Averting Global Catastrophe

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-12 22:05:48

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.

Martha Stewart married rich. Bill Gates had more opportunity than most people in his time (how many kids had computers?).

This isn't silly, you're just not thinking again. How many Martha Stewart's and Bill Gates are there? There are obviously exceptions with poor becoming rich via their physical efforts, but they are very rare, and it's laughable that we use these rare exceptions as examples of how wonderful things are and the choices people can make. Even though I completely demolished this argument made by you before, you still bring it up.

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

Please elaborate on this. How did it work? Why did it fail? etc.

I was under the impression that early laissez-faire [capitalism] concepts came from Physiocrats, whose theories today we wouldn't consider compatable with the ?current idea? of laissez-faire capitalism. So please enlighten me.

Oh, and for an example; how about Guatemala? Or <insert any capitalist dictatorship>?

Society changes, and the economy changes with it, or vice versa.

Until society and economy reach a plateau; which is basically what I'm talking about here.

But this doesn't justify the fact that property isn't really a consistant definition. It just shows that what people ?think? they're getting isn't really what they're getting at all.

If you want to tunnel down to a single concept of capitalism, your argument is pretty damn weak.

Well, these days capitalism and laissez-faire are synonymous. Just do a search for laissez-faire capitalism, and you'll see that people are arguing that there can be no other. And this argument is actually solid, as I've said before, because any kind of regulation or whatever inherently revokes the basic concept of property (and that's one of the points Proudhon made).

Property existed long before the idea of laissez-faire capitalism

Possessions existed long before the idea of property, indeed, for a majority of humanities existance I am sure. Property is only a recent (2000 years or so) concept. And even then, the bible spoke of usufructuary and so on.

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

Oh, well, since you never realy refuted the so called ?minority approach? I guess it would be prudent to try to avoid the raw truth of it.

soph · 2003-03-13 05:30:27

Josh, arguing with you is pointless. You assume that you demolish any point you comment on.

When you're done tooting your own horn, I'll be ready to discuss this again. You haven't demolished anything, just thrown some Proudhon ideas into the conversation.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-13 06:13:48

I was saying that I demoloshed your previous approach that ?everyone has equal opportunity? or whatever. This isn't the case, no matter how much you want to believe it.

soph · 2003-03-13 17:27:21

As I said, you haven't demolished anything. You made a one sentence attempt at a rebuttal, which really didn't address the issue, and in no way debunked the fact that capitalism, especially regulated capitalism allows everybody the opportunity for social mobility.

And you really haven't done much at all to poke holes in my position. When I make a point, you just try to throw out Proudhon comments and revert to laissez-faire capitalism.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-14 00:18:04

I'm bringing this over from the Paperless Mars thread, since you clearly don't care about hijacking a legitimate discussion with offtopic drivel.

Like Ghana? No wait, they are thriving now in a capitalist system. Or China? No....see above. Or Russia, now emerging from a rough transition? No, they are moving on up.
Yes, there are third world countries where capitalism doesn't work, but that isn't the fault of the system, it is the result of repressive regimes that twist the system to serve the government. This is not capitalism, in any reasonable sense.

Um, see, you're missing the overall picture, here. Resources will become more distributed, but at the current momment they aren't, and with the advent of globalism countries lost their wealth.

http://www2.gol.com/users/bobkeim/money/debt.html

Yes, they will grow again, undoubtedly. That's why I like capitalism. But this does not change the fact that they lost their wealth, and that the wealth gap is there, and is even increasing. So even as the other countries grow, the centralization of resources is there. It can't be there forever, though.

And I would agree that any repressive system isn't a just system, but calling all the third world countries with dictators which the US supported non-capitalistic is silly. The US always supported the ?free market? dictatorships. Let's use your very own Boliva. When the president of Boliva was associating with Cuba and the Soviet Union, the US decided to hold a coup. As long as you're not selling to commies, you're okay. It doesn't matter how much land you taken from natives, or how many dissidents you arrest, or how despotic the health care or whatever becomes. As long as you're not selling to commies, you're okay.

[C]apitalism, especially regulated capitalism allows everybody the opportunity for social mobility.

