Does capitalism work?

In the prediction department, economic theories are much like Nostradamus' predictions. They turn out to be true the very next day after crisis commenced. Is there theory of capitalism? Why only one capitalism? There are various modifications. Swedish, American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese capitalisms are all described by the same equation?

Capitalist wants to see HARD CASH (or metal) in his stash. He doesn't give sh*t about trade, tariffs, barriers, second coming, production, quality, consumer, etc. per se.

(national) Capitalists love tariffs protecting their turf against "free trade" and hate those things on the other side. In the past, poor and weak territories were coerced under barrel of a gun to open themselves to the one sided free trade goodness. While Imperial Metropolies were more or less protected against it. WWI, WWII, American Civil war were to a great extent about who is gonna to open/control which markets. Would be those wars possible, if capitalists worldwide were indeed in love with the universal free trade? I don't think so. Free trade automatically precludes any chance of the independent development of the economically/etc. weaker side. Only as satellites on mercy terms. Obviously, would be local capitalists don't like it.

We live in the age of transnational capitalists having little or no national allegiance. Capitalist wants to sell high, to buy low, to pay little in salaries, taxes, regulation compliance; You see, selling high and buying low is greatly facilitated, if global economy is GROSSLY nonuniform. Do you think those b*tches would be able to make 1000% profit on a shirt under uniform distribution of income round the globe? Certainly, trans-national capitalists want "free trade"="cheap labor, etc." At the same time, they want huge income divide to remain and they are doing rather excellent job on that. Poverty rate is growing faster than population in the globalized world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suggest everyone re-read Fraggle Rocker's posts.
People seem to have totally skimmed over the only competent posts in the entire thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As far as I know, yes. They are all described by the same theory. Economists suck at prediction because there are so many different variables that it's difficult to pin down a cause for something experimentally, not because the theories are wrong.

So you see no connection between trade, tariffs, barriers, second coming, production, quality, consumer, etc. and said HARD CASH?

until the tariffs get in the way of affordable capital. A business owner doesn't want to pay a premium on something he needs to run his business just because it isn't offered domestically.

Who said anything about uniform anything? International trade isn't just about labor. Any country that has a production advantage in one area and a disadvantage in another is a possible trading partner. Labor is one of those areas where impoverished places tend to hold such an advantage. You don't want governmental interference if you're a capitalist because they hike up the prices on imports, and that can include labor. Trade restrictions are more beneficial to workers than entrepreneurs. They mean job stability, which is important to someone who doesn't want to retrain or face age discrimination in the job market.

The two goals are concurrent, and I don't doubt for a second that poverty per capita is growing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have a PhD in biology. Numerous articles. Two chapters in different books on stem cells.

I think my knowledge of biological systems exceeds BY FAR what you picked up in your BS in biology. This is obvious because you weren't able to grasp a single point of my post. Your amateur notion of competition has nothing to do with biological reality. And despite that I offer you insight you choose to grasp at your beliefs. That's fine by me, but do not claim authority here.

When I say I talked to an ecologist I mean I talked to a professional to confirm the notions I had gathered as a biologist. All biologists are specialists. I am an Evo-devo guy (evolutionary developmental biology). Although I never specialized in ecology I got the basics during my MSc (something you never enjoyed during your short BS) and subsquent reading. Especially since nowadays the newest and hottest discipline in developmental biology is based on ecological aspects. That brings me in contact with ecology papers. But it is always best to talk to someone in the know. A real ecologist.

Of course, I am used to the fact that you give priority to your own shallow insights in whatever field you think you are an expert in.

In reality I already pointed out the gross mistake you make in thinking the idea that competition for humans is natural.

You fail to see that the notion that during evolution members of a species are in competition has nothing to do with members of species being competitive in social interactions on the level of daily life. This is what happens when amateurs think biology is easy. They fail to see that biology operates on many levels, and the principles of one level aren't automatically translated to the next.

If you look at what is natural for the human individial on a behavioural level then the conclusion is cooperation.

But you ignore that. You rather swim in your own sea of platitudes.

 

Yes, capitalism works. Most forms of economy work as long as the nation where they are instated supports it. Feudal economy worked, as long as the serfs could be controlled.

