Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 10:21am:


how illiterate are you ill say it again.

We are not seeing capitalism failing we are see the corruption of a system, as i said before thanks to socialist policy, for example the central bank system which interferes with the interest rate, usually suppressing it below where the market would have it by allowing banks of deposit to lend new money into existence, which leads to bad investment decision which as we have seen led to the GFC....no central bank system no GFC.
[/quote]

300 years of success until people like you wanted to introduce socialist policy and from that point on we have been in a decline. Central bank system which interferes with the interest rate, usually suppressing it below where the market would have it by allowing banks of deposit to lend new money into existence, which leads to bad investment decision, that's not capitalism that's socialism..

And now the government intervening makes problem worse your blaming capitalism not the very things thats causing the problem (for example, Central bank system) ...how uneducation are you, the working class are lest suppressed under capitalism than under socialism who are that the complete mercy of the all GOD like state.

|dev|null wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 10:36am:


If there are no jobs get a union involved or leave and be unemployed. If its not right making the worker work overtime with no pay why is it ok to force a employer to pay for overtime he either doesn't have the money for or unwilling to pay for. If its that outrages no one will accept the job with them and they lose, going bankrupt.

And of cause exploitation is counter-productive no one would disagree that that, some employers are bastards other don't have the money or saving up for an expansion or saving for a rainy day (you would have to ask them )and want you to worker over time with no pay, is it right no, that's why the employee can say no to these unfair requests.

If you business isn't profitable enough without making unfair demands on your employees, perhaps you should think of getting out of the business?

Thats the key, in the past business that isn't profitable enough to pay for overtime to save themselves would go bankrupt or sell out.

Pantheon wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 10:51am:


Unions are having their powers steadily eroded by Governments whom are complicit with the Employers.   As for unemployment, have you tried it?  Workers are heavily penalised if they leave employment without what is considered a "good reason" by Centrelink.

Quote:


Perhaps because workers aren't meant to be exploited in a just and fair society?   The social contract is that if you work, you should be paid fairly for your labour.

Quote:


And then be sacked.  Is that fair as well?  Unfair Dismissal has been largely removed as means of complaint against a sacking.  Looks to me like the worker is being squeezed by everybody over everything.

Quote:


They still do.   The problem is the workers yet again end up being shafted with their entitlements being often lost because the system believers shareholders' rights take priority over workers' rights. 

Setanta wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 11:08pm:


You're right about tribes catching food and sharing it isn't "free trade", though it is voluntary interaction. A free society isn't restrictive, if people want to share in a community, or in a family/tribe that's great and due to the Non-aggression principle no one morally will stop you. It is obvious to me that sharing on a family/community level in the way you describe it is most desireable and a lot of people do realize this hence charity (before the welfare state) mutual aid groups etc etc.

The trade part comes in when you look at it tribe to tribe and on a broader societal view. This is where I would say trade between individuals and between tribes/cultures/societies/towns etc is most desirable, because voluntary interaction for mutually perceived benefit (ie Trade/Free market) is a win-win and allows scarce resources to be spread around using the price mechanism to where they are needed and wanted most. It is through this trade that a society becomes truly prosperous.

Socialists have the ultimate goal of equality whilst a capitalist has the ultimate goal of prosperity. I'll give you an example of why it's desirable, (using money just for the sake of example I know socialism wants to abolish it) Man A earns $50 and man B earns $60, let's say the poverty level is $55, so according to socialist logic this wage equality is more desirable then if A were to start a business and have B work for him, and B would raise to $100 wage and A would sky rocket from $50 out of poverty to $200 dollars. They are significantly less equal, A and B interacted voluntarily as B was above poverty and so wasn't forced into it to survive, but now they are both out of poverty and largely prosperous. To say this is immoral and undesirable is to miss the point of voluntary trade altogether!

athos wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:08am:


I would challenge you and any of you socialist to PROVE how voluntary interaction for mutually perceived benefit is "immoral" because the logical conclusion is always that it isn't.

As a precursor to the common misconceptions and straw men thrown out:

- Capitalism is rule of the corporations!
No capitalism empowers each individual to lead their own destiny as they see fit, whether it be through co operation or self sufficiency it's not up to me. Corporations lobby for more government controls not less for a reason, they fear; competition in the free market, they fear losing limited liability, they fear unregulated markets that allow small business to compete, they fear their state given monopolies and subsidies being taken away. Without a state a corporation becomes a business that is answerable to it's customers, every dollar spent is a vote for or against a business and if it doesn't please it doesn't survive.

- Socialists continually advocate "just price" doctrine and "labor theory of value:

Just price:
"It holds that there is a God-given or intrinsic price of a good, regardless of people's wants, needs, and desires, or supply and demand. "

Refuting just price is a simple as realizing that value is subjective, if you don't agree that it is subjective I'd love to hear a refutation  . It depends on each person and his or her particular situation and values. In the desert, one may prefer a cup of water to a diamond. If you go to buy a car the price tag might be what you think it's worth. The owner may think it's worth a few $1000 less and is therefore able to make a profit he values it less than your money in other words. You might call up a friend who is a mechanic and they might say it's worth less, another mechanic might say it's worth more, that it's a bargain and you should buy it and sell it for more! Either way you can't escape the subjectivity of value. Even a shopping center which is non-negotiable with it's prices is still subjective. People set that price through their own opinions and buyers vote with their wallet whether they view that price as fair or not. If strawberries go up to $5 a punnet, you don't have to buy it, if enough don't the price will be lowered!(subjective!)