Don't be delusional here, you've failed to show how everyone has the potential to succeed, you just say it and somehow magically it is so. And when I come up with legitimate responses, you fail to make any reasonable reply. Indeed, you just replied, two times, in fact, with the same crap. ?Arguing with you is pointless... you really haven't done much at all to poke holes in my position.?

When I make a point, you just try to throw out Proudhon comments and revert to laissez-faire capitalism.

You don't understand why I used laissez-faire capitalism at all, here. I was showing that there is no consistant construct for property in a regulated capitalistic system, and that it changes, and so on. I was showing that a consistant definition for property (ie, laissez-faire capitalism) becomes despotic over time.

Define property. And I'll come back and create scenarios where your definition should be able to be applied ?fairly.? You won't like them, if you have a definition of property which remotely resembles laissez-faire capitalism.

Of course, talking to me is pointless and so on, so maybe you'd be better off not replying at all.

Byron · 2003-03-14 08:38:41

Mind if I inject some of my random thoughts in here?

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the principle of capitalism, after all, it is the predominant socio-economic system in place in today's world.

The problem of capitalism is that it can never truly be laissez-faire as it is "meant" to be, because of the way politics and goverment works. Please allow me to explain: Generally, people work for their own self-interest...we do things on both an individual and collective level that brings about maximum possible benefit, i.e., I develop whatever skills, use the tools at hand,my time and effort, etc, to get the things I want and need.

The problem comes when people take advantage of the current system of power to maximize their own benefit...i.e., a company will lobby the government to impose favorable laws and policies that will result in greater benefit. Large corporations, which do have the power to greatly influence our supposely "democratic" goverment, will do everything in their power to make sure the government works in their best interest, and they have the means to do so (can anyone say "soft money"?) This, in turn, gives the big-money people even more power, which enables them to control the existing power structure even more, in an never-ending cycle. So at some point along the way, something has to be done to correct this imbalance, such as taxes, regulations, etc...that is, if the "disaffected" use what little voting power and influence they have to counter the major power brokers and money men.

A very good example: In the state of Florida, there is a long-running battle against citrus canker, a disease that threatens Florida's multi-billion dollar citrus crop. In an effort to prevent this disease (which mars the crop, but doesn't actually kill the trees) from infecting the huge orange groves of central Florida, the state enbarked on a program here in south Florida to inspect every single backyard for infected citrus trees, and for every infected tree that was found, a 1900-foot "clearance radius" was used to justify cutting down all healthy trees in that zone. As you might can expect, a huge outcry erupted, and a local court put the kibosh to the whole thing (it's still being fought out in the courts, but it does look like the state is getting the upper hand once more.) My question is, why must those of us in southern Florida be the "sacrificial lambs" for the groves 200 miles to the north of us? After all, none of us in this part of the state rely on that industry directly...we want to be able to grow our own oranges so we don't have to buy them at the market. Of course, the state's arguement is that without the citrus industry, economic chaos would follow. Maybe, maybe not. I just don't see why the rights of the lowly *individual* has to be deferred to the "rights" of industry self-preservation. In a true democracy, the individual is king, and industry should be subject to the will of the people, not the other way around.

Let's turn this in another direction - what if the people of America decide that everyone who has more than a million dollars have their "excess" wealth taken from them and redistributed to everyone else? Would this be a moral thing to do? Before you shout "communist alert," please let me suggest that is what we do now to some extent with our tax system..after all, the government has every right to take part of what you earn for the "social good." It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to take this another step and put a firm cap on maximum individual wealth or whatnot. If some of you think this is an immoral thing to do, then, why should some of us have to sacrifice our precious backyard trees to ensure the continued health of the citrus industry? Isn't that the same exact thing as I've suggested? After all, if the wealth of every millionaire in this country was taken from them, imagine what it would do to the lower classes of this country..everyone would have a decent place to live, a single breadwinner would be able to support their families, everyone would have access to superior education and health care, ad infintum..after all, there is a tremendous amount of weath tied up in a small percentage of millionaires, which would surely be of great benefit to a much greater share of the population.

The way I see it, it has to be one or the other...control society by the redistrbution of wealth, or reduce the "right" of industry and coporations to the that of the individual..that means no subsidies, no trade barriers, no "economic preservation" laws, etc.

To me, that's the real problem of this country today, and the main reason why aggregate wealth is being concentrated into the hands of the few.

