Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Capitalism

Rate this topic


israel

Recommended Posts

When it comes to lower priced products, when consumers dont want to spend time researching which product is best, theyll often just buy a product from a brand theyve heard of (even if its more expensive). This is why big companies often spend more money advertising the brand-name itself than any of their products.

I'm not saying there should be more regulation or anything like that, but claiming that the best products 'win' or that people generally make rational buying decisions seems a bit naive.

People buy brand name products because those products have a certain known level of quality at a given price point. Even in a situation where a generic product might be superior, many people won't buy them because they don't know what they are getting. In this context, their buying decision is quite rational.

'Yes, because of Microsoft's sales strategies. Which only have a little to do with the quality of the product. Britney Speares sells more CD than Beethoven - how much does that tell you about the qualitty of the respective music, and how much does it tell you about the way that tastes are shaped by advertising?

I hope you're not saying that we are powerless to resist the influences of advertising. Britney Spears sells more CDs than Beethoven because more people like listening to her music than Beethoven. Her music might suck, but people enjoy pop music for a lot of reasons other than advertising. In fact, I bet that if you advertised Beethoven music more than Spears music, you still wouldn't be able to sell more classical CDs than CDs created by little Ms. pop tart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Yes, because of Microsoft's sales strategies.

So why hasn't someone else copied or improved on such strategies?

Yes I dont dispute this. The point is that the construction of the current situation - where people are more familiar with Windows than with other OS's, and buying a PC with linux isnt cheaper than buying it Windows, and Linux is seen as being 'hard' and obscure - is a direct result of Microsoft's sales and marketing strategies
.

I don't recall ever seeing a Windows ad that even mentions Linux, much less says it's hard or obscure. There are some ads that claim Apple is much better and easier to use than a Windows PC, though. Apparently they're not working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Close to ignorance, yes. But close to trolling? Trolling is an aspect of intent not knowledge. I think it's psychologizing to infer one from the other. He might prove to be a troll, but his posts so far indicate mostly that he has no idea what sort of board he's on, and maybe a cursory knowledge of Rand, much less Objetivism.

First of all I would like to apologize for any posts I have made that seem... 'trollish.' This was in no way my intent, as I came here with purely philosophical and intellectual intentions. I've clearly already failed in proving that I am a serious, sincere member of this board. granted my knowledge of Ayn Rand's theories may not be competent, but as I said earlier I am here to learn. The whole reason I joined this board was because I found Objectivism to be an extremely interesting set of ideals and philosophies.

I would also like to apologize to KevinDW78 personally. I in no way intended to throw you off or insult you you. I've come to understand the nature of this site much better know and hope you will come to accept me as a positive member of this board, not as a troll.

I would like you all to know I've learned my lesson and will be purchasing some of Rand's works as soon as possible. Maybe then I will be able to come here and properly debate against capitalism. Or, who knows, maybe then it will be for a free market!

Sincerest Gratitude,

Isreal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Close to ignorance, yes. But close to trolling? Trolling is an aspect of intent not knowledge. I think it's psychologizing to infer one from the other. He might prove to be a troll, but his posts so far indicate mostly that he has no idea what sort of board he's on, and maybe a cursory knowledge of Rand, much less Objetivism.

I'll accept that.

would also like to apologize to KevinDW78 personally. I in no way intended to throw you off or insult you you. I've come to understand the nature of this site much better know and hope you will come to accept me as a positive member of this board, not as a troll.

I accept that too :P

I would like you all to know I've learned my lesson and will be purchasing some of Rand's works as soon as possible. Maybe then I will be able to come here and properly debate against capitalism. Or, who knows, maybe then it will be for a free market!

You'll be VERY glad you did! ;)

There is a lot of debate about what to read first. For me I started with "Virtue of Selfishness" and then "Atlas Shrugged" I think the fiction like Atlas or Fountainhead will have a LOT more meaning and value if you get a crash starter in the logical arguments of Objectivism through one of the non-fiction books like "Selfishness" first.

