The dream of less work

[Raptor]

Fundamental question: Who exactly are "capitalists" and why are they generalized as greedy? With regards to rich people, what if many of them earned their wealth through innovation, hard work, and outperforming competitors?

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Fundamental question: Who exactly are "capitalists" and why are they generalized as greedy? With regards to rich people, what if many of them earned their wealth through innovation, hard work, and outperforming competitors?

Capitalists are those who make a lot of money on other peoples work. Even if you are an innovator, and starter of a business you can only work a certain amount of hours every night and day. If your business shall grow and expand other people most work for you. But to many owners, enterpreneurs or what you like to call them keep an unfair amount of money for themselves, not sharing it equally with those working there. In many companies the owners earn millions, or billions while the workers sometimes get so miniscule salaries that they hardly can cover their every day expences (food, housing, medicine and similar).

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

......Just like people can take a part time job today if they want to and can live with the lower income?

Well, if you have a more even distribution of resources at least less working hours can cover basic expences. That is not always the case today in many countries. Even if you for some reason do not want to or cannot work you shall still be guaranteed a basic income. If the state cannot guarantee a basic income for its citizens whay shall we even have a state? Just to police us or to start wars in our names?

Originally Posted by Human No More

...Nope. See my previous post - just printing money to give out will cause economic problems.

Money is coupled to real physical resources. As long those values exists the money that are a representation of them can be redistributed fairly equal. Now and then some states have succeeded with it, at least relatively well, compared with others. The problem is that in several countries the unequality in the distribution of money and resources is increasing because of bad political descisions, which many times are masked behind economistic rhetorics.

Originally Posted by Human No More

...That's already done.

Not enough.

Originally Posted by Human No More

......then don't talk about 'creating wealth' in such a context.

The state, or collectively owned businesses can also create wealth by selling their products. The main difference is that the wealth are distributed more equally and do not end up on the accounts of a few rich shareholders.

Originally Posted by Human No More

...If you overtax someone, they will go elsewhere, bringing all their investments, bank accounts and businesses with them, and more profit to Switzerland, various island nations, Monaco, etc.

Some will go, but there are always competent people who will stay and create wealth and work for the benefit of many and not only for themselves. But ofcourse it is more unlikely in hyper-capitalist countires like the US where people are brainwashed to believe that everything that benfits many people instead of the few is communism.

Originally Posted by Human No More

...As I said before, state owned business is not viable.
They tend to succumb to overbureaucracy, lack of cost-effectiveness, and become massive money-sinks thanks to their tendency to throw good money after bad. Paying the same amount of money to provision services or goods via private industry will prove superior every time on quantity/quality or return.

It is possible with state or other collective owned business, but ofcourse one must be aware of the dangers you point out.
That all collectively owned business should succumb is just a myth.

Originally Posted by Human No More

...Most people would rather have freedom of choice,

Freedom of choice for what? To be outsmarted by some rich businessmen, but still go around believing in some impossible dream about sudden richness? Like the American dream where people are to brainwashed to see the benefits of collective solutions, but instead go around and dream about the fortune that never comes (at least very seldom for the 40 millions+ that must live on a meager welfare and food stamps from the state)?

Originally Posted by Human No More

...Without investment, nothing works. Including government; and therefore including statist micromanagement.
Investment can be collective, it must not only be a matter of just private investors. Collective investment and collective collection of the created wealth will increase participation, will create a more equal and conflict free society.

Conflicts, hopelessness, mental illnesses, drug abuse, violence, instability and insecurity increases in more unequal societies. In the most unequal countries both rich and poor live in constant fear and anxiety in a hellish world that every minute can erupt in violence. Is that the price of the so called freedom?

Originally Posted by Human No More

...Who do you think pioneers such processes? That's right, entrepreneurs; who you just eliminated with such an idea. Authoritarian systems do not produce anything other than unskilled, unmotivated workers en masse, who are controlled by coercion rather than their own initiative.

There can be people that pioneer such processes but they can also be employed by authorities or in other collectively owned enterprices. They can even be private, but that do not mean that they shall be able to get an unfair amount of the revenues or that they have the right to steal the time and lives of other. Also they will benefit from a more equal distribution of wealth.
Once more, read the book “The spirit Level”. Also listen to Dan Pinks lecture where he explains that money is not the main driving force for creativity, rather money rewards are detrimental to creativity.

