techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14830
Location: A beautiful vector among many
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| That's the headache - making a system that a) works and b) meets the demands of its citizenry. People's demands can take their toll on the pool of possibilities quickly |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29275
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Subotai wrote: |
No, I don't expect that. Just acknowledging the roots of our motivations. I don't expect humans to be god-like but I do think philosophy is born from an evolutionary drive for us to become god-like. Not that we'll make it. |
Speak for yourself. I have no such drive.
Any urge to become god-like is doomed to disappointment.
We are the smartest, baddest Apes in the Monkey House.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9156
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techstepgenr8tion wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | To make the US healthcare system truly free-market you'd have to go the barbaric route and start refusing emergency treatment for those people who can't afford it. As the system works now the people that have insurance are effectively subsidizing those that don't whenever they go to the ER. Then additional money gets wasted when hospitals pay collection agencies to harass their debtors. It seems to me that we already effectively subsidize health coverage. We just do it in an extremely ridiculous and inefficient way. Instead of having a smooth sliding scale that's based on ability to pay we have a huge jump discontinuity between the insured and the uninsured with the latter group subsidizing the former. Then it's the people who are very close to the discontinuity who end up in a sticky situation where buying insurance is unaffordable due mainly to the fact that by buying insurance they suddenly have the burden of subsidizing all those that don't have insurance and can't afford to pay out after landing in the ER. This isn't even counting all the waste due to lack of preventive care. |
I'd be much more for instituting something like what you're suggesting than making the defacto insurance carrier for all involved be government. |
It would be great if private insurance companies could come up with a method to make insurance affordable to all. Unfortunately it doesn't look like private insurance companies are interested in universal affordability as a goal in and of itself. I'm not sure it's even possible for them to have that goal due to the Nash Equilibrium problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The biggest challenge with capitalism is that it tends to want to use capital in the most efficient way and unfortunately a bi-product of that is the capital wanting to be in the hands of as few people as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and another inefficient of an unrestricted free economy: no accounting for externalities.
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | | Hiring cheap labor in foreign countries is nothing short of pure evil. I don't give a damn if they make good products, it is evil, and it is wrong. These workers should be paid just as much as they would be paid in America. They are being taken advantage of. |
If they were paid the same as in America, they would not get the jobs. It's not exactly better.
Saying that is basically chauvinist. I'm not saying the companies do it to help Third World countries (they don't), but the workers agree. They may agree out of necessity, but they are not starving while they work. Sure, there are abuses, but that issue is mostly unrelated to the actual salaries. It is sad, but not "evil". |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29275
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | The biggest challenge with capitalism is that it tends to want to use capital in the most efficient way and unfortunately a bi-product of that is the capital wanting to be in the hands of as few people as possible. |
How do you account for so many small privately capitalized businesses. There are few mega-corporations and a multitude of small businesses. In fact, small businesses provide most of the jobs.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | TM wrote: | | The biggest challenge with capitalism is that it tends to want to use capital in the most efficient way and unfortunately a bi-product of that is the capital wanting to be in the hands of as few people as possible. |
How do you account for so many small privately capitalized businesses. There are few mega-corporations and a multitude of small businesses. In fact, small businesses provide most of the jobs.
ruveyn |
you're taking too narrow a viewpoint.
bear in mind that half of the world's population own less than 1% of it's wealth, and that 1% of the world's population own more than 40% of it's wealth.
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29275
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: |
you're taking too narrow a viewpoint.
. |
You are right. That view point is called The Facts.
And you have not answered the question I raised. Why are there so many small privately capitalized businesses? If those Nasty Greedy Corporations were hoarding all the wealth, then these small businesses would not exist, would they? And we would have a 50 percent unemployment rate instead of a 10 percent unemployment rate.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | peebo wrote: |
you're taking too narrow a viewpoint.
. |
You are right. That view point is called The Facts.
And you have not answered the question I raised. Why are there so many small privately capitalized businesses? If those Nasty Greedy Corporations were hoarding all the wealth, then these small businesses would not exist, would they? And we would have a 50 percent unemployment rate instead of a 10 percent unemployment rate.
ruveyn |
The problem is that the corporations control most of the most basic and important parts of the economy, such as banks, insurance, oil, electricity (where it isn't state owned), the media, much of the manufacturing sector etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | TM wrote: | | The biggest challenge with capitalism is that it tends to want to use capital in the most efficient way and unfortunately a bi-product of that is the capital wanting to be in the hands of as few people as possible. |
How do you account for so many small privately capitalized businesses. There are few mega-corporations and a multitude of small businesses. In fact, small businesses provide most of the jobs.