Britney Spears sells more CDs than Beethoven because more people like listening to her music than Beethoven.

And because they are stupid. The free market doesn't care about the stupidity that may exist in consumers. (and neither do I) that's caveat emptor!

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And because they are stupid. The free market doesn't care about the stupidity that may exist in consumers. (and neither do I) that's caveat emptor!

I don't know that they are stupid, they just have what I consider to be bad taste in music. Now if they look up to Ms. Spears and try to emulate her lifestyle, then I would say they are stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that they are stupid, they just have what I consider to be bad taste in music. Now if they look up to Ms. Spears and try to emulate her lifestyle, then I would say they are stupid.

lol touche.

What about someone who goes to Barnes & Noble and buys a book by Immanual Kant? Are they stupid? :P

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry about it dude. Most of these "regulars" I've seen judge someone's veracity and ability to perceive logic based soley on their post count on this website. You have a higher post count than me, so I'd have to bow down to your superior and more valid understanding of Ayn Rand.
I haven't been a member for as long as you have, but this is actually the first time I've seen anyone even mention post count on this site.

Similarly Objecitivists are notoriously harsh and insulting towards people the closer their adversary comes to being "in line" with their own beliefs. Telling you you're ignorant and wrong is practically a hand shake here.
Don't you think it's likely that Objectivists are getting fed up with hearing criticism of the philosophy from people who haven't even read any Rand or who have only the most cursory knowledge on the subject? Personally, I find it annoying.

As for Capitalism. I love how quickly it devolved into people's assertion that Capitalism fails because Microsoft exceeds. The absurdity is astonishing. Microsoft began in a garage. And it's still being run by the same guys. You've given one man's rise to global economic superiority as evidence that he is in fact inferior, and an economic bully. Ridiculous. You could have tried a little better and picked a company that's achieved economic success earlier than my short short lifespan. My point being that; in assertion that a monopoly will not last, your counter argument is that Microsoft isn't being effectively stopped. Regardless that "defeat" implies a passage of time, and one generation is conceptually minimalisitc.

Another thought is, what is a company? Certainly if people leave, products change, policies change, really the only thing that remains is the name, and names are arbitrary in that context. If practices, products, and prices are constantly changing to meet consumer demands how is the arbitrary assertion of a name "dominating" even an issue? The individual is choosing for the individual's rational reasons, if said "name" is providing, how can that in any context be a negative? Regardless of "name's" "share" of the "market" isn't the market that matters the individual?

Along the lines of what you are saying, the concept of monopoly is difficult to define objectively. Brian Simpson gives a good explanation of this in his book Markets Don't Fail!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is your answer.

if a private man can't deal well with money, what makes you think a politician will be able to deal with it?

I've mentioned before that I feel capitalism is more than competent, but I wasn't referring to politicians handling anybody's money, other than taxes that is. And even in that case people elect who they choose to spend their money.

However, I was referring more towards government regulations on the market. Things like the restriction of narcotics*, taxes on imported goods and things of that nature.

In no situation would i ever trust money thats legally mine (excluding things like the federal income tax**) to a government regulation.

*I understand that there are situations in which our government has allowed 'illegal substances' into our economy for purposes of economic stimulation and personal gain.

** While I don't personally believe in the Federal Income Tax, it's not something I wouldn't pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

however, mans inability to handle money has led to so many problems in capitalist societiies.

there has never been a society that is "capitalist," only mixed economies. In Objectivism, Capitalism means a government that has absolutely NO jurisdiction or control over the economy whatsoever. Capitalism means "free markets," where the economy regulates itself, without any any any any control by the government to any degree. That being said, lets move on to your example:

Americans politicains are often upported by compeltly legal contributions from coperations that got as big as they were due to capitalism.

If you were getting paid three hudnred thousand dollars a year by lrge oil company, just prior to a vote on an act that coudl make the drilling of oil illegal in areas considered to be of scientific value, like Yosemite. However, this company knows for a fact that there are billions of dollars worth of oil in pockets underneath the forest of said park. wouldn't you use your influence to make sure that law doesn't get passed.

and maybe you personally wouldn't, but im sure there are millions of "selfish" americans out there who gladly would sacrifice their morals for 300K a year.

