Capitalism versus Socialism

[saltandsauce 0]

In this topic i have observed (in my infinite yet modest wisdom)

the confusion of two terms, one term is of course, capitalism. the second is corporatism.

corporates defend their position by saying that they are capitalist when in fact, they are not.

capitalism is what you find in the informal economies of the world, in India, Lagos, Rio de Jenerio.

where a person may scratch a living by selling things. in the capitalist world when you want to set up a business, you can just go out, get some stock and sell it. In the corporate West, when you want to set up a business you have to declare yourself a business, order stock, rent retail space and provide a big fat deposit, plough through regulation which is loosely related to your business which also costs huge amounts of money.

in short, in the capitalist countries you can work to make money

in corporate countries, you make money work to make you money.

the fault with the corporate economy is of course, once a HUGE company goes to the wall, entire economies can be devastated. and that oligarchies develop and monopolies develop in the worst case scenario.

(oligarchies can sometimes all meet up and agree to keep prices static or raise them - defeating the purpose of competition)

also since the birth of "free trade" (one of the most laughable concepts ever) corporations can hold governments to ransom by threatening them with outsourcing.

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

 @Motina

Yes, all the things Ive said are not what was originally meant with capitalism and the free market. They are just what will eventually become the next step in the whole process. If your sole purpose in life is to get more, at some point you will breed a group of people who will change the laws etc that make it easier to get more and where unfair tactics are acceptable if it gets you more.quote>

Oh, but that is the purpose of capitalism. Not the free-market though. The free-market was never about "getting more". Capitalism is just another form of propertarianism, just like monarchies, or theocracies, or totalitarianism. The free market actually eliminate property laws. Property is a privilege, and is the sole basis of capitalism, the free market is about removing such privileges.

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce
In this topic i have observed (in my infinite yet modest wisdom)

the confusion of two terms, one term is of course, capitalism. the second is corporatism.

corporates defend their position by saying that they are capitalist when in fact, they are not.

capitalism is what you find in the informal economies of the world, in India, Lagos, Rio de Jenerio.
where a person may scratch a living by selling things. in the capitalist world when you want to set up a business, you can just go out, get some stock and sell it. In the corporate West, when you want to set up a business you have to declare yourself a business, order stock, rent retail space and provide a big fat deposit, plough through regulation which is loosely related to your business which also costs huge amounts of money.

in short, in the capitalist countries you can work to make money
in corporate countries, you make money work to make you money.

the fault with the corporate economy is of course, once a HUGE company goes to the wall, entire economies can be devastated. and that oligarchies develop and monopolies develop in the worst case scenario.
(oligarchies can sometimes all meet up and agree to keep prices static or raise them - defeating the purpose of competition)

also since the birth of "free trade" (one of the most laughable concepts ever) corporations can hold governments to ransom by threatening them with outsourcing.
quote>

There is no confusion between capitalism and corporatism. They both require strict and unjust property laws. Your definition of capitalism is nothing but the definiton of a market, which is nothing but conflation.

From wikipedia: Kevin Carson (althoguh, I suggest you read his blogs) unlike some other market anarchists, defines capitalism in historical terms, emphasizing the history of state intervention in market economies. He says "t is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market." He does not define capitalism in the idealized sense, but says that when he talks about "capitalism" he is referring to what he calls "actualy existing capitalism." He believes that "laissez-faire capitalism, historically speaking, is an oxymoron" but has no quarrel with anarcho-capitalists who use the term and distinguish it from "actually existing capitalism." In response to claims that he uses the term "capitalism" incorrectly, Carson says he is deliberately choosing to resurrect what he claims to be an old definition of the term in order to "make a point." He claims that "the term “capitalism,” as it was originally used, did not refer to a free market, but to a type of statist class system in which capitalists controlled the state and the state intervened in the market on their behalf." Carson holds that "actually existing capitalism" is founded on "an act of robbery as massive as feudalism." Carson argues that in a truly laissez-faire system, the ability to extract a profit from labor and capital would be negligible. Carson argues the centralization of wealth into a class hierarchy is due to state intervention to protect the ruling class, by using a money monopoly, granting patents and subsidies to corporations, imposing discriminatory taxation, and intervening militarily to gain access to international markets. Carson’s thesis is that under an authentic free market economy, the separation of labour from ownership and the subordination of labor to capital would be impossible, bringing a more egalitarian society in which most people could easily choose self-employment over wage labor.

[raja_indy14 8]

Originally posted by: Motina

As if that was my point. Do not conflate my pointing out the capitalists in the system as a simplification. Focusing on one does not negate all the other factors.quote>

Well, I did say I find it hard in parts to understand what you mean, so some of that is based on a certain amount of extrapolation. If you could write more clearly it would certainly help. I only said it seemed that that was what you were intimating, if it was not, please state it clearly. I had also assumed that you must have had more of an objective in mind than simply "pointing out the capitalists in the system", because such a fact is so obvious and well known there is little reason that someone would make a special effort simply to bring attention to it.

Originally posted by: Motina

Misaprehension, huh? If everything you have said, is exactly what I exected you to say, is it really misapprehension? You are projecting.quote>

You haven't actually said anything that would suggest you weren't labouring under a misapprehension, considering that your earlier post was entirely misdirected and unnecessary.

