Capitalism is working out so well...

File: 8 KB, 253x199, 1293722112646.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:01:07 2011 No.3460047 [Reply] [Original]

Capitalism is working out so well...

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:03:07 2011 No.3460052 Better than everything else we've tried. Sure, we need reforms. But throwing out "capitalism" entirely isn't justified. Money and trade are the baby you don't want to throw out with the bathwater.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:03:07 2011 No.3460054 US debt has nothing to do about capitalism. captcha: solution hernts

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:05:07 2011 No.3460061 >>3460052 sure it is....

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:05:07 2011 No.3460063 Capitalism isn't a problem, the problem is people abusing it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:06:07 2011 No.3460066 >>3460061 lol u troll us

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:12:07 2011 No.3460081 File: 21 KB, 379x480, gordon-gekko.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3460063 Bingo

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:16:07 2011 No.3460101 >>3460063 That's why it's a flawed system.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:17:07 2011 No.3460105 >capitalism >America Laughingwhores.jpg

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:18:07 2011 No.3460109 File: 134 KB, 500x1000, 1297102400645.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:20:07 2011 No.3460117 >>3460101 Sure. But the other systems I'm aware of are even more flawed, for the same reason. There are sociopathic assholes - the question is which system will tolerate them best, or even better, find a way to make them produce a net social benefit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:21:07 2011 No.3460119 >>3460117 In which way they are more flawed than capitalism?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:22:07 2011 No.3460127 >better than everything else we've ever tried >or will ever try >because yer capitlism erry thing else is kommunism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:23:07 2011 No.3460131 >>3460119 They aren't capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:23:07 2011 No.3460132 >>3460101 There is no perfect system that we know of. Saying "something is imperfect" and be right about it still isn't productive at all.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:23:07 2011 No.3460133

>>3460119
Take communism. Love, brotherhood, equality, glorious future, yadda yadda. The truth is that you almost instantly get a sociopath into a position of supreme power. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

And other systems which employ central planning instead of markets have not done well either. Humans aren't good at central planning. Markets can be abused, sure, but everything else I'm aware of is even more prone to abuse.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:24:07 2011 No.3460137 My opinion > your opinion. /sci/ logic

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:25:07 2011 No.3460141

>>3460127
Suggest something productive.

Go ahead, try it. Personally I favor social democracy - basically welfare capitalism. Universal healthcare and education, good unemployment benefits, wealth disparities managed by progressive taxes, and a market economy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:25:07 2011 No.3460142 >>3460133 Where is your argument?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:25:07 2011 No.3460146

>>3460133
Not if you have no man in power and a stateless organization. There's no corruption if the system cannot be corrupted.
Also, as decades go by, humans will understand that the best way of organize production and distribution is central planning and force equity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:27:07 2011 No.3460150 >>3460142 Every system we have tried has been worse than the current one, largely because the sociopaths get more opportunity for power and abuse. However, the US is hardly the right model. Scandinavian countries have a better system, IMO.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:28:07 2011 No.3460154 >>3460146 Describe such a system that is not immediately unstable. We've already tried this with communism, many times. Just saying there's no state and no leaders doesn't make it happen.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:28:07 2011 No.3460157 >>3460146 >as decades go by, humans will understand that the best way of organize production and distribution is central planning Citation fucking needed, because the history suggests quite the opposite.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:29:07 2011 No.3460160 >>3460150 US is shit tier model. As we can , now cleraly, see.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:29:07 2011 No.3460161 >>3460150 >Every system we have tried has been worse than the current one, largely because the sociopaths get more opportunity for power and abuse. What unit did you use to measure how "worse" those systems were than capitalism?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:29:07 2011 No.3460168 A resource based economy is the natural way to go.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:30:07 2011 No.3460171 >>3460157 One could argue that what makes humanity evolve is trial and error

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:31:07 2011 No.3460175 >>3460161 Near-universal poverty and mass murder by the state come to mind. As in the USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. And I'm not advocating laissez-faire capitalism. That's not a good idea either.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:31:07 2011 No.3460176 >>3460141 >market It can't handle automation, our capabilities to automate the work force necessary for society to function will continue to increase. Holding this capability back so the market can remain intact is neo-luddism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:32:07 2011 No.3460180 >>3460171 And by that process, communism is a far worse option than representative democracy with markets. We might need to expand our socialization more, however (education, health care, unemployment, etc).

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:32:07 2011 No.3460181

>>3460154
A computarized central device that keeps the resources and distribute them equally between all humans, that could be solve with a public algorithm that determines who gets what, being public means that anyone attempting to change it will be notice by millions of people looking at the algorithm in that very instant, thus making corruption impossible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:32:07 2011 No.3460184 >>3460175 [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:32:07 2011 No.3460186 >>3460157 What history? When has humanity had a pure comunist system (with no private property AT ALL)?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:33:07 2011 No.3460191

>>3460176
Except again you're denying reality. Automation has increased the furthest and fastest in market economies.

And if there emerges a problem with a shrinking job market, we just increase socialization some. Better unemployment benefits, or maybe even a universal stipend regardless of employment. But you don't throw out markets.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:34:07 2011 No.3460192 >>3460154 >Describe such a system that is not immediately unstable. You're aware that capitalism is in a constant state of instability right? This isn't really the point you should be trying to argue on.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:34:07 2011 No.3460194 >>3460191 The solution you are giving is a more socialist approch to socioeconomics, why don't you take the full step and embrace it 100%?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:34:07 2011 No.3460196

>>3460186
The entire point is that every attempt to do so has immediately become a dictatorship. If you claim driving off a cliff is a good idea because then your car will fly, you can't look at all the smoldering craters from past attempts and say "it hasn't really been tried yet".

You have to actually CHANGE something, not just do it again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:35:07 2011 No.3460198 >>3460168 This. You all know it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:35:07 2011 No.3460199 >>3460194 Because that is provably a bad idea from the history of it. Central planning and social safety nets are NOT the same goddamn thing, and you shouldn't assume that that the optimum necessarily has them both.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:35:07 2011 No.3460202 >>3460196 A computarized system of distribution has NEVER EVER been tried in human history, it would destroy capitalism and there are individuals who benefit from it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:35:07 2011 No.3460205 >>3460168 >>3460198 Not this shit again. Central planning doesn't work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:36:07 2011 No.3460206 >Implying Russiab population wasn't starving to death when they switched to capitalism >Implying Russia won't go back to socialism one of these days.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:36:07 2011 No.3460208 >>3460205 Yes it does, deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:36:07 2011 No.3460210 >>3460205 Why? What are your arguments for thinking that central planning doesn't work?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:39:07 2011 No.3460215

>>3460202
A computer won't change shit. You know the USSR employed computation for its central planning too, don't you?

It's still a command economy. Why don't you explain to me why command economies have always been so damn inefficient? Just having computers around isn't the answer. Hell, even China has chosen to enact market reforms instead of having pure central planning, and look what has happened! Deng Xiaoping used markets to repair and even *reverse* the horrors of Mao's central planning, which caused the deaths of millions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping#Economic_reforms

Think I'm exaggerating about Mao?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:39:07 2011 No.3460216 IMO communism and stalin weren't as bad and diabolic as they were described. We all know america demonizes communism and everything related to it and made it look worse and more evil than it actually was.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:39:07 2011 No.3460219 >>3460216 That's true. But it doesn't change the facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:40:07 2011 No.3460221 >>3460210 >>3460208 All the history of attempts at central planning in the past century.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:40:07 2011 No.3460224 >>3460215 Yeah, computation in the 50' man, what the fuck are you talking about? And even we still don't have the processing power, we should aim to that and not to sustain this shitty system.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:40:07 2011 No.3460227

>>3460191
>Except again you're denying reality. Automation has increased the furthest and fastest in market economies.

Post hoc arguments are meaningless. We didn't have the technology for automation (let alone any non-capitalist nations with that level of technology) during the time periods where systems other than capitalism occurred.

Aside communism is entirely backwards on this point in that it tries to have every citizen working.

Even if you had a convincing argument that capitalism is neccessary for automated labor that doesn't help you. I can easily argue that automated labor is next paradigm following capitalism and that capitalist hold-outs are holding us back from the next stage in our development.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:41:07 2011 No.3460230

The world is improving at record pace whether you faggots hate "capitalism" or not. That's a strawman argument anyway, just as bad as the vilification of "socialism".

Here, have some Hans Rosling with actual data.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:42:07 2011 No.3460232 >>3460219 Don't get me started and all the wars, poverty and starving that capitalism has create in the past and in the present. It ascends far more than your false 100 million deaths.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:42:07 2011 No.3460234 >>3460215 1. Communism and Stalin ARE demonized. I'm a 100% that it is as exaggerated as the holocaust. 2. China's communism != USSR communism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:43:07 2011 No.3460241 File: 183 KB, 374x578, smiling jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3460230 >improving

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:44:07 2011 No.3460243

>>3460210

You should read the black swan (the imapct of the higly improbable). Any central planning, even if it is not corrupted, will always use normal distributions to make decision...creating black swans (highly improbable events with an high impact in the situation)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:44:07 2011 No.3460244 >>3460232 This. Fucking this. America has done a great job hiding all the horrors of capitalism while demonizing and exaggerating communism.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:44:07 2011 No.3460245

>>3460227
>I can easily argue that automated labor is next paradigm following capitalism and that capitalist hold-outs are holding us back from the next stage in our development.
But there is no such evidence. Again, see the history of automation in market vs. planned economies. Planned economies simply can't compete for efficiency.

