Separated by a common language/humour?

[mattiasNYC]

What state would the pharma, or medical science in general, be in without profit?

In a Capitalist system? It'd be out of business. But that's an obviously illogical argument.

  For all it's ills, capitalism has brought about some incredible progress.

Sorry, but it's mostly technology that has brought incredible progress. That it's happened in system X is a different matter completely.

 

[mattiasNYC]

There is nothing wrong with wanting a perfect world and a perfect system, but unfortunately only perfect people would be able to operate it/live in it.  That is the part all socialists leave out, they assume that redistribution will cure all of humanities failings overnight.

Despite your previous statement, if I remember correctly, that you understand what Socialism is, you seem completely clueless on the concept. Your argument above is both erroneous as to the goals of Socialism as well as a massive red herring. I can pick it apart if you want, but my gut tells me you'll ignore it.

The truth is that greedy power hungry men will always find a way to exploit the system and the work-shy will always find a way to live off the work of others.  The capitalist system is far from perfect but it works for the majority and in particular for those with a strong work ethic. 

Work ethic is a minor issue in capitalism. Yeah, you can work hard and if you're lucky it'll take you somewhere, but the great pools of accumulated wealth has crap-all to do with hard work. Stop pretending that there's some relationship between hard work and revenue in a capitalist system.

Where it doesn't work so well is for the minority who fall though the safety net if there is one.  Socialism does a better job of looking after the genuinely needy but provides less incentive to work.  Why go for promotion if it puts you into a higher tax band, why go to work if the benefits pay as much as work?

You're describing a non-Socialist country. Like I said: You guys have absolutely no problem adjusting the term "Socialism" to fit any argument at hand, meaning the definition "floats" to your liking. It's inconsistent.

If you make humanity perfect, the system will probably cure itself, better check out religion again?

DaveP

No, Capitalism, profit, competition, hard work, everyone for themselves; that's the perfect system for perfect people.

 

[DaveP]

Sorry, but it's mostly technology that has brought incredible progress

Wait, Something paid for all that technology and the technologists time now what could that have been?

  : No it wasn't taxes........................, maybe philanthropy?............................No I've got it! it was profit!! :

DaveP

 

[Rochey]

Companies don't develop technology for shit'n n giggles.
They develop it to get one up over their competition, to win the business from the consumer.

We all buy the best (quantity, quality, whichever you prefer) we can for the money. you do so when you shop at Tesco's, Lidl or Tom Thumb.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Sorry, but it's mostly technology that has brought incredible progress

Wait, Something paid for all that technology and the technologists time now what could that have been?

  : No it wasn't taxes........................, maybe philanthropy?............................No I've got it! it was profit!! :

DaveP

Like I said, your limited comprehension of "Socialism" is confined to "taxation" it appears, except when some other definition is convenient. But since you star talking about taxation not paying for advancements in technology, how about you think about government subsidies in various forms for investment in technology, and then give yourself five minutes before you continue down this road. It might not show you what you think.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Companies don't develop technology for sh*t'n n giggles.
They develop it to get one up over their competition, to win the business from the consumer.

Duh. What's your point?

 

[gato]

Technology is older than we are as a species so I think its a mistake to connect its development in general with a specific technology of social organization (capitalism). Even within this system there is a lot of development that isn't profit driven. The very medium we're using for communication (the internet) wasn't created for profit.

 

[DaveP]

Like I said, your limited comprehension of "Socialism" is confined to "taxation" it appears, except when some other definition is convenient. But since you star talking about taxation not paying for advancements in technology, how about you think about government subsidies in various forms for investment in technology, and then give yourself five minutes before you continue down this road. It might not show you what you think.

Matt, it is quite obvious that you have convinced yourself with your arguments,  whether you have convinced anyone else is open to debate, but this topic is not the one for all this.  Why not start one of your own?  Pretty Please :

DaveP

 

[Rochey]

Technology is older than we are as a species so I think its a mistake to connect its development in general with a specific technology of social organization (capitalism). Even within this system there is a lot of development that isn't profit driven. The very medium we're using for communication (the internet) wasn't created for profit.

Ah, now that's an interesting perspective.
Internet was a Governement Security project. It's backbone designed to withstand a direct hit on one of it's nodes.
This was something I was chewing on whilst watching the sh*t flinging in this thread take place.
Internet, GPS and many other technologies have been developed initially developed as a military project.

