Jump to content
cladus

Capitalism vs Communism vs Socialism

What do you support?  

123 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

What we need is the end of money. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post

I would, that's why I believe with things like free health care, free education, disability pensions, elderly pensions, etc..

 

I didn't intend to mean that. What I meant was that there will be some people in a socialist society who will exploit the system.

 

Socialism does not encourage hard work because there are no risks.

There will always be people who exploit any system we put in place. However, why should we discard socialism because of these 'freeloaders'? I keep on hearing that term as an argument against socialism (among other things...), but I don't get why. We'll always have people who exploit the system - on both ends of the spectrum, rich or poor. They exploit it now, they'll exploit it then, and nothing has changed, so why is it such a bad thing that they exploit the socialism system but not the capitalism system? I think the current system sets them up for that kind of behaviour, as well. We have the top, top rich people, who give out wages that aren't enough to make it out of your class. Just so they can make more money. Not everyone is a Bill Gates - many of them have other preoccupations as well (the sentiments around abortion and children doesn't help either...) which further proves that this "American Dream" definitely isn't reality.

 

Capitalism also places emphasis on quick, dirty money IMO, as well causes issues with issues that we need to fix or place more time and money fixing (controlling environmental emissions comes to mind). It's not a good thing at all if the most powerful people are those with the most money, and not necessarily with the best interests of other people or the best ideas.

 

 

What we need is the end of money. Seriously.

I'd love for that to happen. Maybe not the complete end of money, but at least significantly reducing the power that money represents. A credit-money system it something that could work, where there's a baseline that everybody is held supported by the credit (I think that's the proper terminology?) and you can rise from there.

 

EDIT: Also what PokemonFan said.

Edited by High Lord November

Share this post


Link to post

How would that work?

The best way I can explain it is to suggest you read News from Nowhere. But basically if there is no money and therefore one group cannot lord it over another because they have more money, it would all move towards trading in good and services. The rich man from our society now would be in the same position as anyone else - if he wanted some carrots, he'd have to find something to trade for them or offer to clean the toilets- as an example. There'd really be no way to accumulate wealth. Factories - as required - would be commonly managed (look up John Lewis in the UK to see how worker OWNERSHIP works - though that would be different).

 

On the whole, people actually prefer to work as long as they don't get forced into horrible jobs for next to nothing so that they have vile lives. Amazingly - total idleness palls after a while (I can attest to this; when I was legitimately off work - not well paid work, either - for a long time sick, I got monumentally bored even though I had what I needed in life.)

 

I am an idealist. I realise greed is now too firmly ingrained in us - but look at the way the first nations people in North America used to function without money. It worked out just fine.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

There will always be people who exploit any system we put in place. However, why should we discard socialism because of these 'freeloaders'?

 

Exactly. People -- corporations, really -- exploit capitalism. All you have to do is look at the history of the last few years, during which time huge financial institutions scammed people to the tune of billions of dollars, and we're still reeling from the fallout from that. Entire countries nearly going broke.

 

People often say that socialism would never work because of human nature. But it already is working somewhat, to a certain extent, in various countries, such as Norway. As for freeloaders exploiting the system -- well, I worry about that less than I do about banks causing more economic meltdowns and destroying the lives of millions of people. There are freeloaders under capitalism too, and some of them have titles and fancy offices.

 

How could we live without money? Well, there are documented histories of civilizations that did, for a start. Also, science fiction is full of fictional cases of civilizations that have money-free systems. I don't know whether I'd like to live in such a system, but I think it's possible, for sure. Computers would be a big part of the way to make it possible.

 

Suppose, for example, that everyone born in this future society is given a certain number of credits at birth. The credits are placed in a trust fund so that parents or guardians can't steal them. As the little boy or girl grows up and goes to school, the credits increase. If you get good marks in school, your credits increase even more -- though I'd suggest not by so many that it encourages cheating or anything like that. If you get in trouble with the law, some of those credits are taken away to pay for your crimes.

