DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on December 12, 2006, 03:24:20 PM
-
This sure sounds like a move towards an RBE type situation.
http://www.brassmask.com/news.php (http://www.brassmask.com/news.php)
In a staggering turn of events, an executive of a company has stated that it is more important to serve the customers of his business than necessarily increase profits.
What can only be called a deathwish must have led Jim Buckmaster to tell a UBS global media conference that Craigslist exists to help people communicate needs and offers and not so much to make money. When asked how Craigslist intended to "maximize revenues" his answer, flying in the face of everything that attendees perceive as holy, was simply, “That definitely is not part of the equation,†he said, according to MediaPost. “It’s not part of the goal.â€
The Tech Trader Daily blog ponders this question: “If YouTube was worth $1.65 billion, who knows what Craigslist would be worth if Jim and [site founder] Craig Newmark ever considred becoming — what’s the word? — capitalists.â€
Craigslist charges money for job listings, but only in seven of the cities it serves ($75 in San Francisco; $35 in the others). And it charges for apartment listings in New York ($10 a pop). But that is just to pay expenses.
Mr. Schachter still did not seem to understand. How about running AdSense ads from Google? Craigslist has considered that, Mr. Buckmaster said. They even crunched the numbers, which were “quite staggering.†But users haven’t expressed an interest in seeing ads, so it is not going to happen.
Following the meeting, Mr. Schachter wrote a research note, flagged by Tech Trader Daily, which suggests that he still doesn’t quite get the concept of serving customers first, and worrying about revenues later, if at all (and nevermind profits). Craigslist, the analyst wrote, “does not fully monetize its traffic or services.â€
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/craigslist-meets-the-capitalists/ (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/craigslist-meets-the-capitalists/)
A business that doesn't intend to increase its profits? And doesn't feel the need to keep it on the downlow? What is this? Cuba?
As someone who delights in hearing of corporationists getting the slapdown applied to their belief system, this can only be declared a DAY.
Furthermore, my subject line was something of a funny when I posted it but as I have typed, it seems to me that this may not happen literally, but could potentially happen figuratively. Corporatists in America can't sit idly by as an upstart brings communism into the mainstream of financial America. This could lead to widespread TRUE Communism in America.
Seriously.
Imagine someone like Buckmaster getting a CEO gig at some place like Citigroup or, heaven forbid, Exxon. (like that could ever happen) But imagine someone following in his image? Exxon reducing profits? Exxon existing only to hand out gas and oil and not to make billionaires even more billionairey? How would we know that they are more important or more valuable to the world if they weren't the most billionairey?
We wouldn't. And instead of there being classes ranging from The Extreme Have's to The Absolute Have Not's, we'd have a world of Moderately Comfortable, Highly Educated Have's. And what kind of world would that be with no way for 1% of the populace to look down on the other 99%. Don't they have rights? That 1% has the right to use a tool to buy them the importance that they normally wouldn't have if all things were equal, don't they?
Buckmaster's business model is smart and more importantly Honorable.
-
In a staggering turn of events, an executive of a company has stated that it is more important to serve the customers of his business than necessarily increase profits.
Isn't it a wonderful country where you can always volunter your time and services, but are still allowed to make a profit if you wish?
-
Isn't it a wonderful country where you can always volunter your time and services, but are still allowed to make a profit if you wish?
I wouldn't really call it volunteering since they get paid for doing the job they do, I'm sure.
But I would agree with you statement. And add that it would be greater if weren't such a shocker to some that a company might not be interested in turning a profit.
-
And add that it would be greater if weren't such a shocker to some that a company might not be interested in turning a profit.
Never been involved with a 501(c) corporation? You're really surprised that there are a plethora of "not for profit" corporations out there?
-
And add that it would be greater if weren't such a shocker to some that a company might not be interested in turning a profit.
Never been involved with a 501(c) corporation? You're really surprised that there are a plethora of "not for profit" corporations out there?
I work for a fairly big one myself, St Joseph Heritage Medical
-
And add that it would be greater if weren't such a shocker to some that a company might not be interested in turning a profit.
Never been involved with a 501(c) corporation? You're really surprised that there are a plethora of "not for profit" corporations out there?
Not exactly the same thing, now is it?
-
I shall be extremely impressed when ExxonMobil becomes an 501(c) Corporation
-
Not exactly the same thing, now is it?
Err, a "not for profit" corporation is exactly the same thing as a corporation that is not trying to make a profit. That's pretty much the definition.
-
I shall be extremely impressed when ExxonMobil becomes an 501(c) Corporation
If a 501(c) company were to get into the gasoline business could it do as well as Exxon at getting Gas to customers ?
-
I shall be extremely impressed when ExxonMobil becomes an 501(c) Corporation
If a 501(c) company were to get into the gasoline business could it do as well as Exxon at getting Gas to customers ?
Why not? They wouldn't have those ultra-bright Tiger Marts but $1.50 20oz Cokes but they could very easily keep on doing what they do.
But a bit of snark...If you ask the execs who testified that they put all their "profits" into research (I believe Ami and the gang also said that's what they do) then they really are a 501c company.
-
(I believe Ami and the gang also said that's what they do)
Not I.
I said that they used a portion of their profits for research. A portion is also paid to their investors (that's the "for profit" part).
Ever taken a finance course? Remember all those categories in the general ledger?
-
I shall be extremely impressed when ExxonMobil becomes an 501(c) Corporation
If a 501(c) company were to get into the gasoline business could it do as well as Exxon at getting Gas to customers ?
Why not? They wouldn't have those ultra-bright Tiger Marts but $1.50 20oz Cokes but they could very easily keep on doing what they do.
But a bit of snark...If you ask the execs who testified that they put all their "profits" into research (I believe Ami and the gang also said that's what they do) then they really are a 501c company.
I don't beleive it possible for a non profit company to deliver commodities with effeciency , but you are welcome to show me wrong .
I think that the profit motive is a virtuous thing and causes most of the goodness that we experience in our day to day American lives.
Without a profit motive what wold keep the nasty hand of greed from ruining everything?
-
I don't beleive it possible for a non profit company to deliver commodities with effeciency , but you are welcome to show me wrong .
American Red Cross. Consumer's Union (publishes Consumer's Reports). Alcoholics Anonymous (and most of the other self-help organizations).
-
I don't beleive it possible for a non profit company to deliver commodities with effeciency , but you are welcome to show me wrong .
American Red Cross. Consumer's Union (publishes Consumer's Reports). Alcoholics Anonymous (and most of the other self-help organizations).
Ok, what is the commodity involved in these examples?
How would an organisation organised along the lines of the Red Cross deliver Gasoline to consumers and compete with Exxon?
I can imagine that an organisation organised something like AA could compete with Segrams .
-
Ok, what is the commodity involved in these examples?
Blood, magazines, self-help.
How would an organisation organised along the lines of the Red Cross deliver Gasoline to consumers and compete with Exxon?
I can imagine that an organisation organised something like AA could compete with Segrams .
While blood is illegal to sell currently, it could be sold at a profit. Consumer's Union successfully competes with other magazine publishers, and AA successfully competes with other self-help industries.
I'm sure a non-profit could compete against Exxon, if it's startup was funded adequately. Exxon has a big head start, with lots of cash reserves. However, regional non-profit energy co-ops have successfully competed against for-profit energy companies.
-
Some in here consider corporations as one of the great evils of our society. That is simplistic. As a method of accumulating capital and organizing and dividing labor, the corporate structure is not only the logical fulfillment of our economic system but its crowning glory in terms of efficiency and productive capacity, and thus a crucial economic engine.
The downside to corporations is their dehumanizing tendencies, against which managers must be forever vigilant. Beyond that, in the two main aspects of corporate existence that I will criticize here, the very ethic of the corporation can (maybe) be tweaked, thereby introducing "public good" beyond profits as an animating goal, and the revolting excesses of executive salaries can be reined in to reflect value in realistic human terms, with the byproduct that corporate culture itself will become more responsive to the very reason for its creation: serving the people who comprise it and whom it affects.
The concept of "shareholder value," a cornerstone of every body of corporate law in the country, mandates that the board of directors and executives MUST make decisions and pursue policies and programs that will reap the largest monetary reward for shareholders -- or risk potentially devastating lawsuits by disaffected shareholders. I have always questioned this ethic, maybe because of socialist sympathies, but clearly because it marginalizes -- crowds out -- other considerations such as the "public good." To remedy that, tilting at windmills, I suggest a move to alter state corporate codes or to pass pre-empting legislation at the federal level establishing the "public good" (good luck defining it) as not only an acceptable but preferred method of corporate decision-making. This would remove the threat of shareholder suit against boards and executives who deem, in the context of a changing corporate culture, certain corporate initiatives to be followed simply because they're good for the community or the country and not necessarily for the shareholder's bottom line.
The other questionable practice of corporations (are there only a few?) is the exorbitant compensation they pay their executives. No one is worth that much. The best idea would be to tie executive compensation to a multiple of the lowest wage-earner's pay in the organization, and keep it that way. Not only would fat cats get lean, but due to their insatiable appetite for "adequate compensation," the powers that be would visit a benefit on the lowly when they deem it fit to give themselves a raise. Unfortunately, I surmise, this can't be addressed by legislation because the Contract Clause would render unconstitutional any attempt to limit the ability (within limits) to freely form contract terms, especially including the right to bargain for compensation. Nevertheless, as a matter of corporate governance itself -- shareholder politics -- it has a chance of being emblazoned into the private, contractual corporate charter and bylaws. This has a chance of catching on, by the way, because such a policy could actually enhance "shareholder value" (less expense), if the myth of the great man could be disspelled from the corporate mindset as to who is qualified to lead the band.
-
The concept of "shareholder value," a cornerstone of every body of corporate law in the country, mandates that the board of directors and executives MUST make decisions and pursue policies and programs that will reap the largest monetary reward for shareholders -- or risk potentially devastating lawsuits by disaffected shareholders.
This is not strictly true.
There are a number of coporations that have "public good" built into their charters. And investors cannot hold a corporation responsible if their dividends suffer due to money spent on "public good" as mandated by the corporate charter. I will present, as an example, one of the corporations of which I am a shareholder: REI. They donate millions of dollars each year to conservation efforts, and I'm good with receiving a lower dividend at the end of the year. REI is not publically traded, instead following a "cooperative" business model, but the same principles can be applied to publically traded companies.
-
Without a profit motive what wold keep the nasty hand of greed from ruining everything?
I concur with your assessment.
-
That is one way to approach it. By speaking of "corporations," I do not intend to convey a monlithic solidarity. As a general proposition, though, excepting non-profits, the concept of "shareholder value" is the dominant organizing principle. Rather than proceed corporation by corporation in their internal political affairs -- as I recommend, out of necessity, for executive compensation -- I would hope that a general political will could develop and be expressed in legislation memorializing the "public good" -- which I won't attempt to define now -- as a legitimate corporate aim in addition to (in tandem with) the maximization of profits. As this plays out in legislative hearings and future litigation, the concept will form more or less, and, in my view, affect the culture of many corporations for the better in addition to encouraging salutary products and practices beyond charitable giving, which often is conceived as a public relations expense. In sum, what I counsel is the start of a process, an intellectual and marketing experiment, to see if, in the end result, we can have a hybrid that can maintain the economic strength of a frankly "for profit" company.
-
That is one way to approach it. By speaking of "corporations," I do not intend to convey a monlithic solidarity. As a general proposition, though, excepting non-profits, the concept of "shareholder value" is the dominant organizing principle. Rather than proceed corporation by corporation in their internal political affairs -- as I recommend, out of necessity, for executive compensation -- I would hope that a general political will could develop and be expressed in legislation memorializing the "public good" -- which I won't attempt to define now -- as a legitimate corporate aim in addition to (in tandem with) the maximization of profits. As this plays out in legislative hearings and future litigation, the concept will form more or less, and, in my view, affect the culture of many corporations for the better in addition to encouraging salutary products and practices beyond charitable giving, which often is conceived as a public relations expense. In sum, what I counsel is the start of a process, an intellectual and marketing experiment, to see if, in the end result, we can have a hybrid that can maintain the economic strength of a frankly "for profit" company.
And from AMIanthusI'm sure a non-profit could compete against Exxon, if it's startup was funded adequately. Exxon has a big head start, with lots of cash reserves. However, regional non-profit energy co-ops have successfully competed against for-profit energy companies.
There is no leagal obsticle to founding a non profit oil company , but as Amianthus points out it would have to have an endowment.
By selling stock ,a for profit company can get an endowment from everyone who thinks the business plan is a good idea for society and also everyone who thinks his investment will be repaid with intrest, stockholders accept some risk that the business will not work .
If I had a newer and better design for a device usefull to the people , or a means of distributeing a commodity to the masses I would much prefer to use a for profit format and harvest the capitol of misers and altruists alike for my inital capitol , and as I succeeded I would reward the Misers and the altruists together with the dividends that they had a right to . The Misers of course will put the profit into further gains while the Altruists will put their profits into non profit organisations which they can now afford to fund.
-
I suggested that maybe he was "cheap," and he answered: "Sometimes you're better off to hold on to that money longer and make it bigger." His wife, Jan, added, "It takes money to make money so that we'll have more to give away."
That may have sounded cheap to my TV audience, but it's actually a pretty good reason for Duncan not to give to charity. Great business creators like Duncan and Turner waste their skills if they just give money away. They do more for the world by creating businesses. Turner started with 12 employees. By the time he merged CNN with Time Warner, he employed 12,000 people.
Is there a better way to help the poor than by creating jobs -- opportunities for self-improvement? And when businesses make useful products cheaper and more plentiful, that helps the poor more than charity. Discount retailers like Wal-Mart help low-income people tremendously. Would Sam Walton have done as much for the poor by giving all his money to charity? I don't think so.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/are_the_rich_cheap.html
-
This sure sounds like a move towards an RBE type situation.
[...]
Furthermore, my subject line was something of a funny when I posted it but as I have typed, it seems to me that this may not happen literally, but could potentially happen figuratively. Corporatists in America can't sit idly by as an upstart brings communism into the mainstream of financial America. This could lead to widespread TRUE Communism in America.
Seriously.