ruveyn |
TM's comment was misguided, but anyway... Different markets will have different kinds of companies. It's all a question of entry costs. To enter the market as a car manufacturer, one needs to create one or several new designs, build large plants and set up a distribution network just to sell the first car, a costly process, needing much capital and involving a lot of risk; therefore, there are few. Compare/contrast starting a snack restaurant or a software company. (Of course, this is simplified: there were many car manufacturers a century ago.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1652
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | | It's all a question of entry costs. To enter the market as a car manufacturer, one needs to create one or several new designs, build large plants and set up a distribution network just to sell the first car, a costly process, needing much capital and involving a lot of risk; therefore, there are few. |
Interestingly, the original use of the term "free market" was to mean "easy to enter". But the modern interpretation of "free market" is that everyone in the market can do whatever they like to gang up and prevent competitors from entering. So the term has literally changed to the opposite meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: |
And you have not answered the question I raised. Why are there so many small privately capitalized businesses? If those Nasty Greedy Corporations were hoarding all the wealth, then these small businesses would not exist, would they? And we would have a 50 percent unemployment rate instead of a 10 percent unemployment rate.
ruveyn |
we may indeed see this eventually. it is in the process of happening now. the big supermarket chains are making inroads into establishing inner city branches, in favour over their previous tactic of out of town drive in "hypermarkets", specifically placed in areas that are currently primarily served by small local retailers, eventually pushing these retailers out of business. more militant communities are taking every step they can to petition local authorities and boycott chain retailers with a view to stop this happening, with varied degrees of success.
but regardless, things are increasingly moving this way, especially in a culture where the unemployed are now providing free labour for such Nasty Greedy Corporations.
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | Oh, and another inefficient of an unrestricted free economy: no accounting for externalities.
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | | Hiring cheap labor in foreign countries is nothing short of pure evil. I don't give a damn if they make good products, it is evil, and it is wrong. These workers should be paid just as much as they would be paid in America. They are being taken advantage of. |
If they were paid the same as in America, they would not get the jobs. It's not exactly better.
Saying that is basically chauvinist. I'm not saying the companies do it to help Third World countries (they don't), but the workers agree. They may agree out of necessity, but they are not starving while they work. Sure, there are abuses, but that issue is mostly unrelated to the actual salaries. It is sad, but not "evil". |
My point was that wrong is wrong is wrong.
If Apple actually cared about people, they would give their work to foreign workers out of the goodness of their heart, but clearly heart is not an issue when it comes to business.
If I become a rich entrepreneur one day, trust me, I will give my work to the people who need work the most, and I will charge them exactly the same amount that I would to someone that was not as desperate.
We cannot deny that these workers are exploited. Supply and demand is not a sufficient explanation to account for exploitation. It is about human rights.
And I'm not saying Apple is better than any other company. It's the whole system of capitalism that is flawed. America is rich and therefore takes advantage of poor countries. It is evil in my opinion. Evil is about intent. And the intent here is to make money, lots of money. That is why capitalism is evil. Because it denies the values of humanity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | TM wrote: | | The biggest challenge with capitalism is that it tends to want to use capital in the most efficient way and unfortunately a bi-product of that is the capital wanting to be in the hands of as few people as possible. |
How do you account for so many small privately capitalized businesses. There are few mega-corporations and a multitude of small businesses. In fact, small businesses provide most of the jobs.
ruveyn |
If you look at the flow of capital, it tends to flow towards those who already have it in an amount that is suitable for their current amount of capital. We've all heard the expression "The first million is the hardest" and this illustrates the fact that capital flows increasingly towards those who already possess it. However, this does not challenge the existence of small businesses, because capital is not zero-sum. There isn't a finite amount of money (capital) in the system, it increases all the time. Now, I would love to see statistics on how much capital the 22 million small businesses (less than 500 employees) possess and how much is possessed by the 14.000 large businesses in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | TM wrote: | | The biggest challenge with capitalism is that it tends to want to use capital in the most efficient way and unfortunately a bi-product of that is the capital wanting to be in the hands of as few people as possible. |
How do you account for so many small privately capitalized businesses. There are few mega-corporations and a multitude of small businesses. In fact, small businesses provide most of the jobs.
ruveyn |
If you look at the flow of capital, it tends to flow towards those who already have it in an amount that is suitable for their current amount of capital. We've all heard the expression "The first million is the hardest" and this illustrates the fact that capital flows increasingly towards those who already possess it. However, this does not challenge the existence of small businesses, because capital is not zero-sum. There isn't a finite amount of money (capital) in the system, it increases all the time. Now, I would love to see statistics on how much capital the 22 million small businesses (less than 500 employees) possess and how much is possessed by the 14.000 large businesses in the US. |
infinite capital from a finite space is just as impossible as perpetual motion machines,
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