Originally posted by: Motina

This has gotten to broad, should we narrow the scope, which apparently causes you problems, or just leave it alone?quote>

It causes me problems? Sorry, I don't see that at all, as I'm not having any problems (aside from a difficulty understanding some of your writing, but this is a grammatical/structural problem rather than one of conceptual difficulty). I said that government does not (and should not) simply respond to the whims of the majority, to which you responded:

Originally posted by: Motina

The government does what is in the best interest of the landed oligarchy/opulent minority.quote>

Now, your statement is not actually incompatible with mine. A government that does not respond to simple majority opinion can certainly be one that only responds to the elites. Since that was not the point of disagreement I was forced to the conclusion that the 'new information' your post was bringing to the table was that government only does what is in the best interests of the "opulent minority". That is certainly a very plausible reading of the above statement in this context, and this is also what I took issue with.

Now, if you don't actually think that government exclusively serves the interests of the elite echelon then your earlier statement was clearly a gross simplification of your actual views and this debate is over nothing (except perhaps a bit of mutual misunderstanding). I certainly don't need it proven to me that governments tend to favour the elite classes. If by narrowing the scope you mean that we should focus on capitalists in government then I think that is a completely unnecessary tangent that will be (a) ultimately unproductive and (b) not particularly illuminating. I would predict that we would agree in principle but diverge sharply in our appreciation of the magnitude of the "problem". If, however, you still think that government exclusively favours the upper classes, I think that is the only point where future debate is reasonable. I have already made my points above that you have yet to respond to, so if you choose to continue we can start there.

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

the confusion of two terms, one term is of course, capitalism. the second is corporatismquote>

I don't think that that confusion exists because corporatism describes a very particular political-economic relationship that is not characterized merely by adding a layer of bureaucracy and complication to the operation of business. Corporatism, as the term is used in Political-economics, is a system where business, labour and the state come together to settle disputes over wages and production in a setting of mutual recognition and an appreciation of a goal beyond the immediate interests of the different parties. In corporatist systems, labour is typically represented by very large and powerful unions that hold direct talks with business representatives under the oversight of the state which plays a role in determining national economic goals and needs.

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

capitalism is what you find in the informal economies of the world, in India, Lagos, Rio de Jenerio.quote>

Those types of informal economies are simply markets and do not have some of the vital aspects of a capitalist system. For one thing, private property rights tend to be amorphous or nonexistent in such situations, and private property protected by the rule of law is generally considered one of the fundamental attributes of a functional capitalist economy.

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

In the corporate West, when you want to set up a business you have to declare yourself a business, order stock, rent retail space and provide a big fat deposit, plough through regulation which is loosely related to your business which also costs huge amounts of money.quote>

If one considers that this has, more or less, been the case with western capitalism since the creation of the first joint stock company which pretty much marked the inception of a modern capitalist system, then there never was such a thing as capitalism except in the pre-modern markets that rested on barter and small business. Since that wasn't capitalism, unless we're going to start re-applying terms willy nilly, and since the western economic system that has developed since the 17th century has consisted of various forms of capitalism, it makes little sense to start limiting the term "capitalism" to describe pre-"capitalist" barter economies.

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

also since the birth of "free trade" (one of the most laughable concepts ever) corporations can hold governments to ransom by threatening them with outsourcing.quote>

Free trade is a wonderful idea, in fact, if your country dominates global manufacturing.

@motina; Much of what Kevin Carson says is perfectly reasonable, but he seems to have an intentionally noncomformist definition of capitalism, so while his views should certainly be considered I don't think it makes much sense to use his conception of the term as definitive for lay or nonspecific use.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Motina

Oh, but that is the purpose of capitalism. Not the free-market though. The free-market was never about "getting more". Capitalism is just another form of propertarianism, just like monarchies, or theocracies, or totalitarianism. The free market actually eliminate property laws. Property is a privilege, and is the sole basis of capitalism, the free market is about removing such privileges.

quote>

The free market is just a means to a certain end. Its more effective if you want to make profit as efficient as possible. 

But like I said, if the sole purpose in life is to get 'more' you eventually get a society filled with people that want more no matter the costs. 

You already see it today. Everyone is *****ing everyone over just so they get a little more money. They *****ed over an entire country! And now they are speculating on the downfall of the Euro. They get filthy rich, but they ruin the economy of an entire continent. Thats what you get with an unchecked 'free market' and unchecked capitalism. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Wonder what would happen if currency speculation became illegal?  One of the worst things that ever happened is allowing speculators to trade in currencies.  The need to forward trade in currencies can be handled by letters of credit accompanied by forward contracts.  No trading in currencies without a backup of trade goods.

[Duke87 1,070]

But what, then, would that mean for the American travelling to Europe that needs to exchange some money to have the local currency on hand? Sounds like creating unnecessary hassle to me.

Besides, people will just find a loophole and exploit it, anyway. They always do.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Wonder what would happen if currency speculation became illegal?  One of the worst things that ever happened is allowing speculators to trade in currencies.  The need to forward trade in currencies can be handled by letters of credit accompanied by forward contracts.  No trading in currencies without a backup of trade goods.

quote>

Even better than that, the governments could adopt a gold standard. As long as there isn't a radical permanent change in human nature, it guarantees a stable currency and stable prices (zero inflation).

[raja_indy14 8]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

The free market is just a means to a certain end.quote>

Not really, the free market is simply one way in which economic activity is organized that tends to be the most efficient. It is and was not a program implemented to achieve certain ends, there is no "end goal" of free markets (in any overarching sense). That tends to be mixed economies, which often have the end goal of national economic development or reconstruction.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

But like I said, if the sole purpose in life is to get 'more' you eventually get a society filled with people that want more no matter the costs. quote>

People always say that, but it seems to be more hyperbole than fact. Studies have shown, such as that by Robert Cooper, that in fact there is an increasing trend towards postmodern values in many western capitalist democracies that includes an increasing environmental awareness and postmaterialism. I know practically no one who believes that material acquisition is the primary purpose of life, and in many instances their goals in life are less rather than more acquisitive than their parents. These goals tend to be focussed around travel and enjoyment or a modest but comfortable living rather than maximizing income. Obviously, there are people out there who are very much focussed on materialist aggrandizement, but I think it is excessive to claim that the majority of society is increasingly so.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Everyone is *****ing everyone over just so they get a little more money.quote>

This may be a reasonable perception, but is it actually true?