You know, I think you are serious. But you're only showing your lack of understanding of capitalism. You speak of "serving the customers" as if such were purely a communist concept. Here's a hint: no, it isn't. There is nothing at all un-capitalistic about putting customer service ahead of profits. Serving the customer is good business and does not require one to operate a business as a non-profit. I feel I should point out here I cannot find anywhere that Jim Buckmaster says he wants to eliminate revenue, only that he isn't trying to maximize it. Over at a ZD Net blog (http://tinyurl.com/y7cwgk), however, I did find this:On allowing text ads for the greater good: Buckmaster was asked why wouldn't Craigslist maximize revenue and profit for the good of the world. The general idea: Funnel the money from a text ad bonanza into philanthropy. Buckmaster didn't really have a good answer. "It's a valid argument," says Buckmaster. "You can make the argument that we could raise revenue to do good in the third world." Again, the decision would rest with users, who haven't really posed the idea or requested such a move. Craigslist would consider such a move if it began "hearing from users that we should raise revenue and plow it into charity."
I should also note that Jim Buckmaster has not spoken out against making a profit. All he really said was that it wasn't his top priority. Great. As a supporter of capitalism, I am quite happy to see someone say such a thing. I believe serving the customer should always be the top priority. So perhaps you ought to rethink the RBE/"TRUE Communism" cheerleading thing. It doesn't suit the situation, imo.
-
Without a profit motive what wold keep the nasty hand of greed from ruining everything?
====================================================================
Er---the desire to rake in excess profits IS the nasty hand of greed.
-
It doesn't suit the situation, imo.
Nothing ever does in your opinion, UP, so why should I bother following your advice?
What you continually ignore is that while your precious capitalism supposedly works in such and such a way, in reality, corporations work every way they can, especially in the realm of "public good", to maximize profits whether legal or illegal. Legal defence, tax evasion attorneys, even governmental fines are factored into operating costs and budgeted for. And until it becomes too expensive to ignore the plight of their fellow man in return for greater wealth, they will continue to do so.
Your cheerleading for capitalism is fine but in reality, that system is more abused than christianity. You can try to believe that Exxon is doing on some scale what Craigslist is doing but that just ain't reality. Exxon is not interested in putting more Tiger Marts on every corner so it will be more convenient for you to get gas or a giant Mountain Dew. They just want your dollars. All of them. That's why they throw those TM's up and then close them down leaving blight everywhere. It makes them more money.
To compare how Exxon does business with how Craigslist does business is just plain apples and oranges.
-
What you continually ignore is that while your precious capitalism supposedly works in such and such a way, in reality, corporations work every way they can, especially in the realm of "public good", to maximize profits whether legal or illegal. Legal defence, tax evasion attorneys, even governmental fines are factored into operating costs and budgeted for. And until it becomes too expensive to ignore the plight of their fellow man in return for greater wealth, they will continue to do so.
I don't know why you think I ignore that. You seem to be confusing my support for capitalism with support for the status quo. You apparently hold the misconception that the way things are now is the the ultimate height of capitalistic endeavor, but I do not have that problem. And of course you and I probably have differing notions of what constitutes the "public good". But you are quite mistaken if you think I do not realize that that corporations generally work to maximize profits. Of course they do, even to the point of partnering with government in the form of subsidies, tariffs, bailouts, regulations, et cetera, to increase their profit margins and to interfere with the competition. I am fully aware of these things and would like to see an end to them.
Your cheerleading for capitalism is fine but in reality, that system is more abused than christianity. You can try to believe that Exxon is doing on some scale what Craigslist is doing but that just ain't reality.
Of course they're not, and I never said otherwise. In point of fact, I did not say anything about Exxon. Did not say, as in, never mentioned Exxon, never refered indirectly to Exxon, did not make any sort of comparison at all between Craiglist and anyone else.
Exxon is not interested in putting more Tiger Marts on every corner so it will be more convenient for you to get gas or a giant Mountain Dew. They just want your dollars. All of them.
And if they get my dollars, they my dollars by providing me with convenience and a cheaper price than the next gas station. If they don't, I spend my money somewhere else. Neat how that works, eh? Or, if I just don't like Exxon, I never have to go to an Exxon station. I can go to a BP station or Chevron or Shell or Hess or that discount place in front of Wal-Mart. If someone starts a gas station chain and proclaims that his goal is customer service not profits, I might even drive a little further and pay a little more just to spend my money there. All this is possible because of capitalism. I like it.
That's why they throw those TM's up and then close them down leaving blight everywhere. It makes them more money.
I doubt that really makes Exxon more money. But where I live, there are no abandoned Tiger Marts. No other brand of gas stations have been abandoned either. So there is no gas station blight here. Too bad if that happens where you live, but I doubt seriously it is part of some money making scheme.
To compare how Exxon does business with how Craigslist does business is just plain apples and oranges.
Probably so, but again, I did not make such a comparison. All I did was point out that Jim Buckmaster isn't pushing an RBE or communist agenda. If he could be said to be pushing any sort of agenda at all, it would be a customer service agenda, and there is nothing anti-capitalism about that. Maybe I should be sorry if that bursts your bubble, but I'm not.
-
I drive a couple of Diesels, and I have found that it quite common to find water in the tank of many stations.
Because most people who buy Diesel fuel drive trucks and buses and buy over 50 gallons at a time, they seem to go to the cheapest stations. The price of Diesel fuel here in Miami varies from $2.52 to $2.89 per gallon. The more the station sells, the less water gets condensed in the tank, so I have found that I can avoid a lot of water-related maintainance problems by always buying at the cheapest stations.
The brand seems to have very little to do with the price. One Valero station is charging $2.54 and another about twelve blocks away charges $2.79. Exxon seems to have more uniform pricing. The most expensive seems to be Shell.
All fuel expands a lot when it is warm, so you get more fuel if you buy as early in the AM as possible. When I have been on trips, and used the cruise control for a constant speed, I have found that fuel you buy in the AM can give about 3 mpg more than fuel you buy when it's hot. I think gasoline may expand more than Diesel, but I'm not sure.
-
Without a profit motive what wold keep the nasty hand of greed from ruining everything?
====================================================================
Er---the desire to rake in excess profits IS the nasty hand of greed.
This is true in coutrys where it is forbidden , not in contries where it is harnessed,
Greed is never eliminated , but it can be made usefull.
-
Probably so, but again, I did not make such a comparison. All I did was point out that Jim Buckmaster isn't pushing an RBE or communist agenda. If he could be said to be pushing any sort of agenda at all, it would be a customer service agenda, and there is nothing anti-capitalism about that. Maybe I should be sorry if that bursts your bubble, but I'm not.
Actually, Buckmaster is running Craigslist in almost exactly an RBE manner. They take in money. Yes. But they only take in enough to cover costs. That's what they said in the article. Now, you'll want to go out of your way to hunt down how they, in fact, do turn a profit and that's all well and good; but, the "CEO" of Craigslist, the point is to help people NOT to make as much money as possible.
Now, in a RBE system, those "costs" would be born by everyone and therefore no one. That's the system. He's operating in an RBE manner within a capitalist society.
-
This is true in coutrys where it is forbidden , not in contries where it is harnessed,
Greed is never eliminated , but it can be made usefull.
Can you name one country where it is harnessed?
-
Actually, Buckmaster is running Craigslist in almost exactly an RBE manner. They take in money. Yes. But they only take in enough to cover costs. That's what they said in the article.
I want to ask if you're joking, but I know you're still serious. I don't know where the "only take in enough to cover costs" bit comes from, because I can't find any article making that claim. What I see in the information about this is that Craiglist takes in plenty of revenue, just not as much as some people think Craiglist could if Craiglist did things more like Google or Yahoo.
Now, you'll want to go out of your way to hunt down how they, in fact, do turn a profit and that's all well and good;
I don't have to hunt down anything. Craiglist is a growing company, which means they make a profit. If Craiglist didn't make a profit, if they just took in enough to cover what they do now, they couldn't grow.
but, the "CEO" of Craigslist, the point is to help people NOT to make as much money as possible.
The goal is to serve customers. I cannot find anywhere that quotes Jim Buckmaster as saying their goal is not to make money. All he said was that maximizing profits was not their goal. And as I said before, there is nothing anti-capitalist about serving the customer.
Now, in a RBE system, those "costs" would be born by everyone and therefore no one. That's the system. He's operating in an RBE manner within a capitalist society.
He is operating a privately owned business in a capitalist manner within a capitalist society. You can twist this all you like, but that is the simple truth of the matter. Yes, I know you want to keep capitalism confined to some sort of bizarrely narrow definition that includes not caring about customers, but you're wrong. Putting customer service ahead of profits is a good business practice and fits comfortably within the realm of capitalism.
-
Lord, son.
Craigslist charges money for job listings, but only in seven of the cities it serves ($75 in San Francisco; $25 in the others). And it charges for apartment listings in New York ($10 a pop). But that is just to pay expenses.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/craigslist-meets-the-capitalists/ (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/craigslist-meets-the-capitalists/)
In the very damned article I posted about. Do you just assume I come up with stuff out of my head?
Here's from an article a year ago.
Craigslist's revenues are estimated at around $10 million a year, exclusively from job ads. As use skyrockets, the company has been mulling a minimal charge — probably $10 — for real-estate listings in New York, but has not made a final decision on imposing the fee. "We're still considering this," says Best.
Contrast those numbers with 2005 revenue forecasts from the New York Times, at $3.4 billion; Tribune, at $5.7 billion; and Gannett, which is expected to rack up $7.6 billion in sales, according to earnings tracker Thomson First Call. These figures represent a much wider array of business activities than classified ad sales alone, but it's clear that Craigslist's pricing structure isn't geared to compete with the media behemoths.
"Craig [Newmark] is the most important person in the newspaper business who is not in the newspaper business," says Sreenath Sreenivasan, dean of students at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism in New York. "He's certainly somebody everyone on the business side is talking about, and anyone on the news side of the business who's not is sticking his head in the sand."
It all sounds dire, and perhaps it is in the long run. But in the short term, newspaper companies have plenty of life left in them.
"The buzzword lately has been Internet, Internet, and that newspapers are dead," says James Walden, a publishing analyst with mutual fund tracker Morningstar. "Media pundits have claimed the sky was falling and been wrong before — they were wrong about radio and about television. [The newspaper industry] is a mature — and declining — business, but there's still value to be added. Organic growth will continue to be challenging, but these companies are still extremely profitable from both a bottom line sense and in their ability to generate cash."
"I think it's really too early to say that Craigslist is the model to be emulated, or that it's really the clear winner," says Rick Summers, a technology analyst at Morningstar. "On the other hand, they're amazingly successful, depending on how you determine their measure of success."
Craigslist's mushrooming traffic numbers reflect another Internet phenomenon — which is the same reason many local papers enjoy dominant traffic numbers in their own market. A site's stickiness, as the industry calls it, demonstrates that site users are creatures of habit, which both keeps viewers checking high-school football scores at the local Times-Review-Herald-Picayune-Gazette and buying and selling on Craigslist.
"When things are free, it's hard to provide someone with an incentive to switch," Summers says.
And your quote here exemplifies your ignorance.
Craiglist is a growing company, which means they make a profit. If Craiglist didn't make a profit, if they just took in enough to cover what they do now, they couldn't grow.
It's a growing online community, not a company in the way you think of it. It's a social endeavour. Craig and them surely receive a salary but who can blame them for that? They gotta eat!
They don't care about going corporate or raping people for all the money that they possibly can. That is clearly not the point of capitalism. CAPITALISM means CAPITALIZING.
-
I happen to like Craigslist. The city has saved a bundle by advertising local job openings on there vs the local rags and have gotten much more qualified applicants. That's the good news. The existence of organs like Craigslist also legitimizes public perception of online advertisements and allows us to lower the cost of such public notices like variance requests from around $400 to less than $50 if we allow notices to be placed in the city website vs the dead tree papers.
The bad news is Craigslist is a category killer much like Wal-mart or Home Depot. Their volume, their results and their pricing make it extremely hard for independent and or alternative papers to fund decent journalism when the bedrock of their revenue stream is under strain from the online ease and convenience of Craigslist.
Personally i don't care whether Craig and company make billions or continue to do their work as a labor of love. That is their choice.
-
Lord, son.
You're not a Lord, and I'm not your son.
Craigslist charges money for job listings, but only in seven of the cities it serves ($75 in San Francisco; $25 in the others). And it charges for apartment listings in New York ($10 a pop). But that is just to pay expenses.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/craigslist-meets-the-capitalists/
In the very damned article I posted about.
Okay. Fair enough. Though I notice the person saying this is the author of the DealBook blog article, not Buckmaster himself. I haven't seen any other article make that claim. And I have to say, 10 million dollars seems like a lot of expenses.
Do you just assume I come up with stuff out of my head?
Sometimes you seem to do so. For example, your talk about capitalism has little relation to reality.
And your quote here exemplifies your ignorance.
Craiglist is a growing company, which means they make a profit. If Craiglist didn't make a profit, if they just took in enough to cover what they do now, they couldn't grow.
It's a growing online community, not a company in the way you think of it. It's a social endeavour. Craig and them surely receive a salary but who can blame them for that? They gotta eat!
Would you please stop assuming that you know how I think about this? Because clearly you haven't got even a foggy notion. Yes, I know Craigslist is not a company like Sears or Google. But I also know they have expanded operations from merely San Fransisco to hundreds of cities worldwide, from a few computers to hundreds of computers, from one guy operating the business to employing 22 people. Craigslist is a growing company, an expanding company, which means they made enough profit to expand. Duh. The company didn't get where it is now on goodwill, smiles and happy, happy RBE thoughts. What Craigslist has achieved it achieved by making and spending money. The ignorance exemplified here is yours and yours alone.
They don't care about going corporate or raping people for all the money that they possibly can. That is clearly not the point of capitalism. CAPITALISM means CAPITALIZING.
Case in point, the quote above. Capitalism does not mean capitalizing. Capitalism, to put this crudely, means the use of privately owned capital in business endeavors. Your use of the word "raping" clearly shows your ignorance of the matter. To rape is to plunder or abuse by force. Capitalism functions by voluntary exchange. (That the folks who want the government to take money by force are so frequently the ones who compare capitalism to rape or theft has always seemed ironic to me. But I'm not sure if it is ironic in a humorous way or in a sad way.) The point, and the beauty, of capitalism is voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. I give you something you want in exchange for something I want. There is no raping and no coercion. It doesn't require us to agree on politics or religion or music. It doesn't require us to agree about why we want what we are making an exchange for. All it requires is us to be willing to make the exchange. We are free to make it or not. If I force you to make the exchange against your will, that isn't capitalism. That is stealing. Or, if government forces you to make the exchange against your will, that is taxation.