I mean, why exactly don't you think that market economies will allow automation? As soon as a machine can do a job more efficiently than a person, it is automated. We've already done it with many industries, first with textile manufacturing, then later assembly lines, and things like mining, etc.

I fully agree that automation is good. But markets are *also* good.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:46:07 2011 No.3460249 >>3460205 The military seems to be pretty effective.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:46:07 2011 No.3460251 ITT: Strong but uninformed beliefs about the world. Here, have data. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:46:07 2011 No.3460256 >>3460249 And notriously inefficient. But we're talking about the economy here, not the miilitary.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:47:07 2011 No.3460258 >>3460234 >2. China's communism != USSR communism. They both sucked ass insofar as they used central planning.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:48:07 2011 No.3460263 >>3460241 You're simply wrong. There is no third-world anymore, really. There hasn't been a gap for 50 years now. >>3460251

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:53:07 2011 No.3460282

>>3460245
I'll give you something, markets have done good to humanity and had accelerate our development.
But if you pay attention you will notice that free market has it's downsides, and they are called monopolies.
Free market tends to form bubbles of wealth in a few hands and that is NOT GOOD for the economy, that's why it's flawed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:54:07 2011 No.3460283 >>3460202 >>3460202 Who gets the ferraris and porsches in this central planning?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:54:56 2011 No.3460284 [DELETED]

File: 114 KB, 500x386, regulation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>mfw "edgy" hipsters think criticizing capitalism is fashionable
>mfw capitalism creates wealth and social democracy only spends it
>mfw I have no problem with a mixed economy but presently we lean too heavily towards statism
>mfw for stating this fact and pointing out that most of the things blamed on capitalism are actually due to statism all of a sudden I'm an Ayn Rand worshipping sociopath
>mfw Ayn Rand was actually right about how altruism should not be the basis of morality and the hype and buttmad over her is unjustified
>mfw this is actually my face right now

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:55:07 2011 No.3460287 >>3460283 If every other need is satisfied for every human, then, whoever wants an ugly luxury car.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:56:56 2011 No.3460294 >>3460284 >mfw when you are still living in 19th century.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:57:07 2011 No.3460298

>>3460283
I'm not him but in theory in a communist utopia resources would not be spent on frivolous luxuries, they would be used to make agricultural equipment to open up more land for grain to feed the poor or something along those lines.

Of course in reality communism is inherently flawed, even if everyone were dedicated communists and the epitome of moral righteousness it would still fail because central planning limits autonomy and it is mathematically impossible to mimic the price mechanism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:58:07 2011 No.3460299 >>3460282 Not the same guy, but you are right. Now, the key aspect of the economy shouldnt be free market, but perfect competition, that what makes us progress and makes sure certain companies dont crush smaller ones.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:59:07 2011 No.3460301

>>3460245
The solution is in the middle of the two extremes.

Distribute the burden on the central system by creating a network of millions of as-close-to-self-sufficient-as-possible cities. The closer the decisions are made to the population the more closely the unique demands can be accounted for.

Or go for a true self-rule approach and have a central repository of equipment and resources which each individual is responsible for drawing on and reporting their expected future demands. Shift the demand of projecting future demands on to the entire population instead of just one governing body.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:59:07 2011 No.3460305 >>3460294 >ur an ayn rand worshipping sociopath stuck in the 19th century k, but a logical argument would be better, thanks

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:00:07 2011 No.3460307

>>3460282
>But if you pay attention you will notice that free market has it's downsides, and they are called monopolies.
Oh, absolutely. I'm not for laissez-faire capitalism. One of the main roles of government should be to destroy monopolies when they form and replace them where they are inevitable (like utilities). Basically, if you have a monopoly, you don't have a market anymore, and that's the whole problem.

It works best when you ensure that the best way to make profits is to provide what people want more efficiently. But there are issues: externalized costs need to be internalized, through taxes/fines if need be (like environmental impacts). Also people are easily influenced by appearance, and this gives marketing far too much control over what consumers choose.

But on the whole? I'll take a market managed by a representative democracy over central planning by an authoritarian regime. (You can mix and match those, but I still think that representative democracy > authoritarian, market > central planning).

And for the poor? There doesn't need to be any. Universal healthcare and education, unemployment benefits, subsidized housing, even a universal stipend from taxes if you want. But don't throw out markets.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:00:07 2011 No.3460310 China is more Capitalist than the US is right now. 80 Million Americans are on welfare; that's not Capitalism.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:00:07 2011 No.3460312

>>3460287
That won't work because either there will be no luxury cars (for which there is a demand in reality) or not all necessities are available. That is why planned economies fail.

And that is also the part where capitalism shines. If someone wants something and has the right things to trade he will get it. If someone wants something, he will get it without any regulation. it just works, invisible hand and shit. We see that every day of our lives in the first world.
>Inb4 the starving African children do not get what they want. Their suffering is unrelated to capitalism and they wouldn't be saved by central planning.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:01:07 2011 No.3460313

>>3460245
>

I mean, why exactly don't you think that market economies will allow automation? As soon as a machine can do a job more efficiently than a person, it is automated. We've already done it with many industries, first with textile manufacturing, then later assembly lines, and things like mining, etc.

Unemployment. We're simply running out of new areas of employment to compensate for the loss of jobs due to technology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:02:07 2011 No.3460317 >>3460312 >>Inb4 the starving African children do not get what they want. Their suffering is unrelated to capitalism and they wouldn't be saved by central planning. They will, and it IS related to capitalism. Can you justify this opinion of yours?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:03:07 2011 No.3460319

>>3460301
>The solution is in the middle of the two extremes.
That's formally a fallacy if you're using it as an argument rather than a statement. This NOT true in general.

>Distribute the burden on the central system by creating a network of millions of as-close-to-self-sufficient-as-possible cities. The closer the decisions are made to the population the more closely the unique demands can be accounted for.
I agree that decisions should be made in their region of impact, by the people who are affected.

>Or go for a true self-rule approach and have a central repository of equipment and resources which each individual is responsible for drawing on and reporting their expected future demands. Shift the demand of projecting future demands on to the entire population instead of just one governing body.
That's better too, but it sounds like that's just sending petitions to the government. How do you resolve conflicts? The deciding body with power still seems to be a central bureaucracy, and those don't have a good history for being efficient OR benevolent.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:03:07 2011 No.3460321

>>3460307
If you don't throw markets there will still be people who would want to make profit form healthcare, education and the other basic rights you numbered. And in a monetary based economy, the people with money can change the rules and privatized those basic rights.
That's how the US is like it is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:05:07 2011 No.3460328 >>3460312 Unrelated to capitalism? Are you retarder or something? Africa is poor basically because of capitalism, corporations have stealed resources in every part of the world behind the mask of democracy for too long!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:05:07 2011 No.3460332 >>3460283 Luxury vehicles are actually almost entirely normal cars with a few extra gadgets and a big ritzy name attached. There's not really a material reason why everyone couldn't have one.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:05:07 2011 No.3460333

>>3460317
There was starvation and war in Africa before there were Western influences.

But if you want evidence of how capitalism helps poor societies advance, just look at all of Asia over the past 50 years. Many parts of Africa are also advancing, but some are not. Africa has its own special problems. Try out these Hans Rosling videos - one of them is pretty short if you don't want to spend much time on it. But really, the chance of completely changing your worldview by actually seeing the data should be worth the time.
>>3460230
>>3460251

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:05:56 2011 No.3460331 File: 105 KB, 400x402, 1305655965013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw america is getting fucked by the same system they're based on

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:07:07 2011 No.3460338

>>3460321
If you don't throw socialism there will still be people who would want to make profit form central planning, healthcare, education and the other basic rights you numbered. And in a non monetary based economy, the people with more power (violence or political) can change the rules and privatized those basic rights.
That's how the US is like it is.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:08:07 2011 No.3460339

>>3460333
It's not even about Africa, South America, the middle east, Asia, all those regions have been attacked economically, culturally and many many times military by the international corporations backed up by the armys of many capitalist countries. The poverty in those regions are entirely their fault.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:08:07 2011 No.3460341 Capitalism is good so long as it's regulated by government. Unregulated businesses will turn the west into Africa. Luckily in Europe we have strong trade unions and competition laws.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:09:07 2011 No.3460344 >>3460338 But socialism is about no private property at al, and in consequence, no monetary economy. What are you talking about? Read some Marx.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:09:07 2011 No.3460345 File: 4 KB, 302x207, 1267592273792.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3460299 >but perfect competition, >100 different identical toasters all claiming to be the best >that what makes us progress No, just no.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:09:07 2011 No.3460346 itt: butthurt capitalist trying to justify the impossible

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:09:07 2011 No.3460347

>>3460282
Monopolies are impossible without illegitimate state intervention in the economy. If the state sold all it's roads tomorrow it would be chaos, you'd have people buying one inch squared of road and sueing everyone who drove over it and holdouts waiting for businesses trying to buy up a road to pay millions for their patch to complete the route. But then this administrative jumble is not due to the free market, it was the state that monopolized the roads in the first place then unleashed it.