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

They *****ed over an entire country!quote>

Greece? Well, even the most kind hearted person has to accept that fact that they acted with the direct connivance of the Greek government, and that Greeks themselves share considerably in the blame.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

And now they are speculating on the downfall of the Euro.quote>

It is generally a small minority of people that participate in this sort of speculation, it certainly is a far smaller proportion of the population than "everyone". At any rate, I was under the impression that markets and the Euro had rallied over the weekend?

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

They get filthy rich, but they ruin the economy of an entire continent. Thats what you get with an unchecked 'free market' and unchecked capitalism.quote>

I would say the problems in the west are rather more complicated than simple currency speculation, the East Asia Financial Crisis is a far clearer case of unchecked currency speculation precipitating a regional economic crisis. Either way, I think that increased regulation of international currency markets is certainly something to be pursued, and given the fact that so many businesses are beholden to government now for their continued survival one would expect that government will be keeping these sorts of activities on a tighter leash in future.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Wonder what would happen if currency speculation became illegal?  One of the worst things that ever happened is allowing speculators to trade in currencies.  The need to forward trade in currencies can be handled by letters of credit accompanied by forward contracts.  No trading in currencies without a backup of trade goods.

quote>

Even better than that, the governments could adopt a gold standard. As long as there isn't a radical permanent change in human nature, it guarantees a stable currency and stable prices (zero inflation).

quote>

Yes, and the price of gold would be pegged at what?  I suggest going with near current market value of $1,000 U.S. per fine ounce.  This means that a standard 400 fine ounce bar would be worth $400,000 U.S.  Nice round number.  Last time is was $35.00 U.S. per fine ounce.  Shows what happens when you allow currencies to drift.

[morriswalters 16]

Free markets are a myth.  The closest thing most people will see are micro examples like flea markets.  Governments and business people both manipulate the markets to achieve goals which may or may not be good for the average consumer.  If you don't believe this then explain the existances of a type of company called an expeditor.  They are not a shipper, rather they are companies which navigategate the maze of regulations and tarrifs that shippers encounter when they move those free market goods..

Consumerism is a fact.  Consumers drive the economy.  You can debate if  this good or bad,  but  it is undeniable.  You will see hundreds of messages for retailers daily as they try to entice you to consume their wares.  You are bombarded, everywhere, all the time.  People are trained to consume and given the faintest of rationals will produce all kinds of rationalizations about why it is good.  I'll give you an example.  Bottled water.  Most people in this country can get water as good as most bottled water simply by opening their taps at their sink, since in point of fact bottled water comes from the same source as tap water in most cases.  Your local water company.

Are people out to one up everybody and get the advantage, no matter the cost?  Well........., perhaps that is a slight overstatement.  However ever I will say that the number of lawyers in this society can be treated as one marker of the basic amoralism of humans.  And I have a practical experiment.  Put ten dollars in an old wallet with  your name and a disposable phone number(safer that way).  See if you get it back.

In the case of the Greeks you have the sheep surrounded by wolves.  They bought into, as did a lot of other people, a belief that the good times would never end and that loans would somehow magically pay themselves off.  It didn't help that nobody understood, then or now, the transactions.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

In fact should the title of this thread be "Consumerism vs. Socialism"?

MorrisWalters makes a very good point.  Between the putocratic oligarcy and the MadAv barrage lies the consumer who is at least as conditioned to market churning as Pavlov's dogs were to getting hungry at the bell.

[raja_indy14 8]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

However ever I will say that the number of lawyers in this society can be treated as one marker of the basic amoralism of humans.quote>

It seems a more reliable marker of excessive regulation than an indicator of increased amoralism, the more laws you have the more need for lawyers. Many societies easily have far greater levels of 'amoralism', however defined, but have far fewer lawyers.

Originally posted by: morriswalters

And I have a practical experiment. Put ten dollars in an old wallet with your name and a disposable phone number(safer that way). See if you get it back.quote>

This varies from individual to individual and there are many instances of people returning things that don't belong to them even when there are unlikely to be any sanctions against that person. In any event, there are any number of variables that go into an experiment like this. For instance, some people might be tempted to steal $100 but not $10, and much depends on the character and situation of the person involved.

Originally posted by: morriswalters

They bought into, as did a lot of other people, a belief that the good times would never end and that loans would somehow magically pay themselves off. It didn't help that nobody understood, then or now, the transactions.quote>

Most people do, in fact, understand the reasons behind sovereign debt crises, because they are not terribly complicated. In this instance, however, the Greek government colluded with Goldman Sachs to mask the true extent of public debt so that they could continue to spend beyond the Maastricht limitations. Now, it seems amoral for Goldman Sachs to offer such a service, but its probably also true that the Greek government knew what it was doing and was a far from unwilling participant in the scheme. A lot of Greeks will get shafted, but I think that much of the blame falls squarely on their government and on themselves.

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by:

raja_indy14

Originally posted by:

morriswalters

However ever I will say that the number of lawyers in this society can be treated as one marker of the basic amoralism of humans.quote>

It seems a more reliable marker of excessive regulation than an indicator of increased amoralism, the more laws you have the more need for lawyers. Many societies easily have far greater levels of 'amoralism', however defined, but have far fewer lawyers.