 

WRONG
A VALIDITY OF A POINT IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING THE POINT. THE PERSON MAKING THE POINT CAN BE A SUPERGENIUS. THE PERSON CAN BE A MONKEY IN THE TREE. IT HAS NO EFFECT ON WHETHER OR NOT A POINT IS VALID OR INVALID.

STUPID PEOPLE: Do illogical things such as take into consideration the person making a statement rather than consider the statement alone without bias. They have no sense of focus when it comes to the validity of the point. All they do is make circular arguments based on the status of individuals in the discussion. Such braindead thinking is illogical, and is never ever ever ever seen in a productive discussion.

 

Both arguments can be refuted because they are based on fallacy.
He cannot sit there and say "I am an authority on X" Therefore, if I make X statement, it is true.
This is fallacy and illogical.
At the same time, you arguing back with him with the same illogical reasoning that you are a biologist makes for an irrelevant unproductive discussion.

 

You are clearly an idiot talking at your ass with no answers.
Go get a life. Your argument is trash.

You people are so obscenely infantile.
Who's knowledge exceeds who's is only one thing. ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The knowledge of the person making a point has NOTHING to do with the validity of the point. People who don't know this, have no understanding of logic.

Person-A claims to be an expert.
Person-A makes point X.
Therefore, X is true.

Person-B has no claim of expertise.
Person-B makes point Y.
Therefore, Y is false.

Such illogical arguments get nowhere, and can never ever ever ever ever prove anything. They simply go in circles. Retards that use these arguments are no different from dogs chasing their tail.
ILLOGICAL MORONS MAKE CIRCULAR FALSE ARGUMENTS BASED ON THEIR LACK OF A BRAIN.

 

I know that cool skill.

It's just funny how he assumed he could use the authority argument. He didn't come up with scientific references that supported his political notion that competition and capitalism are natural. Instead we all have to accept this based on good faith or his BS in biology.

We don't of course. I've given before a logical argument supported by biological knowledge that shows competition is not the standard modi operandi in the social societies of the animal kingdom. So far nobody has even bothered to back up the ludicrous claim that capitalism is natural by any scientific theories or data.

Hence we can assume it is all bullshit. Capitalism is not natural, other than in the sense that it is designed to manipulate power using human psychology. The same is true for communism though, or any political system that has worked.

 

pathetic... you prove my point.. my uncool, without any skills.


hahahaha... im done.

-MT

 

No, no - it's not that your point isn't valid because you don't know what you're talking about. It's that you don't know what you're talking about because you're wrong. See? That makes much more sense.

I just know I'm wasting my time here, but I'll show you anyway.

Read up on your own posts. Do you see where you use words like "dysfunctional?" Well, you never actually tell us what economic dysfunction is. You just throw around the term like everybody's supposed to know what it entails.

You do the same thing for "desperation." Despair is an emotion. How do you quantify this? How does it relate to other quantities? What does it affect, and what affects it? Why is this quantity so important to capitalism? How can an economy use desperation to achieve its goals? You never tell us.

What are the static rules of capitalism that should be changed? How should they be changed, and why would such changes be helpful? What does "helpful" entail?

What is the goal of capitalism? Unfortunately, this one is trivia, and your entire premise depends on it. Capitalism doesn't have an actual "goal," per se. When you practice capitalism, you are making your own decisions based on theories that tell us "if you do this, then this will happen." You manipulate the data until you get the result that you want, and the desired result is up to you individually. Economists spend a lot of time telling us which decisions will "optimize" the economy, maximizing consumption and production. That's because that's what most businessmen are interested in, because that makes them the most money. Nowhere does the economic theory say that you have to do this. In my opinion, humanitarian considerations should be encouraged, not ignored because they lower efficiency. Not all wealth is material. But people disagree with me, and they would still disagree in a different economic system that keeps the resources flowing in a different way. The goal of the economy is an issue of culture, not science. (Did physics tell us to build the atom bomb, or did someone decide it was a good idea after learning it was possible? Was the decision made because it was "scientifically sound" or because of the warlike nature of humanity?)

We're speaking of economics here. Until any of the ideas you're trying to push are actually developed, what meaning can the words you use have? You're not actually saying anything -- and that's why you neither know what you're talking about (or at least have much difficulty articulating your ideas) nor have a valid point. If Einstein had simply published a single sheet of paper with a big E=MC^2 on it, who would have believed him or even known what he was talking about? And maybe that's it - maybe you do know what you're talking about, but I don't. In that case, would you care to explain it to me?

