|
|||||||||||||
Capitalism is Opposed to Human Happiness Debate, Volume 2
Posts #061-#065
Post #61 CNT-FAI Radical: thank you, you seem to agree with me above. I didn't see any disagreement in your responses in your last post. Every quote from me there was in response to Red Barn, and you are assuming I was referring to something you said, hence some confusion. The "you" in those quotes meant Red Barn, not CNT-FAI Radical. Post #62 Hello, amjdmg, amjdmg wrote: Inequality of bargaining power leading to inequality of outcomes is not an intrinsically Marxist concept. Are you familiar with game theory? Take a look at the book "The Evolution of Cooperation," where the author Robert Axelrod experimented with a prisoner's dilemma game. In a competition, those who cooperated and played "nice" did the best, and those who were cruel and exploited did the worst. (Page 113.) But, this is where there is an equality of bargaining power, which was stressed by Axelrod. Likewise, where the power of one player over another changes, one find exploitation over and over again. This is not just a social observation -- it is mathematically demonstrable within the field of knowledge called Game Theory. Hello, lucky, lucky wrote: These are questions of how we value objects. The question I asked was how to reorganize society so as to maximize access to valuable objects for all people. It doesn't matter if value is determined by labor or by utility. Hello, again, Michaeluj, Michaeluj wrote: I never said that, nor implied it, and I have no idea where you're pointing it out. I could accuse you of the very same thing since you reject slavery's ability to produce things. "You don't like production, because you don't clearly see how overworking people in chains can produce greater!" That's a bit ridiculous -- I don't tell my opponent what they believe, I let them speak for themselves. Actually, as you should be able to see, only a paragraph into the original post, I stated that material production can be beneficial or instrumental towards human happiness. Naturally, the ability to provide for these needs is important. I have stressed this point the entire time. "Capitalism has a propensity for production!" So what. Are you saying worker cooperatives don't? What about communes, collectives, or Socialist governments? Look at all that military production in North Korea! They have a propensity for production -- let's go follow them! My arguments have been for a society that most materially benefits its members and participants. How do you read that, and suddenly think that I'm arguing against production? (1) people need things to live, (2) inequality of bargaining power means that those who work don't get all that they produce, and that those who who do nothing take a large portion of their production, therefore, (3) therefore, we need to equalize bargaining power of all of society's participants so that no person is exploited by any other simply because they do not possess productive property. So far, I have never heard anyone hear my arguments and say, "What! You're arguing against production as being able to serve the needs of the people!?" And I thought I've heard everything in an economic debate. Michaeluj wrote: You know, I'd probably have a better idea of what you were actually talking about if you stuck to the discussion instead of focusing on me personally. Michaeluj wrote: And why should anyone care about fully following ideologies when the matter at hand involves merely simple theories proposed by those systems, such as how I was only speaking of the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle and its somewhat, however little, counterpart Monetarist Theory? I have less care of Praxeology than I have hatred of listening to pure bullcrap spewed from ideological minds that, when not given some evidence, seem like they bend reality to their wishes. There, the clarification of my stance has been made. Hey, you're the one who kept saying "See Austrian Theory and possibly Monetarism." I guess it's totally unreasonable for me to bring up the Austrian Theory. You know, when the only result is that its ideas are doubted on such basic grounds that you don't even try to defend it. Michaeluj wrote: It's a synonym. I try not to be ambiguous in my writing. (See "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.) CNT-FAI Radical wrote: Talking about the French Revolution, and the conditions of the French people during this event, is not racist. I suppose it would be racist to say that African American people were enslaved in colonial America, because I'm saying something about one race versus the others? Michaeluj wrote: Because, when the market has less of a commodity, the price of the commodity goes up, which means profit goes up. I don't understand how this is difficult to understand. Does this help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand : "An outward (rightward) shift in supply reduces the equilibrium price but increases the equilibrium quantity." Also, the Dutch example is one out of hundreds of firms that have been listed or indirectly mentioned. Your fixation on dutch farmers destroying their crops, and ignoring the billions of dollars of industry destroyed by businesses today, is... unsettling. For example, Toyota and others companies worked to reduce the production of cars to increase prices, being fined more than a half billion US dollars for it. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6296985.stm ) CNT-FAI Radical wrote: I'm sorry, but I wasn't making an example. If you look close enough, you'll see it's a paradox. I'm trying to show that the inherent nature of mankind is not the issue. If people are inherently vicious, then having a king over them won't help, because that king is a person, who is inherently vicious, and if the king is not inherently vicious, as a person, then it is possible for their to not be inherently vicious. So, if someone says "people are selfish," I say "Why do I want them to rule me?" And if someone says "people are not selfish," I Say "Why do they need to be ruled?" Michaeluj wrote: If people are selfish and thoughtless in allocating material wealth, then this runs counter to your argument that "Concentrated profits are more likely to be saved." And if people are not selfish and thoughtless, then why must they have rulers? This is the law of identity: you are either A or non-A. People are either capable of organizing the world for themselves, or they are not. It doesn't matter if it's a king or a democracy doing the deciding -- it is still a human being. Post #063
Quote: It does matter. There is no "utility" if the labor outweighs the utility. Post #064