Originally Posted by Human No More

...I don't think you understand economics. The point is that what is provided by government is less efficient, so the recipients of the fund make less money than they would having invested with a private company.

Often it has been the other way around. When the funds are trusted to private companies that shall manage them, they are often drained and quickly loose in value..

Reality often contradicts capitalist economic rhetorics.

If economic rhetorics are listened to too much we will get a world where the likes of RDA govern us and everything is turned into crap.

[Moco Loco]

I just saw the movie Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room last night, and it made me think of this thread a lot

Edit: What do you know, the whole thing happens to be on youtube.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Capitalists are those who make a lot of money on other peoples work. Even if you are an innovator, and starter of a business you can only work a certain amount of hours every night and day. If your business shall grow and expand other people most work for you.

I make money from other people's work - I maintain and fix their networks and hardware and develop applications they use, but my pay comes from the profit they generate. What does that make me then?
Your definition is flawed. Anyone who makes money is a capitalist (although I would also add that someone who does so while espousing the virtues of communism is also a hypocrite).

[Human No More]

But to many owners, enterpreneurs or what you like to call them keep an unfair amount of money for themselves, not sharing it equally with those working there. In many companies the owners earn millions, or billions while the workers sometimes get so miniscule salaries that they hardly can cover their every day expences (food, housing, medicine and similar).

If it was unfair, people wouldn't work for them. People go into business to make more money than they could as an employee.
There are really not as many billionaires as you believe. If you go by US$, there are only ~1,226 in the world. People who can't cover their expenses can be for any number of reasons. Generally, there is something called a 'minimum wage' which ensures pay covers reasonable cost of living. However, it does not cover excess expenditure or large quantities of bad debt. People should not expect to be bailed out from their own stupidity.
Do you honestly believe that everyone works hard and tries to make money as opposed to being content to live for free off the taxpayers' income?

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Well, if you have a more even distribution of resources at least less working hours can cover basic expences. That is not always the case today in many countries. Even if you for some reason do not want to or cannot work you shall still be guaranteed a basic income. If the state cannot guarantee a basic income for its citizens whay shall we even have a state? Just to police us or to start wars in our names?

Wrong. If you have a 'more even distribution of resources', it doesn't stay that way. Some people are intelligent, some people are not. Some people will spend money recklessly, others will invest it and see returns. Some people are content to spend the minimum, others will use it all as son as it becomes available, That is why any currency moves. By having an 'even distribution of resources', you are punishing anyone for being successful. IF you do that, nobody will bother, and suddenly the 'even distribution of resources' will run into a problem in that those resources will not actually exist.

Money is coupled to real physical resources. As long those values exists the money that are a representation of them can be redistributed fairly equal.

Not every nation has full backing. Even so, the fact that there IS backing invalidates your own Zimbabwe-style 'just print more money!' point.

Not enough.

For some people, things are never enough. You will NEVER please every greedy person with a sense of entitlement and no willingness to actually do something themselves.

The state, or collectively owned businesses can also create wealth by selling their products. The main difference is that the wealth are distributed more equally and do not end up on the accounts of a few rich shareholders.

They need someone to sell it to. Again, you fail to understand the entire point of currency - the reason it is worth something isn't arbitrary; you can't just magic up an unlimited supply and give it out to everyone and suddenly make everyone rich - what happens is that instead, you simply multiply ALL figures by 1000 or so, while actually decreasing pay scales in real terms.

Some will go, but there are always competent people who will stay and create wealth and work for the benefit of many and not only for themselves. But ofcourse it is more unlikely in hyper-capitalist countires like the US where people are brainwashed to believe that everything that benfits many people instead of the few is communism.

I would say that is communist brainwashing
The ENTIRE POINT of freedom of choice and private ventures is that it allows people to do what would be most viable. Compare the standard of living in North Korea, the former USSR, Cuba, or even China (although China is improving as they move away from overt communism) to that of the US, or even a more socialised but still capitalist country such as most of those in western europe. There's no comparison.

It is possible with state or other collective owned business, but ofcourse one must be aware of the dangers you point out.
That all collectively owned business should succumb is just a myth.

Did I say that? No. However, the failure rate is still orders of magnitude higher, and the product or services they produce are only rarely even competitive with equivalents.