Let's wait 10 years until a market equilibrium has been formed, now we're looking at a utopia, people and businesses communally own roads for their own use and to attract customers, licenses and electronic toll booths make paying for road usage quick and simple, freight trucks that are used almost continuously pay for almost exactly the expense of road maintenance needed to support them, even the poor can afford motor vehicles because fees are far lower than road tax, not only this but an entire industry has grown up over making roads as efficient as possible, businesses compete to produce roads and bridges for different purposes, cheap bridges that can be set up anywhere, dead straight low incline roads between cities that allow quick travel times and high fuel efficiency. Due to efficiency traffic is lower, air pollution is lower, there are less accidents, people laugh at the days when they could spend 3 hours a day just commuting.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:11:07 2011 No.3460352
File: 153 KB, 450x495, pete1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I love competition.

Sure wish we still had some here in the U.S... looks like the competition is over and the winners have used their winnings to buy our democracy out from under us while we weren't looking.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:11:07 2011 No.3460354 >>3460339 Actually south america is improving quite fast. The ginni coeficient is getting smaller and the average income has increased greatly. Although in Peru they have elected a potential Hugo Chavez cause of butthurtism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:11:07 2011 No.3460356 There's no such thing as "utopia." Every "utopia" is highly possible is everybody collaborates to make it true.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:13:07 2011 No.3460367

>>3460317
>>3460328
The countries are poor because of a certain lack of capitalism.
That doesn't mean NO government at all like it is the case in Somalia. A state needs a good infrastructure which is best provided by a government and stability of property rights is needed as well.

Main reason why Africa can't get its shit together is that America and Europe create trade barriers and sell subsidized shit to Africa.

Facts is capitalism makes the rich richer and quicker than the poorer people. Yet also the poor part of the population became richer over time. So everyone is gaining although at different speeds. We should tweak this instead of contemplating a different direction.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:13:07 2011 No.3460368 >>3460347 Why would I think that in ten years that is gonna happen when it's never happen in the last three hundred years of free market? You are just delusional, let it go.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:14:07 2011 No.3460370 File: 39 KB, 480x360, Deus-Ex-Human-Revolution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3460328 >corporations

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:15:07 2011 No.3460373 >>3460352 I would laugh, but it's true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:15:07 2011 No.3460374 >>3460345 No....mmm good argument. Perfect competition leads to improvement of the product and jobs (without counting the fact it allows you to start an enterprise freely)...deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:16:07 2011 No.3460376 >>3460367 >Facts is capitalism makes the rich richer and quicker than the poorer people. Yes! And that's exactly the problem! It is a flawed, corrupt and unequal system!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:16:07 2011 No.3460379 >>3460352 this competition is great if one can also prevent corporatism and corruption that follows. A good first step would be eliminating Corporate person hood.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:17:07 2011 No.3460385 >>3460376 >Yes! And that's exactly the problem! It is a flawed, corrupt and unequal system! Says a guy using a computer he bought through the pseudo-Capitalist system.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:18:07 2011 No.3460389

>>3460319
>That's formally a fallacy if you're using it as an argument rather than a statement. This NOT true in general.
You think duality is less of a fallacy?

>That's better too, but it sounds like that's just sending petitions to the government. How do you resolve conflicts? The deciding body with power still seems to be a central bureaucracy, and those don't have a good history for being efficient OR benevolent.

They don't have to be benevolent, their job is not to decide which requests get filled but to fill all of them. Though since we're talking about automated system they're mostly their to oversee equipment operating to begin with.

There's also no reason my suggestions can't be combined so you have distributed regional centers overseeing requests from each citizen and not making any decisions themselves. Hell at that stage the central overseeing body could itself be automated eventually.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:19:07 2011 No.3460390 >>3460376 every system is flawed, all human endeavors are prone to corruption

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:20:07 2011 No.3460398 >>3460390 also you've yet to demonstrate that equality is possible without poverty

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:22:07 2011 No.3460409 >>3460398 >>3460390 That's exactly what they want to make you believe.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:23:07 2011 No.3460414

>>3460376
>>3460376
But everyone is gaining and we might fix the system which done more good than harm to most people first before abolishing it and experiment from scratch with new.

It seems I want to fix existing problems and you want to scratch the existing problems and get us a new set of problems (which might or might not be fixed in turn eventually).

Glad we could agree on something here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:23:07 2011 No.3460415 >>3460398 Not everyone is equal. Until we are all born in factories (Like in Brave New World) "equality" is going to be in-achievable.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:23:07 2011 No.3460416

>>3460333
Capitalism hasn't caused those changes, it is the technology and knowledge the capitalists possessed. Further the technology and knowledge is not inherently a result of capitalism, but the collection of knowledge brought by the social conditions which just happened to occur in a capitalist society.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:25:07 2011 No.3460421 >>3460416 That's why we should all support a Resource Based Economy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:26:07 2011 No.3460425 The first man in space was a Russian. That is all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:27:07 2011 No.3460427 >>3460425 First man on the Moon was American. That is all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:27:07 2011 No.3460430 >>3460427 Who cares about the moon? Not even your own people believe that bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:29:07 2011 No.3460434 >>3460427 space > moon Also, while you americunts were all like "derp space if god's property" that Russian said a badass quote "I see no god up here."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:29:07 2011 No.3460435 >>3460430 This is not a "Believe" or "don't believe" matter. This actually happened. Six times.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:29:07 2011 No.3460436 >>3460415 I know you're probably trolling, but would we want that level of "equality"? I'd settle for greater equality in the eyes of the law. I'm just saying end Corporate person hood

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:30:07 2011 No.3460437 >>3460421 Good luck calculating resources and organizing massive interdisciplinary projects.

>>	Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs Wed Jul 27 13:30:07 2011 No.3460438 >>3460047 > calling the welfare state capitalism I certainly hope you are not doing this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:30:07 2011 No.3460439 >>3460374 The falsehood here is that you don't need to make a better product, you only have to make a better perception of your product. Look at apple, they sell computers for many times their actual market value simply on image.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:32:07 2011 No.3460445 >>3460425 >>3460430 Yeah but they couldn't build a decent car. Cars>useless space exploration (contrary to what most people think here)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:33:07 2011 No.3460448 >>3460439 The problem then is that people can be retarded sometimes. Thats why in a perfect competition economy, the educational system should put emphasis in critical thinking, besides beign of the best quality posible.

>>	Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs Wed Jul 27 13:34:07 2011 No.3460456 >>3460448 Value is indeed very subjective. Econ 101.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:37:07 2011 No.3460462 >>3460448 While we're wishing for things which won't happen in any system where money has influence over social well-being I want a pony with laser eyes and acid breath, who mane is carbon nanotubes.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:38:07 2011 No.3460464

>>3460456

It is...but it doesnt need to not be .like that. Its the natural course for each individual to have its sibjectivity....which can be described (partially...only the part we care about) in order to define the importance of the individual in its resource and market oriented actions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:38:07 2011 No.3460467 >>3460427 First rover on the moon was Russian.

>>	Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs Wed Jul 27 13:39:07 2011 No.3460471 >>3460464 It is a law though, it cannot be shaken. No amount of you liking the idea of equality and mindless drones that all think alike will change that. Value is always subjective, always.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:42:07 2011 No.3460482

>>3460227
>We didn't have the technology for automation (let alone any non-capitalist nations with that level of technology) during the time periods where systems other than capitalism occurred.

Bullshit. You're a Zeitgeist-cook, right? Don't believe everything they claim. To my amusement they tell to question everything but never question their own facts. I also doubt that anyone who has ever worked in industry will take you seriously. I work for a company that designs & sells automation solutions to other companies (okay it's Siemens). There just are things you can't automate, as much as we'd love to. Deal with it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:42:07 2011 No.3460484

In a Resource based economy, the intensive is human progress and innovation. This way, we don't need multiple brands producing different products; it is just 1 big brand producing the best products possibles at 0 price so they can be equally distributed to those people who really need them

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:43:07 2011 No.3460491

>>3460462

Now you are getting silly. You simply decided to stop thinking in solutions simply because its a system you dont support. Thtas how some dogmas start.

There are plenty of ways in order to lure the private secto into the educational enterprise (of the not expensive kind)...and it just rquires adjusting some of the budget in order to get a better state educational system.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:44:07 2011 No.3460495 >>3460482 >To my amusement they tell to question everything but never question their own facts. That's exactly what capitalist do. "Every other system is flawed, yet ours is fucked up but we don't need to talk about it."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:44:07 2011 No.3460496 File: 89 KB, 644x526, oh hi there.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3460482 >There just are things you can't automate, as much as we'd love to. I know man, these crazy people next they'll be saying humans can fly.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:46:07 2011 No.3460504

>>3460471
>No amount of you liking the idea of equality and mindless drones that all think alike will change that.

Who the fuck said i like mindless drones. I dont like homogenization since it reduces the quantity of configurations and information in a society.

I never said value isnt subjective...i even said it in the first sentence (then added thhat i economics it isnt necesary for the mechanisms in that value is subjectivly created to be objective)

>>	Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs Wed Jul 27 13:47:07 2011 No.3460509 >>3460504 Blasting value as irrational is mindless drone love. Can't be objective, ever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:48:07 2011 No.3460512 >>3460495 Deal with it...its human nature...we dont like to be wrong (and neither do you...admit it, its the first step) I seriously recommend all of you guys to read "the black swan the impact of the highly improbable"

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:49:07 2011 No.3460518

>>3460496
if you can present a robust system that automates process of intelligently deciding points, taking, preparing and analyzing hygiene samples from foodstuff manufacturing plant suffering from repeated contaminations which source is unknown I'm all eyes.