Quote: I was arguing that capitalism increases material gains through production, and you said, 'NO, that's worthless because then the people would be like slaves!' You were not interested in capitalism's benefits at all as long as there were the issues of bargaining inequality.You have been for a " society that most materially benefits its members and participants" yet you want that gains made primarily, fundamentally, dominantly through the use of social bargaining to make it so that "no person is exploited by any other simply because they do not possess productive property." I didn't say that you are against production, but that you hold almost no value to it when bargaining is still the primary issue to you. You are the one who is focusing on social issues foremost, meaning that you believe that fixing those issues first will provide the most gains; so, discounting pretty much all of my arguments for the productive benefits of capitalism with " Your justification for Capitalism is that it has a "propensity for production." I pointed out slavery, because it could be justified on the same ground. Ipso facto, we need a better justification than "Oh, this system can produce! It's good enough for me!"" is basically, since you're not stating the effectiveness of capitalism's productive potential, meant that you hold almost no value for production while bargaining is still your primary, only focus. So, do you really want to continue with talking about production when you clearly don't? Quote: Look above, that's not what I said. Quote: Add some of this to my earlier clarification, and also accept that I will now answer the rest with: By having internal checks, such as interest rates, that workers don't earn more than they produce, and that money earned in sufficient quantities from investment increases savings which are used for investment, long-term production is higher and thus material well-being is greater. Giving ALL of the people the easy access to funds that they didn't produce is like letting a mother hamster eat her own children and her sister's children, the sister also having the chance to eat her cousin's children and so on: In the end, you will have no hamsters as the population slowly dwindles, representing productive capabilities. By giving everyone the chance to take more than they produce, like giving hamsters fertility drugs, you make it almost okay to eat one another's children, until you soon realize that hamsters will spend more time eating than making babies, you will just get more baby-hungry hamsters along the way, and then you'll have a much smaller population of hamsters. By not eating, consuming, all of her production, the mother hamster allows the species to grow. I believe that all of those systems maximize consumption to amounts greater than what each person makes, making them less efficient. Quote: Maybe you should read this, along with the part that you didn't quote, with new insight that I just provided. Quote: How about I explain it as clearly as possible: turn every case, from the beginning, of when I said, "Austrian Theory" and "Monetarism", and add to both of them: "of the Business Cycle". From this clarification, nothing else you said about these theories matters and you've been missing the point. Quote: Now this does not make any sense. I say that you're a one-trick pony, using only one word to satisfy every excuse, and you turn it into synonyms and unambiguity, somehow. Quote: The racism was for another excuse by which white Americans would want to mistreat black slaves. Since this is a moot matter in the grand argument, and since I believe that the only reason I wrote it--you stating human mentality--will also become moot soon, this should be stopped. Quote: Profit rate would increase, but would profits...? Say, why doesn't Apple do this with its Ipods? Quote: You brought them up and I don't want any unfounded statements to live throughout the argument in a way that makes them seem like they're valid to any casual passerby. It's a matter of intellectual honesty. Anyway, here's me breaking the article into all the pieces that actually say things: Quote: I'm not sure what the first priority of the investigation was, but the title mentioned "corruption". Anyway, this is clearly a legal issue, since actual theft was made. Quote: This does not describe cutting production to increase profits at all, but if that was what it was referring to, then it seems that, according to the profit loss, the expenditure on making cars is outweighing the consumer spending on them, so cutting production to match demand would be the right thing to do. Quote: Carving up? Quote: So they had a cartel and kept prices at a certain level? Not exactly evil, apparently. Then again, cartels have a habit of dissolving by themselves in time, producing mutual hatred between the once-conspirators. 16 years is perhaps one of the longer life spans. Quote: The finding adds to the woes at the firm, which in November had its offices investigating allegations of embezzlement and corruption. German media said the probe had been triggered by claims that Siemens staff had paid bribes to win contracts How reasonably illegal. Quote: The only reason it's not an issue is because you somehow found a way to believe that you would win both ways. This still makes it a Red Herring, since you did change the material I said to suit you. Quote: It is a fact that concentrated money has a greater average of being saved. Let's say that 50 percent of 10 million gets put into a back instead of 20 percent of 10 thousand, rich individual vs poor individual. It is also a fact that interest rates are a deterrent to over-consumption--although, the amount of how much it offsets is entirely based on the mindset of the differing people. Now, also, "thoughtless" is a very bad word; I would replace it with "have a wide variety of patience and value for different things". Having rulers is NOT AN ISSUE with how much people want to spend. People can be stingy with their credit cards, and they will make everything better for everyone in the future by their own actions, or they can be whiny kids who treat credit like easy money and hurt others while accepting the brunt of the punishment by selling their own time through work in order to procure more money that would go into savings and investment. The worst get deterred and the best get rewarded, all by themselves, each contributing in their own way through their own choices. They do not need leaders to command them, and they should not be allowed to do whatever they want, using their own needs to destroy the lives of others. All that they really need are agreements between the people they work with in order to work together. You will now likely focus on the idea that capitalists destroy others with their needs, and my response is that: If it's illegal, it's illegal; if it's a cartel, it will die; and if it's just a slight increase in prices, then it won't hurt production(It will likely improve it) and so benefit the people of the future, which is where the vast amount of humanity will live, thus maximizing the benefits of the most people. If you're now going to bring up the thing about workers losing cushy jobs and getting worse ones due to capitalist need, then I ask you: why do you care for the needs of a few outdated people who are holding you and me back, who are unable to maximize their potential when there's a large world and an expansive future that becomes greatly gifted by the attempts to surpass modernity and achieve new treasures, medicines, and research possibilities? Why are you looking at things so narrowly, and thus maybe selfishly? Do you want to know what Man is?": Man! Miss Ayn Rand made a big point about that, and you can easily read an edited (although not footnoted) version of her epic John Galt Speech in the Morality sub-forum, if you're interested in how identity supports me. Post #065
CNT-FAI Radical wrote: Again, I wasn't replying to a question of yours here. I was replying to Red Barn, who asked: "And how exactly is it "outdated?"" (the labor theory of value).
|
