Averting Global Catastrophe

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-08 06:52:09

I can pick Dell, IBM, Gateway, or I can build my own PC! It all goes based on what I think is most convenient and beneficial to me.

You missed the point entirely, but you opened up opportunity for an obvious example. You can pick Dell, IBM, Gateway or a custom build, but you only have a choice between Intel and AMD for the CPU.

Um, what's your point about demand not always being there?

Are you not listening to me, soph? I'm suggesting that individual demand for resources cannot last forever (without a military state forcing it upon us, like in Guatemala), so it will create a dilemma for capitalist economics.

Most of the land in Guatemala was owned by the UFCO, but a lot of it went unused, so when the Guatemalan people overthrew the dictator that was there, and inacted democratic laws (one must note that before overthrowing of the UFCO established dictator, there was no democracy in Guatemala), they made it so that land was available to everyone. Or at least they were beginning to. With the help of the US, however, the Guatemalans had no chance, and another dictatorship was quickly built.

If there is no demand for your product, why should you still be selling it?

Demand will taper off... why are computer companies selling newer faster computers when there is hardly any demand for it? They're trying to create a demand, but it's failing miserably because computers can now run operating systems with reasonable speed, and people are satisfied with their state.

This really is a nobrainer...

the companies depend on consumers as much as vice versa, so they are forced to provide a supply that has a demand

Definitely, that's the point we've been trying to make. Capitalism is actually a very interdependent system. Can this system of providing a service that has a demand go on forever? No. It cannot. Because there are limits to how many services can possibly exist in a finite system.

Indeed, how many kinds of PCs were being made in the 80s? Let's see. Tandy (TSR), Commadore (64/128), Apple(II), Sinclair (ZX 80). The list goes on and on!

How many kinds of PCs are being made now? You have two kinds (not including PDAs), Mac and IBM compatable (AMD/Intel).

How long until we have sugarcube chips capable of simulating realty or something? </sarcasm>

Seriously, since you know some economic doctorates, could you ask them, first, if it's true that as resources become more abundant in a system, demand decreases, and second, that if demand decreases naturally as capitalism grows, how can demand be insured in the long term?

Ebay is a "monopoly," because people find their services reasonably priced and convenient. If someone came along charging nothing and offering free giveaways, traffic would slowly shift to them.

That's assuming quite a lot of factors. First, whether or not they could do this because it may violate eBay's IP rights. After getting around the IP issues, this new startup will have to somehow manage to advertize without any income. Then, assuming that their system was designed well (they have to pay someone to do that, too, mind you), and assuming they did get a lot of traffic, they would have to pay for the bandwidth. Where is all this money coming from? From the magic fairyland elves who throw pixidust about, giving money to anyone who starts a business which gives away stuff?

eBay is like a natural monopoly. You don't buy gasoline and run generators to get electricity in your house, because the power company provides you with electricity much cheaper, much easier, and much more reliably. Same way you can't go with anyone other than eBay (or the other one or two top auction sites) because your auction items will go for too low a price, if they sell at all. The only way eBay would run out of business is if this new magic fairyland startup acquired ?control over the power grid.?

and many cable companies have been forced to innovate to contend. Who benefits? The consumers!

Sure, I'm not denying that consumers benefit. I'm denying that they have lots of wonderful magical happy choices. How many telecoms have bought each other out over the years?

I would have to do more study, but I would assume that the regulation was either more or less direct than the US, either of which can be corrupt.

Please do. There was no democracy there while the UFCO presided. The democracy which was there came and went in the blink of an eye. The corruption actually stopped for a short while, as the people practiced their own version of democracy.

Don't get me started on corruption! Socialism and Communism have the potential to bleed corruption.

To bad that any time a true form of it comes up every now and again, the people doing it get blown to smitherenes, or we'd get to test that theory.

soph · 2003-02-08 09:42:01

Wow, you really need to look at the computer market more closely. I have people asking me to build them computers every week! The computer market is Booming!

