A bizarre critique of Capitalism ... ideas?

Economics Political Theory
41

It should be obvious that we’re only defending people who legitimately saved and invested, not slavemasters and crony capitalists.

Well of course. I was speaking of the advantages of inheritance tho.

I live with a bunch of poor minorities. They blow all their money on cigarettes, alcohol, and cosmetics (brand name clothes, makeup). You might think that spending $3.5/day on a pack of cigarettes is negligible, but if you quit smoking RIGHT NOW, it has a net present value of $16,000 (assuming you smoke every day for the next 20 years at a discount rate of 5%. Very modest)

Ya, I wont disagree with that. I smoke, I started smoking roll your own tobacco and it saves me something like 700$ a year. I also wish to spread education about responsible personal economics. I turn down my heat when Im not home, and one day a week turn it off completely until I go to sleep. But here’s my argument; it would be much less damaging of their finances if they weren’t relying on paychecks and wages to pay their bills.

I do feel legitimately sorry for like, actual poor people who have no opportunities because they’re being shafted by the greater powers. Mostly in “developing” countries. (Scare quotes because many of these countries are actually not developing… they’re regressing)

Very much. The IMF and the World Bank are nothing but extortionists of the 3rd world (even america at times, they seem to favor china often).

I still don’t understand how you’re not an anarcho-capitalist who really likes charity. I really like charity. Are we the same?

Its just a label. If you want to call me as such, fine. I wont agree with it, because I dont disconnect capitalism from the institutions of hte state that try to uphold the interests of hte ownership class. Market anarchist would be a better term for yourselves. But I believe in universal education, healthcare, and subsistence, so I hardly think that puts me in your camp.

42

He is the original owner, by definition, in the capitalistic society, which we define here as the unhampered free market where the means of production are all privately owned. Inheritance is a product of exchange. It is a type of gift.

Get use to it. Respect the outcome of free choice or not, but then don’t take offense when someone implies you are a statist.

43

I don’t understand why you equate capitalism with 1930’s business structures

I equate capitalism with the modern western system. I dont see capitlaism as anti-state, I see markets as anti state. Capitalsim, imo, is a political economic system that uses market economics only insofar as it does not threaten the ownership class’ hegemony. And then they are perfectly willing to use state protection.

of them are still around, but more sophisticated models are making their way in. I see it all the time. The managers who are about 40 are the best balance between experience and new business structures.

I know, and that is a good and progressive thing. I see socialism as a natural evolution, rather than a sudden revolution. I equate it with the translation of the word democracy; power to the people. I’m vehemenently anti-oligarchy and plutocracy.

Where do you work? What do you do?

Im self-employed. I do mortgage inspections most days and on my days off I substitute teach high schools. Be your own boss, thats my motto.

44

I don’t have a problem with the regular lottery. I don’t see how the natural lottery is any different.

I don’t see why getting paid a different way means they’ll get paid more. If you get paid as a % of company profits, all of the sudden workers quit if the company makes negative profits for a few quarters.

We want all those things too. We just think the market is the best way to get at it.

45

He is the original owner, by definition, in the capitalistic society, which we define here as the unhampered free market where the means of production are all privately owned. Inheritance is a product of exchange. It is a type of gift.

Get use to it. Respect the outcome of free choice or not, but then don’t take offense when someone implies you are a statist.

This will be my last response to you DD5, because frankly, your an intellectual terrorist who refuses to see my point.

I never said anything was wrong with inheritance. I want to give my children an inheritance. it’s not a problem. It just creates a distinct advantage that I think can be overcome with universal subsistence, education, and healthcare, and business models that reward people with capital rather than money alone.

Grow up

46

Couldn’t find a text version but here’s an audio version. I’m not sure how any response could be irrelevant since the OP’s quote is just an attempt to state Marx’s theory of exploitation by first eating it and then vomiting it back out.

Clayton -

47

I don’t see why getting paid a different way means they’ll get paid more. If you get paid as a % of company profits, all of the sudden workers quit if the company makes negative profits for a few quarters.

Thats not neccesarily true. The point is that they will start using their money to make money. It’s quite apparent to anyone who is involved in it that your gains increase nearly exponentially over the long term in the market. And most people dont experience huge losses in the market either. Is there any denying that the stock market is a relatively stable place for non-pigs (as they called them in Wall Street lol)?

48

Intellectual Terrorist.

49

First, the average growth rate of the stock market isn’t enough to make people wealthy even in 2 generations. 1.05^40 = 700% return… what can they set aside? Maybe $10,000? $70,000 for a lifetime isn’t going to cut it. You can’t just say “i believe in the market” and expect to get rich.

Second, people who buy stock and then just sit on it are free loading off the entrepreneurial decisions of majority stockholders who do pay attention to the company. I don’t have a problem with the free loading (they’re providing more capital), but if all the shares are held by random poor people, the corporation will fail to be managed.

The long and short is that I don’t think poor people can take a passive role in investing. You’re only going to grow your wealth if you can find above average investment opportunities, and if you are actively involved in corporate affairs.

50

Yeah, well.. you should get banned for this remark. And if you don’t, then congratulations, the floor is all yours, and I think I’ll be taking a nice long break from this forum.

51

They’re simply stating their position, not giving the reasoning behind their decision. My first question would be as to whether this position is morally/ethically motivated or economically motivated (or both). I would then ask them to logically demonstrate their position, and then refute it if their logic is flawed (using either simple logical demonstration of my own or sourcing much more thorough material if such has already been written).