 

When you reach adulthood, you are given total control of your credits. Those credits should be enough to set you up in life, with the basic necessities such as a simple home and food and clothing. But it will all be very simple and basic. Enough so you don't starve or have to live out in the street. In the meantime, all your life while going to school, you've been planning your future career. Your society is set up so that there are entry level jobs for everyone. And I mean everyone starts out in an entry level job. Everyone begins their work life doing jobs like cleaning floors and so on. No exceptions. You clean floors or work on farms and you get credits. After a time doing entry level work, you look around for a better job, making more credits. When you reach a certain level in your credit bank, you can apply for one of those better jobs. If you want to start your own business, you have to build up credits by working in someone else's business and proving you can handle it.

 

Now, I can see lots of problems with this system that I created off the top of my head in the last few minutes. I'm not suggesting it's perfect or that we should set it up tomorrow. I'm just showing how something like this could work. It means that no one will have to starve, but it also encourages hard work and making a better life.

Edited by Jennie

Share this post


Link to post

But those credits are "money". They are a currency that you can exchange for goods and services. Just because they aren't paper bills doesn't make them not money.

Share this post


Link to post
But those credits are "money". They are a currency that you can exchange for goods and services. Just because they aren't paper bills doesn't make them not money.

Hm, true. I suppose the point I was trying to get at is that there's a baseline in which all people will be supported upon? A person can't fall below a certain line because they're supported by the government by a certain amount of 'credit' (and that you'd only get it from a governing body). So you have support from the government, and whatever else you make will go on top of that. My initial thought was that it'd allow for people to have more choice in where they work, since it isn't a "if I don't work at McDonalds 24/7 I'll be out on the streets" situation, but "I won't be able to live terribly comfortably but I'll still be able to get food and live in my house" situation. And then companies would need to support employees more as they aren't as limited as before. I don't see it taking away the connotation we have with money and power, though, especially at the upper levels.

Then of course the credit could be used by the government to tackle societal issues as well - help prevent rushed or unfinished and unsafe projects due to a lack of money, as well as making significant movements in science and technology and the environment, since being limited by money right now forces us to consider problems closer to home (but since they come up all the time, the other issues never get considered enough).

 

Of course it isn't close to perfect, assumes an uncorrupt government, and there'd be lots of issues with this as well, but brainstorming is good. I also wish our government were run by more science-minded people who look at the facts and then decide, people who spread misinformation to support their cause don't have a cause to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post

In the meantime, all your life while going to school, you've been planning your future career. Your society is set up so that there are entry level jobs for everyone. And I mean everyone starts out in an entry level job. Everyone begins their work life doing jobs like cleaning floors and so on. No exceptions. You clean floors or work on farms and you get credits. After a time doing entry level work, you look around for a better job, making more credits. When you reach a certain level in your credit bank, you can apply for one of those better jobs. If you want to start your own business, you have to build up credits by working in someone else's business and proving you can handle it.

 

user posted image

 

Share this post


Link to post

user posted image

Very true. But if society is that wealthy then why not shift towards fields like science and art and have less work needed to supply a comfortable income? It doesn't seem like it would work to have some people running things [ie working] while the rest have a free ride. It seems like it would eventually evolve into some sort of dystopia where the working class are a lesser caste and the free-loaders an elite caste that is entitled to the free stuff.

 

And like I said, that kind of super wealthy society is impossible until awesome robotics is invented, so all the cleaning and food service and manufacturing and such are completely automated, with at most a few supervisors that fix problems that can't be automatically taken care of.

 

 

And if there are NO workers at all [everything automated] then you'd have the problem where the people eventually forget how the stuff works and how to fix it and stuff eventually goes wrong and they're dumped out of eden with no idea how to live when everything breaks down. Plus a society of entire leisure doesn't sound very appealing to me. Too...decadent and no science happening other than as hobbies.

Edited by Pokemonfan13

Share this post


Link to post

I really don't know how to respond anymore. I mean, I do know what to say but it wouldn't really matter to anyone. I give up. dry.gif

Edited by evina

Share this post


Link to post
Very true. But if society is that wealthy then why not shift towards fields like science and art and have less work needed to supply a comfortable income? It doesn't seem like it would work to have some people running things [ie working] while the rest have a free ride. It seems like it would eventually evolve into some sort of dystopia where the working class are a lesser caste and the free-loaders an elite caste that is entitled to the free stuff.