>>	Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs Wed Jul 27 13:50:07 2011 No.3460523 >>3460495 You mean socialists. Or you mean communists. Or you mean EVERY SINGLE backer of every single political idea.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:51:07 2011 No.3460526 >>3460495 >implying whole world isn't talking about what went wrong >implying people like Norberg, Soros and Greenspan haven't written entire books on subject nigga you are full retard.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:52:07 2011 No.3460528

>>3460509

DUDE READ MY POSTS, IM AGREEING WITH YOU!

I stated like 2 times that value is not objective.

And then explained how you dont need to objectivize value in a system in order to calculate the outcome of resource/market oriented actions. You dont need to since that is already reflected in the data you are analyzing.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:00:07 2011 No.3460561

>>3460518
Seeing as I am unfamiliar of the facilities you're referring to it can not be said whether or not I could fulfill your request. Further the assertion that if I right this second can't do it no one at any point in the future will be able to is frankly full retard.

What I can do is apply existing automation procedures to facilities which haven't adopted them and at a minimum double the unemployment rate not including the massive number of jobs which would be easy to automate. (There are still facilities which have workers inserting sheets of metal into presses by hand for example.)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:02:07 2011 No.3460568 >>3460526 They aren't addressing what went wrong, they're shuffling blame.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:12:07 2011 No.3460602 >>3460568 you truly are fully retarded. what about trying to read "The Perfect Storm" for starters before making implications pulled out of your Zeitgeist-ass.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:17:07 2011 No.3460611 >>3460602 >my worldview is copied from someone else, so yours must be, too Protip: If you refer to someone else's argument, this only shows that you don't know enough about the subject to make the case yourself.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:21:07 2011 No.3460622

>>3460611
seriously, what's wrong with you people? I'm not talking about world views one bit here. I'm talking about what they actually write about in their books about this crisis. A subject I seem to know about - having read Greenspan & Norberg books - , you're on the other hand only making blind assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:24:07 2011 No.3460628 >>3460611 Hey, just admit that you're gay and wrong. End of story.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:27:07 2011 No.3460646 >>3460628 Gay and wrong about what? I haven't even read the thread. I just saw some faggot acting like "GO READ THIS BOOK" is a valid argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:29:07 2011 No.3460651 >>3460622 I'm sorry but unless the first words of the prologue are 'we royally fucked up guys' I don't care for their opinion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:31:07 2011 No.3460655 >>3460495 But we did talk about it! Easy credit plus really bad investment calls equals really bad recession

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:36:07 2011 No.3460667 >>3460651 >IF THEY DONT AGREE WITH ME AND SAY THAT THEY WERE WRONG THEN THEY ARE WRONG! Perfect logic captcha: sarcasm 101

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:37:07 2011 No.3460670

OP here, wtf is wrong with you people? I made a thread, then I went to eat a snack and when I'm back, I see a total huge shitstorm about how capitalism is better than other systems.

If you see a system falling because its flaws you shouldn't defend it by acting like "derp but communism is corrupt and derp derp herp go read this book."

HO-LY SHIT! I'm mad.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:39:07 2011 No.3460677

>>3460561
>Seeing as I am unfamiliar of the facilities you're referring to
I'm not.

>Further the assertion that if I right this second can't do it no one at any point in the future will be able to is frankly full retard.
You really have to wait until the end of time to get your Zeitgeist-utopia materialise, fuckwit. New innovations don't born bundled with automated systems to make them.

>What I can do is apply existing automation procedures to facilities which haven't adopted them
I can assure that you can't - not unless you also happen to discard old machinery, replace it with new equipment, and reconstruct whole facilities as a part of your service. Factory planning also isn't a subject in school, leading to severe inflexibilities in expansion/production schemes more often than not.

Wake up.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:40:07 2011 No.3460681

>>3460670

Probably because you're a retard who wouldn't know a good system of economics if it jizzed in your eye.

When any other type of economic system can figure out a way to list value without relying on the price mechanism, give me a call but until then go fellate a camel.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:41:07 2011 No.3460683 >>3460681 Where's your argument?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:41:07 2011 No.3460684 >>3460670 >implying it wasnt more like "capitalism sux, communism much better" and then informed people tried to argue with a commie wall of mindless idiots

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:42:07 2011 No.3460688 File: 39 KB, 500x500, ophere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Your all faggots if you support capitalism. Take China and Russia for example, they are the top countries in the world. Suck it, EU and USA.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:43:07 2011 No.3460690

Fuck you guys. If you want me to believe that capitalism is the best shit out there, you should present me a list of valid unbiased and objective arguments with their respective valid source.

If not, capitalism IS shit and we have to stop using a 400 y/o system and begin to use more modern alternatives.

/thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:44:07 2011 No.3460695 >>3460670 Glad you're mad. Now, do you have anything BETTER than the current system?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:46:07 2011 No.3460699

>>3460683

I apologize I didn't use the proper words to properly describe my argument:

Capitalism is the best economic system we have designed thanks to its flexible use of the price mechanism in valuating goods and services. The present crisis is not a result of "the failure of capitalism" but rather an abuse of the mechanics of capitalism by those who stood to gain from said abuses. The problem therefore lies within the people filling the upper echelons of the capitalistic hierarchy (CEOs, hedge fund managers, the people occupying the government watchdog positions for the respective industries, etc) as opposed to the hierarchy proper.

I didn't think you'd actually understand the big boy words because my opinion of you is similar to that of my housecat: Cute, but not intellectually stimulating.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:48:07 2011 No.3460705 >>3460699 Finally, human language. You are the only one in actually giving a real argument. Now, what do you think about the way capitalism is implemented in Scandinavia?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:51:07 2011 No.3460722 >>3460705 >Now, what do you think about the way capitalism is implemented in Scandinavia? Not that guy, but it seems to be working far better.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:51:07 2011 No.3460724

>>3460690
>If you want me to believe that capitalism is the best shit out there, you should present me a list of valid unbiased and objective arguments with their respective valid source.

Causes of industrialisation in Europe, especially Britain, in comparison to industrialisation in 11th century China and what caused its premature failure. Book to read for a short intro on subject: "The Human Web".

It's not the capitalism per se, it's the underlying system which enables it to function.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:51:07 2011 No.3460725

>>3460684
There are three types of groups.

Surviving minorities, which have been around since before the current status quo.

The majority.

New minorities, which formed in response to the status quo.

Communism is a new minority.

When a new minority exists, the majority is almost 100% guaranteed to be wrong. The new minority would not exist otherwise.

The only question is whether the new minority is right. It's entirely possible for both sides of a conflict to be wrong, after all.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:57:07 2011 No.3460746

>>3460725
>When a new minority exists, the majority is almost 100% guaranteed to be wrong. The new minority would not exist otherwise.
>The only question is whether the new minority is right. It's entirely possible for both sides of a conflict to be wrong, after all.

You assume that the optimal solution will have no dissenters. I don't think humans are that rational.

But I agree that dissent is usually due to a real problem that needs addressing, and that we should not jump to a false dichotomy of choosing between what the majority and the minority think.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:59:07 2011 No.3460758

>>3460705

Just because I think see where this is going, I'm going to skip ahead two or three replies and just say this: You do not "copy" economic structures between two states because economic systems are invariably intertwined with the culture, history, and geography of said state. Scandinavian capitalism works for scandinavia because of the Nordic work ethic (a function of geography) mixed with European flexibility in regards to technology as well as the modern European sense of compassion.

Do not ever assume that what one country is doing is the end-all be-all of "the right way" because it never is.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:00:07 2011 No.3460759

>>3460677
>I'm not.
Your lack of creativity appalls me.

>You really have to wait until the end of time to get your Zeitgeist-utopia materialise, fuckwit. New innovations don't born bundled with automated systems to make them.
This assertion is simply retarded, the technology improvements we need to automate things which can't be automated immediately are at the absolute most 100 years away. The majority of the workforce could still be made to be unemployed for the next 100 years. Also there isn't need to bundle a solution with an innovation, we just need the last little piece of innovation for a lot of things to be ready to go.

>I can assure that you can't - not unless you also happen to discard old machinery, replace it with new equipment, and reconstruct whole facilities as a part of your service. Factory planning also isn't a subject in school, leading to severe inflexibilities in expansion/production schemes more often than not.

Sure I can, the technology to do so is available everything beyond that is a minor issue with the exception that the market couldn't handle the unemployment.

Are you sure you're not a janitor at Siemens? Because your level of mad is just pathetic.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:01:07 2011 No.3460772

>>3460725

No, it isnt almost 100% guaranteed to be wrong...if someone is right or wrong depneds only on the logical basis of their arguments.

Also...the majority of people in this thread isnt capitalist...most of the so called capitalists here are posters that simply dont want that a bunch of apes throw market trough the window (specially if those apes dont even understand how these work)

As a side note...show me mathematical proof of the efficiency of a communist sytem....you cant...

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:02:07 2011 No.3460778

>>3460705
I'm not the poster you replied to but I am swedish and I'll give you a view of how I consider the economic policies of my country.

Sweden has during the 20th century been weighed down under the wet cloth that is social liberalism, or social democracy as we call it. It has ensured that high tax rates and little economic freedom combined with high levels of welfare payments have made the people passive, always expecting for someone else to solve their own problems - it has been a true nanny state. None of our biggest and most successfull companies are younger than 40 years which tells us something of how in Sweden, the capitalists go to bed with the polititians. Social democrats have always said they stood on the workers side while all they did was to pave the way for big industry to do whatever they want, creating large and many times inefficient corporations that hinder free market competition. All this has been with the excuse to "save jobs" and we see a prime example of it right now with Saab going under.