That's an interesting take, however I would posit that regulation is desired by business,  just not the regulation of the businesses complaining about it, rather their competitors.  In any case a lot of Lawyers are involved in contract law, which is the law of making sure businesses (and people) live up to their agreements,  which they often don't want to do. Which leads to the interesting subgroup of Lawyers who break contracts for their customers.  Another favorite is patent law, designed in the beginning to protect innovation now used to reduce competition.  This has caused a new type of business which does nothing,  sometimes called patent trolls.  As an interest aside the Patent Office is thinking about raising fees to make patents much more expensive to file for and obtain, thereby making patents harder to get for small entities.

Originally posted by:

morriswalters

And I have a practical experiment. Put ten dollars in an old wallet with your name and a disposable phone number(safer that way). See if you get it back.quote>

This varies from individual to individual and there are many instances of people returning things that don't belong to them even when there are unlikely to be any sanctions against that person. In any event, there are any number of variables that go into an experiment like this. For instance, some people might be tempted to steal $100 but not $10, and much depends on the character and situation of the person involved.

Perhaps to control the variables better the wallet should be dropped in Goldman Sachs lobby.  If someone with more money than good sense wishes to contribute a thousand dollars we could run the experiment a hundred times.  My choice of ten dollars versus any other amount is designed to make the moral question for the finder simpler.  Ten dollars should not be enough to tempt someones basic character  to change.  Most people who would pass through that lobby would be liquid and not in need.  I can't be sure but I would be surprised if you got back more than a hundred.

Before I hit your last point I should say something.  I am constantly amazed at how trusting people are.  When I use the term amoral, I use it in it's classical form meaning without morals.  I work with the constant thought in my mind that people are as moral as they have to be.  This is certainly not true for all people, but I find it easier to start from that point , it spares me  lot of disappointments and moral people are not offended.   Businesses have a moral stand only so long as the business is controlled by one man.  As a business increases in size the separation of the business from the community removes any moral brake that may exist.  It's not that businesses are immoral but that they become amoral.  Without someone to take responsibility a business by defintion becomes amoral.  The larger the business the greater the "problem".  The moral problem gets pushed up the pipeline with nobody having to accept the responsibility.  Look to history.

Originally posted by:

morriswalters

They bought into, as did a lot of other people, a belief that the good times would never end and that loans would somehow magically pay themselves off. It didn't help that nobody understood, then or now, the transactions.quote>

Most people do, in fact, understand the reasons behind sovereign debt crises, because they are not terribly complicated. In this instance, however, the Greek government colluded with Goldman Sachs to mask the true extent of public debt so that they could continue to spend beyond the Maastricht limitations. Now, it seems amoral for Goldman Sachs to offer such a service, but its probably also true that the Greek government knew what it was doing and was a far from unwilling participant in the scheme. A lot of Greeks will get shafted, but I think that much of the blame falls squarely on their government and on themselves.quote>

 

Most con games require the willing participation of the of the person being conned.  The con relies on greed and your belief that you are as smart as him.  But all that aside a con game is still a crime,  that is unless your an investment bank.

[raja_indy14 8]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

I can't be sure but I would be surprised if you got back more than a hundred.quote>

I'm not going to speculate because I can't know.

Originally posted by: morriswalters

When I use the term amoral, I use it in it's classical form meaning without moralsquote>

What other meaning is there?

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Businesses have a moral stand only so long as the business is controlled by one man.quote>

Or woman. And only so long as that person is moral.

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Without someone to take responsibility a business by defintion becomes amoral. The larger the business the greater the "problem". The moral problem gets pushed up the pipeline with nobody having to accept the responsibility. Look to history.quote>

No arguments from me that people will do anything to avoid personal responsibility, "collective" responsibility makes amoral/immoral actions so much easier.

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Most con games require the willing participation of the of the person being conned. The con relies on greed and your belief that you are as smart as him. But all that aside a con game is still a crime, that is unless your an investment bank.quote>

True. But only if you accept it was a con on the part of Goldman Sachs perpetrated against the Greek government and not, as seems more likely, a collusion between Goldman Sachs and the Greek government. Con and collusion are not the same thing, and I don't think that the characterization of that relationship as a con is particularly apt. I think that the Greek government knew what it was doing and was not necessarily misled (which is one of the key elements of a con). The widespread tax evasion on the part of the Greek people also mitigates, to a certain extent, the sympathetic feelings one might have for their plight. To pretend that this entire thing was masterminded by Goldman Sachs and that the Greek people and government are simply helpless victims in the face of big business would be excessively generous, I think.

[morriswalters 16]

i stand corrected on the wallet test, somebody did it and people seem to be more honest than I think they are.  Maybe.

www.wallettest.com/

First I must say I used Goldman Sachs as an example, I have no idea if they were involved in Greece or not. Second, Greece is a problem for the Greeks, not me.  But the only one's who haven't lost in these transactions(at least in the ones I have looked at) are the entities who brokered the transaction investment banks.  This indicates a disconnect between risk and rewards.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

Not really, the free market is simply one way in which economic activity is organized that tends to be the most efficient. It is and was not a program implemented to achieve certain ends, there is no "end goal" of free markets (in any overarching sense). That tends to be mixed economies, which often have the end goal of national economic development or reconstruction.quote>

So it is a means to a end: maximum efficiency when it comes to economic activity. And that means more profit. If it wasnt a means to an end, people wouldnt do it. It would serve no purpose.