 

Well, something’s got to give at some point. XD Keynes predicted 15 hour work weeks at the end of the century, but it has stalled.

 

Almost 50% of jobs in the future (20 years) will be at risk of automation according to a recent news article e.g. burger maker (it’s even better than what the employees do) and automated trucks to haul things.

 

What we need to do is go after the rent-seeking class. As Keynes put it, “Euthanize the rentiers!”.

 

user posted image

 

This means that more and more of our national income comes from people doing nothing more than extracting rents from assets. Sadly, incomes from actual production of goods and services are a declining percentage of GDP. It is a problem at the aggregate level when rent-seeking accounts for a greater and greater percent of GDP and production less and less. This means income from productive contribution is being distributed to unproductive activity, which is economic parasitism, and it eventually sickens and kills the host.

Edited by Alpha1

Share this post


Link to post

I really don't know how to respond anymore. I mean, I do know what to say but it wouldn't really matter to anyone. I give up. dry.gif

 

Why do you say that? When I was brainstorming my possible future world -- which isn't necessarily one I'd want to live in, but is a fantasy I created on the fly sitting in front of my computer -- I took into consideration the concept that people need freedom and incentive in their lives. Maybe it wasn't enough freedom and incentive for you, but people are different. If we weren't different, every society would be exactly the same.

 

None of us here have the power and authority to recreate the societies we live in to such an extent. What I came up with was a fantasy, as I said. So, what kind of fantasy world would you create? And if you like our world the way it is now, with so many poor people in it, and the conservatives taking away the little support they get from their society, then fine. But you can't expect everyone to agree with you.

 

I don't want my government to run my life, and they don't. When I retire, I'll have pensions and so on. My mother gets pensions from the government. They don't tell her what to do, and they won't tell me. She's not a cog in a machine, and she can still think for herself.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, something’s got to give at some point. xd.png Keynes predicted 15 hour work weeks at the end of the century, but it has stalled.

 

Almost 50% of jobs in the future (20 years) will be at risk of automation according to a recent news article e.g. burger maker (it’s even better than what the employees do) and automated trucks to haul things.

 

What we need to do is go after the rent-seeking class. As Keynes put it, “Euthanize the rentiers!”.

 

user posted image

 

This means that more and more of our national income comes from people doing nothing more than extracting rents from assets. Sadly, incomes from actual production of goods and services are a declining percentage of GDP. It is a problem at the aggregate level when rent-seeking accounts for a greater and greater percent of GDP and production less and less. This means income from productive contribution is being distributed to unproductive activity, which is economic parasitism, and it eventually sickens and kills the host.

Absolutely go after the parasites. And there are more parasites than just rent. Real estate agents could be completely done away with thanks to the internet, for example. What sickens me are the people who make TONS of money without adding a single thing to society, just leaching money from others.

Share this post


Link to post

What we need to do is go after the rent-seeking  class. As Keynes put it, “Euthanize the rentiers!”.

That mentality is disgusting and I hope you realize that you're advocating the murder of my parents.

 

My parents, who spent the past 30 years of their lives clawing themselves up from owning only a handful of clothing and working literal slave wages: $10 a day, amounting to HALF MINIMUM WAGE at the time with no days off. When they met and married they clawed themselves up from renting half a tiny basement to owning one house, which they renovated themselves with their own hands so they could rent it to people while they themselves continued to rent the tiny basement thing, where they still lived when I was born. My parents, who started a manufacturing business with the money they earned from selling their only property and built that business up by working there 15 hours a day, while leaving my brothers and I to be raised by our grandparents while they saved up money and watched the market until they could buy houses with help from my aunt, and then renovated those houses, again, with their own hands and sometimes the hands of their children while they continued to work at their factory.

 

And you, right here, with that bolded quote, are advocating that my parents should be killed because they own property, pay the property tax on their property, and maintain every inch of that property on their own, scrubbing down filthy showers on their hands and knees, hauling bags of garbage left by departed tenants to the landfill in my dad's truck (and at one point, our family minivan), cleaning carpets, tearing out and replacing floors ruined by untrained dogs and sloppy guests, hauling and replacing appliances, and fixing literally everything by hand so our tenants don't have to. All this while my mother is working as a care aid at not one, but two retirement homes, and my father works two jobs at a sawmill while he has to be on disability from back and knee problems brought on by three decades of hard physical work. And you say they contribute nothing. You say they sit there and soak up rent for doing nothing and should be killed.

