Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I can’t say I disagree with this, but I wouldn’t use the terms ‘leading or driving.’ ‘Facilitating’ would be better for me. By ‘facilitating’ I mean creating means and methods for them to help themselves. Jobs would be a good start. We are desperate for more well paid jobs here.

Words like “Facilitating” or “Networking” or “Internet” didn’t exist in Ben’s time. If they did they would probably mean something really weird. In fact the word “driving” was relatively new and modern at that time.

I’m sure Ben meant something like “facilitating”…he did say he was “for doing good to the poor.”

To solve your job situation…try this: Attract Business.

There is no doubt the benefits system created a dependency culture in the UK, but abandoning people altogether and giving them nothing other than by an act of charity on the part of a wealthy individual? One individual does not have enough information and they will have their selected charities meaning others who may be in greater need loose out.

The reason I think welfare should be managed by a public department is because their are so many insurance scams, and because charities can be turned into a business which conflicts with their nature. Instead of little old ladies with a tin I now see people who work for charities driving big cars and standing with matching sweat shirts asking people to sign up to a direct debit and no facility to make a donation. Makes me wonder how much money gets to those who need it.

The problem with a welfare system managed by a public department (government) is…as you say…“the benefits system created a dependency culture in the UK”. Same here.
When we have over 50% of the population receiving some sort of government provided support…do you think a politician with an austerity plan to save the economy would have a chance with a popular vote?

The best run, most honest government welfare agency simply takes money from one portion of the population and gives it to another. The politician who “takes from Peter and gives to Paul” can always count on the support of “Paul”.

Nature does not guarantee the success of any human endeavor, there is not and cannot be any such thing as a guaranteed economic security.

The employer who gives you a job, has no guarantee that his business will remain in existence, that his customers will continue to buy his products or services.

If you retire to a self-sustaining farm, you have no guarantee to protect you from what a flood or a hurricane might do to your land and your crops.

When you surrender everything to the government and give it total power to plan the whole economy, this will not guarantee your economic security, but it will guarantee the descent of the entire nation to a level of miserable poverty. That has been the practical results of every totalitarian, communist or fascist government run economy in history.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There’s a line in the song that says, ‘I never missed a day or went on strike for better pay.’ The reason a lot of factories closed here and Scotland is because they could pay unskilled workers in places like Sri Lanka much less. There was a shirt factory in Scotland that closed and moved out to Sri Lanka. After a few years the workers became skilled, had more experience, unionized and wanted better pay and conditions. They closed that factory and moved it to India.

Sounds like the rebirth of the good old East India Company…by Jove!

On the point of contract - this is why I would argue there is no humanitarian principle in capitalism. A humanitarian principle would incorporate redundancy settlements into contracts and would attempt to save jobs if possible by natural wastage.

I am not a lawyer. I hire lawyers to explain things like “redundancy settlements” and “natural wastage”.

You can argue that there is no humanitarian principle in Capitalism because of contracts but you would be wrong.
Capitalism relies on contracts to PROTECT individual rights and private property.
What, on earth is bad, about that?

ALL employment is contractual.
An executive hired by a major corporation will have an employment contract drawn up by a team of lawyers. It will be ironclad and stand up in any court.
A janitor at the same company enters into a simple contractual arrangement…but just as valid. Both employees agree to work for the company and the company agrees to pay them. Simple!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Put simply - taking a cut from a business you contribute virtually nothing to and don’t have an equity stake in it. (parasitic capitalism")

OH… You mean taxation.

Of course they do and I am not saying it is wrong to desire these things or sell them - but in moderation and I do think the market should take at least SOME responsibility for the lack of it. It’s not a good thing just to always have what you want. I used to work in Pizza Hut and witnessed a woman in her late twenties running out in tears because she couldn’t have a kids meal.

I caution you about “moderation”. What is it? Who decides the limits? Should there be limits to moderation?

Do you think a government or even a market should decide what moderation is…and enforce it?

I think that is either a very naive, or blinkered perspective. What would your definition of exploitation be?

I did agree that and I stand by it. It’s not a bad thing. What is bad is profit from someone else’s disadvantageous circumstances they have no control over, making a profit by cheating others, unfairly making a profit to your advantage and someone else’s detriment - to mention but a few.

