Communism and Socialism

[Carl.]

When the amount of money you bring to your managing company outweight by such a huge margin your real contribution to the society, don't you think there's something wrong?

I'm not bashing capitalism, a world without competition is one without evolution.

But I believe at some point we have to draw the line... or just let the gap will widen more and more to the point were going over it will be nearly impossible.

A lot of people got to the top for being "smart" enough to find any possible way to exploit the system, whatever the costs are, and now have a huge political and economical weight that's nearly impossible to compete with. They did something right? well I may be wrong, but that's not my definition of "right".

Letting things lose may be evolution, but lose control and balance, and it soon turns to regression.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by jpmontoya
When the amount of money you bring to your managing company outweight by such a huge margin your real contribution to the society, don't you think there's something wrong?

No, I don't. A capitalist society is based on a series of transactions whereby each participant believes he or she is getting the better end of the deal.

In your example, a popular sports figure is simply a recipient of a series of many, many deals whereby each person in the transaction "wins". 40,000 people decide to attend a sporting event for $10. Each of those people believe it is worth $10 dollars for them to see Joe Athlete hit a ball with a stick. The promoters of the event gives Joe Athlete $100,000 because after covering the costs of putting the event on, they still make $100,000.

So at the end of the day, 40,000 people, Joe Athlete, the promoters and all the owners and support people for the event walk away having engaged in a transaction whereby each one was benefitting. What's the problem?


M

 

[Danoff]

There is no problem. It makes perfect sense. Joe Athelete has a talent that thousands of people are willing to pay ten bucks to watch. Same thing for actors and comedians. They make tons of money because their entertainment skills are so marketable. They earn that money because they have developed a skill that is so marketable.

Most other professions (including my own) are not so marketable. They're also not as competetive, so I win there because I would never make it as a comedian, actor, or athelete.

I don't have a problem with people making lots of money. Atheletes are not stealing the money, they're earning it.

 

[Danoff]

Letting things lose may be evolution, but lose control and balance, and it soon turns to regression.

You can't force balance in a free market with control. Balance only comes when all of the subtle nuances of free commerce are allowed to work their magic. Control destroys balance and turns to regression. Free markets seek balance and make progress.

What possibly makes you think that a group of senators can control the delicate price balance of gasoline or housing better than millions of consumers participating in a free market - each making an individual choice about the value of a product - each making a statement about the current worth of a product based on their own experiences?

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by danoff
What possibly makes you think that a group of senators can control the delicate price balance of gasoline or housing better than millions of consumers participating in a free market - each making an individual choice about the value of a product - each making a statement about the current worth of a product based on their own experiences?

Or better yet, what makes people think that anyone has a right to declare what an individual contributes to society. As I recall, the Nazi party, Chinese Communist party and the Khmer Rouge had very interesting views on how certain groups of people benefited their respective societies.


M

 

[Carl.]

In your example, a popular sports figure is simply a recipient of a series of many, many deals whereby each person in the transaction "wins". 40,000 people decide to attend a sporting event for $10. Each of those people believe it is worth $10 dollars for them to see Joe Athlete hit a ball with a stick. The promoters of the event gives Joe Athlete $100,000 because after covering the costs of putting the event on, they still make $100,000.

I know where the money comes from, and never said it was stolen... still I think there's something wrong. Maybe this has more to do with people who ranks entertainment as a higher priority than education or health... but hey.... who was good enougn to have billions of cash to spend in advertising and marketing, to help them make their choice? yes, we clearly have a winner here.

What possibly makes you think that a group of senators can control the delicate price balance of gasoline or housing better than millions of consumers participating in a free market - each making an individual choice about the value of a product - each making a statement about the current worth of a product based on their own experiences?

Never said that a group of senators would decide in a closed room what mesures to take, that wouldn't make sense... anything as this has to be decided in a democraty. And unless we are not living on the same planet, do you really think that's us who are controlling the price of gasoline??

Or better yet, what makes people think that anyone has a right to declare what an individual contributes to society. As I recall, the Nazi party, Chinese Communist party and the Khmer Rouge had very interesting views on how certain groups of people benefited their respective societies.

I'm not suggesting in any way that totalitarism should be the answer... no individual has the right to declare unilaterally what's good or not. This should be decided too by democraty.

Another thing that doesn't make sense is the medical businesss... what gives a corporation the right to patent a cure for a disease, then decide the price that we have to pay to get it, therefore which can afford to be cured... please don't tell me it's because they invested huge amount of money doing research for it and that they found it first. If we have enough money to send a multi billion dollar toy on mars to take pictures of stones or have such great armies, we can easily afford this, and sharing the efforts from all research labs would be a lot smarter than trying to hide information from each other to get it first.

(sorry, I'm sure that there is a lot of bad english in there, trying to do my best )

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by jpmontoya
I'm not suggesting in any way that totalitarism should be the answer... no individual has the right to declare unilaterally what's good or not. This should be decided too by democraty.

But the Nazi party came to power through legitmate democratic means. They reflected the majority of the will of the German people.

Originally posted by jpmontoya
(sorry, I'm sure that there is a lot of bad english in there, trying to do my best )

Don't sweat it, jp. Your posts are better than many native engish speakers on this site.


M

 

[Carl.]

Thanks! long and poorly written posts may sometimes be annoying to read, just making sure it's not the case.

While it's true that Hitler was elected in a democraty, it quickly became a totalitarian regime based on fear. His goals can be somewhat related to some capitalism concepts too... the strongest takes what he can takes, without care for the weakest, if he can afford it. Even Henry Ford was a fervent admirer of Hitler in the 30s, as many others.

It's almost unconceivable for us to see how an entire country followed him in this horror, but you can achieve a lot controlling the media... lately, free market has led to a very strong concentration of the media sources in western countries, giving a few big players powerful tools to achieve their goals and protecting their interests... too much power in few hands has often turned to disaster.

I'd never thougt we would discuss politics on a game forum, but that's one of the most interesting thread I've seen on GTPlanet

still, my first definetely goes to... Poll: Butter or Margarine?

 

[Danoff]

I know where the money comes from, and never said it was stolen... still I think there's something wrong. Maybe this has more to do with people who ranks entertainment as a higher priority than education or health... but hey.... who was good enougn to have billions of cash to spend in advertising and marketing, to help them make their choice? yes, we clearly have a winner here.

Nobody is ranking entertainment over education here. People pay a lot of money in education. I’m going to shell out 20k in bills for education this year. I don’t spend that kind of cash on entertainment.

However, there are a lot more people in the education business and they don’t reach as many people. So they get more money from people… but from a far fewer number of people. It works out because teaching is not nearly as competitive as football.

So what’s wrong with the system? I don’t see any problems.

Never said that a group of senators would decide in a closed room what mesures to take, that wouldn't make sense... anything as this has to be decided in a democraty. And unless we are not living on the same planet, do you really think that's us who are controlling the price of gasoline??

Gasoline is an odd example, but yes. Anyway you sidestepped my point. People can’t vote on the price of gasoline because they will underestimate how much it is worth to them. Only a free market can determine the price of gasoline, so your business about it being “decided in a democracy” doesn’t make sense.

Another thing that doesn't make sense is the medical businesss... what gives a corporation the right to patent a cure for a disease, then decide the price that we have to pay to get it, therefore which can afford to be cured... please don't tell me it's because they invested huge amount of money doing research for it and that they found it first. If we have enough money to send a multi billion dollar toy on mars to take pictures of stones or have such great armies, we can easily afford this, and sharing the efforts from all research labs would be a lot smarter than trying to hide information from each other to get it first.

What gives an engineer the right to patent a compressed-air engine and then decide the price you get to pay for it?

A few billion dollars will pay for what exactly? We’re to dismantle our space program and military to do what? Install universal health care? How well would that run? Give me an example of a social program like that that runs cost-effectively?