Bandwith isnt that expensive. Neither is advertising. You get venture capital, or a loan, to cover your costs. Think, josh, think!

Can this system of providing a service that has a demand go on forever? No. It cannot. Because there are limits to how many services can possibly exist in a finite system.

Ooof. Wow. Demand does go on forever! When your computer breaks down, when your shoes fall apart, when you want a new phone, there is always demand. Otherwise, the US economy would have dried up a century ago.

When demand goes down, you decrease supply or price to compensate. It's simple economics. There are many steps you can take to stimulate demand, not the least of which is improving your product!

Seriously, since you know some economic doctorates, could you ask them, first, if it's true that as resources become more abundant in a system, demand decreases, and second, that if demand decreases naturally as capitalism grows, how can demand be insured in the long term?

See above.

Sure, I'm not denying that consumers benefit. I'm denying that they have lots of wonderful magical happy choices. How many telecoms have bought each other out over the years?

I still have about 7 choices for cell phone service. If people opposed such buyouts, the could start their own companies!

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-08 13:43:02

We have a legal system. You see, everyone from Ken Lay to Joe Shmo on the assembly line is subject to the law. So your whole "the elites control everything" is crap.

Well, of course they control things, although our society is not a Stalinism, so it's not "everything". That's what capitalism is: it's private control, in some cases of vast resources which affect millions of people. They have no say in what happens to the resources. We have a legal system ; so does any society. It grants control to elites by way of the property system. I mean, of course capitalism isn't democratic. It's not supposed to be democratic. If it was, it wouldn't be capitalism. Do you think CNN is controlled by the people who watch it?

The problem comes in with "mutual aid" and how far it goes. If I'm obligated...

Nobody should be obligated to aid anyone they don't want to. In capitalism however, you are, since you are obligated to aid elites, who in return for your servitude will grant you some of the resources they control. The possible consequences of disobedience for the poor include death (from exposure, hunger, etc) in "free market" societies ; the rich are driven by lust for power.

The company that provides the best combination of the product and marketing mix gets ahead.

In other words, the company which can convince enough people with money to give away their money gets ahead. People with a lot of money are the main priority, along with a deluge of nonsense propaganda which today permeates our society.

But really, arguing over who is the most "productive" or "efficient" and who should be given control of resources as a result is a sick thing in itself. It is like arguing on who is right so that we may take away everyone else's right to free speech.

soph · 2003-02-08 14:04:37

Wow, you have a twisted understanding of economics. No sense trying to convince a preacher that his religion is false!

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-08 14:38:21

Ownership means control. If Bill Gates owns Microsoft, an organization which affects millions of people, then that means he controls it, and the people affected don't. Do you dispute this?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-08 15:49:49

Wow, you really need to look at the computer market more closely. I have people asking me to build them computers every week! The computer market is Booming!

Wow, your personal experince is more valid that, say, Intel or AMDs own Income Statement! Sorry, this doesn't correlate with their own numbers... the computer market really slowed last quarter, and is still lower than it was at its high.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with the concepts you're talking about here. For example, I see that Intel's Income Statement says that they spent more money on R&D in the past two quarters than the two preceeding that. Why? Because they had to create a new demand!

This is the strength of capitalism. Competition begets research in most fields. Until you can't get any better.

Bandwith isnt that expensive. Neither is advertising. You get venture capital, or a loan, to cover your costs. Think, josh, think!

Well, you're going to probably have to give away bandwidth until you get popular. And that could take a long time. It was just an example, but I know of many sites that have gone down because they were too popular (and free).

And yes, you get loans, that's how all these dot coms got started. They went out, said I have an idea, got loan money, busted their ass building infrastructure, and the demand just wasn't there. I doubt anyone would give you a lone for an eBay type site these days. You have to prove that you have a new service, which has actual potential.