Freedom of choice for what? To be outsmarted by some rich businessmen, but still go around believing in some impossible dream about sudden richness? Like the American dream where people are to brainwashed to see the benefits of collective solutions, but instead go around and dream about the fortune that never comes (at least very seldom for the 40 millions+ that must live on a meager welfare and food stamps from the state)?

So you honestly believe that people who are unemployed are all there involuntarily? You should take a look at the average benefits office and change your mind. Yes, some people do have a temporary bad situation, bit they are the ones who actively loo,, who may take a suboptimal job as a stepping stone, and for who is is never any more than a temporary situation; while it is the chavs who just see it as free money for doing nothing, perhaps even with free council houses and more money if they have children; and have no intention of ever working.

Conflicts, hopelessness, mental illnesses, drug abuse, violence, instability and insecurity increases in more unequal societies. In the most unequal countries both rich and poor live in constant fear and anxiety in a hellish world that every minute can erupt in violence. Is that the price of the so called freedom?

You'remisquoting me. The whole second part of that purported quote is pure bull**** you added.
See the actual post: http://www.tree-of-souls.com/debate/...tml#post172539

There can be people that pioneer such processes but they can also be employed by authorities or in other collectively owned enterprices.

How often? Not so much. Government spending is enormous in comparison for comparatively scant results in both quantity and quality.

They can even be private, but that do not mean that they shall be able to get an unfair amount of the revenues or that they have the right to steal the time and lives of other.

...and they don't.
Does someone with a difficult highly skilled job that requires an advanced degree deserve to potentially earn more than someone working a job in mcdonalds with no qualifications? If so, then someone who sets up a business and offers jobs, as long as they are following applicable laws, can choose their own rewards.

Also they will benefit from a more equal distribution of wealth.

Again: Unless every single item is free, it doesn't stay that well. People with good financial sense, who are willing to take risks (and the right ones) will make greater return. Stealing from someone to hand it out just stops everyone from trying to do well.

Once more, read the book “The spirit Level”. Also listen to Dan Pinks lecture where he explains that money is not the main driving force for creativity, rather money rewards are detrimental to creativity.

Hiding your points in books so that they will never be accessed and therefore never be challenged is the mark of an inferior argument. If you can't reimplement it in your own words, you either lack confidence in its efficacy as a point, or simply seek to employ argumentum verbosium.

[quote]Often it has been the other way around. When the funds are trusted to private companies that shall manage them, they are often drained and quickly loose in value..[quote]
Not even in Iceland. Government-run schemes have HUGE missing funds, to the point that if it had been in a private enterprise, the police and various investigations would be all over them.

Reality often contradicts capitalist economic rhetorics.

Much like communism. Not to say a pure capitalist market is perfect by any means, but it is time-tested and has produced success where 'alternatives' have failed and been forgotten.

If economic rhetorics are listened to too much we will get a world where the likes of RDA govern us and everything is turned into crap.

They aren't a government; try watching the film rather than reading about it. It is ironic that communism is actually a highly environmentally destructive force, as are authoritarian regimes in general. If communist 'economic rhetorics' are to be believed, everyone will stand around holding hands and sharing everything for free with no problems when in fact, a few would exploit it with far fewer checks and controls, while it is actually a case of everyone else suffering equally. By all means, it might work if Earth's population dropped by about 6 billion people and there was sufficient automation and innovation to essentially remove scarcity as a factor, but the former seems unlikely ever; while the latter certainly is unlikely within the next half a century or so.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Human No More

If it was unfair, people wouldn't work for them.

...What? You can't be serious? I think you'd be right if you said that people wouldn't work for them if it was unfair... and had a choice in the matter due to, say, geography, job availability, their skillset, etc. IOW, people will take completely unfair jobs (e.g. China) because that's the only option. Also, see the Cracked article later.

The ENTIRE POINT of freedom of choice and private ventures is that it allows people to do what would be most viable. Compare the standard of living in North Korea, the former USSR, Cuba, or even China (although China is improving as they move away from overt communism) to that of the US, or even a more socialised but still capitalist country such as most of those in western europe. There's no comparison.

As the counterexample, see capitalistic Mother Russia. I am led to believe that a common Russian joke is that Communism was preferable, because at least the Party had to look like they cared.