The policy has shifted somewhat during the later years and it is good to see. Our current government have acted very responsibly throughout the latest economic crisis which has allowed us to emerge as one of the strongest economies in europe with little national debt and a sound banking system.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:03:07 2011 No.3460783

>>3460778
cont.
The current government has resisted the voices that say Saab needs to be saved with government money, saying that it is a private enterprise and if it is not profitable it should be allowed to die. Still I think that their involvment have been way to active in for instance controlling Vladimir Antonov from investing in the company.

I need to go but I think that the recent changes have been for the better but that there is still much to do in order to successfully free the economy of state involvement. I really would like to see Riksbanken abolished and a general non-interventionist policy from the financial ministry, that way we can pave way for innovation and prosperity in a way that very few other countries seem keen on doing right now. I believe that Sweden can be one of few strong and sound economies in europe in the coming years as I think that the euro's future is in grave danger. I might return to this thread but I got to go to work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:04:07 2011 No.3460788 >>3460758 You're basically saying that US is fucked up.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:05:07 2011 No.3460796

>>3460772
>As a side note...show me mathematical proof of the efficiency of a communist sytem....you cant...
The rest of your post was better. The history of communism is better evidence than whether there are arguments for how it "should" work. The fact is that it doesn't work.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:06:07 2011 No.3460799

>>3460759
>This assertion is simply retarded, the technology improvements we need to automate things which can't be automated immediately are at the absolute most 100 years away.
Just a few posts ago that 100 years was "immediately". Funny how utopia is always right at footstep.

>we just need the last little piece of innovation for a lot of things to be ready to go.
which is...?

>market couldn't handle the unemployment.
you actually think companies hire workers and don't automate just to keep the economy rolling?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:07:07 2011 No.3460801 >>3460783 >>3460778 I agree that state should be involved in markets as little as possible. But as for welfare, I can't imagine that the downsides of welfare are worse than poverty and wealth disparity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:09:07 2011 No.3460812 The truth is that there hasn't been a 100% communist nation ever.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:10:07 2011 No.3460816

>>3460799
Not that guy, but I have *never* understood the "free markets are impeding automation" argument. It's seems quite delusional. People are expensive, and where machines are more efficient, people are replaced. Where machines AREN'T more efficient, people are not replaced. Competition ensures that anyone who ignores this gets left behind.

Look at lean manufacturing. Toyota has changed the entire auto industry, because lean manufacturing is just so much more efficient.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:10:07 2011 No.3460820 >>3460812 Because communism is inherently unstable, and quickly becomes a dictatorship.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:12:07 2011 No.3460827

>>3460788

Only in an exceedingly short-term sense. Frankly I think the US for the vast majority of its history has had its eye on the proverbial ball and the basis of its economic growth (tech services, R&D, education, and advanced tech manufacturing) are still quite sound, which is why I am willing to give it a pass on its derpness this past decade.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:12:07 2011 No.3460832 >>3460820 [citation needed] I'm tired of this "derp communism in unstable dictatorship derp" bullshit. I want mathematical proof that communism leads to a dictatorship and that it's unstable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:13:07 2011 No.3460840 If you pirate copyrighted media, you're a communist!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:14:07 2011 No.3460842 >>3460832 Burden of proof, you insufferable teenager. History is on MY side. Where's your fucking evidence that implementing communism won't produce a dictatorship again, just like it has in the USSR, in China, in Vietnam, in Cuba?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:14:07 2011 No.3460845

>>3460832

I can't give you mathematical proof but if you look at every country which has been ruled by "communists" you notice a trend of ignoring human rights, ignoring the needs of the people to meet political goals (either domestic or abroad) and you see the centralization of power in either one or a handful of individuals.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:15:07 2011 No.3460847

>>3460796

Historical evidence is in essence statistical evidence. And as we know, statistical evidence doesnt always tell you the underlying mechanisms of phenomena. Now, since we are using as our sample historical facts with different impact in the course of history, we can fall in a normalization problem (using the lolholygaussbell...not saying it doesnt have its uses...we simply rely too much on it), a "black swan" (again read the book, some may say it explains little, but it does it over a very solid basis).

The essence of this normalization problem can be explained with the tale of a fat turkey (you probably ate):

A turkey is fed erryday. To the turkey this is normal (he is an statician) and always gets close to this beign called "human" to recieve food. Then the day before thanksgiving this human snaps his neck.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:15:07 2011 No.3460849

>>3460799
>Just a few posts ago that 100 years was "immediately". Funny how utopia is always right at footstep.
No, no it wasn't. There are a massive amount of jobs which can be automated immediately. The remainder can be automated within the century.

>which is...?
For many applications it's the ability to quickly and accurately interpret visual information.

>you actually think companies hire workers and don't automate just to keep the economy rolling?

If they laid off millions at a time they would drown in the bad publicity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:16:07 2011 No.3460853 >>3460842 Don't forget Cambodia. Pol Pot was a bastard too!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:16:07 2011 No.3460856 >>3460842 >>3460845 Dictatorship != everybody is poor and is oppressed by one diabolic evil being whom its hunger of blood is insatiable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:17:07 2011 No.3460857 >>3460847 The implication is a long-term strong harm that has been ignored in favor of short-term gains. Talk about that directly, instead of using vague metaphors, so that we can address the long-term harm.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:18:07 2011 No.3460861 >>3460856 That's the rule. I admit there are exceptions. But I won't bet on them.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:19:07 2011 No.3460866

>>3460849
>If they laid off millions at a time they would drown in the bad publicity.
Oh please. Companies lay off people all the fucking time. We've been doing it for the entire industrial revolution, and blue-collar jobs are shrinking pretty monotonically. Other sectors have grown in response, however.

If you think businesses are ignoring the efficient answer, start a business and take their market share with your superior method. Seriously, do it. I want us to have the most efficient and effective system for meeting people's needs as possible.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:24:07 2011 No.3460875

>>3460832
>>3460772

The funny thing here is that capitalism (of all sizes and colors) has always, form the very beginnings, had a mathematical basis (it started as basicly accounting) and now the system is managed by algoritms and quants. On the other side, communism, despite showing a deep concern for the well-brign of people, has zero mathematical basis.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:24:07 2011 No.3460877

Funny how all dimwits screaming MOAR REGULATION, MOAR GOVERNMENT, LESS CAPITALISM, LESS BANKS completely ignore the fact that this crisis - just like the ones in 30's and 80's - were in their core caused by governmental policies which caused instabilising amount of loose money creating a possibility for insane risk taking due sudden disappearance of fear of loss ie. "moral hazard" ie. situation where people handling the money are not directly responsible for what happens to it.

Just look at the US and EU interest rates from 2000 to this day.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:26:07 2011 No.3460886 >>3460877 I agree that federal economic policies are the problem. Which ones do you specifically want changed, and how?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:26:07 2011 No.3460891

IMO communism wasn't that evil. Remember that the government was in a war against USSR and the hippies were creating a shitstorm of epical proportions, there were also a communist revolution, 1/3 of the world was living under communism, Cuba and El Che were influencing many parts of South America to become communist to scape from their capitalist dictators (yes, capitalists can also be dictators) and be under the protection of the USSR.

So they decided to demonize Communism and present it as an evil, nonsense, flawed system that won't ever last. They showed Stalin as the demon itself and even presented him to be worse than Hitler, specially because he was an atheist.

Then, a biggest shitstorm occurred. The fall of the wall of berlin; then Gorbachov became a pussy when the Pope visited Russia to consagrate it. And at the end, the USSR was dissolved, leaving the all mighty US as the only left super power.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:27:07 2011 No.3460896

>>3460857

The problem is that the long term harm wasnt there for the turkey, he didnt ignored it in favor of short term gains conciously. What happened is that he used the past as an infallible model of the future without thinking in underlying mechnisms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:28:07 2011 No.3460903 >>3460866 Not on the scale I am talking about and not with the level of unemployment we already have. Also it's humorous how you think I'm going to start a business just to prove shit to you, I'm not I have no interest in making shit loads of dosh.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:29:07 2011 No.3460906 >>3460896 Good. Then let's discuss the mechanisms, and ensure they are sustainable. I have to leave though. :/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:30:07 2011 No.3460909 If capitalism is so good, then why america is getting fucked right in the ass?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:31:07 2011 No.3460917 >>3460909 Way to lump everything together. America has fucking stupid policies, many of them. But markets are not the problem.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:31:56 2011 No.3460912 [DELETED]

>>3460903
> just to prove shit to you
Grow the fuck up. If you want the system to change and to have improved automation, I have told you to make it happen. This isn't about proving something to someone you don't even know and will probably never meet.

Do it, nigger. If you're right that automation technologies are being ignored by a cabal of short-sighted businessmen, then show them up and undercut their prices. SHOW THEM, show the WORLD that you are right.