What about the people who live in the rain forest? Those tribes? Do they matter? What about the flora and fauna of the rain forest? Does it matter if they become extinct? Or am I just a tree hugger? What happens when there is no rain forest left? So what? We made a profit while we could and if we hadn’t someone else would have?

You asked me what the ‘tragedy of the commons’ was. This is it. Things owned ‘in common’ destroyed by privatization. There are certain things that should be owned ‘in common’ as then everyone can benefit and not one individual and future generations. Valuable museum pieces is another example of things that its better if they are owned ‘in common.’

That’s a nice little nugget. Thank you.

There is nothing wrong with immigration for a better life. The Irish did it for years. but as you say it creates unemployment on the domestic front. Immigrants will also work for less which admittedly is great if you own the business. Not so good if your a skilled worker with experience.

 

[minkymurph]

My pleasure M’Lady. :flowers:

My French is limited to reading menus and impressing the Maître d’ in French restaurants. “Laissez-faire” means “let alone” or “keep out of it”.

When Ayn Rand and I connect that term with Capitalism or the Free Market we simply mean that GOVERNMENT should “let alone” or “keep out of it”.

I’m sure there are other definitions that broaden the concept of Laissez-faire Capitalism…but mine is simply…“let alone”.

Certainly I am a great believe in, ‘don’t fix what’s not broke,’ but if something is broke get in there! Or better still - intervene BEFORE things reach crisis point.

 

[minkymurph]

Words like “Facilitating” or “Networking” or “Internet” didn’t exist in Ben’s time. If they did they would probably mean something really weird. In fact the word “driving” was relatively new and modern at that time.

I’m sure Ben meant something like “facilitating”…he did say he was “for doing good to the poor.”

To solve your job situation…try this: Attract Business.

If only!

We desperately need to attract business, but look at the muppets we have in power. Our finance minister recently said on a radio broadcast he did not know how to access the internet and was unaware of a particular event that happened the previous day in Belfast as he does not listen to the news.

The problem with a welfare system managed by a public department (government) is…as you say…“the benefits system created a dependency culture in the UK”. Same here.
When we have over 50% of the population receiving some sort of government provided support…do you think a politician with an austerity plan to save the economy would have a chance with a popular vote? .

Nope. I don’t know if your aware of the protest outside St Paul’s Cathedral against austerity?

Welfare in the UK was intended to be a short term solution in a crisis, not a career. It became a career for several reasons but it started with Thatcher in that people were better off not working. I was at home with my kids until they started school because I couldn’t have earned enough to pay for child care. It would have cost me money to work.

As you say we need investment. It’s all very well to criticize people on welfare but there are no jobs. If the government want people off welfare they need to create employment.As you say we need investment. I’m a law student and I recently applied for two jobs; one in a shop and one serving chips in a kids park. I got turned down for both.

When you surrender everything to the government and give it total power to plan the whole economy, this will not guarantee your economic security, but it will guarantee the descent of the entire nation to a level of miserable poverty. That has been the practical results of every totalitarian, communist or fascist government run economy in history.

Well we’re not talking about surrendering EVERYTHING to the government.

 

[minkymurph]

You can argue that there is no humanitarian principle in Capitalism because of contracts but you would be wrong.
Capitalism relies on contracts to PROTECT individual rights and private property.
What, on earth is bad, about that?

ALL employment is contractual.
An executive hired by a major corporation will have an employment contract drawn up by a team of lawyers. It will be ironclad and stand up in any court.
A janitor at the same company enters into a simple contractual arrangement…but just as valid. Both employees agree to work for the company and the company agrees to pay them. Simple!

Where parties posses equal bargaining power and equal access to legal advice there is nothing wrong with a contract. Employment contracts, like many standard form contracts, this is not the case. There is an inequality of bargaining power and the stronger party can impose harsh and unjust terms on the weaker party because there is no negotiation and they are offered on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.

 

[minkymurph]

OH… You mean taxation.

I never thought of it like that.

No it’s not what I meant but I see your point.