 

Disgusting.

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post

At least in my mind there's a HUGE difference between what your parents do/did and someone who owns 15 big apartment buildings and does nothing but sit back and watch the bucks roll in. It's the latter that is the parasite.

Share this post


Link to post

Then don't tar everyone who makes rental income with the same brush, that hit a bloody nerve and I am so offended you would not believe.

Share this post


Link to post

I personally was talking about people in general that make a living without contributing to society, IE parasites, jumping off of what I quoted, not taking it as canon. [i used real estate as an example because I'm sure with the internet the system could be easily reworked to cut them out, replaced by websites that would be mostly automated and run by a handful of people and take a fraction of the fee] I don't know enough about every possible thing that could fall under the umbrella parasites on society to pick out exceptions.

 

 

If you get down to it, at least some percentage of lawyers fall into that as well. The problem is there is a HUGE conflict of interest in the law system, since lawyers write the rules, and of course they make getting a lawyer mandatory for things that really don't need it and make the system so over-complicated that it is impossible to wade through it without one. They are necessary as the system is now, but really shouldn't be. If the system could be somehow redone to be as simple and straightforward as possible without requiring a lawyer except for situations where it really is needed it would be a lot better. And, again, with the internet there could easily be guides and FAQs that would help with any residual confusion.

Edited by Pokemonfan13

Share this post


Link to post

@cladus: how, if the government pays for various things, is that imagined system of yours "capitalism"? Its not at all similar to what you describe...

 

@pf13: so you want work camps for the poor. Thats not really wellfare, more like prison, or worse - labor camps.

 

About real estate agents: its absolutely possible to get away without one, but put bluntly: if you put in the time to do this, you miss out on loads of opportunities to make money elsewhere. I believe its a great misvonceptin that real estate agents work nothing and get loads of money for that.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh My God The Internet, Where uneducated 12-26 year old people can discuss philosophical, economic and political theory in the warmth of their homes viciously attacking each other with nothing but emotions already influenced by their environment for or against something by the time they were 2 attempting to act calm and reasonable against what is in their mind Literally Hitler.

 

/S

 

Anyways for the Capitalists and Communists in this thread lets speak logistics. There are imho three *Legitimate* Ideologies. Socialism is just an offshoot of Communism

 

We have Fascism, Nazi's and Mussolini's Italy

We have Capitalism, Everyone Else

We have Communism, Last remaining bastions are China and North Korea

 

Now before we even discuss the merits of each system and see which is the legitimate system let me say that most people in this thread are looking at each other like monsters. Right now below me I see Pokemonfan and Alpha going against Renters. You do know these are people were talking about? That all were discussing is Economical Philosophies and which system people will use to get their food at the end of the day? I mean if your system can't provide food then its out of the picture but besides that. You're telling me a system of living used since Ancient Rome is sooo wrong and that some fantastic ideal of a communist utopia has seriously worked you up to just kill these people since they go against this ideal that you most likely haven't even properly even looked at? You're honestly telling me for your system whatever the censorkip.gif it is, Communism, Fascism or Capitalism requires death just to achieve it? You're kidding me. That's disgusting and you should feel bad about yourself. Hedonism is one thing, But Blind devotion? We get The Taliban and Al-Qaeda from that, not a utopia.

 

Now since I'm already on the topic of death and destruction look at this chart: https://i.imgur.com/eyUnc.jpg

 

Fascist Dictator Adolf Hitler believed in a Fascist State Ideology. I know Nationalist Socialist. He did the union between nationalism and socialism to get the vote, he then promptly killed all the socialists. So lets see the man who killed 11 million people, 6 million jews, 5 million others is known as a monster throughout history. He believed that everyone should blindly devote themselves to the state. Disgusting Man we agree correctly?

 

Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, Jozef Stalin and Mao Zedong all believers of a Communist State made Communist States in their respective Countries.