Oh, and by the way, that whole voluntary exchange thing is one reason why focusing on providing what the customer wants is a good and sound business practice in capitalism.
Apparently you want to think capitalism is only about greed and sticking it to the next guy, while communism/RBE is about love and helping one's fellow humans, but that is a false dichotomy. Greed and sticking it to the next guy are problems that exist in any society, regardless of its economic basis. This has been true throughout history, even in supposedly communist/socialist countries. To place the blame at the feet of capitalism is ignorant. Greedy and self-serving people will take advantage of whatever social structure they live in, and eliminating money to create a RBE won't change that one iota.
Capitalism is not the end-all-be-all of human existence, nor the answer to all of society's problems. It is an answer to some problems. No, it will not result in a utopia where everyone is happy all the time. It does, however, serve liberty and human rights by allowing individuals to choose for themselves rather than having choices forced upon them. Yes, our capitalistic society has flaws. It will continue to have flaws so long as people are involved. I can support capitalism without supporting those flaws. I can oppose those flaws without opposing capitalism.
If you don't like capitalism, fine. I'm not saying you have to like it. But don't try to sell me horse hockey and tell me it's chocolate because I'm not buying it.
-
This is true in coutrys where it is forbidden , not in contries where it is harnessed,
Greed is never eliminated , but it can be made usefull.
Can you name one country where it is harnessed?
Lets Check out China , where it was forbidden for several starveing decades to grow wealthy, their change of policy has produced a bunch of millionaires and millions of new jobs.
Check out the standard of liveing typical of China about the time that Nixon visited , where the Government attitude twards greed was one of supression.
Check out the standard of liveing in China after they put Greed in the traces to pull alongside Altrusim.
I bet a wagon with two horses will travel faster than a wagon with one , and harnessing Altrusim alone will produce half or less the economic power of harnissing Greed and Altrusim together to pull in the same direction.
If you were to think of Altrusim as a more powerfull horse you can still see how a lot of horsepower is wasted by tieing up another horse and carrying it in the back of the wagon.
-
How anyone can look at the way pharmaceuticals operate and not call that rape is beyond me.
What you fail to take into account of your oh, so cheery view of capitalist operations is that there are billions more people who have NOTHING to offer in exchange for the most basic needs of life that are held by a small proportion of the populace of this planet. That is not so much rape as hostage taking.
Capitalism engenders that state of helplessness. And the major capitalist endeavours in the form of "corporations" will eventually take on the task of engendering that state of helplessness rather than making the need irrelevant. An Exxon is not going to look for a way for humanity to do without oil no matter what the effect of the use of such oil has on humans, the environment, etc as long as people will put up with those effects. And, in fact, to protect its power status and that state of helplessness, the corporation will make the cost of its activities to engender those part of the cost to purchase its "product" thus the victim of its assault pays for the assault.
This is not a happy-go-lucky tool that is abused by "bad apples". This is the natural progression of an un-natural process created by power-loving madmen.
If it was simply a matter of you have some carrots and I have a watemelon, let's swap, then that would be cool with me. It would be in the interest of all the parties involved. But that is not the way capitalism works.
As we move into a world where people more and more use less cash, actual money in their hands given in exchange for goods and services, we will see more and more people willing to ignore payment altogether. More and more, I'm seeing stories of people not caring for personal gain but relative comfort in favor of more people being relatively comfortable.
More people will be willing to have less in favor of a greater number of the populace having some. Capitalism will give way to an RBE-styled form of operating.
-
If it was simply a matter of you have some carrots and I have a watemelon, let's swap, then that would be cool with me. It would be in the interest of all the parties involved. But that is not the way capitalism works.
Actually, that is exactly how capitalism works.
-
If it was simply a matter of you have some carrots and I have a watemelon, let's swap, then that would be cool with me. It would be in the interest of all the parties involved. But that is not the way capitalism works.
Actually, that is exactly how capitalism works.
You tradin' a lot of carrots for watermelons, are ya?
-
You tradin' a lot of carrots for watermelons, are ya?
Sometimes.
Other times I trade my time for money, then I trade my money for items and services I need.
Either way, it's a mutually agreed upon trade.
-
Either way, it's a mutually agreed upon trade.
Really? Did you mutually agree with the way gas prices went down before the election and then went back up afterwards?
I don't remember getting to mutually agree on that. I can't mutually agree on what my kid's antibiotic for his ear infection costs. I have to pay whatever they say, regardless of what it might actually cost to make. Of course, I could just agree to stay out of the trade altogether. I DO have that choice, I just have to be willing to accept the consequences, right? What might that be? Deafness? What's it worth to keep my kid for going deaf? That's how they set the price. Not what did it cost to make this and what's a decent profit on that?
Sure, it's all watermelons and carrots.
-
Actually, that is exactly how capitalism works.
Not really. What Brass discussed was a system of bartering goods. Capitalism is a complex economic system that includes ownership of the means of production, profit incentives, capital investment, and market determination of prices.
What Brass illustrated could happen in a number of different economic systems, including communism, different strains of socialism, anarchism, and honestly nearly every economic system designed by man.
-
Actually, that is exactly how capitalism works.
Not really. What Brass discussed was a system of bartering goods. Capitalism is a complex economic system that includes ownership of the means of production, profit incentives, capital investment, and market determination of prices.
What Brass illustrated could happen in a number of different economic systems, including communism, different strains of socialism, anarchism, and honestly nearly every economic system designed by man.
Thank you.
-
Really? Did you mutually agree with the way gas prices went down before the election and then went back up afterwards?
Don't know about there, but the gas prices are continuing to fall here. They're about 20 cents a gallon cheaper now than they were before the election.
Went down 3 cents over the weekend.
Besides, it is a mutually agreed upon transaction. If I don't want to pay the going gas prices, I'm free to stop buying gasoline, or reduce my consumption.
-
Capitalism is a complex economic system that includes ownership of the means of production, profit incentives, capital investment, and market determination of prices.
That's your definition. I prefer the easier one to implement - a free exchange of goods, services, or money for the advantage of the people involved in the trade.
The "complex economic system" that you're describing evolved because of government meddling in the free market system. But that complex system is not the foundation of capitalism. The complexity was imposed later.
"Complex systems" don't spring up overnight.
-
That's your definition. I prefer the easier one to implement - a free exchange of goods, services, or money for the advantage of the people involved in the trade.
That's overly simplistic. Such a transaction may easily occur in any economic system, including communism.
The "complex economic system" that you're describing evolved because of government meddling in the free market system. But that complex system is not the foundation of capitalism. The complexity was imposed later.
Bull. The complexity comes from the fact that we no longer live in the 18th century when Adam Smith wrote about Classical Liberal Economics. We live in an age where cash money is a fraction of actual cash management and global economics, currency and commodity exchange, and foreign holdings are far too complex for such a simplistic definition.
You want such a meaningless definition because it leaves "capitalism" less open to criticism. The problem is that it also makes the definition useless.
"Complex systems" don't spring up overnight.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that it did.
-
Really? Did you mutually agree with the way gas prices went down before the election and then went back up afterwards?
Don't know about there, but the gas prices are continuing to fall here. They're about 20 cents a gallon cheaper now than they were before the election.
Went down 3 cents over the weekend.
Besides, it is a mutually agreed upon transaction. If I don't want to pay the going gas prices, I'm free to stop buying gasoline, or reduce my consumption.
Sorry to be a stickler but a mutually agreed upon transaction seems to imply actually going ahead and participating in the transaction, doesn't it? Not buying gasoline would not be considered entering into a mutually agreed upon transaction. And if that is the case, then how does a farmer who onlyowns a tractor supposed to opt out of this mutually agreed upon transaction? Totally re-define his farming process? I would imagine it would THEN, in light of the other options available to him, that it might behoove him to go ahead and pay whatever price they set for the gas thus making the transaction not so much mutually agreed upon.
Sounds more like "Pay us $X for your daughter whom we have hostage." The gasman having all the pull here and the farmer being completely at their mercy. The need would then arise for him to raise his prices in order to recoop the expense paid for the gas. And then the woman at the grocery store looking to buy fresh vegetables must then make the choice of healthy, fresh foods for her family at a higher premium, or the lower cost of canned goods with lesser health impact. Of course, she could just grow her own vegetables but that would entail her becoming a part time farmer in addition to her job as an accountant for a small tractor dealership.
And so, what we see is that the price of gas then impacts millions in a negative way because when the gas is a need and not a want there is no option other than to pay or STOP doing something. Sure, the price could vary from dealer to dealer by a few cents but if one raises they all raise and we're never going to see a dollar buy a gallon of gas again so pay it or STOP doing whatever it is you need the gas for. That sounds like "Pay us $X for your daughter whom we have hostage or we will kill her and you will then stop seeing her."
So, if you see all this as a mutually agreed upon transaction, you're kind of crazy.
All across America, citizens are trying to figure out simple matters like "How am I going to get to work?" because gas is so outrageously priced. Many are already making the jump to a Hybrid vehicle but that is not a viable option for people living on $7 an hour. The conundrum remains, "I have to get to work, so I can make enough money to pay for gas to get to work". Of course, they could always just STOP doing something.
-
So, if you see all this as a mutually agreed upon transaction, you're kind of crazy.
There are people who live without paying a dime for gasoline.
It's a matter of deciding what you want, and then doing it.
No one is forcing anyone to buy gasoline.
When you make the choice to buy gasoline at the price it's being sold at, that is a mutually agreed upon transaction. If you don't want to pay that price, you are free to find someone else selling at a better price, or not buying at all. If you're locked into buying gasoline for some reason, it's most likely because of a previous choice you made - like your living location or the job you accepted. You should have factored in the gasoline cost as well, including price increases.
-
How anyone can look at the way pharmaceuticals operate and not call that rape is beyond me.
What are pharmaceutical companies forcing people to do against their will?
What you fail to take into account of your oh, so cheery view of capitalist operations is that there are billions more people who have NOTHING to offer in exchange for the most basic needs of life that are held by a small proportion of the populace of this planet. That is not so much rape as hostage taking.
Complete nonsense. They have the same thing to offer that you and I have. They own their lives, their skills, their labor, their time. If you take a job, are you not exchanging your time, your labor, your skill for something in return? Of course you are.
Capitalism engenders that state of helplessness.
More nonsense. Much of the economic success of America has come from people who started with nothing or next to nothing and built a better life for themselves and their families because here exist the opportunities of capitalism. The richest man in the world started his company with a few cobbled together parts in in his garage. In cinemas around the country right now is a movie about a man who had almost nothing, found economic opportunity, worked to take advantage of the opportunity and became successful. Capitalism empowers the individual to create his own success and progress without tying him down because of class or race or other irrational barriers. No, it does not give success to the individual, but the individual can decide his own path and work to achieve it.
And the major capitalist endeavours in the form of "corporations" will eventually take on the task of engendering that state of helplessness rather than making the need irrelevant. An Exxon is not going to look for a way for humanity to do without oil no matter what the effect of the use of such oil has on humans, the environment, etc as long as people will put up with those effects.
Exxon doesn't have to look. They should, but if they don't, other people will. Other people are. Ford Motor Co. and BP have partnered to establish a biofuels research center and they also opened a hydrogen fuel station in Taylor, Michigan, to provide fuel for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as part of a test of real world application of fuel cell technology. That Exxon may be doing nothing about moving from oil to something else does not hinder other people from doing so. If Exxon does nothing, they will be the ultimate losers, and they may even go out of business altogether. Why? Because someone else took privately owned capital and pursued a different path. This is capitalism in action.
And, in fact, to protect its power status and that state of helplessness, the corporation will make the cost of its activities to engender those part of the cost to purchase its "product" thus the victim of its assault pays for the assault.
And yet, as has been pointed out previously, no one has to buy Exxon gasoline. You can buy your gas from other companies. No one is forcing you to go to the Exxon station to buy your gas. Exxon does not take money from your paycheck, and no one is going to come to your house and arrest you and/or confiscate your property if you never give Exxon any money. So there is no assault and no victim.
This is not a happy-go-lucky tool that is abused by "bad apples". This is the natural progression of an un-natural process created by power-loving madmen.
It is not an unnatural process. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit is perfectly natural. And you're the one demanding conformity to your social ideas so you really should be careful about calling other people "power-loving madmen".
If it was simply a matter of you have some carrots and I have a watemelon, let's swap, then that would be cool with me. It would be in the interest of all the parties involved. But that is not the way capitalism works.
Yes, actually that is the way capitalism works. JS's protestations that it could take place in any sort of economic system aside, that sort of exchange the essence of capitalism. What I exchange might be carrots, or it might be my time and effort, or it might be money, or might be any number of other things. But the exchange of what I own for what you own is capitalism.
As we move into a world where people more and more use less cash, actual money in their hands given in exchange for goods and services, we will see more and more people willing to ignore payment altogether. More and more, I'm seeing stories of people not caring for personal gain but relative comfort in favor of more people being relatively comfortable.
Good. If that makes them happy, more power to them.
More people will be willing to have less in favor of a greater number of the populace having some. Capitalism will give way to an RBE-styled form of operating.
Perhaps, but I doubt it.
-
So, if you see all this as a mutually agreed upon transaction, you're kind of crazy.
There are people who live without paying a dime for gasoline.
It's a matter of deciding what you want, and then doing it.
No one is forcing anyone to buy gasoline.
When you make the choice to buy gasoline at the price it's being sold at, that is a mutually agreed upon transaction. If you don't want to pay that price, you are free to find someone else selling at a better price, or not buying at all. If you're locked into buying gasoline for some reason, it's most likely because of a previous choice you made - like your living location or the job you accepted. You should have factored in the gasoline cost as well, including price increases.
So, then it must be acceptable to everyone who lives in a city all their life as a child and who has family in that city and loves it there, to be wide open to the thought that they should move to another city for lower gas prices and all decisions should be factored on the price of gasoline?