People always say that, but it seems to be more hyperbole than fact. Studies have shown, such as that by Robert Cooper, that in fact there is an increasing trend towards postmodern values in many western capitalist democracies that includes an increasing environmental awareness and postmaterialism. I know practically no one who believes that material acquisition is the primary purpose of life, and in many instances their goals in life are less rather than more acquisitive than their parents. These goals tend to be focussed around travel and enjoyment or a modest but comfortable living rather than maximizing income. Obviously, there are people out there who are very much focussed on materialist aggrandizement, but I think it is excessive to claim that the majority of society is increasingly so.quote>

I am sure thats what they really wanted at Goldman Sachs when they screwed over their customers. Save the environment and give all their money to charity in order to achieve spiritual salvation. 

Also, do tell. How do people plan to actually get a relatively comfortable and fun lifestyle and go on trips to all around the world without any money? A relatively comfortable lifestyle likely includes a nice house, a garden, tv, computer, internet, kids etc. The only way you can afford that is by working. And not just 20 hours a week. At least, not if your name isnt Bill Gates. Noooo, in order to even afford the post modern lifestyle you need to work at least 40 hours a week. Probably more because how the hell can you be competitive if you dont work overtime? It could be me, but if people suddenly value family and stuff so much, then why are there still so many people dumping their kids at day care? Why is there an entire day care industry? Why is the government enforcing rules to get maximum work capacity (both parents working full time)? 

This may be a reasonable perception, but is it actually true?quote>

Okay okay, I lied. They are only screwing their own customers over in the financial sector. To bad that just involves the entire economy. 

Greece? Well, even the most kind hearted person has to accept that fact that they acted with the direct connivance of the Greek government, and that Greeks themselves share considerably in the blame.quote>

Oh sure, I wont deny that Greece is at fault here as well. However, who allowed them to do that? Thats right, some banks, knowing full well the dramatic consequences this could have in a few years. But what do they care, they get huge profits next month. If these banks where run by people not consumed by greed they would have never lent Greece any money and it wouldnt have come to this. 

It is generally a small minority of people that participate in this sort of speculation, it certainly is a far smaller proportion of the population than "everyone". At any rate, I was under the impression that markets and the Euro had rallied over the weekend?quote>

Yeah after a monster bail out for countries in need. And guess where that money comes from? Yeah, taxes and printing. Thus, inflation is going to be a new problem. If these speculants had any decency they wouldnt have done it. But of course, they arent decent and just screwed over about everyone in Europe. They should be dragged out their homes and executed on the streets. They are criminals that can do whatever they do because there arent any rules that regulate speculating.  

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

So it is a means to a end: maximum efficiency when it comes to economic activity. And that means more profit. If it wasnt a means to an end, people wouldnt do it. It would serve no purpose.quote>

Market efficiency does not mean profit. If you have to go through high capital requirements, tight expensive regulations to be in line with the big players, and money monopolies, patents, etc. This eliminates a lot of the effficiency in a market. Without any protections and privileges to certain participants, there would be very little profit at all.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Oh sure, I wont deny that Greece is at fault here as well. However, who allowed them to do that? Thats right, some banks, knowing full well the dramatic consequences this could have in a few years. But what do they care, they get huge profits next month. If these banks where run by people not consumed by greed they would have never lent Greece any money and it wouldnt have come to this.quote>

The banks never lent Greece any money, they used financial instruments to hide Greek debt, in order for Greece to enter the European Union.

[raja_indy14 8]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

I am sure thats what they really wanted at Goldman Sachs when they screwed over their customers.quote>

I may be wrong, but last I checked the owners and even operators of Goldman Sachs did not constitute "everyone". In fact, I'm practically certain the number of people employed by Goldman Sachs is an infinitesimal percentage of the total population.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Also, do tell. How do people plan to actually get a relatively comfortable and fun lifestyle and go on trips to all around the world without any money? A relatively comfortable lifestyle likely includes a nice house, a garden, tv, computer, internet, kids etc. The only way you can afford that is by working. And not just 20 hours a week. At least, not if your name isnt Bill Gates. Noooo, in order to even afford the post modern lifestyle you need to work at least 40 hours a week. Probably more because how the hell can you be competitive if you dont work overtime? It could be me, but if people suddenly value family and stuff so much, then why are there still so many people dumping their kids at day care? Why is there an entire day care industry?quote>

I don't think I intimated that these people didn't want to work, I was just suggesting that their greed for more material wealth, which you seemed to be suggesting was endemic and increasing, was no more acquisitive or even less so than their parents. I was simply suggesting that, in fact, life goals for many middle class children are not to simply 'get more', but are focussed more on qualitative rather than materialist definitions of success, i.e. a postmodern attitude.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Why is the government enforcing rules to get maximum work capacity (both parents working full time)? quote>

Well, they aren't doing that where I live.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Okay okay, I lied. They are only screwing their own customers over in the financial sector.quote>

Well, again, last I checked even the entire financial services sector doesn't consist of "everyone", and even within the financial sector services sector not "everyone" was screwing "everyone" else over, and even for some of those that did, it wasn't done intentionally. I just don't see the connection between a few financial executives and bankers acting unscrupulously and reaching the conclusion that "Everyone" in our society wants to screw "everyone" else over.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Thats right, some banks, knowing full well the dramatic consequences this could have in a few years. quote>

I think it's quite clear that banks have been more incompetent and foolish rather than actually malicious. The point of this entire financial crisis, going back to 2007, is that people thought that growth and cheap credit would continue indefinitely, the problem was precisely that banks (and others) did not anticipate that there would be "dramatic consequences" in a few years. It was irrational exuberance.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

They should be dragged out their homes and executed on the streets.quote>

You can hardly be a plausible advocate for regulation and while condoning extra-judicial executions...