I would still argue low taxes are the law of the rich. I recall in the Thatcher era she gave a tax cut coming up to the election. I was five pounds a month better off. Wow! Then she got elected and doubled my mortgage because she preferred to use interest rates to control inflation rather than income tax. I would have been happier letting her keep the five quid. You know she refused to wave the tax on the Band Aid record and earned the title, ‘Mrs Scrooge?’

I caution you about “moderation”. What is it? Who decides the limits? Should there be limits to moderation?

Do you think a government or even a market should decide what moderation is…and enforce it?

I use the term ‘moderation’ as a general benchmark. Admittedly is a difficult one for me as I am for autonomy and against paternalism, but when I watch documentaries about men getting breast implants for a laugh and women getting ridiculously large implants they later bitterly regret? I think the surgeons who perform these operations should take some responsibility.

 

[sallybutler]

You may be talking about YOUR version of real life. You are not talking about real retailing.
No the retailer is not stuck
No the end used is not stuck
Go back and re-read my post.

Sally, let’s say you bought a new home that met or exceeded all community standards, all building codes and all safety codes…would you also buy homeowner’s insurance?

I’ll bet you would. Because compliance with ALL the building codes, community standards and safety codes do not guarantee that your new home will not burn down, flood, collapse or fall into a “sink hole”. So what good are all the building codes, community standards, and safety codes ???

***You are right. We should just abolish all building codes. These are unnecessary regulations since an earthquake, fire, flood, etc, can just undo it all. What’s the point?

I’m sure the insurance companies would love to write policies in that environment. ***

It worked quite well for the Pilgrims, It is totally practicable and will work whenever it is tried.

I believe that the Pilgrims were initially what we would call commune-ists. For example, they believed that grazing of animals should be done in the commons. They believed in price controls, everything from wages, to bread, to how much could be spent on clothing. They believed that ministers should not hold political offices.

There are laws against cheating (Fraud) – Of course there are. A law is a regulation.

No need to saddle an entire industry with regulations while laws exist to punish those who cheat. How do you define cheating if there is no definition codified? As soon as you codify it, you are saddling the entire industry with it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
You may be talking about YOUR version of real life. You are not talking about real retailing.
No the retailer is not stuck
No the end used is not stuck
Go back and re-read my post.

Sally, let’s say you bought a new home that met or exceeded all community standards, all building codes and all safety codes…would you also buy homeowner’s insurance?

I’ll bet you would. Because compliance with ALL the building codes, community standards and safety codes do not guarantee that your new home will not burn down, flood, collapse or fall into a “sink hole”. So what good are all the building codes, community standards, and safety codes ???

You are right. We should just abolish all building codes. These are unnecessary regulations since an earthquake, fire, flood, etc, can just undo it all. What’s the point?

I’m sure the insurance companies would love to write policies in that environment.

Zoltan
They already happily write policies because all the regulations offer no guarantee.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Originally Posted by minkymurph View Post
I think that is either a very naive, or blinkered perspective. What would your definition of exploitation be?

A few years ago I hired a young man as an administrative assistant, He was an ex-policeman with a law degree. He left the police department due to an injury and needed a job while he studied for the Bar Exam. He and I knew this was a temporary job and he agreed to a wage that was a little below what I would have paid a permanent employee. (Exploitation???)
He was a great employee. We liked each other and got along very well. I would call him into my office and show him contracts and legal documents and ask his opinion. Many times he would ask to take them home so he could go over them in detail. He made corrections and suggestions that saved me a lot of $$$ and really ticked off a few practicing attorneys.
Later after he passed the Bar Exam and accepted a job with a major law firm we had a going away party in his honor. He boldly stood up a announced that his first case as a lawyer would be to sue Zoltan Cobalt for “Exploitation.” Of course all the other employees at the party agreed with him. So the evil, greedy Capitalist had only one recourse…I had to put him and his overpriced law firm on retainer to avoid a scandalous lawsuit. He is now MY Lawyer
We still meet for lunch on a quarterly basis and I pick up the tab…to make up for all the free legal service I “Exploited” from him.