Toyota did it with lean manufacturing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:32:07 2011 No.3460921 >>3460912 inb4 he refuses to act because "he doesn't want money". You don't have to spend it on yourself, you know.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:36:07 2011 No.3460939 >>3460912 Make no mistake it is part of my long term plans to give this a push however there are still lots of preparations I personally need to make before I can do so successfully.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:37:07 2011 No.3460941

>>3460886
Simple: give the government as little financical power as possible. The situation with big governments is abnormal. The trend of big governments started after WW1 when governments with ruined economies clinged on idea of war-time economic policies, lasted well into cold war and into this day. Huge governments never got dismantled because there never has been political will to do it: cutting something off would always step on some voters toes. So, all western nations have continued to ramp up massive debt as in war even though peace has lasted over 60 years.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:52:07 2011 No.3460998 >>3460284 >Ayn Rand >Correct >Ok with mixed economy This thread is going the wrong direction

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:04:07 2011 No.3461061 >>3460941 Would you be fine with restricting government control over business, but extending social welfare programs in areas like health care and education?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:24:07 2011 No.3461157

>>3461061
Obviously. As long as government doesn't disturb the market mechanism itself, it can do whatever it wants with the tax money. Scandinavian/German social democratic model where public services are provided through public sector work is much less disturbing than public sector services provided by private sector contractors, which is the American model. Things like MedCare and MedAid are poorly implemented, inefficient and worst of all they are moral hazard incarnate compared to stable proper public healthcare which leave room for private unsubsidised healthcare. Same goes for free public education which allows unsubsidized private education to exist.

Government monopolies are insanity, but so is government that buys public services from private sector. Nordic model strikes quite good balance.

2008 mortage crisis is a prime example of Welfare Program Done Totally Wrong. Read about it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:30:07 2011 No.3461187

Giving the resources, means of production and distribution to a bunch of individuals who JUST wants to make profit of it is insane, is economical anarchism.
The government needs to control all that factor so it ASSURES that nobody takes advantage of it, because the government is not one individual, it's the concept of every human working together.
Defending capitalism is defending the right to fuck people if you are given the chance, and that is as insane as making rape legal if you got the chance to rape somebody.
Please use your fucking head.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:33:07 2011 No.3461201

>>3461187
>Giving the resources, means of production and distribution to a bunch of individuals who JUST wants to make profit of it is insane, is economical anarchism.
It's given to ANYONE who CAN compete. The idea is to construct an environment where the best way to make money is to give people what they want as efficiently as possible.

This can obviously be violated by things like bribing politicians to support monopolies and duopolies.

You see, for all the inherent problems of capitalism, it is better than the known alternatives. See: History.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:35:07 2011 No.3461216

>>3461201
But if always that free market has been tried it ends in monopolies, it means that free market DOESN'T WORK, stop deluding yourself.
And your philosophy of "is it better than the alternatives, so we shouldn't be looking for a new one" is just retarded and clearly a manipulated thought.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:37:07 2011 No.3461220

>>3461216
>But if always that free market has been tried it ends in monopolies, it means that free market DOESN'T WORK, stop deluding yourself.
No. Try looking at the history of communism to get your perspective straight.

And most monopolies you can point to right now are upheld by federal economic policies that make competition infeasible. I fully agree that markets only work when there are choices - competition.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:38:07 2011 No.3461229 >>3461216 Stop bitching and propose your alternative. IMO we just need to make sure markets have competition.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:38:07 2011 No.3461230

>>3461220
I'm not talking about communism here, don't dodge the subject. Free markets will always end in monopolies, you just have to look at history and the present.
Right now, there are less than 50 big companies that control the basic resources, production and distribution, that is not fair and never will.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:39:07 2011 No.3461234 >>3461230 see >>3461229

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:40:07 2011 No.3461237 File: 75 KB, 394x401, 1310620486153.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3460047

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:40:07 2011 No.3461242

>>3461229
The way to assure markets have competition is with government regulation, still, that doesn't solve the problem of inequity.
The solution to that is to abolish all private proparty and have a horizontal organism who administrates all the resources and give them to all people in equal quantity. Money would obviously be abolish too, as there is no need to sell or buy things.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:41:07 2011 No.3461247 >>3461242 Enjoy your communism, and the inevitable dictatorship withing the first generation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:41:07 2011 No.3461251 >>3461242 Call me when you've found people who can be trusted with absolute power, not to mention people who can enact central planning that is anywhere near as efficient as markets.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:42:07 2011 No.3461258 >>3461247 Enjoy your capitalism, and the inevitable dictatorship that you are already living and not even aware of.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:43:07 2011 No.3461264 >>3461258 I know which is the lesser of the two evils, thanks.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:44:07 2011 No.3461266

>>3461251
No individual would be trusted with that power, all people would be. In would be public so everyone can check what it's doing and what not, that way assuring the inexistence of corruption, and if anyone tries it, it would be notice by everyone instantanly.
Also, you should also think of something when you understand that markets are flawed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:44:07 2011 No.3461267 >>3461258 >Enjoy your capitalism, and the inevitable dictatorship that you are already living and not even aware of. If I'm not even aware of the dictatorship, it must be a pretty good one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:45:07 2011 No.3461269 >>3461264 I prefer no lesser evil better than a great good.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:45:07 2011 No.3461272 >>3461267 Ignorance is bliss.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:45:07 2011 No.3461273 >>3461267 So now you are just being retarded or siniester. Have some emphaty for fucks sake.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:46:07 2011 No.3461283 >>3461273 >>3461272 Welfare capitalism answers all your pathos-based arguments about capitalism being evil and hating the poor. I support universal healthcare and education, for instance.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:47:07 2011 No.3461289 >>3461269 You have no such option. History should have taught you that property-less society centrally managed by a bureaucracy is a bad idea. We've done it many times, in just the past century.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:47:07 2011 No.3461293 >>3461283 But with free market it's just a matter of time till corporations bribe the government and take control of education and healthcare. Actually, it's already happening in the US.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:48:07 2011 No.3461294 >>3461283 Then you are not capitalist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:48:07 2011 No.3461301 >>3461289 We have done far more times this failed experiment of free market capitalism and it has failed much worse and more, you just gotta look at history and present time.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:50:07 2011 No.3461309

>>3460047

>Takes advantage of a system that works.
>When everything starts going to shit thanks to said advantages, claim it's the system's fault, and not the invaders'.

You know that little kid who comes over your house, breaks the fine china, then starts crying saying it was thrown at him?

That's what people like you sound like, OP.

Also, when the fuck did /Sci/ become /political/? One's based on factual observation and a collection of data to predict a future outcome...while the other is the manipulation of emotion and enforcement of abstract beliefs to keep a failing system (regardless of political spectrum) afloat for as long as it can. They are fundamentally opposite, and only through abstraction are comparable.

Go back to /pol/ you faggo....

>Realize there is no /pol/ board.
>Realize somehow /sci/ has BECOME /pol/ board.

Well there's the problem right there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:50:07 2011 No.3461312 >>3461294 I'm not your retarded strawman of a capitalist, no. Fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:51:07 2011 No.3461319 >>3461309 It's the system fault to not prevent those advantages. Try harder.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:52:07 2011 No.3461324

>>3461247

The USSR, China, and every country claiming to be communist since the USSR took over the global communist movement were/are all market economies, meaning capitalist. However there was no corresponding bourgeoisie to benefit from the markets created in those countries. Instead there was the bureaucracy which owned the means of production as a class. However, the official ideology in those countries was that there were no classes. With no legal right to property, the bureaucracy had to rule with terror. And that terror came from the individual who had the power to decide who is and who isn't a bureaucrat.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:52:07 2011 No.3461325

>>3461301
>We have done far more times this failed experiment of free market capitalism and it has failed much worse and more, you just gotta look at history and present time.
Holy fucking shit.
Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Do you have any IDEA what these men have done?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_rouge

All because you give ultimate power to some guys who promise to act on behalf of the people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:52:07 2011 No.3461326 >>3461312 No. The policies you support are, by definition, not capitalist. That's like saying you're a Christian but you don't believe Jesus existed.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:54:07 2011 No.3461335

>>3461326
I believe in property rights, in gains from trade, and in free markets. I believe fiat currency is one of mankind's best inventions.

And your semantic games about whether or not I'm a "capitalist" are increasingly irrelevant, as you don't even seem to have a consistent definition for the term.

I'm not allowed to say that markets are good, and that social welfare programs supported by taxes are also good? Luckily I'm not constrained by your bullshit false dichotomies.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:55:07 2011 No.3461338

>>3461325
US in the last two centurys, Europe in the last four.
Do you know what the people in power of those government-corporations have done? No you don't, because you don't even now who they are. And that's because the media in your country has not tell you the truth about who is the real dictator.
All because you give ultimate power to some guys who promise to act on behalf of personal profit, and have done.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:56:07 2011 No.3461342 >>3461335 You can't think currency is the ultimate way of economical transactions, it's like thinking that trade was when it was the hegemonic mean of trade. Have some historical perspective.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:56:07 2011 No.3461345 >>3461335 Why you so mad bro? Trying to have proper conversation here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:57:07 2011 No.3461350 >>3461345 Because of these. >>3461326 >>3461294 I hate sophistry.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:58:07 2011 No.3461352

>>3461342
>You can't think currency is the ultimate way of economical transactions, it's like thinking that trade was when it was the hegemonic mean of trade.
>Have some historical perspective.

Have some knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
The gains from trade and specialization are good for everyone involved, and money is one of mankind's best inventions to facilitate trade.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:59:07 2011 No.3461360

>>3461338
>Do you know what the people in power of those government-corporations have done? No you don't, because you don't even now who they are. And that's because the media in your country has not tell you the truth about who is the real dictator.

You're clearly not going to be reasonable, of even look at the historical facts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:00:07 2011 No.3461366 >>3461352 Except that one of the parts have no other option than accept a slave wage to survive, so the other part has an advantage, and that is not fair.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:00:07 2011 No.3461367 Hey capitalists. If capitalism is so good why has America's economy failed not once but twice?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:00:07 2011 No.3461370 File: 10 KB, 429x410, 1272450978359.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3461247 >thinking a plutocracy is better than a dictatorship Oh boy it's that time again folks

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:01:07 2011 No.3461374

>>3461366
That's why I support a good social safety net. The possibility of starvation should not be on the table.

