Brexit

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
DaveP said:
You think the system is flawed, we think the Implementation is flawed because human nature is involved.
You can have an altruistic employer like John Cadbury or a slave driver like many others paying zero hours contracts etc.etc.

Well, but since we can't change human nature all we can change is the system, either by improving it or by switching to a different one. This is no different than looking at criminal legislation for example. If rape was legal then the system wouldn't be promoting rape, just allowing it. But just because human nature then leads to an imperfect "implementation" of that legal system (because some humans rape others) doesn't mean we don't change the system for the better - especially because of human nature.

Look at it this way: If the system itself had no bearing on human behavior then we wouldn't bother having one in the first place. Since we can establish easily that it does have a bearing on behavior, it stands to reason we probably could improve it.

PS: "Implementation" doesn't sound like the right word. People who are in favor of capitalism will argue that profit is a good thing, and typically also defend increasing profits. If that's true, then just where does the implementation fail when people amass huge amounts of wealth?
 
ruffrecords said:
And because other systems do not have risk you lose the motivation aspect which simply leads to stagnation and everyone gets poorer.

That is your assertion. I don't think it's true. It's actually pretty easy to come up with many reasons for why one would do labor in a non-capitalist system.

And by the way, the usual argument that pro-capitalists make isn't that it is risk that motivates but profit. As a matter of fact, I'd say it's exactly the opposite in reality: The lower the risk with higher profit the better, in a capitalist system.

In addition; I feel compelled to point out that the notion of "risk" is a bit silly in these arguments in the context of talking about magnitudes of wealth, because we are all human and risk has a pretty much equal lowest bar. This is to say that a person who makes $30,000  per year with $10,000 in savings is risking far more when he's investing all his savings than a person with $10m in the bank risking $1m. The latter can lose his investment and still be a multi-millionaire yet the former would have zero savings. So "risk" kind of points out the absurdity of the system when viewing it in the context of inequality.



ruffrecords said:
Wealth inequality occurs in all systems. It is not a unique feature of capitalism. In fact all kinds of inequality exist in most systems. Again, it is the implementation  not the system that is at fault. A lot depends on how you measure wealth inequality and really whether it is an important measure at all. If, say, capitalism leads to 80% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of people, the real question is just how well off are the 80% of people with just 20% of the wealth. If they are better off with capitalism than they would be under any other system then capitalism is the better system. It is not perfect or optimum but it is better The problem with all other systems is they fail to beat capitalism in this respect. So i would argue that the absolute wealth of the vast majority of people is the real measure of a system, not its wealth inequality.

I would never use absolute wealth as the real measure of any system's success, I would measure health, happiness, longevity etc. Your assertion that capitalism makes people better off than other systems is the typical argument which completely ignores technological advancements made during this period, advancements which would have been made anyway. It is science and technology that drives increased productivity which in turn increases wealth, not capitalism. The only question is how that is managed.

And I don't think it's a matter of a flaw in implementation. There is nothing in capitalist theory that I'm aware of that places restrictions on its implementation. So, implementing capitalism "absolutely" would pretty much be close or equal to laissez-faire capitalism. That's its purest implementation. Nothing flawed with that, it's just what it is, and that's my point. The purest essence of capitalism will lead to capitalist interests moving towards whatever maximizes profits. For anyone not profiting as much that seems like "poor implementation", but really it's at the root of the system. It's a feature, not a bug.

ruffrecords said:
I disagree. The system is unfair if it makes me poorer than another sytem.
Phrases like 'two people working equally hard' are not helpful because it is impossible to define hard work absolutely. In addition, people's talents differ and, if hardness of work could be defined, two differently talented people working equally hard would produce different amounts of wealth.

Ok, so it reads as if you think it's ok to have a system that promotes the well being of some people over that of others rather than a system that tries to give all equal opportunity.

And in an Anarchist system hard work could equal the fruits of your labor, thereby directly equaling your work output by definition. In other words this philosophy that you're supporting, the one where talents and onerousness of one's work yields different levels of wealth is exactly what you could get in an Anarchist system. The reason you and others don't want that direct correlation between work and wealth is because then you can't profit off of the work of other people. That's what capitalists want: The fruits of other people's labor.

I will grant you off course that placing a value on someone's work is a difficult issue, but the question is really whether that should be decided for you or with you. The notion that we somehow consciously decide this value is nonsense, yet it is at the heart of the argument in favor of capitalism. The argument goes that the correct value of something is whatever the market decides it is. However, that most likely does not really equal what human beings really think about it. And so there is a disconnect between the actual value people place on things and what the market says it is. It's easy to understand how this can be the case, because let's face it; essentially nobody finds out how the revenues generated by your purchase are divided. So since you have no clue about that you have also made zero comments on how value should be divided throughout society (using the market value). All you know is that you need this medication, toothpaste, piece of meat or whatever, and you pay for it. That's it. But there's no decision on your part about how labor should be properly valued.

ruffrecords said:
I don't see how my vote for capitalism boxes you in. Other systems are available  to you in other parts of the world.

You do realize that we don't have free movement across borders, right? You essentially just said "Yeah, if you stay here my vote leads to you having to live a certain way, but if you don't like it you can leave". I don't find that a convincing rebuttal to what my point was.

ruffrecords said:
As I said, capitalism is not perfect but it is a whole lot better for the majority than any other system.

No it isn't.
 