(I'm on a liberal kick lately...lol...all those Canadians in 2nd Life are getting through to me..lol)

B

Bill White · 2003-03-14 14:16:48

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?

Heh! Suppose every person in America owned stock in all the NYSE and NASDAQ corporations. Then we would have accomplished the Marxian dream.

The means of production (capital) would be owned by the workers.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-15 06:56:22

Ahh, another great post by Bill.

Edit! Oops, that was Byron!

I'm going to have to buy you a beer sometime (Byron!). Well, assuming you drink.

soph · 2003-03-15 09:16:44

Heh! Suppose every person in America owned stock in all the NYSE and NASDAQ corporations. Then we would have accomplished the Marxian dream.
The means of production (capital) would be owned by the workers.

Sure, I see nothing wrong with that. But would the workers know how to manage the companies if they ever reached a majority ownership?

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-03-24 12:27:26

Generally, people work for their own self-interest...we do things on both an individual and collective level that brings about maximum possible benefit, i.e., I develop whatever skills, use the tools at hand,my time and effort, etc, to get the things I want and need

I'm not really sure what you mean by "self interest", but if I am understanding you correctly in percieving this as gaining control of various materials, then I'd say that's very much false. I think this is because people are smart enough to understand that their own comfort is often irrelevant compared to this vast world and universe we have layed out before us. There was this one study I was reading recently which bears this out in some ways ; it turns that when the economy goes down, people are actually more willing to help other people at their own expense than when the economy goes up. I mean, I don't think many of us would be here if all--or even most of--we were concerned about is our own interest. I don't see the Mars Society bylaws as a get rich quick scheme, anyway.

As for redistribution of wealth, I think what we really need to understand is that wealth is not typically just some money floating around in a bank. In our society it typically takes the form of corporate stock for the really rich people. So what you have there is essentially a tyrannical arrangement--you've got some people, an elite, who have vast control over the most important institutions in society, and the rest of the people have very minimal control. I guess it's most important in the media, if you want to pick a single industry, because that's the industry that suggests what we think about. Media is a buisness in our system ; truth has only as much value as the owners can make a buck from. It goes for other industries too ; the auto industry affects practically everyone, but the people who ultimately control it are a tiny elite. And so on and so forth. It's a very monstrous system, really.

So what to do about it? Well, we need to democratize the system, certainly. One idea for doing that is to just take the stock of company and hand it out to the workers, but personally I doubt it would prove very workable. A better idea, I think, is to just get rid of the idea of a company altogether and form some other kind of arrangement, where people do not compete, but rather collaborate for a goal which all think is valuable in itself. Production and action would be taken up, not because you have to compete with some other guy for the right to have a house, but rather because you believe what you are doing is valuable in itself.

soph · 2003-03-24 17:11:40

If that had any basis in economics or human behavior, it might be valid.

People do control the economy, as I have shown before. It is hardly tyrannical. If a company skews their services (price, employment conditions, etc.), they will not succeed over a more attractive competitor. Anybody in today's economy can become an entrepreneur. It's just a matter of doing your research.

A better idea, I think, is to just get rid of the idea of a company altogether and form some other kind of arrangement, where people do not compete, but rather collaborate for a goal which all think is valuable in itself.

Competition drives innovation. A system without competition will stagnate. History proves this point. Competition is a necessity, and it's why humans have become the dominant species on the planet.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "self interest", but if I am understanding you correctly in percieving this as gaining control of various materials, then I'd say that's very much false.

Another fallacy. People work to acquire money, which allows them more luxuries. People who are paid more for the same job (to a point) work more efficiently. Why? Because they have more motivation.

As for redistribution of wealth, I think what we really need to understand is that wealth is not typically just some money floating around in a bank.

There's a reason for the unequal distribution of wealth. It's not an evil system, it's human ingenuity, and other traits, and their varying levels. Not some "tyrannical arrangement."

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-24 18:16:14

Anybody in today's economy can become an entrepreneur. It's just a matter of doing your research.

Anybody, eh? What if they're illiterate? What if they're really poor, and their taxes and bills are so high, they can never build assets?