Like I pointed out before, if there has been no proper Capitalist country, so corporations have not been able to get big due to capitalism. Some of the biggest businesses (but not all!) in a mixed economy get big through getting in bed with the government, (which you are alluding to in this example) -- Objectivism considers this immoral and an infringement of man's rights and NOT part of the concept of "free market"

The example you put forward be impossible in a Capitalist society because the government would have no economic power to flex whatsoever, so the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for the business to get big is through their own ability to create products that the customer wants, because the government would not have the power to "help" them with laws, subsidies, etc.

In short, the example you put forward would never be able to happen in a capitalist country because the government would not have the power to pass any such law restricting business activity.

Here are some helpful links to Ayn Rand's quotes about Capitalism straight from her non-fiction (including "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" mentioned by someone above) and related issues that would interest you on the topic:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mixedeconomy.html <-- read this one especially, because you are conflating the concept of "capitalism" with "mixed economy

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freemarket.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/interventionism.html

Edited by athena glaukopis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, the example you put forward would never be able to happen in a capitalist country because the government would not have the power to pass any such law restricting business activity.

I really appreciate your answer.

When I reread that I realize that the example did not even correctly identify with my claims.

So granted a free market wouldn't cause monopolies as those make absolutely no business sense. (although there are companies that you could consider monopolistic in nature...)

And without government influence corruption could potentially be eradicated.

But I've yet to receive an answer on whose going to stop heroin and methamphetamine from being inported into this country?

Who is going to regulate the quality of the products produced in this county (both foodstuffs and material possessions), as well as the products exported to other countries?

Who is going to regulate the safety of such products?

Who is going to ensure that our country isn't inundated with products imported from other countries (which probably would help the economy very much)?

Continuing in that vein, what about public property?

What about the school I go to or the park I walk my dogs in?

Charity only get one so far...

(Private schools being opened for free... Where would they get the income to support such an endeavor?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I've yet to receive an answer on whose going to stop heroin and methamphetamine from being inported into this country?

Capitalism does not include forcing people to do "what is best for them" whether it is making a law that you have to wear your seatbelt, or outlawing the ability to put drugs in your body. That is infringing on the right to property (of their body, of their cars, and of their drug filled seringes) and life (and ability to live it recklessly or even to lose it through recklessness)

On top of that, stopping the sales, purchase, or intake of those drugs would fall under economic control, which I've already explained is not included.

Who is going to regulate the quality of the products produced in this county (both foodstuffs and material possessions), as well as the products exported to other countries? Who is going to regulate the safety of such products?

Private companies would. They would crop up because of the demand of other companies looking for a legitimate and trustworthy third-party to ensure to their customers that the standard of quality of their product is high, making the chances of business success much higher (a customer would more likely buy from a company who has the seal of quality from a reputable company than a competitor that did not). A great example of how this would work in a free market is the company that doles out "fair trade" seals, they have an objective standard that is available to the customers, and a recognizable seal to look for on products, and getting that seal is in the self-interest of the companies looking to get the business of responsible consumers. Another example is the Jewish community and their standards and seals for "kosher" foods

Who is going to ensure that our country isn't inundated with products imported from other countries (which probably would help the economy very much)?

Again, No government intervention in the economy; it is my right to use my property (my money) to conduct trade with whomever I want, whether they're in this country or out of it

Continuing in that vein, what about public property?

The term "public property" is a contradiction in terms. Property cannot be owned by the public, only individuals (or groups of consenting individuals). Regardless, because it is only the job of the gov't to protect the rights of its citizens, anything outside of that job is a misuse of power (and taxpayer money), but this one is explained in "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" and also a few posts on this forum and would take too long to explain here

What about the school I go to or the park I walk my dogs in?

All privatized. it's not the gov'ts job to steal property from its citizens (via taxes) to pay for these things, which are not included in man's rights.