I did agree that and I stand by it. It’s not a bad thing. What is bad is profit from someone else’s disadvantageous circumstances they have no control over, making a profit by cheating others, unfairly making a profit to your advantage and someone else’s detriment - to mention but a few.

You mentioned this before and I agree. It would never happen in a true Capitalist society.

What about the people who live in the rain forest? Those tribes? Do they matter? What about the flora and fauna of the rain forest? Does it matter if they become extinct? Or am I just a tree hugger? What happens when there is no rain forest left? So what? We made a profit while we could and if we hadn’t someone else would have?

Of course **people **matter.
As long as people WANT or NEED what the rain forest produces they should have access to it.
I have never seen a rain forest. I understand they pop right up after they are clear cut.
I am sure they are damp, humid and full of snakes. Probably beautiful in some way.
But as long as they supply what people need…they should be harvested.

California is in a very serious drought condition right now. Our central valley which could feed the world is drying up. Five years ago when experts predicted this condition, environmentalists prevented the building of new dams and watersheds. Billions of gallons of fresh water from the Sacramento River are flushed into the ocean to protect the habitat of a useless fish.

I think it is long about time that “people mattered”.

You asked me what the ‘tragedy of the commons’ was. This is it. Things owned ‘in common’ destroyed by privatization. There are certain things that should be owned ‘in common’ as then everyone can benefit and not one individual and future generations. Valuable museum pieces is another example of things that its better if they are owned ‘in common.’

I have no problem with art and museum pieces and things owned “in common” as long as they are open and available to all.
After all most art and museum pieces were once someone’s private property and that owner decided to share them.

There is nothing wrong with immigration for a better life. The Irish did it for years. but as you say it creates unemployment on the domestic front. Immigrants will also work for less which admittedly is great if you own the business. Not so good if your a skilled worker with experience.

A skilled worker with experience will always be valuable.
A friend once said that with all the computer work going on today…the next really high paying jobs will be “crafts”. You can’t seem to get a computer to hammer a nail.

 

[freeRadical]

Spotting an internet troll is also simple, and using the name ‘free radical’ in addition to the tone of your posts makes it obvious.

No one with any degree of common sense will engage in a sustained, serious debate with an internet troll.

Oh, I’m a troll, okay. Let’s see.

1. You haven’t responded to the content of my posts.
2. You have attacked my choice of user name
3. You have attacked me.

You do know that argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy right?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Where parties posses equal bargaining power and equal access to legal advice there is nothing wrong with a contract. Employment contracts, like many standard form contracts, this is not the case. There is an inequality of bargaining power and the stronger party can impose harsh and unjust terms on the weaker party because there is no negotiation and they are offered on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.

Those are called “contracts of adhesion” in the U.S. Can be unfair, for sure. However, there is a rule of law here that says all ambiguities in a contract of adhesion have to be construed against the preparer. Not perfect, but not bad. It is also true that, among the exactions an employer may employ, anything resembling a bar to the employee getting another, even competing, job is strictly limited by law. My own state is an “employment at will” state. In other words, unless I have an employment contract for a specific term of employment, the employer can terminate me for any reason not forbidden, or for no good reason at all. But when employment is plentiful (as it should be, and could be) it’s not a big issue because, after all, I can also “quit at will”.

Also, because of debt marketing in the U.S., most contracts of debt people sign are uniform nationwide. And, because the market dislikes “hair trigger defaults” preferring workable solutions, many of them are relatively benign toward the consumer. The market is not entirely incapable of reasonable solutions to imbalances in power.

You mentioned in another post that your home mortgage rate went up under Thatcher. Did Britain not have fixed rate mortgages? Virtually all in the U.S. are.

 

[CatholicLaw]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church prohibits all forms of collectivism. Socialism is a form of collectivism according to the New Advent Encyclopedia. Even though capitalism has its temptations, the world learned too much from Adolph Hitler to think socialism will not evolve into communism.