Universal healthcare, universal education, good unemployment benefits, subsidized housing, hell, whatever you want. Even a universal stipend. And, of course, strongly progressive taxes.

But throwing out markets in favor of central planning would be a grave mistake.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:02:07 2011 No.3461375

>>3461360
You are the one not looking to the historical facts that all the first world countries have every time invade economical, cultural and many times military many regions of the planet so they can take advantage of the resources and human labour.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:02:07 2011 No.3461379 >>3461370 It is better.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:03:07 2011 No.3461384 >>3461374 Markets will always end up eating those basic rights, you should know this already by looking at the US, for example.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:05:07 2011 No.3461389

>>3461375
They don't agree with your feelings about markets. In fact, artificial barriers to trade are a major cause of ongoing poverty in Africa. They can't have an economy if tariffs and subsidies destroy their chance to produce anything for trade.

Like Haiti. They could have a sugar cane industry if we didn't subsidize corn.

As for perspective, this changed mine. Have some data.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:05:07 2011 No.3461391 >>3461384 No, you look at Scandinavia. The US is a good example of "doing it wrong".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:06:07 2011 No.3461397 And this is why /sci/fags should not into politics.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:06:07 2011 No.3461398

>>3461319

I think he's saying Capitalism works, and a thread that bashes on it alone is retarded. He might have an argument if he said "American Capitalism" rather than "Capitalism" alone.

In defense of him:

Every system, regardless of economic or political climates, eventually fail. There is no eternal economy.

So now the question is: Which affords the longest lasting stable application, while also makes the most possible people genuinely happy?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:07:07 2011 No.3461403 >>3461398 >Which affords the longest lasting stable application, while also makes the most possible people genuinely happy? Sounds like a good metric. As has been mentioned ITT, I like the model of what Scandinavian countries have been doing lately.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:11:07 2011 No.3461415 >>3461379 >gang rape is better than regular rape lolno

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:14:07 2011 No.3461427 >>3461415 Bad analogy. Higher power concentrations are both more prone to abuse and produce more devastating abuses.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:15:07 2011 No.3461432 >>3461398 More like basing an economy on any other metric than social well being will always result in failure.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:16:07 2011 No.3461435

>>3461432
Agreed. The idea was to make "enhancing social well-being" the best way to make profits, by preventing various abuses. Then the best way to make money is to give people what they want as effectively as possible.

Just having a good metric doesn't mean you have a good system to make people follow it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:20:07 2011 No.3461448 >>3461379 If you are in the top 1%.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:22:07 2011 No.3461457 >>3461432 I like that principle.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:24:56 2011 No.3461460 [DELETED]

MOOT, YOU LITTLE BITCH ASS PRICK

SEE THIS, NIGGER?

THIS HERE IS A COLLECTION OF THE GREATEST MINDS OF 4CHAN.ORG

I KNOW THAT ISN'T SAYING A WHOLE LOT, BUT FOR FUCKS SAY CAN WE PLEASE GET A BOARD WHERE THE SMART PEOPLE CAN TALK ABOUT SMART PEOPLE THINGS?

THIS IS JUST FUCKING SAD.

WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT POLITICS ON A SCIENCE BOARD.

MOOT, THROW US A MOTHERFUCKING BONE, YOU DAMNED NIGGERFAGGOT

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:25:07 2011 No.3461467 >>3461448 It's hard to be worse than what is common for dictatorships.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:28:07 2011 No.3461482 >>3461467 It's not that hard, just look at capitalism history of poverty and crimes against humanity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:31:07 2011 No.3461504 You should all take example on us Europe: Socialism for health, education and important stuff. Capitalism for cars, tech toys and all the frivolous stuff. That's the way to go, niggas.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:32:07 2011 No.3461508 >>3461482 The dictatorships are worse.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:34:07 2011 No.3461525 >>3461508 Exactly, the dictatorship of the wealthy is far worse than the dictatorship of the workman.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:36:07 2011 No.3461541

are all zeitgeist-faggots angry 12-year-olds or just awfully lacking in education? just wondering... it's like they are so lost in their own dogma and propaganda they ignore all the history of mankind and the surrounding prosperity. they also happily ignore the possibility that IF their system works then they CAN enact it perfectly legally and kick the "inefficient inhumane" to history.

BUT NO! the fuckers just whine!

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:37:07 2011 No.3461545

>>3461525
> the dictatorship of the workman.
Fallacy. It always becomes The Party, with the beloved leader at the top.

If you COULD have a fully distributed power base, that would be great. But I haven't seen a system that is stable against sudden power concentration (i.e., every time we have tried communism).

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:38:07 2011 No.3461555 free market capitalism has never failed, because it's almost never been in place. the few times it has, it was short lived. so you can't find historical examples you dick fucks.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:38:07 2011 No.3461556

>>3461541
>are all zeitgeist-faggots angry 12-year-olds or just awfully lacking in education?
Both. What they have going for them is empathy for the poor, but then that just becomes a tool for getting them to jump on a bandwagon that would actually hurt the poor.

Communism all over again. Despotism wearing the mask of brotherhood.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:39:07 2011 No.3461566 >>3461555 I'm fine with markets that exist in a controlled environment that is established and maintained by a representative democracy. Now, some of the US and international policies need to change.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:39:07 2011 No.3461567 >>3461504 uh, why? if capitalism is better for a toy truck, it's better for a service like healthcare. consistency bro. laws of economics applies to both.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:39:07 2011 No.3461569 >>3461541 It can't be enacted in a manipulated plutocracy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:40:07 2011 No.3461576 >>3461545 I have already talk about a centralized horizontal government, look for it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:41:07 2011 No.3461579 >>3461556 Like free market capitalism has done anything but raised poverty.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:41:07 2011 No.3461582 >>3461576 And it's you I'm talking about, then. I have seen no mechanisms that are stable against powergrabs. There is a REASON that communism has always collapsed into dictatorship. >>3461556

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:42:07 2011 No.3461584 >>3461579 Believe it or not, the poor are not getting poorer. Their condition has been improving steadily. Have some data about the world. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:42:07 2011 No.3461585 >>3461582 Yes, and that reason is that it has not been fully enacted. No country ever has abolish private property absolutly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:43:07 2011 No.3461591 >>3461584 nah don't bother. they think having a smaller slice of a pie means their wealth is shrinking. but they don't account for the fact that the pie is growing.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:43:07 2011 No.3461592

>>3461585
Then I suggest you have some more thinking to do before you attempt this all over again. A deep understanding of what you need to do DIFFERENTLY from all the other times is important.

No, not just "no money, and with computers this time". Those were not the problem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:45:07 2011 No.3461603 >>3461584 If some people are getting richer and other poorer, it means it has failed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:45:07 2011 No.3461604 >>3461576 You mean the kind of system that's in use in Shanxi & Guangdong, where people can vote online for legislation propositions of The Party? Centrally planned and everyone can voice their mind almost in real time!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:45:07 2011 No.3461607 >>3461592 Those were the problems. No money, computarized, horizontal, public government.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:46:07 2011 No.3461613 >>3461604 I do not know that case, please elaborate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:47:07 2011 No.3461615 bitches don´t know about social-threefolding

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:47:07 2011 No.3461616 >>3461607 > horizontal, public government. Please elaborate how this actually works, and where the teeth that keep it safe from powergrabs are.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:47:07 2011 No.3461621 >>3461603 > and other poorer, But they aren't. The poor are not getting poorer, especially not worldwide.

>>	sage Wed Jul 27 17:54:07 2011 No.3461654 >>3461621 No, infact, they are.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 17:57:07 2011 No.3461667 >>3461654 No, in fact, they are not. Especially not if you're referring to "third-world" countries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUwS1uAdUcI

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:00:07 2011 No.3461682 http://www.theonion.com/articles/gap-between-rich-and-poor-named-8th-wonder-of-the,18914/?utm_so urce=related

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:05:07 2011 No.3461714

>ITT poor people talking about capitalism
Sorry, in a system where people can get rich by hard-working + investiments + not wasting their money with silly bullshities, I just cannot accept that nobody with less than 10 million dollars have any right to complain about it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:08:07 2011 No.3461724

>>3461432

Define "social well being"

Here's a hint: Social well-being is dependent on the society which you are analyzing. Which means, if it's okay to treat your wife like a piece of property and beat her mercilessly, according to your philosophy the economy should be centered around that?

Oh sorry I knew you meant Anglo-Christian standards of society I was just pointing out how retarded a metric it is that you are proposing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:11:07 2011 No.3461747 >>3461724 Social well being is easily defineable as "do not do to other what you do not want for yourself" and "focusing on the objective that every human has it needs satisfy thus being capable of producing knowledge".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:13:07 2011 No.3461752 >>3461667 Obvioulsy you will get positive values with capitalist measurments. The fact is that GDP isn't a feasible way of knowing how poor is a society.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:13:07 2011 No.3461753 >>3461724 >>3461747 I'd agree that "values" are subjective, but we're all humans here, and we can study what systems, cultures, and policies help humans thrive and be happy.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:15:07 2011 No.3461764

>>3461752
>Obvioulsy you will get positive values with capitalist measurments. The fact is that GDP isn't a feasible way of knowing how poor is a society.