[lineofdavid 0]

This is a very fascinating read yall. Living here in the US I have been outraged by my governments actions. Socialism is a system of the government controling every aspect of almost everything from entitlements to busness to education to everything to the micro world (europe is the best example and the US is not far behind). The best market to have is a free market with limited government control. Sure the argument can be made that we are in the mess we are in right now because of limited oversight, but if the government had let the market run its course we would have see these huge corporations go under and what would have happened? Think about like this, a wild fire burns through a forest and destroys acres of land. With in just a few weeks however what happens? New growth begins all over again. The market would have been the same way the large corporations that mismanaged so much would have been dissolved and what would have happened then, the smaller companies would have began to flourish. Job losses would have been large at first but they would have found work in the smaller firms and the cycle continues.

What do we have in the sted, government had to save thier ass (we already know several politicians were getting rich in this whole mess) and used the tax payer to do it. Now we are seeing huge depts stack up, greece is sinking fast (and i do agree with raja that the people are just as responsible as the government and that includes here in the US), and the EU just gave them a stack of money that lasted all of about 24 hours.

Havent we learned that free market economies are by thier own nature the best markets to have and everything else is doomed to failure. Just look at the world and what is happening in it.

[partho989 1]

canada has socialism, they rock. i think the US should try it

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: partho989

canada has socialism, they rock. i think the US should try itquote>

We lean a little left of center, but Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy.  We use a restrained capitalist system to try to fund social services that many envy.  Unfortunately, there is never enough money to keep that baby fed.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

I don't think I intimated that these people didn't want to work, I was just suggesting that their greed for more material wealth, which you seemed to be suggesting was endemic and increasing, was no more acquisitive or even less so than their parents. I was simply suggesting that, in fact, life goals for many middle class children are not to simply 'get more', but are focussed more on qualitative rather than materialist definitions of success, i.e. a postmodern attitude.quote>

Their comfortable lifestyle is based on materialistic things. A tv, a nice house, a garden, a car etc. All things that people still want these days and all things that cost a lot of money. People are still extremely materialistic. 

Life goals of middle class children is still focused on materialistic success. These days much of the social picking order is based around what cell phone you own, what game system you have and if you have the latest ipod crammed full with pirated music. Maybe they think that they are less materialistic because kids these days think half of the things you pay money for should be free.

Besides that, I do not trust the outcome of such research. You cant really measure the goals in someones life other then through asking for them directly. Its not very unlikely that they are simply lying. Sure, research has also shown that people dont pick jobs for the money, but instead for the intellectual challenge. Yet I wanna see the first person who declines a job offer that pays more but is slightly more boring. The number one reason why people study medicine is because of the money. 

Well, they aren't doing that where I live.quote>

Well congratulations. Praise yourself lucky that Canada is more laid back then the rest of the world. 

Well, again, last I checked even the entire financial services sector doesn't consist of "everyone", and even within the financial sector services sector not "everyone" was screwing "everyone" else over, and even for some of those that did, it wasn't done intentionally. I just don't see the connection between a few financial executives and bankers acting unscrupulously and reaching the conclusion that "Everyone" in our society wants to screw "everyone" else over.quote>

Youre telling me that Goldman Sachs did not sell financial products to people and was then actively speculating on the failure of those products? And if they did that, they didnt do it intentionally? And they did not tell these people the products they where buying where great investments for them?

Goldman Sachs is just one example. Basically every bank who allowed poor people to buy expensive houses where screwing the customers over. Suuure, they didnt know it was going to end up like that. They didnt think there was a reason why these people couldnt afford those homes. 

Also, these people are a perfect example of the greed I was talking about. They all wanted their 'post modern' lifestyle. But yeah, you cant live a post modern life style if youre not living in some expensive suburb. 

I think it's quite clear that banks have been more incompetent and foolish rather than actually malicious. The point of this entire financial crisis, going back to 2007, is that people thought that growth and cheap credit would continue indefinitely, the problem was precisely that banks (and others) did not anticipate that there would be "dramatic consequences" in a few years. It was irrational exuberance.quote>

These people spend several years on a business school learning about economics and somehow they forgot to learn the most basics of economy? I doubt that. I think the people who did this knew full well what the possible consequences where. I just think they didnt care because they also knew the whole thing wouldnt fall apart for the next couple of years. And short term profits where more important then long term profits. This enabled them to get huge profits in a fiscal quarter, made those guys who sold those products filthy rich, and once they where rich enough they just moved to some safer job, assured of a nice amount of money on their bank account. 

Same counts for speculants and hedgefunds and everyone else who is in it for the short term money. They know the consequences and they just willfully ignore them. 

You can hardly be a plausible advocate for regulation and while condoning extra-judicial executions...quote>

There should be a law for it first. Their neglect, ignorance, stupidity, incompetence or whatever you wanna call it is simply so extreme it becomes criminal. There is just no law that can be applied on them. 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Oh!  I thought "yall" was just mispelling of "yawl" and that the writer was a sailor.  {end tongue in cheek}

If people don't display their ignorance, how will they ever learn anything?  Interaction is better than introspection.

[raja_indy14 8]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Their comfortable lifestyle is based on materialistic things. A tv, a nice house, a garden, a car etc. All things that people still want these days and all things that cost a lot of money. People are still extremely materialistic.