 

105 Million People combined. We let one man do his regime and he manages 17 million

We let 4 seperate people do it and the average is 26 million. WTF. Here's the thing Lets knock out Sung and Pol Pot about 103. These two men believers of your Communist State you so eagerly wanted,

In their attempt to create a communist state with the same rhetoric of "Kill the Renters" Managed to kill 103 million people."

 

Before I even touch your "System" try and be a little less heavy handed and not advocate "kill the renters" and maybe I'll talk to you about Capitalism. Until then.

 

You're Cray-Cray

Share this post


Link to post
That mentality is disgusting and I hope you realize that you're advocating the murder of my parents.

 

Keynes, not me! XD I don’t know why you think that should have been taken literally, though. What I really mean about going after rent-seekers (in this case, landlords) is that the unimproved value of land is a proper place to levy taxes.

 

"Both ground- rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

 

“Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.” – Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

 

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." – Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

 

It’s hard to challenge FIRE (the finance, insurance, and real estate interests).

 

“The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive way for a capitalist to increase his fortune, is to put all monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price.” – Andrew Carnegie

 

Here’s an example today:

 

"While billions of dollars of oil money is flowing freely to North Dakota, investment in new real estate has not followed. With demand far outpacing supply, rents and land prices are sky-high, and residents have few retail options."

 

"Take now... some hard-headed business man, who has no theories, but knows how to make money. Say to him: "Here is a little village; in ten years it will be a great city-in ten years the railroad will have taken the place of the stage coach, the electric light of the candle; it will abound with all the machinery and improvements that so enormously multiply the effective power of labor. Will in ten years, interest be any higher?" He will tell you, "No!" Will the wages of the common labor be any higher...?" He will tell you, "No the wages of common labor will not be any higher..." "What, then, will be higher?" "Rent, the value of land. Go, get yourself a piece of ground, and hold possession." And if, under such circumstances, you take his advice, you need do nothing more. You may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around like the lazzaroni of Naples or the leperos of Mexico; you may go up in a balloon or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota of wealth to the community, in ten years you will be rich! In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion, but among its public buildings will be an almshouse." – Henry George, Progress and Poverty

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

@pf13: so you want work camps for the poor. Thats not really wellfare, more like prison, or worse - labor camps.

Where did I ever say work camps? They would have no responsibilities there, and everything they need to survive would be provided free. Too many people seem to be against people who don't work getting a "free income" and my idea is a solution to that. They get housing, food, and clothes, and medicine of course, and can leave once they can provide for themselves or if they have family or friends willing to support them. A hell of a lot better than being homeless. A comfortable life, just with no extras, no luxuries. That's the point. Comfortable enough so that those who can't/don't work don't have to suffer, but not so comfortable that people will be likely to choose to "take advantage" of the system rather than work. And you're obviously imagining some horrible squalid facility, which it would not be.

 

 

 

Also, I never took the phrase “Euthanize the rentiers!” as literally kill them. I took it as more get rid of those income sources, or at least reduce it.

Edited by Pokemonfan13

Share this post


Link to post

Keynes, not me! xd.png I don’t know why you think that should have been taken literally, though.

Deflecting. Take responsibility for your decision to make that quote. The fact that you decided it would be a great idea to quote a man calling for the death, figurative or otherwise, of anyone who makes rental income is offensive. Because without rental income, my parents wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as they have in life and I personally would be dead or worse. So would my younger brother. My older brother might have made it simply by virtue of being eldest. The entire life my parents have built has been on a foundation of rental income. Without it, we would have starved. It kept us alive when my parents lost hundreds of thousands on a restaurant venture shortly after selling the manufacturing business, and it kept us fed while my mom worked 19 hours a day (I'm not even kidding; she'd go to bed at 4am and be up again at 8 to wake us up for school, plonked right back on her sewing machines by 9 and doing the work of an entire factory on her own) trying to get us back on our feet, because that work by itself certainly wouldn't fix it. And it certainly paid for her two years of community college, which she used to get out of the clothing industry and into her current job. What was my dad doing? Being exploited by his brother's wife, who made him do a $15k basement renovation for her. He was paid $1000 for his time and materials and she expected him to be thankful for the "exposure".