Pick your metric, and get the actual data. It has changed my worldview. This man has devoted his life to making actual data on global health and welfare accessible, and in making a difference. Take the time to take a look.
http://www.gapminder.org/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:16:07 2011 No.3461766 >>3461747 You cannot achieve this with a profit based economy like capitalism, that's why it is flawed.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:17:07 2011 No.3461772

>>3461752
>The fact is that GDP isn't a feasible way of knowing how poor is a society.
Not even GDP per capita? Anyway,
>>3461764

>>3461766
>You cannot achieve this with a profit based economy like capitalism, that's why it is flawed.
It's a matter of making sure that the best way to make money is to give people what they want. Saying this is impossible is a little much.

HOWEVER, and what I think we are REALLY saying, is that just looking at GDP has warped our thinking, and caused governments to enact bad policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_economics

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:17:07 2011 No.3461773 >>3461764 I don't think you are that stupid to deny poverty, aren't you? So, even if it's not 90% or 80%, hell, even if it's not 50%, it's still wrong, no human in the world should have a better life than other.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:19:07 2011 No.3461783 >>3461772 But humans should not aim no make money, it's irrational. Humans should look up to create knowledge and arts.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:20:07 2011 No.3461788

>>3461773
> no human in the world should have a better life than other.
This is where I reject your mindset in the STRONGEST possible terms. The primary problem is POVERTY, in ABSOLUTE terms, not concern over wealth inequality.

I agree that wealth inequality has bad effects and high levels of inequality are not optimal. But when you say that your biggest problem is someone having more than another? No, the BIGGEST problem is that some people don't have ENOUGH. It has nothing to do with other people.

Wealth is absolute, not relative, and if everyone has a good home, good food, education, necessary levels of employment, etc., then you don't have poverty. Wealth inequality would be the next concern.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:20:07 2011 No.3461792 >>3461783 I agree, follow the last link.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:23:07 2011 No.3461803

the only problem with capitalism is that people think it's the solution to everything.

unfortunately, capitalism concentrates wealth among just a few people. those people have an interest to maintain their wealth by maintaining the status quo.

it takes an outside challenger to innovate new and better technologies which are threatening to existing markets.

the solution is to regulate and tax capitalism. the regulations keep capitalist entities honest (or at least they're supposed to... a problem occurs when business interests become their own regulators) and the taxes are for the development of better technologies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:23:07 2011 No.3461804 >>3461783 I second this.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:24:07 2011 No.3461813

>>3461803
>implying it's not capitalism if there are taxes
Really?

Anyway, I generally agree. Taxes should be collected and controlled by a representative democracy that spends the funds for general health care, education, unemployment, etc.

But that doesn't mean you don't have a market economy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:25:07 2011 No.3461816 yea, democracy is working out so well for every western nation right now. don't worry about greedy businessmen guys. we have democracy to REGULATE it!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:25:07 2011 No.3461817 >>3461788 Poverty happens because wealth inequity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:26:07 2011 No.3461819 >>3461788 >>3461803 >>3461783 THEEEEESEEEEE!!!! Capitalists: [] Not told [] Told [] TOLD [X] YOU GOT TOLD MOTHERFUCKER

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:26:07 2011 No.3461820

>>3461747

Okay well, I'm a psychopath and I have a physical addiction to torture.

This is an exaggeration but the basic idea is that people are at odds with one another. Some goals are either/or and you simply cannot fulfill both with some people.

This is completely ignoring by the way, that there are not a limitless number of resources available in a given system and thus it's impossible to cover every possible goal for every possible citizen.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:26:07 2011 No.3461821 >>3461817 But you should not get your priorities mixed up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:27:07 2011 No.3461826 >>3461820 A culture that values self-determination and personal fulfillment would give you your torture. Or they would determine that you are mentally ill and help you find a more constructive way to be happy.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:29:07 2011 No.3461831

>>3461820
Limitless, no, enough, hell yeah. And even if there are not enough, no one should have more than other.
And about the psychopath, those are a minority and i think that when capitalism it's over, they will be over too, because the system creates bad people.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:29:07 2011 No.3461832

>>3461819
I consider myself generally capitalist, and I'm
>>3461788

You REALLY think that capitalism is about hating the poor? Ayn Rand was just as wrong as Marx, BTW.

No, I like markets and trade because it is our best method for curing poverty.
>>3461584

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:31:07 2011 No.3461838 >>3461832 Capitalism is about creating poverty, to them, poor people are easily handled manual labour, it's convenient for them. And again, markets are the cause of poverty.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:35:07 2011 No.3461859

>>3461831

>enough

Not even close! For one, human populations scale to resource production, not the other way around. The upshot of this is that it's impossible to continuously cover the needs of every human being without massive population control (and genocide because our current population would be way too large to do the sort of resource management you're talking about)

We're running out of tons of various metals we use to electronics, we're running out of fresh water to grow food with, we're running out of tons of stuff.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:38:07 2011 No.3461878 >>3461834 done.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:38:07 2011 No.3461879

>>3461838
Your dogma is simply false. The world is not a zero-sum game.

Try this on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

I'll give you a scenario explaining comparative advantage and trade gains.

Say we're on an island, and we harvest coconuts and weave straw mats. You're better then me at everything: you can harvest 5 coconuts in a hour, or make a straw mat in 2, while I can only get 2 coconuts an hour or make straw mats in 3.

However, if we both focus on what we are best at, the difference in our relative abilities means we both benefit from trade. You harvest coconuts at 5 an hour, while I make straw mats at one every 3 hours. At the end of a 6-hour work period, you have 30 coconuts and I have two straw mats. I trade you a straw mat for at least 12 coconuts, and we are both wealthier than we would be otherwise.

That's trade - that's markets.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:39:07 2011 No.3461886

>>3461879
> I trade you a straw mat for at least 12 coconuts, and we are both wealthier than we would be otherwise.
(cont)
This was a mistake, actually I only need to trade for at least 6 coconuts. In those 6 hours, I could only have produced one straw mat and 6 coconuts by myself.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:40:07 2011 No.3461889

>>3461838

Capitalism is about allocating resources. Money flows into a destitute region, products flow out of said region, said region is less destitute. Matter of factly it lowers poverty because it provides opportunity to shitty parts of the world where people will work for cheap and this sets their manpower to something more productive.

You weep for the little Indonesian girl who is forced to work in the Levi's factory making blue jeans, but I weep for you because you don't grasp that her choices aren't "go to school" and "work in factory" they're closer to "whore yourself out" or "panhandle" and "work in factory"

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:43:07 2011 No.3461901

>>3461879
>>3461886
So, comparing what we have if we both make a straw mat and gather coconuts, with and without trade, we have:

No Trade:
You: 1 mat, 20 coconuts.
Me: 1 mat, 6 coconuts.

With trade:
You: 1 mat, (30 - mat cost) coconuts
Me: 1 mat, (mat price) coconuts
I'd be willing to trade my mat for 6 or more coconuts, you'd be willing to give up 10 or fewer coconuts for the mat. Where it eventually ends up depends on how much we each value coconuts versus mats.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:45:07 2011 No.3461908

>>3461901
(cont)
I'd be willing to trade my mat for 6 or more coconuts, you'd be willing to give up 10 or fewer coconuts for the mat. Where it eventually ends up depends on how much we each value coconuts versus mats.
So if I give you a mat for 8 coconuts, we are both 2 coconuts richer than we would have been without trade. We would have equal trade gains of 2 coconuts. IMO, this is the optimum.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:50:07 2011 No.3461929 >I explain comparative advantage and trade gains >thread dies ;_; Oh well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:55:07 2011 No.3461959 >>3461929 What? Do you want a discussion? In your example, it works great, but why not when applied to RL?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:57:07 2011 No.3461971 >>3461959 >In your example, it works great, but why not when applied to RL? It does work IRL. Trade is good. It's other retarded things that are bad. New thread if you want to discuss it. >>3461945

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:44:07 2011 No.3462188 >>3461859 Technology will reduce scarce a lot if not all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:46:07 2011 No.3462193 >>3461971 It works horrible IRL, that's why we have so much poverty in the first place.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:51:07 2011 No.3462218

>>3462193
No. There are other reasons. It is the LACK of trade that has done it. Protectionist subsidies and tariffs, invasive monetary meddling by the IMF, absolutely retarded policies on debt, etc.

But trade? No, trade is our best hope. Try out the Hans Rosling videos ITT to see what is actually happening with the so-called "third world" countries.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:53:07 2011 No.3462230

>>3462218
You lack of historical perspective.
Most countries in the world in the past two centuries have rely in free market capitalism as their socioeconomic model, along with colonialism (which is created by the profit motivation, which is created by the trade) have destroy no only all those countries who didn't want to apply their system, but they also ruined the first world countries that originated it.

>>	OP Wed Jul 27 19:57:07 2011 No.3462255 >>3462230 You have a perspective, but it is not the one supported by data. This really changed my mind on the matter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUwS1uAdUcI I agree that colonialism is bad. But that isn't free trade.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 20:01:07 2011 No.3462273 >>3462255 If you use capitalistic measurements it will always show better in a capitalist country, the GDP is not the right factor to consider, because it does not show how the wealth is distributed, it shows the total wealth.

OP Wed Jul 27 20:04:07 2011 No.3462287

>>3462273
GDP per capita, look closely.

And if you don't like that metric, look up your own. There's no longer this gap between the first and third worlds. Most people are in the middle.
Here's the site where you can get to the data:
http://www.gapminder.org/

Here's another good one from Hans.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math