Life goals of middle class children is still focused on materialistic success. These days much of the social picking order is based around what cell phone you own, what game system you have and if you have the latest ipod crammed full with pirated music. Maybe they think that they are less materialistic because kids these days think half of the things you pay money for should be free.quote>

I don't think I ever denied that the middle classes in western industrialized countries were materialistic, I was really challenging your assertion (based on no evidence) that everyone was becoming increasingly greedy. I was positing that postmodern qualitative values are increasingly important, not that they have replaced the materialism that has been such a fundamental part of the middle class for at least the last four decades. I live in a middle class neighbourhood, and most of the people here have the luxury of pursuing qualitative rather than simple materialistic values. Yes, there is a lot of materialism, but it really doesn't seem as important as you make out, both in their overall lifestyles and in their career and education choices. Basically, their aim is not to maximize income and have a more profligate life than their parents (which is what many, though not all, preceding generations have done). I don't think most (or any) of my peers are so greedy for material wealth that they will screw anyone over to make a quick buck, which is what you were suggesting. Obviously for people in poverty, there are many reasons why a chance to upgrade to a new and better house with a questionable mortgage arrangement would still be attractive, especially since they come from a class that has not traditionally been home owning.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Yet I wanna see the first person who declines a job offer that pays more but is slightly more boring.quote>

I think so long as the income difference isn't too great, many people would choose the job that they feel to be more fulfilling. Obviously these things vary greatly from individual to individual, so one can only ever talk of trends rather than actual hard data, not to mention that it varies with the job market - in the current situation few people can afford to be so picky.

At any rate, I was not stating that the middle class has categorically moved to a postmodern qualitative outlook, but that signs of the increasing importance of that trend seem to suggest that your, so far ungrounded, assertions that everyone is simply becoming increasingly rapacious at the expense of anyone they can screw over, was questionable.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Youre telling me that Goldman Sachs did not sell financial products to people and was then actively speculating on the failure of those products? And if they did that, they didnt do it intentionally? And they did not tell these people the products they where buying where great investments for them?quote>

I think if you actually read what I wrote I actually said nothing of the sort. Short answer: no I'm not telling you that.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Basically every bank who allowed poor people to buy expensive houses where screwing the customers over. Suuure, they didnt know it was going to end up like that. They didnt think there was a reason why these people couldnt afford those homes. quote>

Yes, and quite a few banks went bankrupt...

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Also, these people are a perfect example of the greed I was talking about.quote>

I hardly thinking purchasing a house beyond your means constitutes screwing everyone else over.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

These people spend several years on a business school learning about economics and somehow they forgot to learn the most basics of economy? I doubt that. I think the people who did this knew full well what the possible consequences where. I just think they didnt care because they also knew the whole thing wouldnt fall apart for the next couple of years. And short term profits where more important then long term profits. This enabled them to get huge profits in a fiscal quarter, made those guys who sold those products filthy rich, and once they where rich enough they just moved to some safer job, assured of a nice amount of money on their bank account. quote>

Of course we could just rely on your reasoning. I had actually based what I said on interviews and articles by financial historians and economics professors, where they said that in their discussions with many finance industry experts that the majority of them believed that the collateralized debt obligations and securitized mortgages had created a market in which risk was spread out evenly and to those who could most afford to bear it. They were, of course, wrong. But I will obviously trust your unsupported musings over the opinions of academics who specialize in the relevant fields.

That isn't to say that certain financiers didn't use the crisis to make massive profits or that it was all squeaky clean, but I think to suggest that they knew that they were driving the economy into a crisis and intentionally did so would be false. Being an expert doesn't render you immune from those intractable human failings of greed, overoptimism in situations of abundance, and irrational exuberance.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

There should be a law for it first. Their neglect, ignorance, stupidity, incompetence or whatever you wanna call it is simply so extreme it becomes criminal. There is just no law that can be applied on them.quote>

I certainly agree that they should be penalized for their excessive salaries and bonuses for, evidently, shoddy work. And in fact, laws can be applied to them, such as what happened after the Enron debacle (which interestingly enough was the precursor to many of the unscrupulous methods that contributed to the most recent crisis). Taking them out and shooting them, however, is a dangerous precedent.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

I don't think I ever denied that the middle classes in western industrialized countries were materialistic, I was really challenging your assertion (based on no evidence) that everyone was becoming increasingly greedy. I was positing that postmodern qualitative values are increasingly important, not that they have replaced the materialism that has been such a fundamental part of the middle class for at least the last four decades. I live in a middle class neighbourhood, and most of the people here have the luxury of pursuing qualitative rather than simple materialistic values. Yes, there is a lot of materialism, but it really doesn't seem as important as you make out, both in their overall lifestyles and in their career and education choices. Basically, their aim is not to maximize income and have a more profligate life than their parents (which is what many, though not all, preceding generations have done). I don't think most (or any) of my peers are so greedy for material wealth that they will screw anyone over to make a quick buck, which is what you were suggesting. Obviously for people in poverty, there are many reasons why a chance to upgrade to a new and better house with a questionable mortgage arrangement would still be attractive, especially since they come from a class that has not traditionally been home owning.quote>

In times where you assured of a job and a steady income then yes, youre probably going for some more qualitative values. In times of a crisis however, people are quick to screw each other over. And who would blame them. Loosing your job sucks, especially if that means you loose your comfortable lifestyle. 

Im not sure how easy it is to get fired in Canada, but take a look at America. You basically have no protection against that. They can just send you an email that you can clean out your desk and go away because youre fired. So, people would be very afraid about loosing their job, so people will do about anything to not loose their jobs. And if that means screwing the guy next to you over, then so be it. Thats the result of the survival of the fittest kind of attitude in a capitalist society. 