Ms May seemed little amused about a  newspaper headline and Mr Juncker throwing out a metaphor from astronomy. Chaps, the show has begun  8)
 
ruffrecords said:
I am sorry but you are really beginning to rant now. I have no interest in  continuing this conversation.

Cheers

Ian

"beginning to really rant"? Really?

I was trying to explain my thoughts because you asked, and I'm trying to do so conclusively so you can understand. The above reply is incredibly shitty. If you had a point to make then fine, but that's just fucking weak.

Would a tweet suit you better? We can dumb stuff down and write simplistic one-liners if you feel it's more appropriate (didn't think you were American). I know more than one sentence annoys some people.
 
mattiasNYC said:
"beginning to really rant"? Really?

I was trying to explain my thoughts because you asked, and I'm trying to do so conclusively so you can understand. The above reply is incredibly sh*tty. If you had a point to make then fine, but that's just f**king weak.

Would a tweet suit you better? We can dumb stuff down and write simplistic one-liners if you feel it's more appropriate (didn't think you were American). I know more than one sentence annoys some people.
Chill not everybody is an intense as you...

JR
 
mattiasNYC said:
"beginning to really rant"? Really?

I was trying to explain my thoughts because you asked, and I'm trying to do so conclusively so you can understand.

I do not find statements like "It's actually pretty easy to come up with many reasons for why one would do labor in a non-capitalist system."  to be conclusive.
The above reply is incredibly sh*tty. If you had a point to make then fine, but that's just f**king weak.
I apologise unreservedly for the tone of my reply but I will not discuss this with you any more.

Cheers

Ian
 
mattiasNYC said:
"beginning to really rant"? Really?

I was trying to explain my thoughts because you asked, and I'm trying to do so conclusively so you can understand. The above reply is incredibly sh*tty. If you had a point to make then fine, but that's just f**king weak.

Would a tweet suit you better? We can dumb stuff down and write simplistic one-liners if you feel it's more appropriate (didn't think you were American). I know more than one sentence annoys some people.

I am with Ian on this with respect to your latest reply. It was beginning to rant and the tone of your last paragraph is cynical and condecending and is more suited to the social media trolling forums.  I think you would probably agree with this in the cold light of time.
 
I would like to apologize too.  I might have contributed to provoking such comphrehensive post.

m(__)m
 
Would a tweet suit you better? We can dumb stuff down and write simplistic one-liners if you feel it's more appropriate (didn't think you were American). I know more than one sentence annoys some people.
There are advantages in writing less for you and us.

Practicing the art of precis is a good self discipline that makes your words more succinct  so people don't groan when they see long replies.

I have noticed that you seem to fall out with people on this forum eventually, is this a mission of yours or do you have issues?  Seriously. ::)

You have mentioned that you are "Brown" several times, for almost everyone on this forum that is entirely irrelevant, as probably most of our music idols are black, I know mine are.

DaveP
 
Hey, I disagree that Mattias, was ranting. He was making a comprehensive argument to Ian's point. Ian was a bit curt in ending that conversation. The conversation was very informative, and I think its actually pretty important (in these times) that discussions like these with intelligent viewpoints on both sides are had. Emotions just have to be kept in check a little more. But its unfair to point the finger at Mattias for ranting...Before his last post that is. Ian, I was really enjoying your pragmatic viewpoint. I was hoping to see your response before Mattias got frustrated :-[

Ian
 
Back on topic, we have just had local council elections throughout the UK. The result was a landslide towards Teresa May and the Conservatives. I am sure someone will point out that the turnout was only 35%.

Cheers

Ian
 
ruffrecords said:
It's typical.

Cheers

Ian
I find it impressive that people sometimes put their lives at risk to vote in far superior numbers to western countries.

That said I miss the good old days when we could pretty much ignore our politicians. Now they need to be watched much more closely.

JR
 
ruffrecords said:
It's typical.

Cheers

Ian

Just read that UKIP lost all its formerly 114 mandates and gained only one new seat. Well done Britain, we still do have faith in her :)
 
Script said:
Just read that UKIP lost all its formerly 114 mandates and gained only one new seat. Well done Britain, we still do have faith in her :)

I suspect that UKIP was a manifestation of the electorates's exasperation with the EU. Now we have voted to leave, its job is done. People are now more interested in getting the best deal

Cheers

Ian
 
So, despite the hacks (and the spreading of those by American fascists and racists) Macron crushed Le Pen.

Sofar only Anglo-Saxon countries fell for  the new blond wave.
 
So far only Anglo-Saxon countries fell for  the new blond wave.
There are bigger changes afoot in the West and it would be wiser to notice them, rather than to be mocking Trump at every opportunity.

All over, there is disillusionment with the old politics, parties and globalization.

Macron had to create a new party to win in France, because the old ones were discredited and moribund.

There is Podemos in Spain and the Five Star movement in Italy, Trump is only the American manifestation of the same anti-establishment  undercurrent sweeping the West.  Prime Minister May was smart enough to hitch her wagon to similar movements in the UK and will no doubt win big  in June.

And yes, I have noticed that journalists on most of the internet news sites I visit try to put down Trump at every  gaffe he makes.  They understandably do not like being shut out of the cosy corner they used to have in the establishment.  He has a very difficult job because he is going to be resisted by all the failed political forces that have held power for so long.

Mockery has it's time and place, but it's not a policy or a political movement with a future and we get bored and tired of it in the end.

DaveP
 

Latest posts

Back
Top