The sharing of efforts in research labs happens in academia as a result of grants. Corporations do their own research, they pay for it, and they own the data that they get. The government does some research too, we pay for it, and we own the data that they get.

 

[Danoff]

His goals can be somewhat related to some capitalism concepts too... the strongest takes what he can takes, without care for the weakest, if he can afford it.

Capitalism relies on a basic structure of human rights to succeed. The strong cannot, for example, murder the weak.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by jpmontoya
Thanks! long and poorly written posts may sometimes be annoying to read, just making sure it's not the case.

I actually meant to compliment you before. You use English much more clearly and intelligently than many native speakers here.

While it's true that Hitler was elected in a democracy, it quickly became a totalitarian regime based on fear. His goals can be somewhat related to some capitalism concepts too... the strongest takes what he can takes, without care for the weakest, if he can afford it.

But that's most emphatically not Capitalism. Under Capitalism, the richest BUYS from others, trading value for value. Then those who are taken from (the "weaker") receive payment in return, and become stronger.

I'd never thougt we would discuss politics on a game forum, but that's one of the most interesting thread I've seen on GTPlanet

There have been some excellent discussions on this board. If you have spare time, look through some of the older, longer threads for some very thoughtful debates, and some heated arguments.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by jpmontoya
It's almost unconceivable for us to see how an entire country followed him in this horror, but you can achieve a lot controlling the media... lately, free market has led to a very strong concentration of the media sources in western countries, giving a few big players powerful tools to achieve their goals and protecting their interests... too much power in few hands has often turned to disaster.

Yes agreed, which brings us back to why it is dangerous to have a society dictate the value of individuals based on "social contribution".

The minute you make a statement like "athletes should not be allowed to make more money than doctors" or "people should not be allowed to sell medicine for profit", you begin down a very slippery slope towards social control that can only end in the violation of individual freedom.


M

 

[Crayola]

Originally posted by risingson77
The basic problem with collectivism is that it assumes people are inherently good & selfless ( ) and will not mind working hard so their fellow man will have everything they do - regardless of their fellow man's contribution.

I'm not saying capitalism is perfect (far from it), but it does reward ambition rather than punish it.

The problem with Capitalism is the opposite of Socialism, there is more rewards for ability then people who need it, I.e th rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Thats why you need a nmice shakedown every once in a while to bring the 2 groups back together through taxing effectively.

Really there is no perfect system and there never can be, anyone in a position of power will be corrupted (need I use the well known cliche) whether it be dictators, the upper-class or the military isnt important. Nothing can be fair unless everyone wants it too, and fairness is never really fair if you have to give away what you've earned.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Crayola
TThats why you need a nmice shakedown every once in a while to bring the 2 groups back together through taxing effectively.

Then where's the incentive to work if you're just going to be pulled right back down? Might as well be a lard ass so you can get the stol- I mean, taxed money.

 

[Danoff]

The problem with Capitalism is the opposite of Socialism, there is more rewards for ability then people who need it

That's a problem? I always thought productivity was more deserving of rewards than need.

th rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Prove it. Show me how the rich have gotten richer and the poor gotten poorer throughout American history.

 

[Carl.]

Capitalism relies on a basic structure of human rights to succeed. The strong cannot, for example, murder the weak.

Which is worst? a child who's parent aren't rich enough to give him the medication he needs because that isn't profitable enough for a corporation's ceo and investors? Yeah, it's definely not worth it, it's an awful waste of ressources... The unit for measuring profit is cash, and profit is the ultimate goal of mankind, period.

In a murder, at least the victim is suffering for a short amount of time. I may be putting this it a bit melodramatic way, and I don't want to play violin there, but that's pretty much the same as using nazi and khmer rouge as a reference...