And okay, perhaps its not to maximize income. But the reason doesnt matter, the result remains the same. 

 

 

I think so long as the income difference isn't too great, many people would choose the job that they feel to be more fulfilling. Obviously these things vary greatly from individual to individual, so one can only ever talk of trends rather than actual hard data, not to mention that it varies with the job market - in the current situation few people can afford to be so picky.

 At any rate, I was not stating that the middle class has categorically moved to a postmodern qualitative outlook, but that signs of the increasing importance of that trend seem to suggest that your, so far ungrounded, assertions that everyone is simply becoming increasingly rapacious at the expense of anyone they can screw over, was questionable.quote>

I went to a business college. I dropped out because of the people. Most of them where a bunch of greedy materialistic *****s who where in it for the money. Basically, that was why most people went to that sort of college. A chance on a job that pays good and with plenty of opportunity to go upwards on the pay grade. 

 

 

Of course we could just rely on your reasoning. I had actually based what I said on interviews and articles by financial historians and economics professors, where they said that in their discussions with many finance industry experts that the majority of them believed that the collateralized debt obligations and securitized mortgages had created a market in which risk was spread out evenly and to those who could most afford to bear it. They were, of course, wrong. But I will obviously trust your unsupported musings over the opinions of academics who specialize in the relevant fields.

 That isn't to say that certain financiers didn't use the crisis to make massive profits or that it was all squeaky clean, but I think to suggest that they knew that they were driving the economy into a crisis and intentionally did so would be false. Being an expert doesn't render you immune from those intractable human failings of greed, overoptimism in situations of abundance, and irrational exuberance.quote>

Of course, you could trust their words blindly and not look at the possible motives behind those words. Of course they would say such a thing. Do you really think they would say that the stuff they deal in is full of risks with the potential to kill the world economy. 

Sure, they where overoptimistic. That alone should have been a reason to be suspicious. Overoptimism is compensating for the feeling that something could go very wrong at any moment. Like holding a bomb and telling yourself it wont explode due to a malfunction or something.  

The fact that they are humans doesnt make them any less responsible for what mess they caused. A mess that could have been prevented. 

 

 

I certainly agree that they should be penalized for their excessive salaries and bonuses for, evidently, shoddy work. And in fact, laws can be applied to them, such as what happened after the Enron debacle (which interestingly enough was the precursor to many of the unscrupulous methods that contributed to the most recent crisis). Taking them out and shooting them, however, is a dangerous precedent.

quote>

Maybe, but prison or anything else still leaves them to be to dangerous in my opinion. But that aside, this isnt a thread for discussing the death penalty. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Im not sure how easy it is to get fired in Canada, but take a look at America. You basically have no protection against that. They can just send you an email that you can clean out your desk and go away because youre fired. So, people would be very afraid about loosing their job, so people will do about anything to not loose their jobs. And if that means screwing the guy next to you over, then so be it. Thats the result of the survival of the fittest kind of attitude in a capitalist society. 

quote>

I've been fired in Canada a couple of times, and both times the employer had the guts to tell me in person.  Firing someone by e-mail is the height of discourtesy and people who do such things are very poor representatives of their companies, and, in fact, should be subject to immediate hierarchial exfoliation themselves since they are shivelled and useless.

In one case of being fired, I was one of 8,000 people world-wide who were cut on the same day.  It was interesting to see the cascade in my unit:  my boss called me in and fired me, along with most of the people in my unit, individually, then his boss fired him, and his boss fired him.  Naturally we all wound up in the pub comparing notes a few days later.  As a group, we are still in touch, 20 years later.  My lawyer got me 8 months severance on this one.

The other case, I was forcibly retired because I had turned 65 and there was this 65 and out clause in the union contract.  I wasn't even in the union, so this was just an excuse to discriminate by age.  *sigh*  The job was contract, but they had the courtesy to tell me that no further contracts would be forthcoming.

Brutal firings by e-mail are done by the very lowest level of the bottom most slime in a corporation.  Such people should be eliminated by some kind of anti-fungal or anti-bacterial nasty chemical.

[morriswalters 16]

I once worked at a place that used a computer system to log in and the computer would fire you if you violated the attendance policy.  Constantly had to unfire people.  Being alive is stressful, that's life.  Like it or not. I doubt that anyone can name a healthy society that is not hierarchical in wealth and power.  Even if they don't start that way.  The ugly truth is that all human systems are kludges designed to rein in the excesses, and they only work until people figure out how to game the system.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Putting a routine into a mindless machine that could even hint at firing someone would cause me to leave the outfit as soon as I could.  This kind of callous attitude stems directly from the MBA-controlled, bottom-line-feeding board room.

Once the individual has risen to his Peter Principle level, but is in the board room, hierarchical exfoliation becomes difficult, but it is not impossible.  Shareholders in companies have been known to make a grand sweep and install a brand new board.

One of the most cruel things that has happened since WW II is the evaporation of loyalty between the employers and the employees.  We can thank the rise of the mega-corporation for allowing such attitudes to flourish.  Companies, even small ones, have become soulless now.  Most are members of the cult of Mammon.

One of the biggest problems our corporations have is that they don't listen until they have had their collective noses rubbed in the red ink for quite a while.  The Japanese took Phil Crosby's works on quality to heart.  It caused their products to be vastly superior to those made here.  Our production people ignored this as long as they could, and finally the ISO 9000 series of standards appeared to which they give lip-service.

Look girls!  Quality means conformance to requirements.  That does not mean do it as cheaply as possible.  Quality performance requires that you do it right the first time with zero defects. 

It seems that American production practices are contagious, as witness the recent Toyota recalls.