My youngest brother has been trying to start a business for 3 years. He's failing miserably. I don't try to being him down to reality, though, because that would just crush him. He's driven by the idea that one day he will actually achieve his goals. But he can't get a loan without some sort of assets or proof of stablity and potential productivity. Banks don't like taking risks. And he's a big risk. Most poor people are.

But hey, I'm lucky, I'm fairly intelligent, I have contacts, and so on, but I'm not just ?anybody.? I am much more luckier than most people. This tripe you continue to spill reminds me of this thing a coach would tell students which were good at basketball but who had failing grades. He would tell them that the odds of them actually succeeding at becoming a big superstar were practically zero, and that they needed a education so at least they wouldn't wind up working at McDonalds. That's reality. Most people are destined to be nobodys. Truth.

Competition drives innovation. A system without competition will stagnate.

I can agree with the first sentence, but the second one becomes a gross generalization which probably isn't true. The first referrs to systems wherein innovation exists, the latter doesn't.

Systems without competition will reach equilibrium. I recall reading about a study of rodent-type animals on an island where all the predators had died off. The animals still thrived quite well, and interestingly enough even had longer natural lifespans. That's another discussion, though. The point is, nature has a way of adapting.

Competition is a necessity, and it's why humans have become the dominant species on the planet.

This sounds like propaganda to me, it's just a blatant statement, which isn't backed up or anything. Sure, one could argue that competition is why humans have become the dominate species on the planet, but there are so many arguments about why we're the most dominate species I don't think anyone could ascribe to one argument. For example, and I'm not kidding, I read a very convincing article about grandmothers being a large force in that respect. So arguments like this are silly, or at least, ought not be taken seriously by the scientific minded.

You've failed to show that competition is a necessity. It makes things interesting, but it's far from being necessary.

Another fallacy. People work to acquire money, which allows them more luxuries.

Talk about fallacies. People work for many reasons. Acquiring money and luxuries are only a small part of it (especially for a majority of the human population- they all work to freaking get a meal and maybe a roof over their head).

People who are paid more for the same job (to a point) work more efficiently. Why? Because they have more motivation.

This, again, is just another generalization about things. Third worlders get paid much less than first worlders and work much longer hours in the most horrible conditions and work quite efficiently. Sure, you could say that at their level they're getting ?paid a lot,? but that doesn't mean they're getting paid more, it just means they're in a position where they can't rightly ask for more.

There's a reason for the unequal distribution of wealth.

Yes, it's called property. Or more accurately. Robbery.

It's not an evil system, it's human ingenuity, and other traits, and their varying levels.

So... what do you think about the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act?

Not some "tyrannical arrangement."

Owning the right to tell someone what to do is indistinguishable from tyranny. You just have to be an anarchist to see it that way.

soph · 2003-03-24 18:25:52

And I would say taking away property is robbery as well. But you have to be a capitalist, or any number of other systems, to see it that way.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-24 18:47:58

Too bad those who purport to be capitalists don't have any grasp of formal logic...

soph · 2003-03-24 18:53:03

Oh, really? Actually, it seems that your logic is not the logic of reality. Or economics. So would you care to elaborate on this?

If those who purport to be capitalists can't grasp logic, why is capitalism the thriving and dominant system of the globe, while large scale socialist systems have failed, and no anarchist systems have had any iota of success in the 200 years since Proudhon lived?

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-24 20:22:33

Name one time my logic isn't the ?logic of reality.? Proudhon argues the ?property is robbery? argument quite well. Shall we take it back to the anarchist thread to run through his ideas once again? Other than the ?property is robbery? comment I haven't said anything controversial or anything, really. I just say the truth.

And just because something is illogical doesn't mean it ?can't work.? Just look at things like slavery or whatever. No, I think one of the virtues of capitalism is that it is illogical. The fact that it sacrifices long term planning for short term growth makes it a perfect precursor for anarchism, since it will eventually fall because it'll be too shortsighted to see its own demise.

soph · 2003-03-24 20:48:30

The fact that it sacrifices long term planning for short term growth makes it a perfect precursor for anarchism, since it will eventually fall because it'll be too shortsighted to see its own demise.

Stop drawing quotes out of the Communist Manifesto. As I have said before quite clearly, neither Marx nor Smith foresaw government and societal intervention, which makes this "short term" bs no longer valid.