 

Do you know how much work is involved in renting property? I'll tell you right now it doesn't consist of bumming around the house with our thumbs in our rear ends, soaking up money like lazy sponges. When someone leaves, the place has to be cleaned. It doesn't matter how clean the departing tenant left it; there is always something to clean or fix. 9 times out of 10 there's garbage, broken furniture, mattresses, sometimes expired food left behind. If it's a suite with carpet, it always needs to be cleaned with a machine, which we have to rent, because accidents happen so there is no way the tenant never accidentally spilled anything anywhere. Scratched hardwood is the worst; if it's severe enough (fortunately it's only happened once, someone with a rowdy dog that tore at a particular spot on the floor), we need to tear out the entire floor and replace it, one plank at a time, nail by nail, because the pieces lock together and we can't replace just one piece. Sometimes the place needs to be modernized, which means repainting, changing out light fixtures, trim, baseboards, sometimes even tile. Pipes need to be cleaned out, locks need to be changed. Leaks, water damage, everything needs to be checked out before my mom even begins to think of asking me to post a new ad, and then she needs to meet potential tenants and pick one out of up to 20 applicants. It gets worse if the person who left happened to damage the suite beyond normal wear and tear. We've had to replace splintered doors and broken-down shelves. If we have to replace a chunk of wall, it needs to be cut out and a new piece of drywall cut to fit in the gap, then screwed into the studs, plastered, sanded, and the entire room repainted. That whole process takes at least one or two months where we're not making rent from that space, so all the expense of this is out of pocket, including the rent that would have helped with mortgage payments. All of this is money that gets hemorrhaged from our wallets every time someone moves out. And this work gets done by five people: my parents, my brothers, and myself. If we didn't do it ourselves, we'd have to hire people because it needs to be done.

 

My family comes from communist roots (100% pureblood Chinese) but we've built ourselves through the capitalist system because even though my father is uneducated, he sucks down and processes information like a vacuum cleaner and stays glued to the news whenever it's on, and DIY shows when it isn't. The end result of my father's intuition, my mother's industry and the hard work of our entire family is that we have 6 houses with a total of 10 (soon 12) units to manage between them, not including the one we live in. Rare is the time when we have every space occupied, a 10% vacancy rate is to be expected. Even then, every month is a game of chasing one guy for a check that he's sent specifically to give us for rent, hoping another guy hasn't spent his entire bank account on a spontaneous vacation instead of keeping that money to pay for rent and bills and food for his family again, and mediating disputes between tenants where necessary. I could entertain you with tales of The Eviction War, in which three tenants all tried to get each other kicked out at the same time (spoiler: eventually they all got kicked out... at the same time), but I won't. Yet never, not once, has my mother ever looked down upon the people who pay us for a roof over their heads. The check guy pays his rent sometimes 3 weeks late and the worst that happens to him is some text messages asking what's going on, followed by one text going "please be on time next month". Mom doesn't want to kick him out because he needs the place, even though she has to jump through innumerable hoops just to get him to give us a check that someone else wrote out to her. Vacation dude? Still there because my mom understands the struggle of renting with a family even though we can't fathom the logic of blowing nearly all your savings on a vacation without setting anything aside to stay afloat when you get home. We've helped a family move out, using our car to help them move their stuff to their new home because we knew they couldn't afford a moving truck. So imagine doing all this around cleaning up after the the last time someone moved out, doing it constantly, and doing it around your day job. That's what it is to be a landlord. Mom once had her eye set on a building with 80 apartment units, but missed the opportunity due to lack of funds. If she'd had the means to seize it, we have no doubts that we would have put in the same amount of work as we do with the houses, while using the income, from ground rent, to hire people to help with management, maintenance and security.

 

And yet, simply because we get income from renting our property, you accuse us of freeloading off the hard work of our tenants. You dare to call us

unproductive

economic

parasites.

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post

So many outrageous claims, so little practical economic theory to back them up. Such is the way of the internet.

 

Capitalism is everything but just. Above else, it's a system that heavily favors the elimination of competition, and through that monopolism, and therefore it is inherently detrimental to both individual progress and parallel development.