So you honestly believe that people who are unemployed are all there involuntarily? You should take a look at the average benefits office and change your mind. Yes, some people do have a temporary bad situation, bit they are the ones who actively loo,, who may take a suboptimal job as a stepping stone, and for who is is never any more than a temporary situation; while it is the chavs who just see it as free money for doing nothing, perhaps even with free council houses and more money if they have children; and have no intention of ever working.

So rearrange the benefits/tax system a bit so that minimum wage is better than benefits, but that the benefits are still enough to live on? It'd be stupid to support people who are wilfully not getting a job, but its even more stupid to let people starve because the former group have got the wrong incentives, or because we guessed that there were a lot more of them there actually are. (And, of course, you have cold hard numbers on this, and will be able to cite them on request. )

...and they don't.
Does someone with a difficult highly skilled job that requires an advanced degree deserve to potentially earn more than someone working a job in mcdonalds with no qualifications? If so, then someone who sets up a business and offers jobs, as long as they are following applicable laws, can choose their own rewards.

In all likelihood, the MSci can be charged comparatively humongous tax and still come out far richer than the interchangeable McDonalds worker. It's not "Marxism or bust," as I'm sure you're aware.

Again: Unless every single item is free, it doesn't stay that well. People with good financial sense, who are willing to take risks (and the right ones) will make greater return. Stealing from someone to hand it out just stops everyone from trying to do well.

It also shuts down the Unstable Equilibrium formed by unregulated capitalism. As John Cheese explains here, being poor is expensive. "Taking risks" isn't an option, because the risks you are already taking are already too expensive to afford.

They aren't a government; try watching the film rather than reading about it.

They possibly aren't, (despite having access to Type 1-scale resources) but their historical counterpart, the Dutch East India Company certainly was. I've not looked into the quality of life involved, but we can see immediately that Indonesia (what the DEIC's territory's turned into) is not the richest country in the world.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

If it was unfair, people wouldn't work for them. People go into business to make more money than they could as an employee.
There are really not as many billionaires as you believe. If you go by US$, there are only ~1,226 in the world. People who can't cover their expenses can be for any number of reasons. Generally, there is something called a 'minimum wage' which ensures pay covers reasonable cost of living. However, it does not cover excess expenditure or large quantities of bad debt. People should not expect to be bailed out from their own stupidity.

Wether one thinks there are many millionaires or not (many is a subjective term) there is still a big gap in US, UK and many other countries between the 10 percent with least income and the ten percent with most income. Even old Platon warned for the consequences (in the form of social unrest and similar) if the difference between the most rich and the most poor parts of the population exceeded five times.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Do you honestly believe that everyone works hard and tries to make money as opposed to being content to live for free off the taxpayers' income?

People who have an interesting job, with intellectual stimulus are many times content to work for less money. At least here in Sweden there are polls that have shown that. And other polls have shown that many people could think themselves earning somewhat less if they got more time left for their family and similar. If people work less, productivity will in many cases increase, there will be more incomes, and also more tax that can finance a reduction in working time. Also more people would get into the work market and share the jobs. The increase in health and productivity will in the long run cover initial expences.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Wrong. If you have a 'more even distribution of resources', it doesn't stay that way. Some people are intelligent, some people are not. Some people will spend money recklessly, others will invest it and see returns. Some people are content to spend the minimum, others will use it all as son as it becomes available, That is why any currency moves. By having an 'even distribution of resources', you are punishing anyone for being successful. IF you do that, nobody will bother, and suddenly the 'even distribution of resources' will run into a problem in that those resources will not actually exist.

In an equal and fair society even those who are less intelligent, or in other ways disadvantaged, still should have a fair share of the resources. To not distribute wealth equally is to ask for a violent society, with criminality and exclusion. Such a society will be a worse society for all. And actually in a society with equity there will be less alienation and less people who will not bother. It is in societies with more unequality, and where many people become alienated, you find that people do not bother but instead try to get easy access to resources (a quick fix, easy money) by stealing, cheeting and committing other forms of crime. Alienation and unequality creates violent societies where everyone walk on their toes and where people have no trust in each other or in society.

Originally Posted by Human No More

For some people, things are never enough. You will NEVER please every greedy person with a sense of entitlement and no willingness to actually do something themselves.

The more reason to curb the greedy peoples ambitions with regulations.