 

[minkymurph]

Those are called “contracts of adhesion” in the U.S. Can be unfair, for sure. However, there is a rule of law here that says all ambiguities in a contract of adhesion have to be construed against the preparer. Not perfect, but not bad. It is also true that, among the exactions an employer may employ, anything resembling a bar to the employee getting another, even competing, job is strictly limited by law. My own state is an “employment at will” state. In other words, unless I have an employment contract for a specific term of employment, the employer can terminate me for any reason not forbidden, or for no good reason at all. But when employment is plentiful (as it should be, and could be) it’s not a big issue because, after all, I can also “quit at will”.

They are called contracts of adhesion here too and the same rule of law operates under the Unfair Contract Terms Act - which incidentally Zoltan (Hi Zoltan if your reading this, argued we did not need)

Employment at will is probably what we would call a ‘rolling contract’ here. It operates month to month. The Office of Fair Trading stepped in concerning contracts of adhesion because a gym signed lots of people up to a three year contract for membership of a gym. The contract was designed for people of limited means. When they recession hit they could not afford it anymore but the finance company would not let them out of the contract. When they couldn’t pay they passed their names to debt collectors which was held to be unlawful. You can read about it on the Office of Fair Trading Site. It’s called the Ashbourne case.

Also, because of debt marketing in the U.S., most contracts of debt people sign are uniform nationwide. And, because the market dislikes “hair trigger defaults” preferring workable solutions, many of them are relatively benign toward the consumer. The market is not entirely incapable of reasonable solutions to imbalances in power.

I would say the market is more than capable. Whether it would do it is another matter.

You mentioned in another post that your home mortgage rate went up under Thatcher. Did Britain not have fixed rate mortgages? Virtually all in the U.S. are.

Nope. Fixed rate interest rates came in post-Thatcher because so many people got into difficulties. When we took out a mortgage the interest rate was something like 5%. Under Thatcher it went up to 16%. Big jump but hey, I paid five pounds a month less in income tax.

 

[sallybutler]

Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
You may be talking about YOUR version of real life. You are not talking about real retailing.
No the retailer is not stuck
No the end used is not stuck
Go back and re-read my post. .

If the money is not refunded, someone is stuck.

There are laws against cheating (Fraud) – Of course there are. A law is a regulation.

No need to saddle an entire industry with regulations while laws exist to punish those who cheat. How do you define cheating if there is no definition codified? As soon as you codify it, you are saddling the entire industry with it.

So you feel that, in business, only cheating should be against the law. However, since there should not be any laws or regulations which say how businesses can operate (free market), how would one be able to prove that they had been cheated.

I have always liked knowing the rules of the game. I may not like the rules (especially the ones that say someone else might win ). Laws/regulations are the rules of the game.

 

[minkymurph]

A few years ago I hired a young man as an administrative assistant, He was an ex-policeman with a law degree. He left the police department due to an injury and needed a job while he studied for the Bar Exam. He and I knew this was a temporary job and he agreed to a wage that was a little below what I would have paid a permanent employee. (Exploitation???)
He was a great employee. We liked each other and got along very well. I would call him into my office and show him contracts and legal documents and ask his opinion. Many times he would ask to take them home so he could go over them in detail. He made corrections and suggestions that saved me a lot of $$$ and really ticked off a few practicing attorneys.
Later after he passed the Bar Exam and accepted a job with a major law firm we had a going away party in his honor. He boldly stood up a announced that his first case as a lawyer would be to sue Zoltan Cobalt for “Exploitation.” Of course all the other employees at the party agreed with him. So the evil, greedy Capitalist had only one recourse…I had to put him and his overpriced law firm on retainer to avoid a scandalous lawsuit. He is now MY Lawyer
We still meet for lunch on a quarterly basis and I pick up the tab…to make up for all the free legal service I “Exploited” from him.

I’m not sure I really understand this. It doesn’t help me understand how you would consider exploitation.

I think what this guy did was pretty low, but I don’t understand why you would have paid him less than a permanent employee. I’m not saying you should have paid him more as initially it could be argued he was an unknown quantity, and reading between the lines I would say you were doing him a favour in taking him on. The reason I don’t understand why you would have paid him less is one of the arguments you presented against the minimum wage was it prevents an employer paying good employees more.