As for no one being forced to buy gasoline, that is patently false. The reality is if you don't buy gas, your life is going to be radically impacted and you're going to lose A LOT of options. You are not free to just not buy gas without radical changes to your lifestyle that have nothing to do with gas. If my mother decided to no longer use gas, she wouldn't be able to take daytrips to visit my grandmother 100 miles away. She could always just call her, huh?
Not being able to afford gas excludes one from the mutually agreed upon transaction and in this world today, gas has moved beyond a product. It is a necessity. Finding a different price is negligible in that the price would only differ by a few cents at most. We are forced to buy gasoline.
When I buy gasoline it is NEVER in a mutually agreed upon transaction. It is a transaction under duress. I couldn't decide to stop buying gasoline if I want to continue sending my kid to the daycare I want, working at the job I could find and seeing my friends and family who are scattered hither thither and yon. That's not even counting how I would have to give up the one or two little trips I get to make a year out of this town. Your idea that no one is forced to buy gas is laughable.
If you have some notions on how I could do all those things that I do without gas then please let me in on them. And please don't mention a horse. I don't want a horse and I'd have to be up at 4 am every day in order to get the horse ready and then get my kid loaded and then drive him to his daycare on the horse and then to my work on the horse. On a horse, I figure if I trot on it because of traffic and having to keep my kid steady, that's about 10 mph TOPS. That means I'd be on my horse for at least an hour and half nearly every day, just to get to work. Then another hour and a half home. So three hours a day, just getting to work when the round trip is something like 26 miles. Not to mention, I'd be worn out from riding the freaking horse by the time I get to work! Get out of here with that horse.
-
Such a transaction may easily occur in any economic system, including communism.
That does not make the exchange any less capitalistic.
The complexity comes from the fact that we no longer live in the 18th century when Adam Smith wrote about Classical Liberal Economics. We live in an age where cash money is a fraction of actual cash management and global economics, currency and commodity exchange, and foreign holdings are far too complex for such a simplistic definition.
It might be simple, but it is not simplistic. And all of those global economics and currency exchanges, et cetera, all still are basically voluntary transactions mutually agreed upon by the parties involved. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit.
-
As for no one being forced to buy gasoline, that is patently false. The reality is if you don't buy gas, your life is going to be radically impacted and you're going to lose A LOT of options.
And that is your choice to make. No one is forcing you to buy gasoline. This guy doesn't buy any, and he lives a fine life, one of his own choosing. And he also does not force you to live his life, as you are advocating with your RBE.
(http://www.mountain-fall-foliage-vacations.com/image-files/pennsylvania-amish-buggy-horse-drawn-625w-t-pa03-640.jpg)
-
What are pharmaceutical companies forcing people to do against their will?
They are forcing people to pay exhorbitant prices for medicines or stay sick or die.
Complete nonsense. They have the same thing to offer that you and I have. They own their lives, their skills, their labor, their time. If you take a job, are you not exchanging your time, your labor, your skill for something in return? Of course you are.
You're really making a simplistic argument here. How is someone in Darfur supposed to buy food for their kid? What jobs are there in Darfur, for instance, that allows someone who lives there to earn a decent wage? And where is someone there supposed to get education or learn a trade? You're thinking in terms of those of us on this board. The world is filled with billions of people who can't afford a CAT Scan or even freaking vitamins. They're basically scratching the dirt to get enough rice so they don't starve TODAY. Don't you get it?
More nonsense. Much of the economic success of America has come from people who started with nothing or next to nothing and built a better life for themselves and their families because here exist the opportunities of capitalism. The richest man in the world started his company with a few cobbled together parts in in his garage. In cinemas around the country right now is a movie about a man who had almost nothing, found economic opportunity, worked to take advantage of the opportunity and became successful. Capitalism empowers the individual to create his own success and progress without tying him down because of class or race or other irrational barriers. No, it does not give success to the individual, but the individual can decide his own path and work to achieve it.
Yeah, Bill Gates? This is your rags to riches story? The Pursuit of Happyness is the exception to the rule. That's why its a movie! Capitalism doesn't empower anyone to do anything. It is merely a system. The eventual potential is what a person can make happen within that system. Capitalism is a system frought with roadblocks. Imagine how many Bill Gates' there would be if children were given all the opportunities his parents were able to give him? This country would be frought with Bill Gates' if so many people didn't give up trying to be like him because they can't even get a handle on making enough money just to buy the bare necessities much less go to college.
If Exxon does nothing, they will be the ultimate losers, and they may even go out of business altogether. Why? Because someone else took privately owned capital and pursued a different path. This is capitalism in action.
anything is possible, I suppose but they won't go out of business in our lifetimes no matter what they do.
-
And that is your choice to make. No one is forcing you to buy gasoline. This guy doesn't buy any, and he lives a fine life, one of his own choosing. And he also does not force you to live his life, as you are advocating with your RBE.
(http://www.mountain-fall-foliage-vacations.com/image-files/pennsylvania-amish-buggy-horse-drawn-625w-t-pa03-640.jpg)
So, I should become Amish in order to not have to buy gasoline anymore.
-
So, I should become Amish in order to not have to buy gasoline anymore.
No, you make the decisions for your life. If that decision is to become Amish, so be it.
But you're not required to convert to their brand of Christianity to stop buying gasoline. You can remain an atheist and stop buying gasoline as well.
Or, you can make the choice that paying for gasoline is worth the convenience you get in other parts of your life.
Again, your choice. No one is forcing you to take any of those paths.
Maybe you should get a subscription to "Mother Earth News" - they have lots of tips and suggestions for living a more independent lifestyle.
-
So, I should become Amish in order to not have to buy gasoline anymore.
No, you make the decisions for your life. If that decision is to become Amish, so be it.
But you're not required to convert to their brand of Christianity to stop buying gasoline. You can remain an atheist and stop buying gasoline as well.
Or, you can make the choice that paying for gasoline is worth the convenience you get in other parts of your life.
Again, your choice. No one is forcing you to take any of those paths.
Maybe you should get a subscription to "Mother Earth News" - they have lots of tips and suggestions for living a more independent lifestyle.
See you're validating my point. I can't just decide to stop buying gasoline without making a complete change in lifestyle. I would not have to become an Amish theist, that is true but I would, in effect, have to live like one. I like driving. I like going distances in a short time. Without a car that runs on gas, I'm just out of luck. I MUST by gas in order to continue living the lifestyle I want. Thus I have no choice. The Amish do without gas but they have a totally different lifestyle that I don't want to take up.
My mom could just stop buying gas and talk to her mother on the phone rather than driving the hundred miles in a car and seeing her. She could make that "choice".
Oooooh, let's think of it this way. I could stop buying gas and then if my kid falls and breaks his arm, I could just take him to the emergency room on a bus or by bike. Why should I be held hostage for the gas it would take to make my kid's pain lesser in a shorter amount of time? That's an honorable choice I could make, right?
Sheesh.
::)
-
So, I should become Amish in order to not have to buy gasoline anymore.
No, you make the decisions for your life. If that decision is to become Amish, so be it.
But you're not required to convert to their brand of Christianity to stop buying gasoline. You can remain an atheist and stop buying gasoline as well.
Or, you can make the choice that paying for gasoline is worth the convenience you get in other parts of your life.
Again, your choice. No one is forcing you to take any of those paths.
Maybe you should get a subscription to "Mother Earth News" - they have lots of tips and suggestions for living a more independent lifestyle.
See you're validating my point. I can't just decide to stop buying gasoline without making a complete change in lifestyle. I would not have to become an Amish theist, that is true but I would, in effect, have to live like one. I like driving. I like going distances in a short time. Without a car that runs on gas, I'm just out of luck. I MUST by gas in order to continue living the lifestyle I want. Thus I have no choice. The Amish do without gas but they have a totally different lifestyle that I don't want to take up.
My mom could just stop buying gas and talk to her mother on the phone rather than driving the hundred miles in a car and seeing her. She could make that "choice".
Oooooh, let's think of it this way. I could stop buying gas and then if my kid falls and breaks his arm, I could just take him to the emergency room on a bus or by bike. Why should I be held hostage for the gas it would take to make my kid's pain lesser in a shorter amount of time? That's an honorable choice I could make, right?
Sheesh.
::)
On this Planet only the top 25% have been presented with the choice of buying a car or not.
Most of the world has not given enough capitol to individuals for this choice to be availible.
You are too accustomed to being among the wealthy , you do not feel as if you are as wealthy as you actually are. These choices of lifestyle that you do not see as choices are indeed choices . These are choices that are not availible in places with insufficient distribution of Capitol.
Imagine yourself as a Median Income Indian , Cuban , Mexican , Congolnese , Mynamarian, Figian or whatever.
You would be without the freedom to choose to buy a car and a lifetime of survitude to that car is thereby avoided.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/News/StudyRevealsOverwhelmingWealthGap.aspx
-
See you're validating my point. I can't just decide to stop buying gasoline without making a complete change in lifestyle. I would not have to become an Amish theist, that is true but I would, in effect, have to live like one. I like driving. I like going distances in a short time. Without a car that runs on gas, I'm just out of luck. I MUST by gas in order to continue living the lifestyle I want. Thus I have no choice. The Amish do without gas but they have a totally different lifestyle that I don't want to take up.
Actually, you're validating my point. I could point to thousands of New Yorkers that do not own cars. I don't even need to point to people who live in cities, there are many cases of people who gave up their modern lifestyle and live without a vehicle in Mother Earth News. I know some people who live near my parents, out in the boonies of western NC, who don't own vehicles. Matter of fact, some of them don't even use money, they have no need. They provide themselves with their own food, pump their own water, have no electricity, etc. They made a choice. Your point is that you made a choice to live in a way that requires a car. Which is my point as well - you chose this lifestyle, which came with a need to buy a car and fuel for it. It was your choice.
Oooooh, let's think of it this way. I could stop buying gas and then if my kid falls and breaks his arm, I could just take him to the emergency room on a bus or by bike. Why should I be held hostage for the gas it would take to make my kid's pain lesser in a shorter amount of time? That's an honorable choice I could make, right?
Last time I checked, the ambulance services didn't ask you if you owned a car before they came out to pick you up. And yes, if you did not own a car, you would need to find another way to the hospital.
I never said that life would be the same if you chose to live without a car. I said that you chose to own a car, and that choice required a tie to the fuel companies. It was still a choice you made, not a requirement for fuel pushed upon you.
-
They [pharmaceutical companies] are forcing people to pay exhorbitant prices for medicines or stay sick or die.
They are? They force people to not join one of the multitude of prescription discount plans around the country? Perhaps they force people not to use Wal-Mart pharmacies? No? Maybe they force people to not take them up on the prescription cost help offered by the companies? Um, no, that doesn't happen either. Of course I should make note here that without the medicines that the pharmaceutical companies develop, there would be nothing to pay prices for (exorbitant or otherwise) that would help people remain alive and/or alleviate their maladies.
They have the same thing to offer that you and I have. They own their lives, their skills, their labor, their time. If you take a job, are you not exchanging your time, your labor, your skill for something in return? Of course you are.
You're really making a simplistic argument here.
No, you're just not grasping it.
How is someone in Darfur supposed to buy food for their kid? What jobs are there in Darfur, for instance, that allows someone who lives there to earn a decent wage? And where is someone there supposed to get education or learn a trade? You're thinking in terms of those of us on this board. The world is filled with billions of people who can't afford a CAT Scan or even freaking vitamins. They're basically scratching the dirt to get enough rice so they don't starve TODAY. Don't you get it?
Yes, I do. Do you? What these people need is more capitalism, not less. You ask what jobs are there in Darfur, and apparently do not consider people starting their own business. But this is difficult in a place where property rights are not protected to any degree. There are fundamental problems in Darfur, and I know full well they cannot all be addressed by capitalism. Human rights is not a capitalism issue. That said, among the things that could be done to help Darfur and the rest of Africa is recognition and legal protection of property rights. Once people are allowed to own property, to keep it and use it, then people will begin to trade on their own. And if anything is going to be done about the economic situation in places like Darfur, trade the way to make positive change happen.
Yeah, Bill Gates? This is your rags to riches story?
No, I didn't say that. He may not be the best example, but his company did start small.
The Pursuit of Happyness is the exception to the rule. That's why its a movie!
But it is not the exception to the rule. It is an extreme example, yes, one that gotten attention because the guy wrote a book and got some TV airtime. That is why it is a movie. But less extreme examples of people starting with very little or nothing and becoming successful financially are all around us. Throughout U.S. history people have come here from other countries to make a better life for themselves. Many of those people were dirt poor, and they became a large part of America's middle class. And some of them became wealthy.
Capitalism doesn't empower anyone to do anything. It is merely a system.
A fair point. Capitalism does not give power to people, but it does not try to take power or opportunity away from people.
The eventual potential is what a person can make happen within that system. Capitalism is a system frought with roadblocks. Imagine how many Bill Gates' there would be if children were given all the opportunities his parents were able to give him? This country would be frought with Bill Gates' if so many people didn't give up trying to be like him because they can't even get a handle on making enough money just to buy the bare necessities much less go to college.
College is not necessary to be successful. Anyway, no capitalism is not fraught with roadblocks, except the ones that we put there. Life itself is full of roadblocks, and capitalism is a system that allows people to overcome or circumvent those roadblocks. Class, race, gender, education, these are not insurmountable barriers in capitalism. They may seem to loom large in our society, but that is our fault, the fault of people, not the fault of capitalism. There are other artificial barriers too, created by laws and regulations that were intended to help but that mostly just get in the way. And the nature of capitalism is such that those barriers can also be overcome. Left mostly alone, capitalism is an equalizing system because it allows anyone to choose his goals and to pursue them. No, it does not eliminate the roadblocks that happen in life, we still have to do that. And the idea that most of life's problems will go away if we just do away with money and/or property rights is naive, to put it politely.
-
That does not make the exchange any less capitalistic.
It does not make them capitalist transactions either. Bartering existed long before capitalism. If you believe that such transactions are capitalism, then you cannot believe that capitalism and political freedom have any connection. Clearly such a transaction can exist (and has historically existed) under the most brutal of regimes.
It might be simple, but it is not simplistic. And all of those global economics and currency exchanges, et cetera, all still are basically voluntary transactions mutually agreed upon by the parties involved. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit.
No, it is very simplistic. The example Brass gave is one where the information is well known in both cases. Now start applying principles such as arbitrage, profit margin, supply costs, discounting, compounded interest rates, currency exhcange rates, escrow accounts, etc to that "mutual exchange" and you'll see that your pollyanna example isn't one of pumpkins and watermelons and skipping through the tulips.