Of course, there’s material all over this site and forum where such Labor Value rhetoric has already been run through the logical paper shredder (both from the moralistic and economical positions). I just thought I’d give my insight on how to approach such a statement in the future.

52

Thats not neccesarily true. The point is that they will start using their money to make money. It’s quite apparent to anyone who is involved in it that your gains increase nearly exponentially over the long term in the market. And most people dont experience huge losses in the market either. Is there any denying that the stock market is a relatively stable place for non-pigs (as they called them in Wall Street lol)?

I am curious could those workers who are paid in ownership stakes in the company sell off thier stake or would they be required to remain an owner of the company even if they dont want?

Because the reason that most people dont see big losses in the market is because capital is free to flow from one company to the next. If ownership of the company is tied to employment with the company then the only way for the workers to protect themselves from bad management decisions would be to quit and go work somewhere else.

Then if the workers were free to sell off thier ownership stake as they acquire it, then why not just pay them a wage and let them decide for themselves whether or not they want an ownership stake.

I for one dont want to be paid in ownership of my work. I want to be paid the highest cash salary I can. This gives me the freedom to invest or consume in any fashion I wish.

I would be afraid that your system would limit the choices available to the workers. That would be a bad thing. Maybe I am misunderstanding your idea.

53

Isn’t that for them to decide? If they exhibit preferences in contradiction to your generalization, does that mean that people are irrational, or that your model for what people “should” want is incomplete?

The reason I ask, is that the entire purpose of the market is to allow free people to choose what constitutes wealth, how much they want it, and when. By you issuing these blanket preference statements (which is consistent with collectivism) then you’re making the market irrelevant. You’re building a case for a central planning authority to ensure that people get what you (believe) they want.

54

So on the one hand, you argue for taking care of family, and on the other hand you imply (?) that it is somehow immoral (unjust) for parents to share their wealth with their children?

55

First, the average growth rate of the stock market isn’t enough to make people wealthy even in 2 generations. 1.05^40 = 700% return… what can they set aside? Maybe $10,000? $70,000 for a lifetime isn’t going to cut it. You can’t just say “i believe in the market” and expect to get rich.

That’s assuming they dont reivnest at least part of their dividends. I learned my abilities in the market from a former soldier who now lives completely off his dividends. YOu keep a small portion for yourself and reinvest the dividends in the beggining. Then every year, the dividends get larger. Stay away from bubbles, and stick to things with steady growth, and normally you’re fine. He said it took him 10 years to be able to stop working. That’s not too shabby if you ask me.

Second, people who buy stock and then just sit on it are free loading off the entrepreneurial decisions of majority stockholders who do pay attention to the company. I don’t have a problem with the free loading (they’re providing more capital), but if all the shares are held by random poor people, the corporation will fail to be managed

That’s a valid thing to be worried about. I think a significant amount of education in personal responsiblitiy has to come with this.

56

I am curious could those workers who are paid in ownership stakes in the company sell off thier stake or would they be required to remain an owner of the company even if they dont want?

I think requiring them to hold on to it would kind of defeat the purpose. Plus, who would enforce these requirements?

Then if the workers were free to sell off thier ownership stake as they acquire it, then why not just pay them a wage and let them decide for themselves whether or not they want an ownership stake.

Because starting them off with shares in the co they work at, even if they can later sell it, gives them a certain amount of control over their workplace. It also ties them to the business’ productivity, and each increase in productivity is an increase in profits for them. Good for labor, good for ownership; I dont see what the problem is?

It’s not like business’ should be required to pay in stock. If they want to continue to pay wages, fine. I just think it will be a more socially beneficial system to spread a culture of ownership (as much as I despise King Bush 2, he does have a point there), rather than consumption.

57

This is what I fear as well EiK. To be fair, you have indicated that you blame the state for the existence of corporations and capitalist-boss-worker hierarchies, and that you are an anarchist. However, what if we were to abolish government, and people still continued to voluntarily organize themselves in corporate structures and income spreads remained wide, would you accept that as a legitimate market verdict and the expression of the will of the uncoerced people? The government defeated, but your problem still unsolved, would you simply continue to implore people to be charitable, or would you turn your attacks and agitation at what you believed to be a residual post-state power structure that you consider (and most posters on here would not) to be exploitative? Afterall, even if you do claim to adhere to the NAP, if you believe that the capitalists and bosses are aggressing against the workers to keep them down, it would be easy for you to justify the “defensive” use of force.

I’m not trying to be a dick at all. Just wondering where you’re coming from.

58

If you believe such business arrangements are so beneficial, and yet infrequent, do you have any particular theory of why companies utilizing them have been unable to outcompete alternative business structures?

59

Tell that to people issued tech stock options at the top of the market.

Clayton -

60

Isn’t that for them to decide?

Of course. I just desire more people deciding that, and more business’ offering it. And you know what, over the last few decades, they kind of have.

If they exhibit preferences in contradiction to your generalization, does that mean that people are irrational, or that your model for what people “should” want is incomplete?

The reason I ask, is that the entire purpose of the market is to allow free people to choose what constitutes wealth, how much they want it, and when. By you issuing these blanket preference statements (which is consistent with collectivism) then you’re making the market irrelevant. You’re building a case for a central planning authority to ensure that people get what you (believe) they want.

I am a collectivist, so you won’t scare me with that. But i’m not a central planner. I’m just trying to spread my message of fostering an ownership society, and democratic workplaces. You may disagree with me, and that’s fine. But if I’m not forcing you to accept my views, then there’s no problem. If people don’t agree, they won’t accept my views. I’m not forcing anything, it’s a market phenomena. If my “intellectual business” goes bankrupt… well.. that’s the market for ya.