You say this guy was a good employee and saved you a lot of money. Did you ever consider giving him a raise? Why did all the other employees agree with him?ou did then I would say on the face of it he had little complaint. If not, why not? You didn’t have to and he agreed wouldn’t cut it for me. I have a young girl who looks after my youngest son who has autism a few hours week and I pay her twice the minimum wage. I could not afford that for more hours, but she would have been happy to do it for the minimum wage. I pay her more because she is worth it and I’m far from wealthy. If she wasn’t worth it I would just get rid of her.

 

[minkymurph]

A skilled worker with experience will always be valuable.
A friend once said that with all the computer work going on today…the next really high paying jobs will be “crafts”. You can’t seem to get a computer to hammer a nail.

You may have a point. My youngest son has dyslexia. Not academic, goes to a college but great with his hands. He’ll probably get a job before all these people with degrees, like me.

 

[minkymurph]

You mentioned this before and I agree. It would never happen in a true Capitalist society.

Why do you think it would never happen? I have a policy - never say never because never is a long time.

Of course **people **matter.
As long as people WANT or NEED what the rain forest produces they should have access to it.
I have never seen a rain forest. I understand they pop right up after they are clear cut.
I am sure they are damp, humid and full of snakes. Probably beautiful in some way.
But as long as they supply what people need…they should be harvested.

Need is one thing, want is another. I don’t think it’s good to have what we want when we want. Particularly if when we get it we realize we didn’t want it that much.

Who does the rain forest belong to and who gave permission to harvest trees? It would guess the people who live in the rain forest weren’t even consulted and it is their home. Just because someone needs something does not mean they have the right to take it.

 

[JediSisko]

Socialism fails to produce. The only recorded time has socialism giving any success was in Acts, for the people involved put great faith in God. Capitalism, while flawed is the best system in a falling world.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’m not sure I really understand this. It doesn’t help me understand how you would consider exploitation.

I think what this guy did was pretty low, but I don’t understand why you would have paid him less than a permanent employee. I’m not saying you should have paid him more as initially it could be argued he was an unknown quantity, and reading between the lines I would say you were doing him a favour in taking him on. The reason I don’t understand why you would have paid him less is one of the arguments you presented against the minimum wage was it prevents an employer paying good employees more.

You say this guy was a good employee and saved you a lot of money. Did you ever consider giving him a raise? Why did all the other employees agree with him?ou did then I would say on the face of it he had little complaint. If not, why not? You didn’t have to and he agreed wouldn’t cut it for me. I have a young girl who looks after my youngest son who has autism a few hours week and I pay her twice the minimum wage. I could not afford that for more hours, but she would have been happy to do it for the minimum wage. I pay her more because she is worth it and I’m far from wealthy. If she wasn’t worth it I would just get rid of her.

My fault…I was not clear with my story.

“Todd” applied for the job on a temporary basis. He was up front and said that he needed a job for a little over a year. I was considering a tall shapely blonde for the job on a permanent basis…she had no knowledge of computers…but she did look good.
Todd was actually overqualified. All temporary jobs he applied for paid minimum wages.
Actually I liked him right off. He said he could do the job and was willing to take less than what I was offering (which was A LOT more than minimum wage) because he would only be with me for a year or so. Yes…I did do him a favor and I saved some money.
Todd never asked for a raise and didn’t really need it. He was happy and so was I. I tried to tempt him into staying with me but I could not match his potential earnings as an attorney.

We joked about exploitation. I teased him and he came right back with feigned threats of violations of labor law or quitting and going to work at McDonald’s. His favorite “trick” was to leave my office and call out over his shoulder “I’ve had it with you Cobalt. When I get my license I’ll have you in court.” This would bring on cheers and applause from the entire office staff. Then I would stick my head out, with my best Ebenezer Scrooge look, and yell…“back to work…or you are all fired”. Boos, hisses, and laughter from the staff. We really had a good time. My crew knew when to work hard and when to have some fun. Todd fit right in.

Todd’s farewell speech and threat of legal action was probably brought on by the champagne that was flowing at the party. It was nothing more than the continuation of our running exploitation joke.

I sold the company several years ago, but Todd remains on retainer as legal council. We still have our quarterly lunch meetings…and I pick up the tab for exploitation sake.

I think exploitation is in the eyes of the beholder.