- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Gee ( si ) on April 20, 1999 at 13:10:35:

In Reply to: BOO! posted by Red Deathy on April 20, 1999 at 11:59:31:

: Precisely- so, in whose interest is society run- always in the interests of them as wn production. If not, we all suffer, as they enforce their self interest.

The interest is the continuation and growth of those is political power. The 'business community' would be better off without govt intervention, but with a minial pvte proeprty protecting state. I would take pleasure at watching second rate companies squirm as they face real competition unfettered by protective legislation and face a workforce free to associate and free of the impotence invoking 'caring' laws disguised to appear to 'protect' them (and with greater opportunities to start their own businesses)

: But the emergence of the Market had nothing to do with him- he just managed to see it, well worth all that money then.

It does, in that he was one of the drivers. Also, "just managed to see it" makes it sound like an easy thing to do! it takes a great ability to perceive and influence an emerging market. Can you?

: There are a finite number of opportunities, there is only room for one Richard Branson, otherwise we have constant and pointless inovation, and no room for consolidation.

Is there? what does "constant and pointless" innovation mean? And would you feel the same way about it in medicine?

: What about a man who does accounts really really well, teh Einstein of the Accounts world, very efficienty, but never going to become a millionaire as long as he sticks to accounts. What about teh best tea lady? The system only reward one kind of attainment- making money, by any means necesary.

The accounts fellow does have opportunities with that ability, many do become financiers. If he "stuck" at accounts for otehr reasons then he knows what to expect, maybe he prefers a life of high income in the comfort zone of steady work. As for the tea lady, well just how skillful is she? If she has great skill in making tea and in serving people then maybe she could become a self employed contractor - that could lead to allsorts of opportunities.

: Because someone has to be the worker, because they don't have the capital to invest, because the market can only bear so many businesses. To blame bureaucracy is a fantastical response to a flaw in teh systems structure.

Not so, self employment - especially as freelance skilled work - is increasingly possible *despite* the red tape. Its more difficult where the regards might be less (eg the tea lady) because the red tape costs are more or less constant. Poeple without capital to invest just have to start small. the 'luck' of the draw in this sense relates only to inheritances and lottery wins.

: Precisely, its poverty management, although I wouldn't pass a morality claim, but since I understand that it is structurally necessary, all I can suggest is ending the structure that necessitates it.

I think we have different structures in mind

: I don't discount ability, but, as I say, teh only ability in capitalism that counts, is the ability to make money, as you just said, smarter and better people do not prosper, unless their goal is to make money.

Making money means making things people can gain from. To quote Carnegie on wealth "dont try and make money, make usefulness". I would say that was 'smart'.

: But even still, the 13,000 gained might not include some of those lost from rover, since they are too old and unemployable (say fifty), or lack the necessary skills. And the disruptiopn to the cpommunity in the meanwhile between the old and new jobs...

yup, lots of change and for some the end of the road. On pure utilitarianism keeping rover workers on at the expense of a greater number of other people would be wrong. Regardless, enforcing a static status quo at other expense seems very wrong. And the community that emerges has every chance (perhaps mopre if its richer) at being a positive one.

: Those labour saving tech's have lead to lower wages for workers, and higher structural unemployement, as some workers become surplus to requirements, and since the economy cannot grow because of over production...

My point is that the avg salary worker can do and have a lot more now than avg salary worker from 100, 50, even 10 years ago - and do it with less hours work - all due to technologies.

: Indeed, but we cannot then say 'it was all him'

But we can say "because of him these things happened" and that influence can be enormous and specific to him.

: Correct. This is mind-numbingly obvious. Capital denies us free association, because property belongs only to them as own it, and non owners may not touch.

It 'denies' us access to things we had not contributed to.

I do enjoy our exchnages Red, but I wonder if we will ever get to common ground over our different views on liberty, the role of the individual and what exploitation means.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup