The Failure of Capitalism in the West

[Bearster]

perhaps the fact that such a large percentage of the extremely rich are so as a result of their 'work' in corporations that merely sell complex financial products that take advantage of the discrepancies in value systems is a better example. I am talking about the fact that by all accounts a huge percentage of wealth is contingent on certain theoretical figures on wall street, how 'playing' the stock market and interest rates are causing a massive, and unjustified shift in wealth.

I think you first had better get your facts straight. Hollywood isn't a good place to learn about who gets wealthy or how. I am guessing that your statement is based on the (false) assumption that wealth is a static quantity, that can be mooched or looted or distributed or redistributed, but not created. Check your premises!

While arbitrage certain exists, your a priori assumption that it is "unjustified" is incorrect. Tell that to the guy who sells the arbitrager a security. If the arbitrager wasn't there, the price he would receive would be lower.

While you're at it, I'd recommend a little reading about Say's Law. The richest men are the ones who understand best how to *create* value. In the grand scheme of things, the arbitragers are not

[AutoJC]

Most Republicrats and Demoblicans have an even sloppier notion that capitalism is a system of rich people looting poor people.

An outstanding, spot-on observation!

[AutoJC]

The solution lies in companies taking more responsibilty for their products - realizing their long term effects on society, which in the end come back at them when they got a nation of senseless gorping fools trying to decide which logo will keep'em happy rather than actually trying to do something worthwhile with their lives.

Yet nowhere is this scenario more possible than in a capitalist system!

For example:

If my company were to market a product that a private testing organiztion, such as Underwriter's Laboratories, found to be unsafe, I would have the ominous choice of fighting such decision AND my company failing due to competitive pressure, OR I can right such wrong AND put out a safer, higher quality product.

Therefore, given the two scenarios of 1)my competitors putting out better products and/or 2)A third party giving me bad press due to my product being slipshod, my company is either going to take such responsibility for my products or perish in a maelstrom of bad publicity and courtroom litigation.

All of this is very possible in a capitalist system without the need for government regulation.

Charles wrote:

What would the products be like in a world where people were self-aware enough to know that gorging yourself on alcohol, fags and colesterol is not conducive to living, where people were self-respecting enough to not waste away their lives in front of a tv screen?  - That world isnt here, and the opposite is being encouraged - cos it turns a quick profit.

Charles, you are assuming that individuals are devoid of choice, operate by emotion rather than reason, and cannot think beyond their sensory level of enjoyment of life.

Just like the Government does when they regulate products the way they do.

Granted, there exist those who are content to gorge themselves on alcohol, cigarettes, and cholesterol and sit in front of television sets and whine about Oprah and the like.

But please ask yourself- what is the responsibility of the corporation towards such an individual and his chosen lifestyle?

Examples:

If in my watching TV, I get electrocuted (and survive) for watching a TV due to a defect in such TV, the TV manufacturer is at fault.

But now I decide to smoke cigarettes, knowing full well that smoking may be hazardous to my health. I can make the choice NOT to smoke.

I can also choose to make my own sandwiches rather than eat the nutrition-poor, Cholesterol rich food McDonald's sells. Or I can eat McDonalds in wsuch a manner as nOT to affect my health adversely.

Your argument is weakened by the fact that humans can make choices and take responsibility for their own welfare.

[Charles]

To make a choice you must have possibilities. To create false possibilities, or to offer something in the knowledge of its harm, and appeal to the irrational side of mans nature in order to sell it, is exploitation.

[y_feldblum]

Charles, do you consider the claim, "I couldn't help it" - ie, "nobody forced me to do anything, but I couldn't help acting on whim" -, to be valid?

[RadCap]

Charles is making generalized swipes at human actions, declaring them wrong or immoral. Yet no one is asking him for specifics (ie how someone 'slaved' because they are offered numerous choices in music etc, or how wealth is 'unjustifiably' shifted on the stock market, or through arbitrage, etc).

Someone should try to actually pin him down if you want to RATIONALLY continue the discussion with him.

[Bearster]

Exploitation. When someone accepts terms and conditions that I would not accept.

Cigaratte makers are "exploiting" their customers.

[Charles]

On the same principle a magician can trick/trap a subject into making a false choice by framing his question, or controlling his surroundings - i.e. offering false premises (these cards have been shuffled randomly) or hiding true ones (there's more than two ace of spades in this pack); it is possible for one to control consumer choice by convincing of the necessity for young skin, colored hair, to be uptodate on the latest scandal etc etc.

Now I dont argue that the weak minded arent to blamed for allowing themselves to be duped...but is it rational for a businessman to profit from lowering the awareness and rationality in the populus? Is it not in ones self interest to live in a society of intelligent people?

I hope this gives a more specific picture of what im getting at RadCap.

[AisA]

Charles:

On the same principle a magician can trick/trap a subject into making a false choice by framing his question, or controlling his surroundings - i.e. offering false premises (these cards have been shuffled randomly) or hiding true ones (there's more than two ace of spades in this pack); it is possible for one to control consumer choice by convincing of the necessity for young skin, colored hair, to be uptodate on the latest scandal etc etc.

You are equating fraud and persuasion. Misrepresenting a product's nature for purposes of making a sale is fraud. There is no such misrepresentation in the marketing of the products you mention. You may see no value in having young skin or colored hair -- and you are free not to purchase those products.

But having young skin and colored hair is of great value to millions of people around the world -- and it is totally proper to make money by creating and selling that value.

Now I dont argue that the weak minded arent to blamed for allowing themselves to be duped...but is it rational for a businessman to profit from lowering the awareness and rationality in the populus?

Only an individual's volition can raise or lower their awareness and rationality. Business has no power to do so.

[Charles]

I'd have to disagree.

[felicity]

Socialists tell me that the USSR (and even Cuba) failed not because Communism/Socialism failed but because the people did not implement Communism in its true form.

Objectivists say that Capitalism did not fail, but America failed to implement it completely.

A "mixed economy" is the continuum between Communism/Socialism at one end and Capitalism at the other end. Cleary, the old USSR is closer to socialism and America is closer to being capitalistic. Many other countries can be place at various points in this continuum.

As a rule, countries closer to the "socialism" end have done far worse of than countries near the capitalism end.

[PS: Do not want to start a completely different topic, but Sweden is often used as a counter-example by socialists.]

[AisA]

felicity:

Socialists tell me that the USSR (and even Cuba) failed not because Communism/Socialism failed but because the people did not implement Communism in its true form.

Objectivists say that Capitalism did not fail, but America failed to implement it completely.

Are you equating these two claims?

[Richard_Halley]

You (or your communists) are wrong.

At the beginning of the Soviet Union socialism was implemented beautifully. Its failure was what led to the mixed economy there.

[felicity]

At the beginning of the Soviet Union socialism was implemented beautifully. ...

I stand corrected.

I would have guessed that communism could not be practiced; that it was literally impractical.

[Scott_Connery]

I think it is fair to say that it is virtually un-doable. I also think it is fair to say that the Soviet Union implemented it about as well as it could ever be done.

[BlackSabbath]

Read 'Socialism' by Ludwig Von Mises and 'The Government against the Economy' By George Reisman to discover why Socialism, in it's many forms including Communism, is totalitarian and must fail every time.