A lot of emotion comes through in your writing. You obviously attach strong feelings to this topic. I can understand that. The state of humanity in many areas is becoming more dismal every day. However, this is no justification for persecuting economics like it's some force of evil, and assigning morality to the science only hurts your ability to see the issue clearly. It's like a fundamentalist Christian outright rejecting evolution because it appears to contradict the Bible - this person will obviously never understand how evolution works even in principle, or why it is useful to know. Economics is a lot like biology. It is a science based on observations of the real world. You can use it to build atom bombs, or you can use it to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. It is a decision left up to the people, not the freaking economic theory.

FINALLY, YOU USE A LOT OF CAPS. PLEASE STOP IT. EITHER YOU'RE YELLING OR YOU THINK THE BIGGER LETTERS WILL BE EASIER TO READ FOR US DUMMIES. THAT'S NEITHER COOL NOR SKILLFUL!

I hope this was a little better than my previous half-assed contributions.

 

Would it be safe to say that several larger groups of people are more likely to compete because their social involvement with one another is considerably less than a small group of individuals?

 

Competition is costly in nature. If possible competition will be avoided.

 

Spuriousmonkey, you're being led on a wild goose chase, against your better judgement. You've already said that comparisons with nature are facile, so don't get bogged down in that. Social philosophers down the ages have debated whether man is naturally competitive or co-operative, without resolution, so how Sciforumers have managed to resolve this time-honoured mystery is beyond my understanding.

The fact is that capitalism works better for you the higher up the greasy pole you are. How many of it's staunch backers here have received emails inviting you to join in get-rich-quick pyramid schemes? How many of you delete them without a second thought?

The fact is that that these schemes work as well as capitalism does - for the scheme initiators. But come to the party too late, starting with nothing, and that's what you get - nothing. How long do the people at the bottom - generations upon generations of the poor - have to wait to experience some of that yummy trickle-down effect?

 

Competition is indeed costly in nature... but equally necessary.
If creatures are not required to fight tooth and claw for the chance to live and breed, they will inevitably degenerate. Look at carp that have been in captivity a few too many generations, assuming man didn't try out any selective breeding. What you get are squat and ungainly goldfish who can just manage to eat and occasionally lay some eggs. A far cry from the sleek creatures their ancestors were.

One line of thought holds that something similar will occur to all complex systems if nothing is weeding out the nonfunctional or weak elements. Red tape and empire building is heaped up until either part or the whole of the system collapses. With capitalism, natural culling functions are allowed to occur and, while there are still collapses, they are generally not large enough to destabilize the entire system. Socialist or communistic systems just throw more money and resources onto the pile to keep sick and fat organizations working until they collapse under their own weight in one massive blast.

 

Shall I bow before you? Your previous statement still sounded assinine, "I talked to an ecologist, so I know all about this stuff..."

Despite your expertise in stem cells and/or Evo-devo, your thoughts on competition are ridiculous.

Do humans cooperate? Sure, when they percieve it's to their benefit and it is perfectly natural. But they compete just as often and often try to compete while appearing to cooperate to get the best of both worlds.

PS I also have a doctorate, I didn't think I needed to post my entire CV.

 

Uh huh...

You don't say...

Sounds like your typical self-satisfied CEO.

Are we still on the subject of goldfish or are you actually talking about people's lives now? That's some chilling terminology you've picked there - you'll make a fine fascist dictator one day.

What, like this? Modern socialist democracies have learned from the mistakes of the past. Redisributive taxation is the way to go. If the idea of that frightens you then you've probably got far more money than you could possibly need.

 

Give us some theory that supports your claim. That's the only thing I asked for. Instead you keep going for personal attacks and stick to platitudes.


Support your position that competition and capitalism is natural. Scientifically or logically. Nobody is interested in what you believe. Would one paragraph describing your hypothesis and logical proof be too much to ask for?

 

Let me give you an example. If I can do it with my doctorate, I am sure you can do the same. I will take more than 1 paragraph. Because I care.

My hypothesis:

Human interaction/behaviour is mostly based on cooperation in small family units and the larger tribe unit. As with all social primates the center of life is the social group. It enlarges the individual's fitness. This is all very well documented and supported by theory in the field of biology. The irony of it all is of course that on an evolutionary level unrelated individuals are in competiton with each other. But this is just on paper. No animal is driven by instinct to compete. Competition is costly. Competition means taking risks and wasting energy. In real life animals are driven by a set of 'instincts' that will lead in some cases to competitive advantage.