That's a lot of big words, but behind them is a completely false statement of basic capitalistic theory and practice. Capitalism encourages competition. Competition drives the market. In regards to monopolism, true monopoly can only happen when someone either has complete control of a specific good or product by natural consequence (owns all the land X mineral is found in), or when the government interferes into the free market and grants a monopoly (only Y company can legally make hats). Naturally occurring monopolies are not inherently bad. They become bad when a monopolist overcharges for a product, in which case either A. people will stop buying the product in favor of a substitute, or B. someone else will enter the market and create competition, because "true" monopolies don't typically exist in the form of natural monopolies, because new materials are always being discovered and new substitutes are always being developed. Yay for un-stifled ingenuity!

 

Legal monopolies granted by the government are always terrible and are the antithesis to true capitalism, and funny enough, that's what socialistic economic policies tend to produce.

 

At least in my mind there's a HUGE difference between what your parents do/did and someone who owns 15 big apartment buildings and does nothing but sit back and watch the bucks roll in. It's the latter that is the parasite.

First, what makes you think that it's possible to literally do nothing but watch money roll in when you own 15 apartment buildings? Have you ever owned 15 apartment buildings and had to manage all the financial and practical difficulties that come with that? Sure, there's people who have earned enough money to hire people to do the cleaning and menial labor for them. Why is that a bad thing? Did he not work to get to his position? Does he still not work managing finances and logistics of hiring multiple teams of people to do the various tasks that need to be done? Your imaginary parasitic landlord doesn't exist in reality. That's not how businesses operate.

 

I'm also interested in knowing at what arbitrary standard of wealth I become a parasitic capitalist pig rather than a faithful job producing employer?

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

So many outrageous claims, so little practical economic theory to back them up. Such is the way of the internet.

 

 

Oh, yes yes yes, such things never happened before the internet. Tut tut tut. Your own contributions to the conversation are going to be brilliant, I'm sure.

 

Capitalism encourages competition. Competition drives the market.

 

Were you taught this in Capitalism 101? Have you paid attention to anything that's happened in Real Life the last few years? Do you realize that any kind of theoretical statement like that can become a slogan, empty of any real meaning? Even your own dearly held theories?

 

Just as one tiny example: take the case of Walmart. Walmart comes into small towns, drives out the competition because its prices are so low, and takes over. Soon there is almost nowhere else to shop. So what? Their prices are low! Yes, but the quality of their products is pretty cheap, they pay their staff starvation wages, and guess what? No competition. How can any small business compete with Walmart? That's the point of the way they operate. And the owners of Walmart are filthy rich, while their employees are barely paid enough to live on, and a whole lot of small business people are now broke.

 

But, in your mind:

Yay for un-stifled ingenuity!

 

Have you ever owned 15 apartment buildings and had to manage all the financial and practical difficulties that come with that?

 

No, and I wouldn't want to. Why would anyone want to own 15 apartment buildings? What possible value would there be in such an exercise except the accumulation of a ton of money? The owner of that many apartment buildings couldn't possibly give them each a sufficient amount of attention. But these things don't matter, only capitalistic theory.

 

I'm also interested in knowing at what arbitrary standard of wealth I become a parasitic capitalist pig rather than a faithful job producing employer?

 

That's just it. It's not a question of 'some arbitrary standard of wealth'. It's a question of whether or not you or anyone else actually creates jobs and treats your employees like human beings -- at least in my own opinion. How much money you have in the bank doesn't interest me in the least. Whether or not you accumulated that wealth by actually creating jobs and paying your employees enough to live on before your took your share of the profits does interest me. If you think of your employees as slaves, and pay them barely enough to keep body and soul together while you live in incredible luxury, then you are a capitalist pig, though I tend to use more elegant terms myself, which I won't waste on outrageous discussions on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, my economics professor said exactly the opposite. That communism is just an offshoot of socialism. Just throwing that out there.

 

I'm pretty sure ideas of government intervention in the economy, public ownership of land, and social welfare existed long before we put the term "socialism" to it. Or before the ideas of communism were set down, just as many communist ideas existed before it became popular.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.