Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, or other..which works best?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by GeniusNProgress, Nov 20, 2005.

  1. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Like.... examples?

    In one word: oil.

    Another word: Money Mart.

    Or what about TELUS?
    (bunch of bastards......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Ted Kaczynski had it right: both Capitalism and Communism are industrial society and based on mass revolt, and are inherently destructively.

    Only traditional societies are true!!!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Yeah. Lets go pick the lice off each other, have some of that leftover carabou bob killed monday, and go raid the neighboring tribe for its women.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Most monopolies have positive aspects due to efficiency, job creation, production of worthwhile goods & services, et cetera. It should be recognized that there are monopolies which are called coercive because they use predatory tactics. The latter type should be avoided, although in the absence of criminal tactics, control of a monopoly can be a cure that is worse than the disease.

    The historical record shows several types of monopolies.
    • In United States, there have been various monopolies established by government action. Examples are the Western railroads in the 19th century and various utilities established in the 20th century. The Western railroads were considered coercive by many sociologist/economists, which I think is a valid assessment of at least some of them (if not all).

    • Various companies ran factory towns and were viewed as monopolistic because they had control over their employees. Some took advantage of the workers, but did not cause problems for customers and competitors due to not being true monopolies. Continental Motors in Muskegon, Michigan was an example of such a company which treated its employees badly. The Hershey Company in Hershey, PA is an example of a very generous company who treated employees much better than most companies. Automobiles, various forms of public transportation, and better communications did away with this type of what might be called a local monopoly.

    • Local situations which occurred in small towns where political power used zoning or other laws to protect some small companies. I have only second information about such situations. For example: A small town with one drug store was once described to me. The store was owned by a family which included the mayor and chief of police. No other drug store was permitted to operate, and drugs were sold at outrageous prices. I do not know if the story was true, but it seems plausible. Once again this is not a true monopoly. Such situations (if they existed) were similarly ended by better transportation and communication.

    • Companies which have superior marketing skills, which produce excellent products, and perhaps were a bit lucky have established very good approximations to true monopolies. IBM had over 90% of the punched card business by about 1945 or 1950. They parlayed this into control of a huge segment of the mainframe computer market. Microsoft also seems to be a good approximation to a true monopoly with respect to operating systems, and are doing pretty good with other types of software, especially software development tools. Neither of thes two companies seem to me to be doing anything evil or damaging. Their employees have generally been well paid and their customers have been provided with excellent products at fair prices.

    • I have heard Standard Oil and various other companies erroneously described as monopolies. In the case of Standard Oil, it had over 90% of the petroleum business at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. However in that era, petroleum products were primarily used as heating fuels. Wood and coal had about 60% of the market. Note that there few automobiles and little industrial use of petroleum products, which today are used extensively in the plastics and other industries.
    Except for local monopolies & the Western railroads as noted above, I know of no truly coercive monopolies, and most of the monopolies that have existed have been due to government policies & laws relating to the transportation and utility industries. Monopolies like IBM & Microsoft have not caused hardships for anybody but their competitors. Furthermore, there have been few examples of such monopolies.

    Most of the hue and cry about the evil robber barons, sweat shops, terrible labor practices, et cetera are due to comparing early capitalism with modern times rather than with the feudal system it replaced.

    Yes, people worked hard for long hours and little pay during the industrial revolution. However, compare the productivity of a blacksmith of the 17th to 19th centuries with the productivity of a modern factory worker operating an upset forging machine which can produce 100 or more high grade bolts or other forged products per hour.

    If the early so called robber baron ran his company as a non profit organization, maybe he could pay his workers 55 cents per day instead of 50 cents per day. It sounds terrible when you describe this worker as laboring for 10-12 hours per day heating iron/steel in an open furnace beating metal into an open die with a hammer. When you hear that he was paid less than a dollar a day, it sounds even more outrageous. Note that he was a willing worker, not a medieval serf or slave. He was paid about what his labor was worth. Comparing him with a 20th century factory worker instead of with a feudal serf or slave results in an unfair appraisal of both the robber baron and the capitalistic system of the era.

    Find a reprint of a Sears Roebuck catalogue from about 1900. That catalogue was used by the average worker of the era. They could afford the items offered for sale. Consider the life of the factory worker at the beginning of the 20th century and compare it to the life of the serf of the middle ages. Compare it to the life of some of those more well off than the serfs.

    Remember that labor unions, regulatory laws, and various social programs were almost non-existent prior to the 20th century. Yet the industrialists and financiers of the industrial revolution made low cost products available to the average man. By the 20th century, the average man was living in luxury compared to his counterpart under the feudal system.