We have have made huge steps in human rights in the last centuries, and one of the most significant was the abolition of slavery. For ages, it had been perfectly normal to own and buy people, to be given birth without basic rights of freedom, and that must have been very useful and profitable for the owners... but some realized that they should not accept it and freedom isn't a thing that should be bought or sold... I think that to have universal health care shoul be one of these basic human rights, as a higher priority than to buy a second ferrari that a CEO "needs" to be motivated to continue his work...

Yes, some suckers will be exploiting the system without giving much in return, but some will always find a way to expoit the system, whatever it is. Just look at what happened with Enron and try to guess how much of this is still going on unnoticed, now tell me what's worst between those two kinds of abuse?

The minute you make a statement like "athletes should not be allowed to make more money than doctors" or "people should not be allowed to sell medicine for profit", you begin down a very slippery slope towards social control that can only end in the violation of individual freedom.

as long as social control is not in the interest of us all instead of a small elite, I don't see the problem... but yes, we have to be very careful with it, as we have to be when defining our laws or a country's constitution... those are forms of social control that can benefit everyone when applied correctly or lead to the worst injustice when biaised in favor of a small portion of us.

But that's most emphatically not Capitalism. Under Capitalism, the richest BUYS from others, trading value for value. Then those who are taken from (the "weaker") receive payment in return, and become stronger.

the "strenght" the weaker gets is relative to the standards that most often the stronger will be defining... when looking at the relation between the two, the weaker is losing ground to the stronger.

People can’t vote on the price of gasoline because they will underestimate how much it is worth to them.

Yep, probably... a mistake i'm quite sure an oil company would never make!

Enough for today, Got to go!

 

[Sage]

Interesting that you'd consider universal healthcare a human right... I don't see how it is. I believe that we have the right to not be killed (duh), I believe that we have the right to not be oppressed under public institutions, but I don't see why we should have the right to universal healthcare. Well, let me word that a bit differently... I don't see why universal healthcare should be something that's forced unto us. If someone wants to have universal healthcare, but make it something that you'd sign up for, then that's perfectly fine with me. But forcing someone to contribute to a pool of money is, well, called taxing.

 

[Carl.]

Originally posted by Sage
Interesting that you'd consider universal healthcare a human right... I don't see how it is. I believe that we have the right to not be killed (duh), I believe that we have the right to not be oppressed under public institutions, but I don't see why we should have the right to universal healthcare. Well, let me word that a bit differently... I don't see why universal healthcare should be something that's forced unto us. If someone wants to have universal healthcare, but make it something that you'd sign up for, then that's perfectly fine with me. But forcing someone to contribute to a pool of money is, well, called taxing.

So basically you're saying that the legal system, law enforcement, public education, the army and everything that your taxes are paying for shouldn't be "forced" and that people should choose freely to pay for it or not? ... so that only the ones who can afford it receive thoses services?

anyway who cares... we'll just leave them in closed places that looks like Calcutta and leave them with their issues... those people are at best easily replaced and most of the time useless. and at this point if some of them want to get better lives, well, just too bad...

I think that not being able receive health care shoud outbalance the issue of a bit of tax "oppression", even if I don't like to see what's cut on my paycheck each week.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by jpmontoya
So basically you're saying that the legal system, law enforcement, public education, the army and everything that your taxes are paying for shouldn't be "forced" and that people should choose freely to pay for it or not? ... so that only the one who can afford it receive thoses services?

To a certain extent, yes. I believe the government's purpose is to make laws to keep people from getting killed and being oppressed, and to enforce those laws (law enforcement!). The military falls under that category, since they keep us from being attacked and stuff. For everything else (that I can think of off the top of my head), they should keep out of, although to be honest I'm not 100% on that stance for public education. I just read this article though, and it seems like a good enough idea.

 

[Crayola]

Originally posted by Sage
Then where's the incentive to work if you're just going to be pulled right back down? Might as well be a lard ass so you can get the stol- I mean, taxed money.