Charity only get one so far...

(Private schools being opened for free... Where would they get the income to support such an endeavor?)

There would be a whole lot more charity if people were able to keep all of their tax money. If the gov't wasn't already forcing us all to donate to "charities" known as social security, public schools, socialized medicine, parks, welfare, etc etc etc there would be more incentive for the "socially minded" to donate to charities (and like i said, they would be able to use what is now taxed money towards the charities of their choice)

These are just short, quick responses, but I would suggest picking up some of AR's non-fiction (especially "Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal" and if that isn't enough, Andrew Bernstein's "Capitalist Manifesto" if you are still interested in Capitalism in theory and in practice after reading "Capitalism; tUI")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalism does not include forcing people to do "what is best for them" whether it is making a law that you have to wear your seatbelt, or outlawing the ability to put drugs in your body. That is infringing on the right to property (of their body, of their cars, and of their drug filled seringes) and life (and ability to live it recklessly or even to lose it through recklessness)

On top of that, stopping the sales, purchase, or intake of those drugs would fall under economic control, which I've already explained is not included.

Can you really trust peopel to do whats best for them? Granted over time with more liberal changes in our culture and government people would come to learn responsibility, so I guess that makes this point moot.

I'm sorry but drugs do contribute to the crime rate, and legalization and government regulation is nearly the only way to reduce this short of permanent destruction of all such substances. (which is not only impossible but would lead to the coveting of other substances and items)

Private companies would. They would crop up because of the demand of other companies looking for a legitimate and trustworthy third-party to ensure to their customers that the standard of quality of their product is high, making the chances of business success much higher (a customer would more likely buy from a company who has the seal of quality from a reputable company than a competitor that did not). A great example of how this would work in a free market is the company that doles out "fair trade" seals, they have an objective standard that is available to the customers, and a recognizable seal to look for on products, and getting that seal is in the self-interest of the companies looking to get the business of responsible consumers. Another example is the Jewish community and their standards and seals for "kosher" foods

This can still lead to corruption, as well as no way of assuring the legitimacy of these operations. Kosher foods are defined by religious law, and normal food and medicinal products are defined by government defined laws. You cannot trust a privately owned company to decide on which products are faulty and which are not. This would immediately lead to the bribing of 'officials' within these companies in order to further the reputation of their own products. Reputable products make money.

Again, No government intervention in the economy; it is my right to use my property (my money) to conduct trade with whomever I want, whether they're in this country or out of it

But what about the economy? If car companies were to realize that they can make more money exporting quality cars to other countries, while importing cars that are not of the same standard to sell here, we'd have the transpirational technologies of Soviet Russia. Once again, the lust of money is apparent, and these advantages WILL be abused. While it may be your right, and while as an objectivist you may feel the need to serve yourself only, I don't think it would be 'rational' for you not to stimulate your countries economy, even though this would be 'serving another man.'

The term "public property" is a contradiction in terms. Property cannot be owned by the public, only individuals (or groups of consenting individuals). Regardless, because it is only the job of the gov't to protect the rights of its citizens, anything outside of that job is a misuse of power (and taxpayer money), but this one is explained in "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" and also a few posts on this forum and would take too long to explain here

Would you not consider City Board members a collective of individuals who have been elected to allow the consent of the public use of such properties? I personally appreciate my ability to go to school for free, to take my sister to the zoo and study my lessons in libraries, all of wich are afforded by taxes that in this case I am willing to pay.

This is one of the few things I may be adamant on, but if you are able to provide a strong argument against such services, I would glady think them through! :)

Even if you were able to tell why we have no need of these things, you can't possibly say that you've never used any of them. And if you truly don't believe in public property than you woudln't support their existence by enjoying them.

All privatized. it's not the gov'ts job to steal property from its citizens (via taxes) to pay for these things, which are not included in man's rights.

Where does it say that we are not allowed the right to collectively own property?