    I am grateful to the so called robber barons for the cars, computers, TV’s, appliances, vacations, and generally good life I have enjoyed for most of my life. If everything were left up to the best efforts of the common man, I would had lived in a cave or a primitive village for most of my short life of 30-40 years, instead of being a happy, healthy 80 year old Dinosaur lookinf forward to another 10 or more years.

    The large companies who employed me always treated me well. The products and services produced by large companies have usually been well worth what I paid for them. I do not care that entrepreneurs, CEO’s, movie stars, professional athletes, et cetera have astronomical incomes. More power to them for their good fortune and/or their abilities. I do not see them as taking from me.

    Now, I do have some derogatory things to say about politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, merger specialists, and a few other types. These people have cost me money and aggravation, not the businessmen and real financiers. This might be a fit topic for another thread.
     
  8. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    TruthSeeker: Yes I have studied a bit of economics, although I am primarily a mathematicians and computer programmer with an interest in history, physics, and various other intellectual fields as well as enjoying golf and skiing (I am a bit old for some of the other sports I enjoyed a long time ago).
    I wonder how much you really know about economics and the history of our technological civilization.

    I was never impressed with the various theories taught in economics courses. I still have a vague memory of the derivation of a demand/supply curve. There were so many simplifying assumptions made, that I could not believe it was considered a valid analysis. If we assume that all buyers and all sellers have complete knowledge of prices elsewhere; If we assume that brand name loyalty does not have any effect; If we assume that transportation costs from remote suppliers can be ignored; Et cetera.”

    Spare me the graphs and tell me about some historical examples of monopolies.
     
  9. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    None of those systems are the least bit successful.

    How to measure the success of a social system:
    True effectiveness of a social system can be measured by the system's ability to nurture the well being of the individual and the environment. The better the system is able to nurture the individual/environment, the more effective the system.
    Capitalism and communism are definitely the most worthless.
    Socialism is not that far off.
     
  10. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Strawman.

    Traditional societies can embrace technology, but they have different motivations and organization than modern societies.

    Your response was not very intelligent.
     
  11. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Don't knock it until you've tried it, softie.

    Dinosaur,
    I think IBM make a pretty good case for where monopolies fail. IBM failed to make any real innovations, despite their wealth, power and crushing market dominance, because they had no need to make innovations.

    Modern computers, their OSs, their softerware, are the mostly the products of small, enterperneurial enterprises, not monopolistic ones.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2005
  12. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Cool Skill: History indicates that a good approximation to laissez faire capitalism lasted about 150-300 years (ending some time between about 1890 & 1940), and did an excellent job of improving the life of the average man without doing much damage to the environment.

    I think the system starting getting worse due to the growth of the federal govenment and the introduction of socialist concepts. It had enough momentum to disguise the onset of problems, so it is not clear when it started to evolve into a worse system.

    A wise man once said "An empire starts to fall when it has reached its greatest height. The seeds of its fall are likely to be sown before it reached that maximum height." I think it was Asimov in his Foundation Trilogy, but he might have gotten the idea from some historian (He was a history guru as well as a scientist and author).
     
  13. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    No social system is perfect. On the other hand, if we genetically engineered ourselves into enjoying doing work for the sake of humanity

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Fuck humanity! That's the damned cause of most, if not all, of the problems in the world ....why would anyone want to save the very thing that's caused all the fuckin' problems?!

    Baron Max
     
  15. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Now that I am the capitalist US I can give some analysis of how good capitalism works:

    The main problem: nothing works because nobody cares. They smile, are friendly, but nobody really cares.

    You ask someone something in store or in some bureacratic facility and they will not know the answer. Because they don't really care. They will also always blame someone else if something goes wrong instead of finding a solution.

    The streets and buildings look like they going to crumble any second. It's not a miracle that hurricanes blow away entire cities. Build quality is something exotic.

    Supermarkets are stocked with overpriced items. People happily pay too much apparently.

    Typical consumer items such as electronics, cars etc are cheap.

    People are afraid to enjoy life. They rather buy stuff.

    Poverty is abundant even in a city once marked as being in the top 20 of cities to live in and raise a family. People just look away at that fact. Think it is normal (it isn't), or blame the poor people.

    Public transport is non-existant or poor.

    Crime is abundant. After all everybody is taught to consume no matter what cost.


    I could go on for a while. The main conclusion is that maybe a capitalist society works on some level, but it is an ugly selfish society. It's ugly to the core. From my viewpoint it is difficult to see how people can be so adament in it's defense of it. Usually there is only one conclusion. The brainwashing that is abundant in such a society seems to function quite nicely.

    end rant.
     