Thats not what I mean, Im not saying you should get dragged down, its justm people who aren't from wealthy(-ish) families don't always have the oppertunity to generate wealth to the bets of their ability. Which is why the Rich should be taxed more then the poor and the money used to subsedise health and education so everyone has the same oppertunities throughout there younger years. That way when they start earnign there own living its their ability that gives them money rather than there parents.

Originally posted by danoff
That's a problem? I always thought productivity was more deserving of rewards than need.



Prove it. Show me how the rich have gotten richer and the poor gotten poorer throughout American history.

Im not american so I cant speak for america, but in Australia the number of people below the poverty line has increased whilst the average wage has risen. I'm not saying I dont approve of capitalism, its just you need an even playing field in the beginning so everyone gets an equal oppertunity to use their ability to make money.

 

[///M-Spec]

JP, your example with healthcare illustrates a fundamental issue that lies at the core of any dispute between capitalists and socialists: what is a right? and what is an entitlement?


M

 

[Duke]

Exactly. And on the issue of mandating equality, how are you going to do it?

You seem to imply that it's unfair that I enjoyed the privelege of a college education, while others haven't. That was not an even start, because I have an advantage that was "unfair".

Take that a step farther: If that's not fair, why should it be fair that I'm allowed to be smarter than someone else? Shouldn't everyone's intelligence be reduced to match everyone else's? After all, both conditions were due to the circumstances of my birth - I had the unfair advantage of being born with a good brain, into a family that values good brains, and (coincidence...?) can afford to educate itself. Should I be allowed to retain those advantages?

A nice frontal lobotomy ought to level that playing field, right?

 

[milefile]

Just move to Spain.

 

[Duke]

That will be the natural course of action after the lobotomy.

 

[milefile]

On a related note, I think it's very unfortunate that Spain has chosen the direction they have. An election so close to a terrorist attack may not have been the best idea. My opinion is that fear and anger and pain dictated the results of the election; fear and anger and pain that would wane over time. It seems to me that Spain and it's new president have reacted to terror like hydra's tentacle: reflexively recoiling at the slightest bit of resistance. They have taken the apparently easy way, when the righteous way is harder, and requires strength and endurance, something Socialists do not have.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
My opinion is that fear and anger and pain dictated the results of the election; fear and anger and pain that would wane over time.

Yeah. You shouldn't vote mad or scared. In many cases people were voting against their view that Spain's involvement in Iraq was wrong and this one act completely changed their vote. Five years from now they might regret it. But probably not

 

[milefile]

Your so good a being sarcastic that I'm not sure when you're doing it.

Is there a specific reason(s) you disagree with me? I know there is.

 

[Duke]

Because they'll have had 5 years of letting someone else (us) do the fighting, and with that much time to post-rationalize it, they will be free to enjoy the rewards of our sacrifice.

They're Socialists, after all.

 

[Carl.]

I had the unfair advantage of being born with a good brain, into a family that values good brains, and (coincidence...?) can afford to educate itself. Should I be allowed to retain those advantages?

You have a point... a child born in a family that's not able to pay for his education should not deserve it... even if he might have better abilities, screw him, that's his family's fault, not ours. And being productive is, after all, something that is genetically passed from a generation to the next one...

At least I'll try to convince myself about this each time I hear about Paris Hilton...

Because they'll have had 5 years of letting someone else (us) do the fighting, and with that much time to post-rationalize it, they will be free to enjoy the rewards of our sacrifice.

If only someone could make them understand... they should enjoy the fact that we got rid of all those weapons of mass destruction. Uh, wait... give us some time and we'll find them... after all, it has only been a year at this date since we launch shock and awe on the axis of evil, all in the name of God...(currently holding up the bible in my hand)

Spanish people are defenitely losing their minds... They should be careful about those hasty decisions they make after such terrorists attacks, or using fear, anger and pain of these attacks to achieve political goals. Look at us for example...

the righteous way is harder

Couldn't have said it better...

 

[milefile]

Wow. Two paragraphs of piss-poor sarcasm that is supposed to make you look like you are saying something principled. Nice try.