against your worldview. I can understand that, though; denial is a coping mechanism.

The entire concept of free market capitalism and free trade are based on the culture of denial. It is woefully out of touch with where America stands.

349

Uhm, that’s another way of saying it costs so much. In other words, it costs so much as in it costs more than it profits.

We here on Earth benefit greatly from the innovations and discoveries achieved by space exploration. Aviation safety, image processing… how about the entire satellite industry? Satellite internet, cable, phones, GPS, all that came because of NASA. Multibillion dollar industries owe their existence to NASA. Let’s also not forget all the civilians who profit off of space when they go to work in the industry. The profit to this country from NASA could run into the trillions.

Now I’m sure you’re asking yourself, “but how is that profitable to the Government who spent $18 billion on NASA?” To that I say (for all the good that it’ll do), consider the income and corporate tax benefits that came back to America as a result. More than likely it adds up to over $18 Billion - or it would, if we didn’t let companies like BofA and GE pay $0 in taxes for their tens of billions in profit. :rolleyes: In short, we as taxpayers do not lose money on NASA.

This is why space exploration should be funded by the Government. If the Government hadn’t funded NASA where would we be now?

350

Did I read that chart wrong? It looks like 59% of Americans strongly agree or some what agree that “Free Market is the Best System.”

As in, the majority of Americans think the free market is the best system. Not some think it’s okay, it says a majority think it’s the best.

Tell me again how that helps your case? At best it says 41% don’t think it’s the best system, perhaps they thing it’s “pretty good compared to a shitty life under tariffs.” More likely it says some number greater than 1% answer, “I don’t understand the question.”

351

You should familiarize yourself with the difference between fact and opinion. While we all here are arguing based on opinions, some of us do have facts backing up our opinions (i.e. arguments). Backing up your opinion with more opinion, especially from other non-professionals does not make for a strong or compelling argument. Neither does the overuse of italics and capitalization. That looks like more of a temper tantrum than anything. Why do you think we as a group put so much emphasis on peer reviewed journals and other scholarly work? Otherwise, I’ll continuing citing my dad all day long.

352

Papa Mazinger is a saint! You leave him out of this.

353

Yes, that’s what I said. Your point?

Of course. That’s why the government does it. We need the government to do things that don’t make a profit, such as run the justice system, or do space exploration, maintain an army, run the fire department, maintain sewage systems, regulate pollution, and so on.

Are you just trying to pick a fight for no reason?

354

I know some of this wasn’t quoted at me, but I’ve responded to it because I think it will be helpful to the discussion,

This is code for being secretly wanting to be lazy because it ignores all the start-up costs, risks (see emack’s other threads), and, business development costs, etc. Yes, restaurants and some other small businesses can be shielded or otherwise immune from this, but most businesses have to suffer through these issues to generate business. It’s a pipe dream because it doesn’t take into account all of this other work that needs to be done. Lawyers call it administrative work; the modern business term for it is called back office. These constitute a significant amount of time and money. These are some of the major reasons why people don’t go into work for themselves.

What happens if your competitors are adding more value, lower costs, or paying their workers more? If you’re not maximizing profit, then you are less likely to survive these market conditions and find yourself out-competed out of a business. Maximizing profit allows you to weather these conditions while you re-tool your business to address these issues. Or make enough money to get out an retire.

If a competitor has demonstrated profitability and/or willing to risk personal wealth, he will more likely get a loan to out-compete you. You can grow by lowering your total operating costs thereby taking more profit, which you can just hold as a business. You can offer more value. if you don’t do any of these things, be sure that your competition will.

Some people are able to do this with nary a care in the world and still enjoy life. I suspect most can’t. Objectively speaking, I bet even more are better off working for The Man. (all assuming they can create a viable business in the first place.)

When push comes to shove and quality of life is impacted through there being less money and time, I’ll bet most people will push for the higher return. The more efficient business is all-around better for society all thing being equal. People work the 9-5 (or whatever hours, even us salaried people for the most part have regular hours) because they want their time, the stability of work, and not be hassled with back office issues which isn’t their primary job.