There would be a whole lot more charity if people were able to keep all of their tax money. If the gov't wasn't already forcing us all to donate to "charities" known as social security, public schools, socialized medicine, parks, welfare, etc etc etc there would be more incentive for the "socially minded" to donate to charities (and like i said, they would be able to use what is now taxed money towards the charities of their choice)

Can you really say that for a fact? Is it really the nature of peopel today to give things away? I've foudn in my lifetime that the truly generous are a select few.

On the other hand we would be able to use that tax money to afford to go to private schools, so I can compromise here.

These are just short, quick responses, but I would suggest picking up some of AR's non-fiction (especially "Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal" and if that isn't enough, Andrew Bernstein's "Capitalist Manifesto" if you are still interested in Capitalism in theory and in practice after reading "Capitalism; tUI")

I absolutely plan to!

It may seem like I'm overly critical of Objectivism, or that I may just not prescribe to objectivist ideals, but I really do appreciate Rand's ideas.

I too believe in the right to own and use property as I please, in a night watchman sate, and the legal debatability of most taxes. (especially the Federal Income Tax)

Edited by israel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may seem like I'm overly critical of Objectivism, or that I may just not prescribe to objectivist ideals, but I really do appreciate Rand's ideas.

From the nature of your questions, it seems to me like you don't really know what Rand's ideas are, their full scope, application, or the philosophical basis for them. (No offence, just an impartial observation) Unless you understand the philosophy as a unified whole, the answer to specific questions like "what about public schools?" will just fall into a disintegrated void and not make any sense.

I would suggest reading everything that Ayn has to say on a particular subject in question, and then come here if you need further clarification. She is the creator of a unified philosophy and wrote it more clearly and eloquently then we can here.. she created it! Plus, it will save us all time here at the forum answering questions that are already written and bound, waiting for you to read. The Ayn Rand Lexicon that I linked you to above will certainly give you some fat to chew on if you can't get out and buy (or rent from the library) her books any time soon, plus the quotes in the lexicon will indicate what essay they are from, so it might help lead you to the right essays.

Edited by athena glaukopis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I really do need to get my hands on some of Rand's works.

Regardless would you mind trying your best to answer these questions for the sake of argument?

If not I completely understand, as I too w reiterate ould deem it annoying to have to my own ideas over and over again.

On the other hand I'm asking these questions from a compeltly un-biased persepctive, as your are right, I have a very limited understanding (this is me being humble :) ) of objectivism, other than what I've learned through internet sources and this forum. So perhaps it might be worth the time to debate something like this with someone like me?

I'm not trying to push anything, I just like to argue... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I really do need to get my hands on some of Rand's works.

Regardless would you mind trying your best to answer these questions for the sake of argument?

On the other hand I'm asking these questions from a compeltly un-biased persepctive, as your are right, I have a very limited understanding (this is me being humble laugh.gif ) of objectivism, other than what I've learned through internet sources and this forum.

So perhaps it might be worth the time to debate something like this with someone like me?

I'm not trying to push anything, I just like to argue... :P

Like I said earlier, without the context, the answers to your questions would be dropped into a disintegrated void. If I were to keep answering the additional questions that would spawn from my answers, I would end up having to explain Objectivism backwards, from politics to ethics to epistemology and finally backwards to metaphysics. That would take a shit-load of time for me, and would honestly have nothing to gain by doing so, especially since (like I mentioned before) all of these answers are in Rand's works, set up in a coherent manner, starting from the most basic axioms of reality and building upon it piece by piece, so by the time you get to politics, you can see why (and if) the answers are objectively true and moral.

I would keep in mind that Objectivism is a philosophical system, and politics is the second to last category of philosophy, hierarchically. So asking questions about politics without truly understanding the philosophical basis behind the political stances will not help you understand the stances, and like I said, would only force you through the philosophy backwards, which is cumbersome, disintegrated, and infinitely less effective then starting from the ground up and checking your premises every step of the way. In terms of being "un biased," there is no value in trying to explain a high-level philosophical concept to someone who is ignorant of logical progression of the concepts that make up its base and connect it to the facts of reality. It's like trying to teach calculus to someone who hasn't taken algebra, trigonometry or pre-calculus yet.

