Craigslist Exec To Soon Catch Bullet With His Forehead

[Amianthus]

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.

[Brassmask]

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

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.

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Brassmask]

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.

[Brassmask]

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.

[Brassmask]

Then again, he can always just drive down to his local biodiesel retailer and buy some.
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?

[Brassmask]

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.

[Amianthus]

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.

[Amianthus]

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.

[_JS]

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?

 

[Brassmask]

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?

[Brassmask]

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.

[Universe Prince]

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".

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Brassmask]

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.