No, you make the decisions for your life. If that decision is to become Amish, so be it
What Brass is talking about are commodities with inelastic demand. You likely know that, so it makes your little game of semantics all the more surreal. Why don't you discuss this at a level of genuineness with each other instead of posting pictures of the Amish, because honestly you are arguing for capitalism from a level that cannot convince or persuade anyone of its usefulness if you're honestly offering a horse drawn buggy as a real choice.
If you wish to discuss the positive aspects of capitalism then why not do so from an honest level. Clearly Brass is pointing out commodities (or maybe even services) with inelastic demand. Let's have a decent discussion from that point, not a ridiculous assertion of lifestyle choices that includes a horse and buggy. I'm fairly certain that Maggie Thatcher's just gasped somewhere.
-
They made a choice. Your point is that you made a choice to live in a way that requires a car. Which is my point as well - you chose this lifestyle, which came with a need to buy a car and fuel for it. It was your choice.
I never said that life would be the same if you chose to live without a car. I said that you chose to own a car, and that choice required a tie to the fuel companies. It was still a choice you made, not a requirement for fuel pushed upon you.
Ah, but see therein is the point. I would have to make a total lifestyle change, saying goodbye to my friends and non-immediate family if I "chose" to not buy gasoline anymore. Therefore, unless I want to give up some of the things that are most precious to me, I MUST continue to buy gasoline. There is no choice for me because I wouldn't want to move away from my friends and family. The "choice" to not buy gas has become so personally expensive to my way of life that I MUST buy gas or experience a total lifestyle change. The ultimate point being that buying gas is NOT a mutually agreed upon transaction anymore than paying the mafia for "protection" is a mutually agreed upon transaction.
Sure, Luigi at the dry cleaners can choose to stop paying Santos when he comes around to collect but there will be repercussions for his "choice". Afterall, it's his own fault for opening a dry cleaners in the neighborhood where he lives. He can always "choose" to move his business to another neighborhood or city. It's his "choice".
If buying gas were a truly mutually agreed upon transaction then I'd be able to stop buying gas and "choose" to buy some other kind of fuel like, I don't know, Soy-based fuel of some kind without even thinking about it. It would be more like the mutually agreed upon transaction I make when I buy cereal. Frosted Flakes or Mueslix? I agree to buy Fruit Loops today. When I go to buy cereal, I'm not told, "here are the different brands of Raisin Bran (Post, Kelloggs, etc). They all cost about $4 a box and they have bran flakes and raisins. This one has raisins with frosting. And everyone who wants to be regular has to eat Raisin Bran in the morning. Which box do you want?" That's how gas is sold. It's basically all the same and just comes from different colored boxes at about the same price and you must have it in order to be "regular".
Your delightful tales of people who don't use gas or money are quaint and more power to them but you know better than I that those people are the exception to the rule. No one should have to become farmers or move away from the family and hometown they love just so they can stop buying some product that they're forced to buy.
Death, taxes and buying gas.
-
Left mostly alone, capitalism is an equalizing system because it allows anyone to choose his goals and to pursue them. No, it does not eliminate the roadblocks that happen in life, we still have to do that.
This thread had grown stale to me but a couple of things are re-kindling it for me. One is this totally ludicrous statement here. Capitalism is an equalizing system? Are you kidding me? In this country, the haves are about 1% of the country and the rest is the have a littles to have nots. You guys love to throw around the Ponzi Scheme model when you're talking about taxes but, in reality, all of capitalism is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme for those who become the Haves are rare and the rest of us wind up working for them in some fashion or other.
Capitalism maintains the status quo. For the most part, the rich stay rich and get richer and the poor stay poor. Statistics show, in America, the middle class is shrinking. The top 1% who were extremely wealthy have gotten a lot wealthier since Bush took office and the not-extremely wealthy have either stayed the same or slid down to be poorer.
Sure, sure, assuage yourselves with the idea that there are grants and loans out there by the millions to get people educated and therefore more attractive to hiring companies and all that. But the reality is that no matter how educated the lower or middle classes get in this country, they will never be able to get jobs back from overseas that companies ship over there to hire people who are willing and able to work for pennies on the dollar of what they would have to make in order to simply survive in America. We have returned to the glorious Guilded Age in America with robber barons running the country and working people like slaves without recourse through representation in unions.
A person who starts out in America at birth in a poor family with little or no opportunity for quality education is virtually gauranteed to stay in that environment. Capitalists like act like everyone can hustle and get faster and smarter and "win" but that's just a fairy tale they make movies out of with Will Smith.
Is everyone standing around starving and living in ditches and mud huts? Certainly not. But that's only because some companies take it upon themselves to stay in America.
I'll get to the other point from _JS when I get back from having a BBQ sandwich with my wife.
-
If buying gas were a truly mutually agreed upon transaction then I'd be able to stop buying gas and "choose" to buy some other kind of fuel like, I don't know, Soy-based fuel of some kind without even thinking about it.
You can. Go buy a diesel vehicle like XO did, and you can use biodiesel instead of petroleum based products.
Again, it's your choice. There are drawbacks to both options. And you'll have to weigh those drawbacks against your other life choices.
Then again, there are drawbacks to every choice you make in your life.
-
Statistics show, in America, the middle class is shrinking.
Yeah, and a lot of them are moving out of the middle class into the upper class (ie, they're becoming "rich").
-
Statistics show, in America, the middle class is shrinking.
Yeah, and a lot of them are moving out of the middle class into the upper class (ie, they're becoming "rich").
Isn't it the ideological goal of the left, personified by the likes of Brass & Tee, that we all be "middle class"? They don't want folks making things better for themselves, since it means there will also be poor. Can't have that, so we can't have "rich". Thus the overt hyperbolic attacks on "the rich", when ironically it's the poor & middle class who's goal is to move up to "the rich"
-
Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries.
Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten,
your gold and silver have corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days.
I don't think it is an "ideological goal of the left," though it may be the goal of some.
They don't want folks making things better for themselves, since it means there will also be poor.
First, being wealthier is not equivalent to "making things better for themselves" and not wanting there to be people suffering from poverty is not an ignoble goal.
Thus the overt hyperbolic attacks on "the rich", when ironically it's the poor & middle class who's goal is to move up to "the rich"
There are quite a few people who fall into the "poor and middle class" who have no such goal as to "move up to the rich."
-
Left mostly alone, capitalism is an equalizing system because it allows anyone to choose his goals and to pursue them. No, it does not eliminate the roadblocks that happen in life, we still have to do that.
===================================================================================
Choose your goals and pursue them, yeah, sure.
Luck is probably more important than any other single element here.
When I was graduated from high school in NW Missouri, the two most lucrative careers for the HS graduate were (1) to work for the airlines (TWA had a base in the area) and (2) to work in one of three auto assembly plants: Claycomo Ford, Leeds Chevrolet or B.O.P.
I started college, and to pay for my tuition, I got a job first in the cafeteria, then on the assembly line at Claycomo, putting wheels on Falcons and Comets. I didn't mind working in the cafeteria, but it paid half what the assembly line job did. The plant was extremely noisy, so much so that my ears rang for an hour after I got off my 10-hour shift, and it was pretty grueling work. Also, you had to deal with idiotic management types that never could produce a relief man to cover for you when you had to pee, and co-workers, who thought it was funny to drop a hot rivet down the back of your pants. I learned how to avoid drinking anything until the last break, and how to tuck in my shirt.
With the overtime, I made more money at the Claycomo job than I would at any other job until my third year of teaching high school. But even if I had stayed on and got promotions, I would be facing a layoff today, because people just aren't buying Fords, even the F-150 that is most of what Claycomo assembles aren't selling. And 50 hours per week was not exactly conducive to having any sort of energy to do much else. I think in the two years I worked at Claycomo, I had three dates or so, because I was also taking 16 semester hours of classes.
My sister, after five or six years working at a mail-order catalog store, went to work for TWA. She worked for years in the ticketing department, then in records, then in the overhaul base. After 30 years working there, TWA went bankrupt due to profiteers like Carl Icahn, and was sold to American. She worked for American for another five years and they moved their KCI operations to Dallas and about 80% of the workers were permanently laid off.
So it turned out that neither the auto nor the airline industry, which certainly looked like the best possible careers in 1960 were all that good, and neither was good for a lifetime.
I went into teaching first HS then college, because it was less grueling than factory work, and Missouri became rather boring.
Right now, it seems to me that college education is going to become more dehumanizing, with computerized classes taking over many of the teaching duties. But this is a ways off, and I am planning on retiring before that will happen.
But the main factor here is LUCK, not good planning, not intelligence.
I am not going to starve, but I am also not competing with singers, guys who play with balls, or even real estate swindlers financially. Mostly, I have learned that financial success without some intellectual stimulation is not much better than assembly line work or being a mega consumer.
Most of the financial "successes", if you read their biographies (usually ghostwritten) turn out to be exceedingly shallow types who seem to have believed every advertisement they have read. And also very lucky. They just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
=============================================================
By the way, biodiesel is not really an option. You need to have a free source of used cooking oil (three to six restaurants, depending on how much you drive) and then you need to buy rather a lot of equipment refine the stuff yourself. There is also a disposal problem for the by products. It's really more of a hobby than a solution.
Diesel does have the advantage that when they announce a hurricane, you can fuel up without waiting long in line. Since the Iraq War, Diesel does not have a price advantage over gasoline, though the motor will go farther on a gallon. The taxes are higher on Diesel.
There was a time when Diesel in the summer sold for half the price of gasoline.
Again, luck.
-
Properly conceived and emotionally modulated, the debate should focus on circumstance rather than the "fungibility" of individuals occupying slots among the "rich" or the "poor." The question is not should there be freedom and upper mobility -- there should -- but whether we can morally, socially and politically tolerate "want" or "serious want" or "severe want" in the richest country in the world, and how we should fashion our legal/economic system to assure that the "burdens of society" are carried equitably, that is, not only by ability to contribute but degree of benefit derived.
-
By the way, biodiesel is not really an option. You need to have a free source of used cooking oil (three to six restaurants, depending on how much you drive) and then you need to buy rather a lot of equipment refine the stuff yourself. There is also a disposal problem for the by products. It's really more of a hobby than a solution.
Then again, he can always just drive down to his local biodiesel retailer and buy some.
http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/ (http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/)
-
It should also be noted that biodiesel (and ehtanol) are both subsidised and I'm not sure that either would exist in a a laissez faire market of a capitalist economy.
-
Not my day, either.
-
You can. Go buy a diesel vehicle like XO did, and you can use biodiesel instead of petroleum based products.
Again, it's your choice. There are drawbacks to both options. And you'll have to weigh those drawbacks against your other life choices.
Then again, there are drawbacks to every choice you make in your life.
Wow, that would be such a difference. I would only have to buy gas once a month or so. As for biodiesel, the closest place to buy it is a half hour's drive into AR. Does that sound like it would be worth it?
The reality is, AMI, that gas is the most convenient way to go without sustaining a complete lifestyle re-organization. And that's how the makers of gasoline are going to keep it. There is no real benefit to them to create choices to gasoline. With just gas as their product for running vehicles, the customer is kept on the hook. They must buy gas or undergo complete lifestyle changes that would impact every aspect of their whole life. No choices.
It is easier to just shrug your shoulders and say, "whattyagonnado?"
-
Statistics show, in America, the middle class is shrinking.
Yeah, and a lot of them are moving out of the middle class into the upper class (ie, they're becoming "rich").
Oh really? That sounds like some Rush-induced AMBE to me but you believe what you wanna.
-
Properly conceived and emotionally modulated, the debate should focus on circumstance rather than the "fungibility" of individuals occupying slots among the "rich" or the "poor." The question is not should there be freedom and upper mobility -- there should -- but whether we can morally, socially and politically tolerate "want" or "serious want" or "severe want" in the richest country in the world, and how we should fashion our legal/economic system to assure that the "burdens of society" are carried equitably, that is, not only by ability to contribute but degree of benefit derived.
Actually Domer, I quite agree. I especially liked this phrase: whether we can morally, socially and politically tolerate "want" or "serious want" or "severe want" in the richest country in the world
I believe that Katrina really highlighted this fact for many Americans of various degrees among the political spectrum. I realize there was a game of politics and political relations involved in the aftermath, but the sight of poor Americans absolutely devestated by this natural disaster at least woke some people up to the reality that this isn't just a country of suburban landscapes and SUV's.
I read some horrible (nearly inhumane) articles and letters after that disaster, but I feel that the majority of those were written in a political nature. Most of the people associated with Katrina and who helped in some form or another really saw the good that we can do as a society. I think we can live as a society of Americans free from want, but it will require an effort and a balancing of goals and equality.
-
Yeah, and a lot of them are moving out of the middle class into the upper class (ie, they're becoming "rich").
Factcheck.org says you are guilding the lily at the very least. Your use of the qualifier "a lot of them" is your crime.
As of 2003 at least.
http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html (http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html)
On Aug. 26 the Census Bureau released its annual survey of income in the US. These more up-to-date figures show that Kerry may well have been correct when he said the middle class is shrinking, using present tense.
There's no standard definition of "middle class," so we looked at households with pre-tax income of between $25,000 and $75,000 -- a group occupying roughly the middle half of the Census income distribution tables. As we noted before, that group grew smaller during the economic recession of 2001 and the initially slow recovery of 2002. Now the new Census figures indicate it continued to decline in 2003, and while this time some of the middle group were moving up , a larger portion were moving down.
Shrinking Middle Class
(Income in 2003 dollars, adjusted for inflation)
Under $25,000
$25,000-$75,000
Over $75,000
Change:â€
2002-2003
+0.4%
-0.4%
+0.2%
2000-2003
+1.5%
-1.2%
-0.4%
Distribution in 2003
29.0%
44.9%
26.1%
Source: Table A-1, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the US: 2003
†Rows don't net to zero due to rounding
Moving on Down
The table shown here is updated to reflect the latest Census figures, and shows both the one-year change for 2003, and also the three-year change from 2000 to 2003 (covering the period since Bush took office.) The income figures are adjusted for inflation, and shown in 2003 dollars.
Since Bush took office, the middle-income group has declined by 1.2 percentage points , and now constitutes less than 45% of all households.