Most members of this forum will not be patient enough to answer questions that can be easily answered by reading Rand's non-fiction, so don't be surprised if you get little response or even negative responses, because honestly it's a waste of our time when the tools are already there for you to use and understand on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there has never been a society that is "capitalist," only mixed economies.

Now, I am in NO WAY advocating the validity of what I am going to say here, but isn't this the same as those who argue that the Soviet Union wasn't really communism, it was just a mixed form of it - and that's why it didn't work?

Like I said earlier, without the context, the answers to your questions would be dropped into a disintegrated void. If I were to keep answering the additional questions that would spawn from my answers, I would end up having to explain Objectivism backwards, from politics to ethics to epistemology and finally backwards to metaphysics.

I agree. At this point if you REALLY are interested in debatnig these issues, you need to read Rand before continuing. You have been getting some slack because your are new to it all, but that is going to start wearing thin very quickly with the members of this board. Read some Rand (you don't have to read ALL of it, but at least get a couple books under you) and then come back. I think you'll find that all your questions will already have been answered and you won't have anything further to debate about :P

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I am in NO WAY advocating the validity of what I am going to say here, but isn't this the same as those who argue that the Soviet Union wasn't really communism, it was just a mixed form of it - and that's why it didn't work?

No. Communism was tried. In the Communist manifesto Marx talks about transitional governments bridging between the status quo governments he knew in the late 1800's and his "withering away of the state".

Stalin and the boys were supposed to bring Russia to that level but of course human nature, (the just desire to not be equal with any idiot, moron or slacker on the planet) took over creating a hierarchical structure within the oh so egalitarian Communist Party and replacing the elitism of merit with the elitism of pull, thus exposing the flaw in the whole system.

No one has ever tried to form a government that explicitly separated business and state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I am in NO WAY advocating the validity of what I am going to say here, but isn't this the same as those who argue that the Soviet Union wasn't really communism, it was just a mixed form of it - and that's why it didn't work?

Actually I think he has a valid point. Marx isn't the only one with a say in what communism truly is. Marx was german, and Lenin was russian. Obviously they'd apply similar philosophies to different situations.

The reason communism(at least russian communism) should be considered 'mixed' is because it was used as a vehicle to further the agenda of a single man (corruption) not the philosophies agenda.

It's like if in a capitalist society one man rises to power (somehow, someway) and uses what would otherwise be advantages to all people, to his personal benefit.

Say he abuses the free market in order to fatten his wallet, or slowly absolves what military we have (which wouldn't be as noticeable under night watchman state) in order to let someone else take over.

I'm just validating his point, this is all purely hypothetical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I was thinking about just now:

How can someone create a 'monopoly?'

By buying out companies right? That's is the only way for a monopoly to exist.

BUT!

In a free market absolutely everything would be privately owned, and lack of taxes would diminish IPOs.

Not only that but even if a company were to go public, it would still be up to the shareholder's whether or not to sell you a percentage of a company.

And I know if I ever saw a company that was buying up all other competition I would make the conscious effort to keep my company from being bought by them. The only other way they could gain a monopoly is if they were to lower prices enough so that I would go out of business... which does present a problem.

But even once a monopoly has been set up, and prices have been raised, boycotts could easily take out those large companies in a matter of months.

Actually even if a large company with loads of capital could manage to lower their prices enough to run me out of business, I do believe that most people would much rather spend the extra amount of money on the small company with the higher prices and greater quality. People distrust corporate schemers, and small companies have the homey feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can someone create a 'monopoly?'

By buying out companies right? That's is the only way for a monopoly to exist.

No, it requires government intervention to prohibit competition. Examples are the post office, phone service, cable service, gas, electric, rail, medicine. Government-enforced monopolies have been eliminated or did not exist in the US because they were untenable. To understand how monopolies come about, look at actual monopolies: they need government force to prevent competition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...