Ooof. Wow. Demand does go on forever! When your computer breaks down, when your shoes fall apart, when you want a new phone, there is always demand.

I bet you're going to be even more surprised by what I'm going to say next.

What if nothing ever breaks down? And what if repairing stuff that does break becomes very cheap? Do you see where I'm going with this? How hard is it to imagine stuff not breaking down?

You have two product categories. Necessities and desires (sometimes they overlap). In both categories the technology to facilitate you will inevitably get better, and cheaper. The only way for such concepts to continue in a world of cheap devices which don't break easily, and when they do are easy to replace, is if demand restrctions are put into place, or something; this new technology can only be acquired by lease, no one can be allowed to own it...

This is an exercise in formal logic, soph. It doesn't take you two seconds to understand what I'm saying. The problem is that the idea in and of itself is just too different for many people to comprehend (I've had this exact same discussion going on three or four times on this very forum).

Of course, yes, demand will continue to increase as populations increase, but it would have slowed so much, you couldn't profit from it.

You should really click the link in my sig!

Alexander, exactly. Ownership is control. Possession is freedom. If capitalism went unchecked (ie, laissez-faire), it would be just as despotic as any other totalitarian system.

soph · 2003-02-08 18:05:55

Alexander, the only problem is that bill gates cant control me, because my freedom is protected by the constitution. i can get linux or unix if i want, or even a Mac (blah!).

Josh, I understand the concept, except that some necessities (giffen goods like oil) don't need to drop in price! OPEC can charge $5 a gallon for gas, and theyd get it, until we get fuel cells. But they dont care, because theyll have enough money to build 20 new palaces. These are the items where S&D dont apply.

I guess you could say that about getting better, but I think we will always get better with new technology! Call me an optimist

Roark · 2003-02-08 22:04:10

Hey, you accept that laissez-faire capitalism is inherently corrupt, I'm glad. Finally, getting somewhere with you.

Laissez-faire capitalism is NOT inherently corrupt. Corruption stems from government. Government controls regulation. Almost all corruption grows from government regulations of the economy. How can a CEO control a politician with money if the politician does not have the ability to affect the CEO's business? The government's involvement in the economy makes it possible for the politician to benefit the CEO by influencing laws and economic regulations.

Which of these scenarios is corruption?
1. A CEO who profits wildly by making wise business decisions and by producing a superior product.
2. A CEO who profits wildly because his payed friend in the capitol gets him a special tax break.

Alexander, the only problem is that bill gates cant control me, because my freedom is protected by the constitution. i can get linux or unix if i want, or even a Mac

I could have not said it better myself. Most people use Microsoft products because they have a shallow learning curve. We all have the option of using other software that has its own advantages and disadvantages compared to Microsoft products. Bill Gates doesn't control us, but he does provide us with products which have drastically increased our overall productivity.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-09 00:20:51

If you want a large software library, you'll listen to good old Bill Gates... and anyway, everyone knows that when you download Linux, you're downloading communism.

Roark, I wasn't talking about political corruption, I was talking basic corruption. Basically, we can show that laissez-faire capitalism is inherently corrupt because, by definition, the government exists only to insure property rights (and a bit of civility), nothing else. No welfare, no anti-monopoly laws, no economic management, no nothing. Just a small police state which upholds property rights and peace. Anyone who had even a small monopoly in a laissez-faire capitalist system, could potentially buy up and own everything, leaving everyone to work and live for him, doing practically anything he wanted. And since the government is so small, his power over it will be much stronger.

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-09 00:43:13

Basically, we can show that laissez-faire capitalism is inherently corrupt because, by definition, the government exists only to insure property rights (and a bit of civility), nothing else. No welfare, no anti-monopoly laws, no economic management, no nothing. Just a small police state which upholds property rights and peace.