Labor theory of value:
"The labor theory of value (LTV) is the cost-price doctrine which holds that all value springs from labor."

It fails to take into account the subjectivity of value and it fails to take into account other forms of production other than labour. A good example I've come across: No matter how much time you spend producing mud-pies, they are still worthless if no one wants them; A fresh bottle of wine gains value simply by aging only the initial labour is required and is the same for every bottle of wine. By using the LTV you are basically saying that people can't decide the worth of something themselves on any other factor than labour, which can only be consistent if kept through force, as good luck trying to "re educate" people to not value things subjectively.

- Wage slavery and exploitation!

"An ''exploitation theory'' is any theory which purports to justify the claim that one "class" exploits another. In socialist theory, the claim is that a capitalist class exploits a proletarian class. Most exploitation theories are based on the antiquated LTV notion described above. Other socialists realize the weakness of this argument, and base their exploitation theory on unequal negotiating positions. "

Wage slavery argument fails to take into account that free trade/voluntarism is exactly that voluntary, there is nothing immoral about voluntarism. What most would say is that people have no choice but to enter into exploitive contracts with employers, however in a free society you have options, McDonalds is not holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy Big Macs or work for them for abysmal wages. You can choose to work for yourself, work for someone else, not to work at all if you can sustain yourself any other way. The common misrepresentation is using examples of today and calling it an argument against a free society, without corporations and without an overarching state.

Socialists also fail to realize that scarcity is a fact of nature and it is considered "rivalrouss".

Socialists claim to be able to do away with currency, yet Hayek has spent an entire professional lifetime destroying this argument. A society NEEDS the information of supply/demand/wants/needs etc that comes from the price mechanism! No central authority can possibly obtain the information of billions of transactions, peoples subjective values, peoples individual/collective circumstances and on and on. (they have tried over and over) So far there is no viable alternative to money/price mechanism and there is no viable alternative to money representing; labour/time/energy/resources/subjective value that it does. THIS is why socialism fails most.

I won't get into "property is theft" just yet as I think it's the biggest gripe "true anarchists" (read socialists because their 1 priority is removal of capitalism)

Hayek on socialism: (hard to understand captions available CC button)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 12:23pm:


If the argument is so concrete then would you kindly provide and example of this concept of immorality and self destructive elements inherent in free market capitalism?

Remember you can't use a current example of corporatism/statism to argue against a society without corporations and states. So please stick to that framework of a free voluntary society built on voluntary trade with mutually perceived benefit.

Cheers, chimp.

I would suggest, there is what YOU may think of the Theory of Capitalism and then there is Reality.

In any event, Reality dictates that everything has LIMITS and this contradicts what many think can & should be done, both in Political & straight Economic terms! 

For example, it is apparent that YOU, many Capitalists & many on both the Right & Left of Politics, think that the Local (OZ) & the Global Economy, can & will, return to the sort of Economic Growth seen in the last half of last century & that we can continue that situation for quite some time, perhaps hundreds of years.

In fact, whatever Economic system has been in play in countries around the world, the Growth seen over much of the last 200 years or so, has been historically high and all Political/Economic systems are now virtually hard wired that Growth is an absolute must and everything is directed towards that, including Money, Credit, Debt & Production.

That said, the major Global Economic Drivers, over the last 200 years or so, have not actually related so much towards the type/s of Political &or Economic systems.

The major Global Economic Drivers have actually been -
1) Demographics - In so far as the Global Population has gone from 1 Billion in 1800, to currently be around 7 Billion and this has created the Demand backstop, which has meant that virtually no matter what else happened Demand & Growth would always return, as the Global Population continued to expand!
2) Energy - Fossil Fuels, mainly Oil & Coal, have provided one the Productivity back-ups to Demographics, as tremendous reserves has been identified, accessed & used up, with a resultant massive spike in Energy Supply, at very low Prices, until shortages started to impact the system in the late 1990's and since then Energy Prices have spiked enormously & Productivity Growth has slowed.
3) Technology - has also provided one the Productivity back-ups to Demographics, with massive advancements in many areas, But Technology has not yet replaced the 2 greatest Economic Drivers, those being Population Growth & Energy Supply Growth.

So, it is not now that any particular Political or Economic system is that much better or worse, it is not that the respective Political &/or Economic systems are pushing failure closer, it is that the major Economic Drivers of the last 200 years or so, are now leveling off, before going into reverse.

The facts are, that no matter which Political or Economic system we have, it will not make more Energy & throwing more or even unlimited Capital at Energy Supply, it will not reverse the trend that Energy Prices will continue to rise and that Energy Supply will continue to Decline.
So, contrary to the belief of many, throwing money at the Energy Supply & Pricing issues, will not solve them!

Finally, as Energy is going into Decline, so to is the Global Population, with a "natural" leveling now taking place, as the Baby Boomers first retire, then die, over the next 20-30 years. In addition to the Boomers, Food Production & Fresh Water issues, relevant to Energy & Climate, will mean the planet can no longer sustain 7-8 Billion people and the Global Population will then go into actual Decline, thus causing Economic collapse.

So, we need BIG changes & we need them quickly!