These instincts are for instance hunger, reproductive urges, thirst, fear. Nobody is trying to eat the grass of their neighbour. A herd of wildebeests migrate through the grass planes and nobody is competing with each other. Nobody is trying to eat their neighbours grass. There is plenty of grass. No animal is thinking that it is good to compete with his neighbour. Animals just do their thing, which on a different level, the evolutionary level, leads to competitive advantages for some. You can similulate these factors on a computer. You can determine which trait is more beneficial.

And here we come across a crucial insight. A trait can be labeled more beneficial. It gives a competitive edge. But nothing a neighbouring wildebeest does is driven by the urge to compete. He does what he does. And if he doesn't have a particular trait that gives him an edge he isn't competitive on an evolutionary level. This difference in biological level is difficult to understand for our capitalist friends. They claim nature is about competition and hence human society should be. Nothing is further from the truth.

Now let us examine real life. Who is indeed more competitive in human society? Is it the rich who have the competitive edge on a capitalist level? No. They have on average less children than the poor. It's natural to be poor then? No, it just shows you cannot transplant the theory of one specific level of biology to another without ending up with nonsense.

And that is what our capitalist friends go wrong. I tried to explain it over and over, but nobody comes with an argument, just a repition of their beliefs.

And that is what puts them on the same level as creationists. Creationists use a falsified idea of science to propagate religious beliefs. And here we see capitalists using a falsified idea of science to propagate political beliefs.

Of course it looks better (to them) on paper to have your beliefs supported by a scientific notion. But in this case it clearly just shows fanatacism.

Does this mean that capitalism does not work? No. Nothing in this discussion says this. I merely point out that the argument used, capitalism is natural, is false.

It would be better to stick to economical arguments. And social ones. And humanitarian ones.

 

And what is that theory if not secret? Marx's capital? Russian state-mafia medley of capitalism with rudements of the late socialist economy is described by the same misterious theory as Japanese corporatism? I greatly doubt that. Devil is in details.

What's so dificult about measuring any magic parameter theorists will come up with? How many "causes" to pin down do theorists need? The percentage of middleclass people wiping their asses with double ply toilet paper may hold the future of the industrialized civilizations? Just a suggestion.

I do see connection between lower quality and freer trade, do you?
I repeat, capitalists are in business of making profit margin as large as possible. Things on the list may or may NOT improve profit margins. The production itself may become in a way of the larger profit margins

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. That's why, novadays, bulk of the "wealth" is created by means of financial speculations. No need for money - stuff - money sequence. Stupid Marx. Money can make money directly.

Usually, tariffs were correlated with domestic availability. Secondly, capitalists are not identical clones, they have different intere$t$. Some of them would be benefited by higher tariffs on item X, the others by lower one. There was constant scrabble about it.

However, you live in the soon to be deindustrialized country. Most of the stuff is made elsewhere. Naturally, if everything is made elsewhere, and there is neither will nor desire to create something locally, tariffs are in the way of the Wal-Mart style businesses.

The rumors about "comparative advantage" are greatly exaggerated to serve as crack troops in a corporate pro globalization propaganda war. As a matter of fact, there are not that many products enjoying permanent comparative advantage. Banana, oranges, rubber, oil... mostly foodstuff and mineral resources. Every other "comparative advantage" is largerly an artificially created/imaginary/ and volatile concept. What does Germany make that USA can't make equally efficiently?

As I said, capitalists want to buy low, and sell high. What is buying low for one capitalist is also selling low for another. Thus, conflict of interests arises. Government, could be really handy to settle such conflicts using all means necessary (including World Wars, etc.)

High tariffs do NOT mean "job stability" for workers, they just mean higher profit margins for a local manufacturer and lower ones for a local, wholesalers, retailer, distributor. Manufacturer still can install an automated line or move a plant to the deep South. However, those days are long time gone.

Today, a manufacturer can move plants abroad and "import" goods back. All what is left inside are domestic services, which have zero value on the international market. However, miraculuously, Western countries manage to trade "domestic" services of majority of population for the real, physical goods brought from abroad. It's an economy of absurd.