With the exception of a complete lack of anti-monopoly laws, that sounds about right. Not providing welfare services and economic management is hardly a sign of a corrupt system.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-09 01:06:35

Hmm, you're saying that laissez-faire has anti-monopoly laws? Never heard of that one before (especially since anti-monopoly laws are in the ?economic management? category). What's the point of having property if I can't have lots and lots of it?? I am insulted! This is simply incredulous!!

Anyway, I think the one problem with no welfare, is that old people and people who lose their property in a fire or something, are screwed. You do need some sort of welfare, even if it's little things like that (I honestly think any reasonable version of laissez-faire has a little welfare). Otherwise these people will resort to other means to survive. (BTW, this is assuming that we won't have poor people, because magically laissez-faire capitalism doesn't. If we do have poor people, though, the case for welfare becomes much more interesting. Actually, I believe Keynes talked about this issue in length.)

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-09 01:27:59

Hmm, you're saying that laissez-faire has anti-monopoly laws? Never heard of that one before (especially since anti-monopoly laws are in the ?economic management? category). What's the point of having property if I can't have lots and lots of it?? I am insulted! This is simply incredulous!!

Okay. I'm defining economic management in the sense that government takes an active role in directing the economy. Simple anti-monopoly don't do this, they simply prevent unfair business practices meant to prevent competition. It's more a matter of criminal law than economic management.

Anyway, I think the one problem with no welfare, is that old people and people who lose their property in a fire or something, are screwed.

But that 'welfare' doesn't need to be a function of government. The same thing could be accomplished with private insurance in the case of damaged property and some financial planning in the case of old age.

Otherwise these people will resort to other means to survive.

Valid point. But then if welfare exists simply to keep people at a level where they won't resort to crime, aren't they still stealing from everyone else?

Now, we could conceivably have a system which provided a "citizen stipend" to all adults that was enough to live on, then the motivation for crime is not poverty but greed, and as a society we can in good conscience punish any transgressors. Those who want more than the dole provides will work for it, otherwise they'll remain docile and controllable. How to pay for it? Don't know. Just a thought.

A whole underclass of government dependents. Actually, if permits to reproduce were tied to whether an individual tried to move beyond the stipend some interesting social engineering possibilities arise.

Whoa, feeling just a bit evil at the moment. Back to the real world where welfare is just a half-assed government band-aid.

soph · 2003-02-09 10:37:50

If you want a large software library, you'll listen to good old Bill Gates... and anyway, everyone knows that when you download Linux, you're downloading communism.

I wouldn't call it communism, actually i would call it capitalism at its finest: i am choosing the software I want, because i can!

But you can probably run a high percentage of windows software on Macs, you can even run a version of office on Mac! But i get your point. This is also capitalism, and brilliant, but illegal, business practice. When Bill Gates is gone, I don't think MS will be anywhere near as strong. Gates is just one of those people you can't match.

The increasing cost of MS is turning a lot of people off, too. I think if some of the other OS companies advertised more, they would boom.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-09 18:53:50

Simple anti-monopoly don't do this, they simply prevent unfair business practices meant to prevent competition.

But how do we define unfair? Is it unfair of me to set prices how I deem fit? I should be allowed to put whatever price I want on things. Or is it just unfair when I do it at certian times when it proves profitable? I guess I don't have the freedom to set prices how I see fit, unless you let me do it any time I want, in a completely arbitrary manner! Is it unfair of me to make coalitions with other businesses so I know when the best time is to set prices? I don't see why not, I should be able to chose who my friends are with my own discretion! Is it unfair of me to own a lot of property and not sell that property, even though there are willing buyers? I don't see why not, I should be able to do with my property what I want!

soph · 2003-03-11 16:58:08

Your post makes no sense.

Profitability is judged by your competition. Fair is abiding the laws, and giving a reasonable price. In a capitalist system, competition drives the economy. "Fair" is being able to use your talents to make a profit, instead of being held back by a system that forces conformity and suppresses freedom of choice.

Should I not be allowed to use my talents to carve a better life for myself?