  16. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Big government is one thing. The lack of understanding of technology is another.
    Capitalism creates false demand and supply.
    It's a waste of time, resources, and effort.
    Technology does not steal people's jobs. It does the jobs for them.
    Therefore, we can move on to better things.
    Capitalism does not allow this. It is a limitation.
    Big governtment is not the only problem.
    Big business is also a problem. Too few people with too much power.
     
  17. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Sorry if you've written this somewhere else on the forums, but where did you live before the US and what economic system did they use there?

    I've always wondered about that! I suppose the view that automation is bad is logical from a capitalist perspective, but it seems so stupid.
     
  18. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    What are you talking about when you say 'capitalism does not allow this'? Capitalism, by its very definion, can not ban anything. A company if free to try anything and almost cetatainly will try anything that has a hope in hell of earning it a penny more in profit.

    The competition brought about by the capitalistic system, if anything, greatly encourages innovation and improvement. Lets say I make computer chips and so does another company over in New Jersey selling for the same price. They find some way to streamline their assembly line in a way that saves them 18% in costs and they choose to undercut my product by 10%. I now have to improve my assembly line so I can compete with them and drop my prices to meet theirs.

    Now we have two companies again producing their microchips for the same price, now lowered 10%, with greatly improved factories and still making a greater profit than they were previously. They will of course invest a fraction of their profits in research and development so they can pull their company ahead of the other with the next great innovation.

    Now, with a communist government for example, the government allows no competition. You produce you quota of microchips, get paid you salary, and go home. There is no point in your doing your job any harder or better than you were because you well know that things will be the same tomorrow. In a communistic society, you can't really be fired and your 'company' can only go out of business if the entire damn government collapses first.

    Technology is not seen as bad in a capitalist setting. The theory is that when you improve the technology to the point it can do the job a person once did, other jobs will crop up because of it. All that money has to be spent somewhere and when it is you can be damn sure a human is going to be doing the job. Communists and socialists are actually the ones who have more of a problem with technology. Their system demands that every person be employed; prefferably at what they are best at. Their solution to the industrial revolution would have been to bankroll cottage industry looms even if they had to drag the cloth away to be burned.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2005
  19. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Finland and the Netherlands. The Netherlands have some similarities with the USA. Very trade orientated of course, lots of bureacracy. But that is about it. Cheap supermarkets. Good infrastructure. Well organized country in many ways. Shame about the bureacracy sometimes.

    Finland is quite different. Still very much a true social wellfare state. Ironically, no bureacracy worth mentioning. No poverty worth mentioning. Ironically supermarket prices are about the same as in the USA (and finland is one of the most expensive countries in the world. People actually know what they are talking about. Try to solve problems. Care about what happens to other people, although they might not greet you with a cheery standard smile on their face, or not even greet you at all. Free healthcare (virtually free), free schooling, free daycare, equality - for example, speeding tickets that are dependent on your income (so rich people get hurt in the wallet too by speeding). That kind of stuff. It's quite a big contrast.

    For the average person a system present in for instance finland is much better. Maybe I shouldn't even say average person. For MOST people the Finnish system is better. Obviously rich people are demigods in the US. In finland they are just mostly just people who pay more tax.
     
  20. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Spuriousmonkey: thanks.

    That applies to all bureaucracies. The moment someone is being paid for the time they work instead of the results they produce, they can play solitaire half the day so long as they produce sufficiently mediocre results to keep themselves from being fired. If there's nepotism involved, even mediocre becomes too good.
     
  21. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    But with capitalism, a slacking employee will find himself out on his ass the next time the company needs to trim some fat. When you can only keep one, are you going to keep the one who does a merely adequate job or the genius who is doing his job brilliantly? On top of that, hard working employees have the opportunity to get a promotion while a slacker may be stuck shuffling papers until the day he dies.
     
  22. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Assuming your brilliant, hard working genius exists, yes. But I think there's a story that when chased by a lion, you don't have to run faster than the lion, only faster than your companion. Wouldn't the hard worker only work slightly harder than the person below him? If everyone's mediocre, they can't fire all of them...
     
  23. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Zephyr, your posts indicate that you have little or no experience in world of real competition and business. All of your posts seem on the idealisms of the issues, not the realities.

    Can't fire 'em all? Sure you can, what the hell's stopping you? But more to the point, you can begin weeding out the mediocre until the others begin to see that mediocre is NOT the way to keep bringing home a paycheck!

    Baron Max
     

Share This Page