At the same time, households with less than $25,000 in income have grown by 1.5 percentage points, and now make up 29% of all households. So a large number of households have slipped out of the middle group and into the lower-income range over the past three years.
Furthermore, that process did not stop in 2003 despite the resumption of job growth in September and 4.4% growth in the economy as measured by Gross Domestic Product. The middle-income group lost 0.4 percentage points in 2003.
The upper-income group -- those with income over $75,000 a year -- has also suffered since Bush took office, declining by 0.4 percentage points over three years. However, upper-income households bounced back a bit last year, by two-tenths of a percentage point, and now are back at just over 26% of all households.
So by this measure, the "middle class" continued to shrink in 2003 , and while some "middle class" households moved to the upper-income group, a larger proportion moved down.
(Note: These figures are subject to some rounding error that could make any one of them off by a tenth of a percentage point or so.)
Shrunken, Stagnant Income
Another indicator: the Census Bureau reported that median household income declined by $63 from 2002 to 2003 , to $43,318. "Median" means that half of all households had more income than that, and half less. Census officials characterized the median income figure as "unchanged" in 2003 because the decline was so small as to be well within the margin of error.
Median Household Income
2000
$44,853
2003
$43,318
Change Under Bush
-$1,535
-3.4%
But even so, median income has declined by $1,535 since Bush took office , or 3.4 percent. And while the decline leveled off last year and may even be climbing again in 2004, most households are clearly worse off economically now than they were when the President was sworn in.
Persons in Poverty
(thousands)
2000
31,581
2003
35,861
Change Under Bush
+4,280
+13.6%
Falling Into Poverty
Another indication that the middle class continued to shrink in 2003 is the increase in the number and percentage of persons living in poverty. According to the Census Bureau, the number of people living below the official poverty line grew by 1.3 million in 2003, to 35.9 million. That's nearly 4.3 million more poor persons than when Bush took office , an increase of nearly 14%.
Is It Still Shrinking?
We of course can't say what the Census Bureau figures will say next year about what is happening to income and poverty rates in 2004. We do know that employment has been growing all year, so more people have jobs. Average wages are rising, too. But prices have been rising even faster -- especially for food, health care and fuel.
We also don't know what happened to after-tax income in 2003, because the Census Bureau was unable to complete its annual release of "alternative measures" of income in time for release with the poverty and household income figures. The 2003 figures might look better once the Bush tax cuts are factored in and take-home pay is considered. On the other hand, we do know that another 1 million persons were without health insurance in 2003. Since Bush took office, the number without health insurance has grown by 5.2 million, to 45 million.
-
Oh really? That sounds like some Rush-induced AMBE to me but you believe what you wanna.
How can Rush induce anything in me when I don't listen to him?
Weren't you around a few months ago when I posted that article about the upswing in millionaire creation in this country?
-
As for biodiesel, the closest place to buy it is a half hour's drive into AR. Does that sound like it would be worth it?
I don't know; it would be your choice, and your call to make. Perhaps you could look at the financial implications of moving closer to the retailer? Maybe you could look at switching careers and become a retailer of biodiesel in your neighborhood? Sounds like the laws of supply and demand would be working your favor.
The reality is, AMI, that gas is the most convenient way to go without sustaining a complete lifestyle re-organization.
Exactly. You chose a lifestyle that requires gasoline to be a convienence. The important part being that you chose that lifestyle. It was not forced upon you.
-
It should also be noted that biodiesel (and ehtanol) are both subsidised and I'm not sure that either would exist in a a laissez faire market of a capitalist economy.
It should also be noted that the US oil industry is subsidized as well.
-
What Brass is talking about are commodities with inelastic demand. You likely know that, so it makes your little game of semantics all the more surreal. Why don't you discuss this at a level of genuineness with each other instead of posting pictures of the Amish, because honestly you are arguing for capitalism from a level that cannot convince or persuade anyone of its usefulness if you're honestly offering a horse drawn buggy as a real choice.
If you wish to discuss the positive aspects of capitalism then why not do so from an honest level. Clearly Brass is pointing out commodities (or maybe even services) with inelastic demand. Let's have a decent discussion from that point, not a ridiculous assertion of lifestyle choices that includes a horse and buggy. I'm fairly certain that Maggie Thatcher's just gasped somewhere.
This is the benefit of associating with people who are smarter than yourself.
Good are considered inelastic when the quantity demanded does not change much with the price. Neccesities have highly inelastic demand curves (approaching vertical lines). For instance, antibiotics may cure a person who would otherwise die. The sick person will likely pay anything for the neccesary medication to keep himself alive. By constrast, elastic goods face large changes in quantity demanded with relatively small changes in price. Elastic goods have demand curves that approach horizontal lines. Elastic goods are usually those with very similar substitutes. For example, if you might buy a twenty sticks of generic chewing gum a week at $.05 a stick. If the price goes up to $.06, you switch over to another generic brand of gum. Your weekly quantity demanded has shifted from twenty to zero. A sharp decrease for only a slight change in price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand)
They might as well have made it cereal instead of chewing gum.
Today, I've learned something. Hurray!
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The demand for gas will always be inelastic therefore there is no impetus for the gas producers to ever reduce the price of gas. And in light of this, I can see why fuel companies are often one of the first industries nationalized since there is always going to be demand for gas or fuel and it is such a bedrock product.
-
It does not make them capitalist transactions either. Bartering existed long before capitalism.
Bartering existed before capitalism and related concepts were actually defined as such. The exchange of privately owned capital in one form or another for someone else's privately owned capital has been around for a very long time. Bartering is one example of this. I see no reason not to consider it capitalism.
If you believe that such transactions are capitalism, then you cannot believe that capitalism and political freedom have any connection. Clearly such a transaction can exist (and has historically existed) under the most brutal of regimes.
On the contrary, I believe that capitalism and political freedom are very much connected. Where brutal regimes attempt to control trade, blackmarkets arise and prosper. People will seek the liberty of capitalistic trade and to oppress it is to oppress the people and the rightful liberty of the people. Economic and political freedom are linked. Part of the functioning of capitalism is the liberty of the individual to decide for himself what to do with his own property. Property rights and the liberty that goes with that is inextricably linked to the freedom of the individual in society. Capitalism does not make people free, certainly, but where it is supported, liberty flourishes, and where it is opposed, liberty is diminished.
The example Brass gave is one where the information is well known in both cases. Now start applying principles such as arbitrage, profit margin, supply costs, discounting, compounded interest rates, currency exhcange rates, escrow accounts, etc to that "mutual exchange" and you'll see that your pollyanna example isn't one of pumpkins and watermelons and skipping through the tulips.
I'm not sure what "pollyanna" example you're talking about. I did not say there are not other concerns in the way businesses operate. And some of what you mention are artificial constructs within capitalism: interest rates, exchange rates, et cetera. These are part of how people have chosen to do business within capitalism, but they are not required parts of capitalism. Other things like profit margins and supply costs, these are part of the calculations that go into deciding what the benefits of exchange are and how to make the most beneficial exchanges. They can hardly be said to contradict the idea of capitalism as mutual exchange for mutual benefit.
The rest of your post has to do with Amianthus's arguments directly, so I'll leave it to him to answer that.
-
Isn't it the ideological goal of the left, personified by the likes of Brass & Tee, that we all be "middle class"? They don't want folks making things better for themselves, since it means there will also be poor. Can't have that, so we can't have "rich". Thus the overt hyperbolic attacks on "the rich", when ironically it's the poor & middle class who's goal is to move up to "the rich"
As usual, you have misrepresented me.
I would much rather we all be "rich". There is no reason whatsoever that we can't all be the upper class. None. If you turn society into one where the competition is not who can amass the most toys but who can amass the most honor, that world would easily make this one look like a shitbox.
Replace the dollar with honor.
There's your bumpersticker for the new socialist revolution.
-
There are quite a few people who fall into the "poor and middle class" who have no such goal as to "move up to the rich."
FWIW. I've often imagined myself wealthy. If someone offered me a million dollars, I'd take it no questions asked. I'd try to eliminate as many peoples' debt as I could.
-
Then again, he can always just drive down to his local biodiesel retailer and buy some.
http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/ (http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/)
Like I said, I used that very site and the closest one to me is 35 miles from my house in AR. Would you still consider that a viable lifestyle change? Maybe just invest in some barrels to keep at the house? Make a run each week or so?
-
Weren't you around a few months ago when I posted that article about the upswing in millionaire creation in this country?
I'm sure I was around but didn't bother to read it because I knew that while it might be technically true there were more millionaires, it was also true that the middle class had moved LOTS more people into the lower class. I would guesstimate that for every new millionaire (who was more than likely right on the cusp of being one anyway) there were at least a thousand more families that had moved from the middle class DOWNWARD.
So, a community may build three half million dollar homes but lots more $100,000 homes had been foreclosed on or were put up for sale.
-
Like I said, I used that very site and the closest one to me is 35 miles from my house in AR. Would you still consider that a viable lifestyle change? Maybe just invest in some barrels to keep at the house? Make a run each week or so?
That would be your choice, wouldn't it?
Incidently, I'm planning on a similar situation as you just described for my retirement. I will have a house that uses a fuel cell stack to generate it's own electricity, and will keep a few month's worth of fuel on the property. I will have either a fuel cell car or a diesel burning biodiesel. I plan on providing most of my own food.
-
I'm sure I was around but didn't bother to read it because I knew that while it might be technically true there were more millionaires, it was also true that the middle class had moved LOTS more people into the lower class. I would guesstimate that for every new millionaire (who was more than likely right on the cusp of being one anyway) there were at least a thousand more families that had moved from the middle class DOWNWARD.
Actually, the article I posted stated that long term trends showed more people moving into the upper class than into the lower class. The article you posted earlier only looked at three recession years - one at the end of Clinton's term and the first two years of Bush's term (when tax cuts had not yet been implemented). The article even mentioned - at the end - that it's likely the trend would reverse in 2004.
Longer term studies covering a decade or more have been done, and they have shown that the migration trend for middle class is into the upper class, not downward.
-
Bartering existed before capitalism and related concepts were actually defined as such. The exchange of privately owned capital in one form or another for someone else's privately owned capital has been around for a very long time. Bartering is one example of this. I see no reason not to consider it capitalism.
And yet there is no real reason to consider it capitalism, other than to provide a simplistic definition.
On the contrary, I believe that capitalism and political freedom are very much connected. Where brutal regimes attempt to control trade, blackmarkets arise and prosper. People will seek the liberty of capitalistic trade and to oppress it is to oppress the people and the rightful liberty of the people. Economic and political freedom are linked. Part of the functioning of capitalism is the liberty of the individual to decide for himself what to do with his own property. Property rights and the liberty that goes with that is inextricably linked to the freedom of the individual in society. Capitalism does not make people free, certainly, but where it is supported, liberty flourishes, and where it is opposed, liberty is diminished.
We could have an entire discussion on just this. I would think that Pinochet's Chile and it's link to Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" was a nice testament to the fact that freedom of market does not correlate to freedom of people.
I'm not sure what "pollyanna" example you're talking about. I did not say there are not other concerns in the way businesses operate. And some of what you mention are artificial constructs within capitalism: interest rates, exchange rates, et cetera. These are part of how people have chosen to do business within capitalism, but they are not required parts of capitalism. Other things like profit margins and supply costs, these are part of the calculations that go into deciding what the benefits of exchange are and how to make the most beneficial exchanges. They can hardly be said to contradict the idea of capitalism as mutual exchange for mutual benefit.
Artificial constructs within capitalism? Can you explain how interest rates and exchange rates are artificial constructs within capitalism that do not have to exist? I'm especially keen on understanding how interest rates do not have to exist as this would seem contradictory to the entire concept of the time value of money. Without it, the entire system of annuities, credit, banking, discounting, etc would be gone. So, let's start there and we can tackle currency exchange at a later time.
We didn't even touch on arbitrage, surely that's a capitalistic endeavor?
-
Exactly. You chose a lifestyle that requires gasoline to be a convienence. The important part being that you chose that lifestyle. It was not forced upon you.
Oh really? Do you have the date? 'Cause I seriously don't know anyone who has ever sat down and decided "Ok, am I going to buy gas or not? That's what we're having this family meeting about tonight. What do you guys think?" Nobody CHOOSES a lifestyle.
But I just had a train of thought go through my head though. It started with the phrase "People just emulate what they see" and it progressed through "that's how we were raised" and that's a hot button phrase for me in the religious discussions. Most people when asked "Why are you a baptist or a christian" will instantly say, "Well that's just how I was raised". That's not true of every baptist or christian, of course, but that's the predominant answer I have gotten.
And so, if I am to hold those people accountable for their beliefs they've never questioned, where do I get off acting like I can't just decide to not buy gas? I could do that. I know I could because I have made an equally disruptive decision early in my life when I came to the understanding that theism was just incongruous with my nature and how I perceived the universe. Figuratively speaking, I "moved away" from many of my friends and family when I became more open about my atheism.
So, by that measure, if I were really dedicated to my belief that gas companies were holding us hostage and their true concern was not in making the world a better place for everyone but only for the owners of the companies, then I would make that radical change and make those major moves to either a dense urban city like NY where I could ride the train or to a rural area where I could grow everything I need and earn a living growing a crop.
But having come to that realization, it still only re-inforces my belief that, in order to do stop buying gasoline, I would have to make these radical changes. I would have to invest hours and hours in planning for the moves, in attempting to create viable options to every aspect of my life in order to disassociate from buying gasoline. It's still a mountain to be climbed.
It seems to me that "We have no choice but to buy gas" is now equivalent in my mind with theists who say, "That's just how we were raised." And I can't let that stand, can I? What would that make me?
-
On the contrary, I believe that capitalism and political freedom are very much connected. Where brutal regimes attempt to control trade, blackmarkets arise and prosper.
I'm just curious then does this mean that anything is for sale? The "black market" for marijuana just exceeded hay and corn. By your measure then, potheads of the world are having the precious freedoms tread upon the restriction of their trade. Heroine addicts and terrorists seeking nuclear bomb suitcases are being oppressed. My hyperbole has purpose.
Clearly, terrorists are not being oppressed because their capitalist freedoms are busily being interrupted. So what we can see is that there are cases in which capitalism causes harm in the way it is used. So, by that token we should control aspects of it where it causes harm.