You can do with your property what you want, within the law. You can arbitrariliy set prices too, but that doesn't mean people will buy. The force of competition regulates prices-look at the computer industry. You can now get computers for $500 because online warehouse-type companies have brought the price down.

Regulations are in place to protect people. You can't bash a law that prevents exploitation while similarly bashing the system for exploitation.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-11 17:29:44

Your post makes no sense.

What part of my post makes no sense? All I did was ?complain? that I should be able to use my property the way I ?see fit.?

We're arbitrariliy setting prices to control the market. Say I'm in cahoots with all the bread companies; if we raise prices, but still be cheaper than other sources of food, demand will rise and people will actually buy more bread, because other sources would still be prohibitively expensive, and they would have to stop buying them to survive.

The point was that laissez-faire capitalism doesn't care about ?fair.? If we're going to respect property the way laissez-faire capitalism wants us to, it can be quite despotic.

Should I not be allowed to use my talents to carve a better life for myself?

How on earth is that being denied here?

I can bash a law that prevents exploitation when we're talking in a context where that law ?should? be non-existant. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't have these property regulations, it pretends people are all nice to each other or something. That's bullcrap, if I'm going to be in a position to take over someone elses property via appropriation, I'm going to do it. Laissez-faire just gives me ample opportunity.

soph · 2003-03-11 17:35:29

Who said laissez-faire capitalism is set in stone? Nobody questions that communism can't be taken straight out of the Communist Manifesto and implented, why should one exptrapolate in every detail from Adam Smith?

Perhaps government regulated capitalism is more effective and fair overall?

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-11 17:50:40

Certainly, but when you talk about regulations, you deny people their basic ?property rights.? The point of bashing laissez-faire capitalism is to show that ?property rights? are despotic without some semblence of fairness, equality, justice, etc.

soph · 2003-03-11 19:42:10

And if social mobilitiy allows anybody with the talent, motivation, etc. to reach a higher class, then this fairness does exist.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-11 21:22:11

Sure.

But let them reach a higher class without doing all the evil things like underhanded contracts, appropriating everything, and so on!

Of course, I'm sure when you say talent, you mean the talent to rob someone via concepts like property and so on!

Ahh, Proudhon would be proud of me.

soph · 2003-03-11 21:35:51

Property is not robbery. Property is an earned good.

Talent is intelligence, aptitude for a certain profession, physical strength, and so on. Talent inequity is a real element, caused by nobody but nature.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-11 22:22:17

If property is not robbery, why is it that I must be restricted how I can use it? Obviously using or appropriating property in some ways degenrates society, right? If I own everything and make people live in crappy conditions like the Banana republic or whatever, in the name of property, is it okay?

Talents are our possesions, one must note. You're just avoiding the suggesting that property in its raw form (without regulations and so on) means one person owning everything no matter how talented everyone else is.

soph · 2003-03-12 05:38:56

No. Laissez-faire capitalism never led to a signle, all-encompassing monopoly. Sorry.

If property is not robbery, why is it that I must be restricted how I can use it?

That's like saying that humans are robbery, because there are laws regulating your behavior. Property in the wrong hands can be used for the detriment of society, but this does not make it inherently robbery. Money is not racist-people are. Everybody can access as much money as the next person, if they are in a suitable environment, and have "the right stuff."

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-12 06:37:04

No. Laissez-faire capitalism never led to a signle, all-encompassing monopoly. Sorry.

Show me one case of laissez-faire capitalism successfully existing in the world where this is not the case.

That's like saying that humans are robbery, because there are laws regulating your behavior.

Um, no it's not. You're twisting contexts. We're not restricting property a little, we're basically arbitrarily denying the right whenever we chose fit. I can ?sometimes? do what I want with peoperty. I can own a house and do what I want in that house, but I can't own a hundred houses and make all of my tenants do what I want. What good is a property right if it's defined by society arbitrarily whenever it saw fit? I'd rather have a consistant philosophical definition like possessions than a random ?idea? which is as consistent as the latest property law.