The real world form of capitalism is sufficiently regulated to facilitate long term stability, and short term growth. 200+ years of application have proven this quite well. The system is only getting stronger.

Proudhon argues the ?property is robbery? argument quite well.

According to you he does, but according to real economists, he's an obscure philosopher, with liberal ideas that can't be applied.

I went over, in detail, how resources cannot be maintained at an equal distribution. Human nature itself creates this inequality.

But like I said in the other thread, it's a dead issue, which I'm not going to waste my time on any more.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-24 23:13:37

Stop drawing quotes out of the Communist Manifesto. As I have said before quite clearly, neither Marx nor Smith foresaw government and societal intervention, which makes this "short term" bs no longer valid.

Hmm... quotes from the Communist Manifesto? I've never even read the Communist Manifesto. Feel free to enlighten me. From what I know of Marxism, though (mainly via things Fromm said about societal structure), and basic physics, along with some current trends in technology, it's impossible not to draw the conclusion I drew.

The system is only getting stronger.

Tell that to the digital medium, which is beginning to be hit by something called ?abundant resources.? What is demand with endless supply, soph?

If the media had even thought for a momment about the long term, they would have had laws passed long ago with regards to DRM. But nope, they were highly shortsighted. Now it's obviously too late for DRM to be implemented effectively. The people are beginning to get used to abundence and general options (ie, freedom), and they will find a way to get around demand restrictions which irrevocably decrease their freedoms.

That's just one example, but there are tons more in practically every aspect of industry where general resources are becoming more abundant.

According to you he does, but according to real economists, he's an obscure philosopher, with liberal ideas that can't be applied.

Just because they can't be realistically applied currently doesn't make them incorrect. They're something to think about. But since you probably haven't even read his work, what would you know? You go by what someone tells you?

I went over, in detail, how resources cannot be maintained at an equal distribution.

If I saw it (I don't remember) I'm sure I thoroughly debunked that nonsense.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-03-25 14:11:30

Well, first of all, the idea that we ought to have a system where competition drives innovation, as opposed to one where people decide that innovation is good and do it voluntarily, is in my opinion a very strange idea. I do not see any reasons that could justify this idea when applied to a human society.

Second I think we should recognize that capitalism by its very nature is regulated: you can't, for example, go over to the house of your competitor and kill him, at least not in the theory (if you are rich, the reality is that you might be able to--killing strikers used to be routine). So that's regulation. Even if you accept the premise that competition has to drive innovation, it should be obvious that it has to regulated, because unregulated competition is just warlordism. So it's not a question of whether you want regulation or no regulation ; it's a question of whether you want more or less, or whether you want to just throw out the whole system itself, that being another option.

In our society, the vast majority of the population has no real control over society's institutions. We should remember that 1% of the population owns 50% of the stock market, and 40% of the total wealth. By definition, the people who don't own that aren't supposed to have control over it. Now, they have very indirect control which is dictated by the desire of the masters to secure their dominance, but it's not really relevant. Even people under Stalinism had some level of indirect control.

I don't think that we should have a system where "human ingenuity" is required by people who want to evade horrible consequences which are set up deliberately by other people (those who control the wealth). Rather, what people are doing should be decided by themselves in a really meaningful way, not with horrible consequences (ie homelessness) hanging over their head. "Human ingenuity" should be used to pursue goals that the person in question believes are important in themselves, not those which are dictated by an artificial social system where an elite ultimately tells everyone what to do.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-03-12 22:05:48

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#52 2003-03-13 05:30:27

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#53 2003-03-13 06:13:48

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#54 2003-03-13 17:27:21

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#55 2003-03-14 00:18:04

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#56 2003-03-14 08:38:41

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#57 2003-03-14 14:16:48

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#58 2003-03-15 06:56:22

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#59 2003-03-15 09:16:44

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#60 2003-03-24 12:27:26

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#61 2003-03-24 17:11:40

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#62 2003-03-24 18:16:14

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#63 2003-03-24 18:25:52

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#64 2003-03-24 18:47:58

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#65 2003-03-24 18:53:03

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#66 2003-03-24 20:22:33

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#67 2003-03-24 20:48:30

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#68 2003-03-24 23:13:37

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#69 2003-03-25 14:11:30

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

Board footer