This is why gas companies should be nationalized. The arbitrary pricing of gas is harmful to people who need it. So, we should either set price ceilings for gas (I'd say a dollar a gallon is more than fair) or simply use our taxes to pay the employees of the industry and have gas be free.
-
and how we should fashion our legal/economic system to assure that the "burdens of society" are carried equitably, that is, not only by ability to contribute but degree of benefit derived.
First you need to define the "burdens of society".
-
Capitalism is an equalizing system? Are you kidding me?
No. I'll say this again since you seem to have missed it the first time. Life itself is full of roadblocks, and capitalism is a system that allows people to overcome or circumvent those roadblocks. Class, race, gender, education, these are not insurmountable barriers in capitalism. They may seem to loom large in our society, but that is our fault, the fault of people, not the fault of capitalism. There are other artificial barriers too, created by laws and regulations that were intended to help but that mostly just get in the way. And the nature of capitalism is such that those barriers can also be overcome.
In this country, the haves are about 1% of the country and the rest is the have a littles to have nots.
That is a ridiculous categorization that looks very much like envy to me. My family is not in the top 1% or even in the top 10%, and we have plenty. We have food, a nice house, automobiles, clothes, a few television sets, a couple of computers, electricity, running hot and cold water, furniture, books, movies, and we're all buying presents for each other this year. No, we don't have limos or butlers or plasma televisions or caviar or a wine cellar or horses or a multimillion dollar house or things like that. We don't wear furs and silks or $100 shirts. We don't take trips to Europe, don't have all the latest gadgets, or any of those other things that wealthy people spend their pocket change on. But we do have things and we live a nice life, thank you very much, and I bet you do too.
You guys love to throw around the Ponzi Scheme model when you're talking about taxes but, in reality, all of capitalism is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme for those who become the Haves are rare and the rest of us wind up working for them in some fashion or other.
I have to wonder if you know what a Ponzi scheme is.
Capitalism maintains the status quo.
Oh please. You're still talking as if what we have in America is somehow the ultimate in capitalism, as if what we have is pure capitalism. This is not even remotely the case. What we have here is a mixed economy with some capitalism, some socialism and some corporatism. The last two parts together making our overall economic system closer to fascism than laissez faire capitalism.
For the most part, the rich stay rich and get richer and the poor stay poor. Statistics show, in America, the middle class is shrinking. The top 1% who were extremely wealthy have gotten a lot wealthier since Bush took office and the not-extremely wealthy have either stayed the same or slid down to be poorer.
The rich stay rich and get richer because for the most part, they have government on their side. They get the influence with the politicians. They get called in to advise the government on policy matters. They are able to afford the vast regulations and bullsh-- that government lays down as "necessary" controls on the market. If you want to campaign against government propping up the rich with subsidies and needless regulations the inhibit competition and entrepreneurship, I will be happy to help you out. Just ask. If you want to criticize Bush's overall economic policy, again, I'm right there with you.
Sure, sure, assuage yourselves with the idea that there are grants and loans out there by the millions to get people educated and therefore more attractive to hiring companies and all that. But the reality is that no matter how educated the lower or middle classes get in this country, they will never be able to get jobs back from overseas that companies ship over there to hire people who are willing and able to work for pennies on the dollar of what they would have to make in order to simply survive in America.
You're like a never ending fount of economic nonsense. Get jobs back? Jobs are not a finite resource. Jobs can be created anytime, anyplace, anywhere. We don't need to get jobs back, because we can create as many new jobs as we need. But what is really ridiculous about your complaint is all the things that have caused businesses to want to move jobs overseas are really creations of people who keep trying to correct what they see as the "failures" of capitalism. Folks like you keep trying to make doing business more and more difficult in the goosechase after "fairness" and in the name of protecting the people. And then you complain when businesses find it easier and more profitable to move jobs somewhere else. And then you complain that the poor can't seem to get a break, that all the cards are stacked against them. And so naturally, you blame capitalism. It is almost as if you have no grasp of the basic concept of cause and effect.
We have returned to the glorious Guilded Age in America with robber barons running the country and working people like slaves without recourse through representation in unions.
If that is so, and I doubt that, it is because of socialist policies that have partnered corporations with government and interfered with the common citizen's access to economic opportunity.
A person who starts out in America at birth in a poor family with little or no opportunity for quality education is virtually gauranteed to stay in that environment.
Only if they don't try to get out of it. Of course, artificial price floors on employment and oodles of regulations that interfere with basic entrepreneurial attempts don't help people escape poverty at all, but by all means, you ignore that and just put all the blame on capitalism.
Capitalists like act like everyone can hustle and get faster and smarter and "win" but that's just a fairy tale they make movies out of with Will Smith.
No, it isn't. Of course not everyone is going to end up with a six or seven figure income, but not everyone wants one. Not everyone defines "winning" as being a millionaire. It is possible to move from a low economic status to a higher economic status. I know because my father did it. I know because millions of people have done it.
Is everyone standing around starving and living in ditches and mud huts? Certainly not. But that's only because some companies take it upon themselves to stay in America.
That makes even less sense than your previous statements.
-
That would be your choice, wouldn't it?
Incidently, I'm planning on a similar situation as you just described for my retirement. I will have a house that uses a fuel cell stack to generate it's own electricity, and will keep a few month's worth of fuel on the property. I will have either a fuel cell car or a diesel burning biodiesel. I plan on providing most of my own food.
No, it wouldn't be my choice. It might wind up being the decision I would have to make in order to stop buying gas but that wouldn't be my choice. My choice would be to get gas that doesn't pollute the air for free. That would be my choice.
If given time, I could eventually CHOOSE which limb I wanted to be amputated if someone had a gun to my head but I wouldn't say that any of them would be my "choice." You see what I mean? When asked who was my choice between Kerry and Bush, I chose Dean. You see what I mean? You're acting like it would be a democratic decision but in reality it is a fascist decision.
-
Nobody CHOOSES a lifestyle.
Sure they do. I've known people that made conscious decisions like this. I know one couple that were raised in the suburbs, always used a car to get around, etc. Probably very similar to your lifestyle. They decided they wanted to live the "urban life" and moved into the heart of a large city (Chicago in this case). They got rid of their car, if they wanted to visit someone outside the city, they either had to arrange a ride, rent a vehicle, or take a train / bus. But they chose that for themselves, and spent very little on gasoline over a year's time. Another couple went the other way, raised in the heart of a city (NYC is this case) and after they had their second child, they moved out into NJ, got the house with a yard, bought a couple of cars, and started driving everywhere.
Just because you were raised one way of the other doesn't mean that you have to continue to live that way.
-
My choice would be to get gas that doesn't pollute the air for free. That would be my choice.
Then invent this hypothetical fuel source, and give it away.
No one is stopping you.
-
Longer term studies covering a decade or more have been done, and they have shown that the migration trend for middle class is into the upper class, not downward.
Now look, I may sound like a rube at times but come on, I am smarter than this. You're saying if we went back ten years we'd see that more people moved up. So, let's say we went back to '95 because then we'd have ten years through 2005. Five of those years would be during the tech boom. Well, OF COURSE, if you include some of those years when everyone and their brother was getting loaded in the stock market with tech stocks, you're going to see increases. And I would definitely bet that your article's info only went up to early 2005 at the very latest. Even with the slides of the last five years under Bush, there would surely still be some sign of the moves from middle to upper class.
Where we differ is that I don't want to see averages over years where the shrinking of the middle class lately (to the lower class) is masked by the growth of the upper class 5 to 10 years ago. What I want to see is steady increases every year in the size of the upper class while the middle and lower classes shrinks. And I would even go so far as to say that I don't want to see the creation of some kind of new super upper class until there is no longer a lower class at the very least but ideally neither a middle class.
This averages stuff is bunk. I'd never imagine you to try to put something like that over. Sirs, sure, any time but you, come on. You're way more intellectually honest that that.
-
Trying once again to focus the discussion on principles instead of Ami's inane use of statistics, I repeat:
Properly conceived and emotionally modulated, the debate should focus on circumstance rather than the "fungibility" of individuals occupying slots among the "rich" or the "poor." The question is not should there be freedom and upper mobility -- there should -- but whether we can morally, socially and politically tolerate "want" or "serious want" or "severe want" in the richest country in the world, and how we should fashion our legal/economic system to assure that the "burdens of society" are carried equitably, that is, not only by ability to contribute but degree of benefit derived.
-
And yet there is no real reason to consider [bartering] capitalism, other than to provide a simplistic definition.
It is the exchange of privately owned property. Why shouldn't it be considered capitalism?
We could have an entire discussion on just this. I would think that Pinochet's Chile and it's link to Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" was a nice testament to the fact that freedom of market does not correlate to freedom of people.
That assumes that Pinochet's Chile was an example of freedom of market. Oh, and the link between Pinochet and Friedman is minuscule. I recommend checking out Brian Doherty's article, "The Economist and the Dictator (http://tinyurl.com/yx3af7)", about Friedman, Pinochet and Chile over at Reason Online.
Can you explain how interest rates and exchange rates are artificial constructs within capitalism that do not have to exist?
Interest rates and exchange rates are artificial in that they are not naturally occurring things. Money or property does not earn interest by itself. It does so because people have established a system wherein they agree to the concept of interest and a specific rate of interest. Exchange rates have to do with currency, which is itself really an artificial construct. We have and use currency, money, because we all essentially agree to use it as a means of exchange rather than bartering with deeds, physical objects and the like. I don't know how things like interest rates and exchange rates could not be seen as artificial constructs. I realize I'm probably not explaining this very well, but I am not an economist.
I'm especially keen on understanding how interest rates do not have to exist as this would seem contradictory to the entire concept of the time value of money. Without it, the entire system of annuities, credit, banking, discounting, etc would be gone. So, let's start there and we can tackle currency exchange at a later time.
The time value of money exists because people tend to prefer a sum of money now rather than the same sum of money in the future, and therefore there needs to be a reason to invest money, which leads us to the concepts of interest and the time value of money. We do not have to have these concepts for people to own property or to use it to increase wealth. These concepts make that easier certainly, but they are not required. Yes, without interest we would see a vastly different operation of capitalism, but that things would be different does not make interest a necessary concept. I'm not saying it isn't an extremely valuable and useful concept, I'm just saying it isn't absolutely necessary.
We didn't even touch on arbitrage, surely that's a capitalistic endeavor?
Of course it is. So is currency exchange and investment with interest. I never said they were not. They fit within capitalism; they do not define it. I would have thought that was obvious.
-
I know there are some replies (to my posts) to which I have not yet responded, but I'm out of time right now. I'll have to get to them later or tomorrow.
-
Leaving aside the dispute over whether interest is a "necessary concept," I would say that it is an inexorable phenomenon, that is, logically compelled, in a mature capitalist economy. In that stance, of course, it becomes a "necessary concept," to be ignored at your peril, in any but rudimentary forms of capitalism.
-
Properly conceived and emotionally modulated, the debate should focus on circumstance rather than the "fungibility" of individuals occupying slots among the "rich" or the "poor." The question is not should there be freedom and upper mobility -- there should -- but whether we can morally, socially and politically tolerate "want" or "serious want" or "severe want" in the richest country in the world, and how we should fashion our legal/economic system to assure that the "burdens of society" are carried equitably, that is, not only by ability to contribute but degree of benefit derived.
Clearly, Domer, the answer lies in one's own ideology. The predominant two can easily be summed up in these ways.
The conservative/capitalist "MINE! Get your own!"
The liberal/socialist "We're all in this together."
These are absolutes and regardless of a conservative's adherence to "charitable organizations lending a hand" idea or a socialist's desire for toys of every stripe, the two ideology's will remain at core.
There are shared beliefs between the two ends of the spectrum and I've attempted to broach them innumerably in the past in our RBE discussions (and you know how those go) but the disagreements arise from how best to resolve the problems that we all know are there. Poverty being the number one problem that I see.
-
This averages stuff is bunk. I'd never imagine you to try to put something like that over. Sirs, sure, any time but you, come on. You're way more intellectually honest that that.
You're never going to find a period of time where every year is better than the last. The economy doesn't work that way. There will always be "up" years and "down" years, which is why averages over time is a better way of looking at the data. Actually, they use much more sophisticated techniques than straight averages - but I'm sure you know what I mean.
If you want to avoid the tech boom 90s, and there is no reliable data past 2004 yet, we have to look at the 80s.
This Economic Letter reports on recent research by Burkhauser, Crews, Daly, and Jenkins (1996) (hereafter BCDJ); which examines changes in the distribution of real family income and pinpoints movements of the U.S. middle class over the 1980s. Contrary to conventional wisdom, BCDJ find that the shrinking of the U.S. middle class during the 1980s was primarily due to improvements, rather than to declines, in economic well-being. They show that the majority of the middle class that vanished did so by increasing its income. That is, the great majority of working families under age 62 as well as older families in the middle of the income distribution were better off at the end of the decade (1989) than were their counterparts at the beginning (1979). Only those living in families under age 62 and dependent on social assistance lost ground between 1979 and 1989. Thus, while inequality unquestionably increased and the size of the middle class declined during the 1980s, the decline occurred through disproportionate increases, rather than through large-scale reductions in economic well-being.
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html (http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html)
And this is a trend that has been going on for a long time.
-
Trying once again to focus the discussion on principles instead of Ami's inane use of statistics, I repeat:
I find most of your posts to be inane.
-
I shouldn't have said "inane," Ami, but "useful in its place," which is not to guide, much less define, discussion.
-
Yeah, sure
You can buy biodiesel at a few places. But you will pay much more for it than you will for "dino diesel", and you will have to use quite a bit of it driving to the biodiesel station. Here in South Florida, there are just two locations, both around 20 miles from where I live, both are much more expensive than "petro diesel, and neither is open convenient hours
-
Yeah, sure
You can buy biodiesel at a few places. But you will pay much more for it than you will for "dino diesel", and you will have to use quite a bit of it driving to the biodiesel station. Here in South Florida, there are just two locations, both around 20 miles from where I live, both are much more expensive than "petro diesel, and neither is open convenient hours
As I'm trying to point out - any choice you make will have negative consequences. Which negative consequences you are willing to live with will help define your choice.
-
[
Clearly, Domer, the answer lies in one's own ideology. The predominant two can easily be summed up in these ways.
The conservative/capitalist "MINE! Get your own!"