Property in the wrong hands can be used for the detriment of society, but this does not make it inherently robbery.

No, that's not the argument, you silly little creature.

The argument is that if property wasn't robbery, basic usage of it, using general laissez-faire concepts, shouldn't be ?unfair.? It shouldn't be ?unfair? of me to appropriate until my head exploded!

Me appropriating until I have many things does not mean the property is in the wrong hands; indeed, my talent is in and of itself appropriation! I buy companies, and I control market prices and distribution through whatever means! What is wrong with using my property under these concepts? It's my property! There's nothing wrong with coercion or bribery or whatever. If people didn't want to do business with me they shouldn't! If I own the water company and I don't want to sell water to the plant company until they give me some of their stock, I should be allowed to make such business deals! If they don't want my business, they can go some place else!

Money is not racist-people are.

Is that your random comment of the day? ???

Everybody can access as much money as the next person, if they are in a suitable environment, and have "the right stuff."

Yes, the right stuff meaning, ?Being born to a rich household.? Don't be delusional here, not ?everyone? is potentially rich. Not even close. We've been over this before.

soph · 2003-03-12 20:21:32

Yes, the right stuff meaning, ?Being born to a rich household.? Don't be delusional here, not ?everyone? is potentially rich. Not even close. We've been over this before.

Martha Stewart was born poor. Bill Gates was middle class. Come on Josh, this is pretty damn silly. It helps to be born rich, but this doesn't preclude social mobility.

Show me one case of laissez-faire capitalism successfully existing in the world where this is not the case.

France in the early 1800s. Now show me one where it is the case.

Um, no it's not. You're twisting contexts. We're not restricting property a little, we're basically arbitrarily denying the right whenever we chose fit. I can ?sometimes? do what I want with peoperty. I can own a house and do what I want in that house, but I can't own a hundred houses and make all of my tenants do what I want. What good is a property right if it's defined by society arbitrarily whenever it saw fit? I'd rather have a consistant philosophical definition like possessions than a random ?idea? which is as consistent as the latest property law.

Marx said it best when he connected society to economy. If society and economy are not in sync, neither can work. Society changes, and the economy changes with it, or vice versa.

The argument is that if property wasn't robbery, basic usage of it, using general laissez-faire concepts, shouldn't be ?unfair.? It shouldn't be ?unfair? of me to appropriate until my head exploded!

If you want to tunnel down to a single concept of capitalism, your argument is pretty damn weak. If the solution to this issue negates your argument, then it isn't valid, no matter what borders you try to put around the concept. Property existed long before the idea of laissez-faire capitalism (indeed, capitalism existed before the ideas of capitalism were written). They are not one and the same.

Is that your random comment of the day?

No, I was just preempting the inevitable, "minority" approach.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-02-08 06:52:09

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#27 2003-02-08 09:42:01

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#28 2003-02-08 13:43:02

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#29 2003-02-08 14:04:37

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#30 2003-02-08 14:38:21

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#31 2003-02-08 15:49:49

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#32 2003-02-08 18:05:55

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#33 2003-02-08 22:04:10

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#34 2003-02-09 00:20:51

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#35 2003-02-09 00:43:13

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#36 2003-02-09 01:06:35

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#37 2003-02-09 01:27:59

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#38 2003-02-09 10:37:50

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#39 2003-02-09 18:53:50

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#40 2003-03-11 16:58:08

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#41 2003-03-11 17:29:44

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#42 2003-03-11 17:35:29

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#43 2003-03-11 17:50:40

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#44 2003-03-11 19:42:10

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#45 2003-03-11 21:22:11

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#46 2003-03-11 21:35:51

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#47 2003-03-11 22:22:17

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#48 2003-03-12 05:38:56

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#49 2003-03-12 06:37:04

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#50 2003-03-12 20:21:32

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

Board footer