In short, if you don’t you will be out-competed. Some business/occupations are insulated somewhat from the grow or die dilemma, e.g. restaurants, lawyers, doctors, accountants, basically non-commoditized services that have government/union/professional protection, but definitely not a majority. Law firms (or any type of professional service) break up for the simple reason a group of young partners, passed-up partners, and senior associates leave to acquire more market. So, the insulation only goes so far.

355

  1. If the market is small, and the profits are low, other businesses may not even bother trying to compete.

  2. By taking a lower salary, all things being equal, I’d have more money to put back into the business.

I guess it’s personal experience then… but from all my friends and acquaintances, the biggest complaint they have is lack of autonomy in making their own decisions at work.

I think a lot of self-employable positions are fairly insulated. So are a lot of small businesses as well. I guess it depends on your product/service…

356

Those cites I post are mostly based on facts. Studies, numbers crunched, that kind of thing. As I said, it’s just that you call it “opinion” when you don’t like what the data says.

You put even more emphasis on rejecting anything that contradicts your world view. Peer-reviewed or otherwise.

Plus many of you flatly misread peer-reviewed information; few examples are more alarming than the persistent and commonly seen (on the SDMB) misconceptions of basic economic concepts like comparative advantage. Plus you also take things like the highly arbitrary definition of inflation as the Word of God: a definition which is rapidly losing credibility with most of the country.

But then that points to another problem the SDMB has: you look at most of this country as a bunch of idiots. Probably because very few of us are drinking the free market capitalism kool-aid anymore. Tell ya what, Mazinger - you’d be singing a different tune if this board’s population reflected the real world. This is a pretty nice insular setup you got here. But reality is like water - it wears down all walls.

357

Note: mostly (Also note the correct use of italics).

This is hilarious coming from you.

358

Like I said, an objective analysis can be made that trading money for time is worth it. Guys I used to work with were making $250k+/yr as partners, and after saving a bunch of money, they went solo/small firm. Most make nearly half (or just a bit more than half) since leaving. They have the also increased responsibility of paying employees and running a business (back office stuff). But, they work less, but not that much less (45 vs. 70hrs/wk). I don’t think it’s worth it personally. I’d wait until I had 10 years saved, then work for myself with no pressure to run a business.

Even then, how many people can actually do this? If it really is that common, why aren’t more people doing it? The less protected a product/service, the more family workers are involved working for free, essentially.

359

I guess it’s all a function of situation. These guys may enjoy the free time. They may enjoy the ability to make decisions on how to run their business, and which directions to take. Those things may make the pay cut worth it. They certainly would to the people I know. My friends have scientific/engineering/business ideas that have quite a bit of potential, but they can’t make them work in a larger organization because they don’t have the resources, the authority, or the autonomy.

My whole point in this is just that: Some people who want to start successful businesses can’t, because the money is tied up with people who already have plenty. Not everyone has this skills or the resources to give up 6-12 months of their lives while they go around secretly pitching ideas to people for scraps of cash while they’re trying to not get fired at their current job.

360

Ah yes, the “I know you are but what am I?” comeback.

At some point you will have to reckon with the fact that your pro-offshoring argument is losing credibility with almost every demographic slice of the country.

Granted, citing the opinions of elite few economists who are less accurate with their theories than the local weatherman is about tomorrow’s chances of rain and calling these opinions “facts” may soothe your ego but anyone who supports offshoring as fanatically as you do is in for a rude awakening.

That rude awakening may have just begun with the letters S and P. Just remember, though, I warned you that this was the alternative consequence. But hey, a dollar collapse is better than tariffs, right? :rolleyes:

361

It’s because you accuse people of what you do so famously. I shouldn’t have to point this out, but you purposely ignore or don’t see it every time anyone else points it out to you.

Call it what you will, the landscape has not changed and continues toward a free market. Let me know when a pro-tariff candidate is elected, and his policies are implemented.

The point of the S&P is yet another party telling the US government that they can’t borrow forever. S&P would have nothing good to say about a tariff-happy economy, particularly a country with such a high standard of living like the US. Oh, and I do support tariffs for nascent industries as well as a gradual ease off tariffs as industries become more competitive.