The liberal/socialist "We're all in this together."
These are absolutes and regardless of a conservative's adherence to "charitable organizations lending a hand" idea or a socialist's desire for toys of every stripe, the two ideology's will remain at core.
There are shared beliefs between the two ends of the spectrum and I've attempted to broach them innumerably in the past in our RBE discussions (and you know how those go) but the disagreements arise from how best to resolve the problems that we all know are there. Poverty being the number one problem that I see.
No , it is more like this,...
The conservative/capitalist "Lets negotiate our exchanges twards mutual benefit"
The liberal/socialist "You are a butt headed selfish idiot , so we are going to make our exchanges my way."
-
It is the exchange of privately owned property. Why shouldn't it be considered capitalism?
I don't recall Brass saying that it was privately owned. Regardless, it could occur in a capitalist system but it isn't the definition of capitalism.
That assumes that Pinochet's Chile was an example of freedom of market. Oh, and the link between Pinochet and Friedman is minuscule. I recommend checking out Brian Doherty's article, "The Economist and the Dictator", about Friedman, Pinochet and Chile over at Reason Online.
Yes, yes I know that Friedman only spoke there once, but his students were the economic advisors to Pinochet and Augusto loved the little economist. I've heard this defended from more directions that I'd ever thought possible, from complete non-association (Pin-who?) to intense worship of both (And lo, the Lord came and tooketh both Augusto and Milton into paradise). OK, I exaggerate a little. Yet, monetarism proved costly to many people both in Chile and around the world.
Interest rates and exchange rates are artificial in that they are not naturally occurring things. Money or property does not earn interest by itself.
By that same notion, money and property are not naturally occurring things. Both are concepts created by man. To remove interest rates and exchange rates, cornerstones of today's financial sector as not being central to capitalism strikes me as being intellectually dishonest.
The time value of money exists because people tend to prefer a sum of money now rather than the same sum of money in the future, and therefore there needs to be a reason to invest money, which leads us to the concepts of interest and the time value of money.
Exactly. There must be a reason to invest money, right? Without that, how does capitalism function? You shouldn't mistake capitalism for a simple bartering society. It simply does not function that way.
-
Brass stated:
Nobody CHOOSES a lifestyle.
Ami replied:
Sure they do.
Only to a degree Ami. Otherwise your choices are very much limited by society, environment, and your own inner workings.
For example, nobody chooses to be schizophrenic, yet it happens. If it happens to you or someone you love then you know that it is a lifestyle change. Nobody chooses to be bipolar, but it happens. Children don't choose for their parents to be divorced, killed, or criminals - but that is sometimes the case. They don't choose to be molested, but it happens. It typically has an effect on lifestyle too.
For those of you who are married you find out that your choices are not always compatible with your signifcant other. She may not want to make the same consumer choices that you always have (amazingly she doesn't like to eat Ramen noodles four times a week or drink 12 packs every night). You'll likely find yourself purchasing some things you'd never considered (or heard of - I'm still not sure what the hell a "duvet" is or why I'd ever want one). If you have children you'll be further amazed at what you'll purchase and why.
Furthermore, you might work in a nice city, but housing may be too expensive for you to make use of the mass transit system. Or, the school system may not be up to par with a nearby city or county. Or perhaps your wife works in a different city and you need to be closer to one or half way in-between.
My point is that choices are part real and part illusory. I think Brass has made some very good points here. What he is really discussing, as I said earlier, are goods with inelastic demand. Electricity, water, natural gas, milk, gasoline, grains, tobacco, some minerals, are items that have a generally inelastic demand and do not suffer when the price is increased either through supply shortages or collusion. Saying that you have a choice through taking drastic measures is only an argument that makes that point all the more clear.
-
Choose your goals and pursue them, yeah, sure.
Luck is probably more important than any other single element here.
Yes, choose your goals and pursue them. If you don't, luck won't get you there. Winning the lottery is, I think we would all agree, a luck based situation. But if you don't buy at least one lottery ticket you will never win the lottery, and luck has nothing to do with that. One of the few clichéd sayings that really has much merit is this: fortune favors the prepared mind. Pasteur said that about "fields of observation" but the basic concept holds true in other areas. One does not become a doctor by luck. One does not become a computer programmer by luck. One does not find employment by luck. You have to actually do something toward achieving the goal. Yes, luck may play a part in how successful one ultimately becomes, but that doesn't mean pursuing a goal is a waste of time.
-
On the contrary, I believe that capitalism and political freedom are very much connected. Where brutal regimes attempt to control trade, blackmarkets arise and prosper.
I'm just curious then does this mean that anything is for sale? The "black market" for marijuana just exceeded hay and corn. By your measure then, potheads of the world are having the precious freedoms tread upon the restriction of their trade.
I don't know that I would say anything, but most things can be for sale. As for "potheads" having their freedoms trampled by the restriction of the trade of drugs, yes, actually that is the case. Whether or not that is a good thing is another discussion entirely.
Heroine addicts and terrorists seeking nuclear bomb suitcases are being oppressed. My hyperbole has purpose.
Okay, but how did heroin addicts get conflated with terrorists seeking nuclear weapons?
Clearly, terrorists are not being oppressed because their capitalist freedoms are busily being interrupted. So what we can see is that there are cases in which capitalism causes harm in the way it is used. So, by that token we should control aspects of it where it causes harm.
This is why gas companies should be nationalized. The arbitrary pricing of gas is harmful to people who need it. So, we should either set price ceilings for gas (I'd say a dollar a gallon is more than fair) or simply use our taxes to pay the employees of the industry and have gas be free.
Wow. Drug users to terrorists to oil companies. You're just hopping all over the place. Apples, oranges and bananas. Let's take this a little slower.
Clearly, terrorists are not being oppressed because their capitalist freedoms are busily being interrupted.
Terrorists are people engaging in criminal behavior, attempting to interfere with basic human rights like the right to life. And to be clear here, my support for capitalism does not extend to support for criminal activity or the abuse of rights. I realize you're trying to make a cute and clever point here by talking about capitalism and terrorists so that you can then move to equating capitalism with criminal behavior, but that is a crock.
So what we can see is that there are cases in which capitalism causes harm in the way it is used. So, by that token we should control aspects of it where it causes harm.
Whoa. Technically and specifically speaking, buying a weapon is not a point of capitalism causing harm. The use of the weapon causes harm, and that is not capitalism. You're deliberately trying to confuse capitalism with violence, and they are not the same thing at all, as anyone with a modicum of thought on the matter can figure out.
This is why gas companies should be nationalized. The arbitrary pricing of gas is harmful to people who need it. So, we should either set price ceilings for gas (I'd say a dollar a gallon is more than fair) or simply use our taxes to pay the employees of the industry and have gas be free.
I could never parody you because I doubt I could ever come up with the sort of economic inanities you seem to imagine with ease. You're making all kinds of really stupid assumptions here. One is that gas prices are set arbitrarily. Another is that government setting a price ceiling for gas would be both useful and not arbitrary. Yet another is that gas would be free if paid for with tax dollars. It's all so ridiculous, I don't know where to begin.
Gasoline prices are not set arbitrarily. No one is throwing a dart at a dart board of prices and setting the price of gas at wherever the dart lands. No one is making up prices randomly off the top of his head and setting the prices that way. There are multiple considerations that go into deciding the price for gas, like the costs in making it and the location of the gas station (not a consideration I think they should use, but they do). You deciding that gas prices should have a ceiling of a dollar because you think that is fair is, however, nothing if not arbitrary.
If you really want to hurt people, by all means set a price ceiling for gasoline. Set it so low that the gas stations and oil companies don't make a profit on it. And when we have a gas shortage because gas production became cost prohibitive, you can take all the credit. And that partnership between Ford and BP to research alternative fuels, say good by to it. BP won't have the resources to contribute anything. And of course, there is the matter of the people who will end up out of work due do a loss of revenue. Yes, you're just overflowing with compassion for the workers. And naturally, you'd blame capitalism again because of course the negative consequences of policies in line with your ideas would never ever be the fault of the policies or the ideas behind them.
Oh, and speaking of compassion for people, I "love" your final suggestion of using taxes. Nothing says "I have no real concept of compassion" like taking money away from people by force. Yes, I know you mean well, but taking money away from people is never going to help them achieve financial security or success. Nothing has ever seemed more asinine to me than the notion that we need to help the supposedly financially struggling middle class by taxing them. You might as well suggest that we help people struggling to get three decent meals a day by taking away some of their food. But maybe you meant using tax dollars from the rich. Yes, we're going to help the middle class and the poor rise up financially by punishing with higher taxes anyone who does start to rise financially. And of course, we're going to do this in the name of "fair". "Fair" as decided by you, because you care and you know best how other people should live. Indeed, nothing says "I care about others" like tyranny. (Oops, I dropped into sarcasm mode there didn't I? Oh well.)
Taxes do not make anything free. Taxes in this scenario would just make paying for gas compulsory. What you complain about the gas companies doing, forcing you to buy their product, your plan of taxes for gas makes a reality. A more hypocritical solution could not be imagined.
-
Clearly, Domer, the answer lies in one's own ideology. The predominant two can easily be summed up in these ways.
The conservative/capitalist "MINE! Get your own!"
The liberal/socialist "We're all in this together."
These are absolutes and regardless of a conservative's adherence to "charitable organizations lending a hand" idea or a socialist's desire for toys of every stripe, the two ideology's will remain at core.
A more inaccurate description of the situation I doubt I could find if I spent the rest of the year scouring the internet for it. The part that is most interesting is where you insist that even if a conservative believes in giving to charitable organizations as a means of helping other, they are still, according to you, really just selfish people who only want to get for themselves. You're like the Christian fundamentalist who insists that even if Pagans don't believe in satan, they're really satan-worshippers anyway. You just refuse to accept the idea that someone might actually care about helping others and just not agree with you that socialism or the RBE is the best way to get there. You're showing us dogmatic judgmentalism at its "finest". Which means you're not a liberal. You're just a left-wing version of conservative.
-
It is the exchange of privately owned property. Why shouldn't it be considered capitalism?
I don't recall Brass saying that it was privately owned.
If it was not privately owned, why the need for an exchange? People would just take what they wanted otherwise, would they not?
Regardless, it could occur in a capitalist system but it isn't the definition of capitalism.
Of course bartering is not the definition of capitalism. But bartering privately owned property is still capitalism. You have yet to give me a reason why it is not.
If we're talking about publicly owned property or socially owned or something like that, then bartering is not needed. There would be no need to exchange items or even a basis on which to make such an exchange. If you had carrots in a society where there is no private ownership, and I wanted the carrots, I could simply take them because they would belong to me as well, would they not? There would be no need or way to barter with a watermelon that everyone also owned and could therefore take anyway.
Yes, yes I know that Friedman only spoke there once, but his students were the economic advisors to Pinochet and Augusto loved the little economist. I've heard this defended from more directions that I'd ever thought possible, from complete non-association (Pin-who?) to intense worship of both (And lo, the Lord came and tooketh both Augusto and Milton into paradise). OK, I exaggerate a little. Yet, monetarism proved costly to many people both in Chile and around the world.
I'm not defending anything. I think the link between Friedman and Pinochet is exaggerated, but clearly Friedman gave Pinochet advice. That said, to say that Chile's economic problems arose from Pinochet following Friedman's advice is nonsense. Chile's economic problems arose from departures from Friedman's advice. If you want to say Friedman is responsible for Pinochet's actions because Friedman took an hour of his time to answer economic questions honestly, I can't stop you, but don't expect me to take you too seriously in a discussion of Friedman's relationship to Pinochet or Chile's economic problems. I know it seems like a prime situation to support the idea of capitalism as oppression, but the facts simply do not support this. And I am not excusing Pinochet at all. The man was a despicable tyrant.
By that same notion, money and property are not naturally occurring things. Both are concepts created by man.
Money is a concept created by man. I would say property is a naturally occurring thing in that there has always been a concept of property even back in mankind's most primitive days. Property even exists as a concept among animals. Animals mark territory, keep and protect food and lairs, et cetera. Property seems like a perfectly natural concept.
To remove interest rates and exchange rates, cornerstones of today's financial sector as not being central to capitalism strikes me as being intellectually dishonest.
They are central to how capitalism operates in our society yes. But they are not necessary for people to own property or to chose to exchange that privately owned property for mutual benefit. Interest rates and exchange rates exist within capitalism, they do not define capitalism. And I want to add here that I am having trouble understanding why you get to claim the exchange of private property in a bartering situation can happen in a capitalism but does not define capitalism while I get called intellectually dishonest for saying that interest rates, which are based on an artificial concept within capitalism, are something that happens within capitalism but does not define capitalism. This double standard hardly seems intellectually honest.
There must be a reason to invest money, right? Without that, how does capitalism function? You shouldn't mistake capitalism for a simple bartering society. It simply does not function that way.
Okay, let's be clear here. If we all lived in a barter system where privately owned property was traded item for item, we would still have capitalism. The farmer would be able to trade food for farm tools. The hunter or cattleman could exchange meat for clothing or building materials. But you are correct in that capitalism as practiced in our society is not a simple bartering system. It is like a complex bartering system. It is not technically a bartering system because we use money rather than direct exchanges of work for food or food for tools, et cetera. But capitalism still functions as a system of mutual exchange of privately owned property, in one form or another, for privately owned property resulting in mutual benefit. The farmer grows corn and rather than use the corn to barter for tools or clothing, he sells the corn for money. The money he then exchanges for tools or whatever. Or he gives his money to a bank in exchange for an interest rate that provides the farmer with a benefit. The bank, meanwhile, exchanges the payment (interest rate) to keep the money for having the money to use in loans or mortgages, which in turn are exchanges of money for interest rates. But however you want to describe the situation, it is still a series of voluntary exchanges for mutual benefit.
Ultimately, however, it should be noted that something being or not being capitalism is not due to whether the system of exchange can be regarded as simple or complex. Capitalism is not an economic system based on interest rates or currency exchanges. Money and things like interests rates greatly facilitate the process of capitalism in action, are extremely useful and are an integral part of how capitalism functions in our society. No one is arguing that interest rates and the like are not important to how capitalism functions in our society. However, It is not interest rates that make capitalism. Exchange rates do not make capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system based on property and means of wealth production being privately owned as opposed to being owned collectively by society or owned by the state.