Originally Posted by Human No More

They need someone to sell it to. Again, you fail to understand the entire point of currency - the reason it is worth something isn't arbitrary; you can't just magic up an unlimited supply and give it out to everyone and suddenly make everyone rich - what happens is that instead, you simply multiply ALL figures by 1000 or so, while actually decreasing pay scales in real terms.

Noone has talked about giving everything away. But you can have more collective trade solutions where revenues are distributed to the many instead to a few who steal the products of other peoples labor.

Originally Posted by Human No More

The ENTIRE POINT of freedom of choice and private ventures is that it allows people to do what would be most viable.

That is only liberal and capitalist rethorics. Often uncurbed private ventures leads to advantages for a few on the expense of many others. The success of a few will lead to impoverichment and dependency of the many.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Compare the standard of living in North Korea, the former USSR, Cuba, or even China (although China is improving as they move away from overt communism) to that of the US, or even a more socialised but still capitalist country such as most of those in western europe. There's no comparison.

North Korea is a dictatorship with structures that have more likeness with a kingdom or feudal society than with the writings of Marx. Equality and equal distribution of resources do not have to be opposed to democracy, trade or wealth. On the contrary, only with a fairly equal distribution of resources there can be true democracy or true wealth.
There is no wealth for the 40 million+ people in the US that live on the handouts from a rich society that do not really care about its poor.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Did I say that? No. However, the failure rate is still orders of magnitude higher, and the product or services they produce are only rarely even competitive with equivalents.

If some countries have failed in creating more equal societies where resources are owned by their people it is no reason to condemn the idea of equality. Instead we ought to work for better ways of collectively own, produce and distribute resources. When we succeed in managing such a system it will in the end turn out to be better than the capitalist system where wealth are concentrated to the few.

Sometimes capitalist rethorics depicts the liberal systems as some form of endproduct when it concerns economics, politics and way of living. It seems that the economistic thinkers can not envision a world beyond liberalism and capitalism, a world where democracy and equal distribution of wealth can coexist. It seems that capitalist thinkers seem to believe that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few (on the expence of the poor) is some kind of natural law that inevitably will lead to a better world.

It seems that you after having watched the film Avatar a multitude of times you have not yet understood any of its deeper meanings. Instead you have just got stucked in unrealistic and unproductive dreams about how beautiful Neytiri is. Try to see the connection between the dying Earth and the RDA in Avatar with your precious capitalism. The dying Earth and the RDA are actually just logical consequences of raw capitalism.

Originally Posted by Human No More

So you honestly believe that people who are unemployed are all there involuntarily?

Most are, since their skills and personalities are not sought after in the capitalist system.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Hiding your points in books so that they will never be accessed and therefore never be challenged is the mark of an inferior argument. If you can't reimplement it in your own words, you either lack confidence in its efficacy as a point, or simply seek to employ argumentum verbosium.

Feel free to read the book, or at least you can google the book and read some summary of it. They actually express many points better than what I can do in a foreign language. If you are to lazy to look for the facts than your arguments can not be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Much like communism. Not to say a pure capitalist market is perfect by any means, but it is time-tested and has produced success where 'alternatives' have failed and been forgotten.

It seems that your way of thinking are extremely narrow and limited. You talk as if there are no other ways of organizing a society than pure capitalism or pure communism. Instead of clinging to old systems that are harmful to people we really ought to find new ways that will benefit ALL people.

Originally Posted by Human No More

They aren't a government; try watching the film rather than reading about it. It is ironic that communism is actually a highly environmentally destructive force, as are authoritarian regimes in general. If communist 'economic rhetorics' are to be believed, everyone will stand around holding hands and sharing everything for free with no problems when in fact, a few would exploit it with far fewer checks and controls, while it is actually a case of everyone else suffering equally. By all means, it might work if Earth's population dropped by about 6 billion people and there was sufficient automation and innovation to essentially remove scarcity as a factor, but the former seems unlikely ever; while the latter certainly is unlikely within the next half a century or so.

I did not say that RDA was the government, I said if we let capitalism loose we will end up with companies and big corporations governing our lives. And I have seen the film several times.
Capitalism in its raw form will inevitable lead us to the kind of Earth that is mentioned in Avatar, and already today there are many corporations that act in exactly the same way as in Avatar. That is the result of untamed capitalism.
And I do not advocate communism, I prefer a democratic system with equality as one of the most important core values.