Might we generalize to "Technology is developed to give us a one-up over others?" (for security, for money etc?)

Whilst we can all have wonderful goals, it fundamentally takes money and paying peoples incomes to develop new technology. that's either from the government, where the competition is another country and the customer is the government initially, or in the marketplace where capitalism reigns?

also -- how off topic are we by now?

 

[mattiasNYC]

Technology is older than we are as a species so I think its a mistake to connect its development in general with a specific technology of social organization (capitalism). Even within this system there is a lot of development that isn't profit driven. The very medium we're using for communication (the internet) wasn't created for profit.

Exactly my point.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Like I said, your limited comprehension of "Socialism" is confined to "taxation" it appears, except when some other definition is convenient. But since you star talking about taxation not paying for advancements in technology, how about you think about government subsidies in various forms for investment in technology, and then give yourself five minutes before you continue down this road. It might not show you what you think.

Matt, it is quite obvious that you have convinced yourself with your arguments,  whether you have convinced anyone else is open to debate, but this topic is not the one for all this.  Why not start one of your own?  Pretty Please :

DaveP

Was I the one who brought up competition? No, JR did. You had no objection to that.
Was I the one who brought up drug companies and the market economy? No, you did. You had no objection to that either.

It's quite obvious you have convinced yourself with your arguments, whether anyone else has been is open to debate. If you'd like it to be done somewhere else then don't bring it up here.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Technology ("science of craft", from Greek τέχνη, techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand"; and -λογία, -logia) is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation.

There you made me look it up in case I didn't understand what technology is.

Now I need to parse how long we've been a species? (Modern homo sapiens maybe 200,000 years.)

Tool use by earlier animals, like poking a bee hive with a stick to release honey, is arguably "technology" that predates us being a species. but that seems pretty thin to me...  but thanks for the mental exercise.

=========
I have been interested in economics for years, politics is just something that I can not easily ignore  (I remain an optimist). Political systems were already pretty old news, when our founders did their research and came up with their variant. I don't know that much more has been learned about different political systems since then, other than more bad examples from repeated mistakes. The plasticity of our government with a constitution that accepts amendment, and a certain amount of slop built in, means it can and is still evolving. (That evolution thing again).

Since you all have google and wiki you can answer pretty much every question raised here, except for the imaginary ones (or when wiki is wrong    ). 

Be careful about simple answers as most things of importance are fairly complex.

JR 

 

[DaveP]

Matt,
It started from Mitz returning to the text of the original post, not the topic itself, it all sprang unhappily from that.

My continued answers to you stem from the vain hope that you might partially agree at some stage or at least concede there is some merit/common sense in what I and others have said.  But no, that never happens until in the end I am bored out of my skull.

Despite me "liking" some of your well made points, there is never any reciprocation, so arguing with you becomes sterile and pointless, I am not learning anything from you except that you are a very serious and devoted socialist who thinks he has all the answers.  Please have the last word on me, it will make you feel better.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Matt,
It started from Mitz returning to the text of the original post, not the topic itself, it all sprang unhappily from that.

My continued answers to you stem from the vain hope that you might partially agree at some stage or at least concede there is some merit/common sense in what I and others have said.  But no, that never happens until in the end I am bored out of my skull.

Despite me "liking" some of your well made points, there is never any reciprocation, so arguing with you becomes sterile and pointless, I am not learning anything from you except that you are a very serious and devoted socialist who thinks he has all the answers.  Please have the last word on me, it will make you feel better.

DaveP

How about if I do... It is generally a waste of time to try to change somebody's mind on the WWW.

The best we can do is express our own views clearly and try to understands each other's arguments (to reveal flaws if obvious). I especially try not to argue about what other people think (opinions/beliefs).  It's hard enough to know what I think (not unlike arguing about what other people hear is pointless)..

Waiting for capitulation and a group hug, is a long and lonely wait.

This discussion is pretty much a love fest compared to many forums. 8)

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

You assume that the only way to teach people how to thrive in the capitalist market is somehow instill in them the desire for competition. If it's possible to do the opposite then my previous statement (in the other thread I think) holds true.

I think that is your assumption. A capitalist society encourages people to strive to do better.

Cheers

Ian

 

[mattiasNYC]

You assume that the only way to teach people how to thrive in the capitalist market is somehow instill in them the desire for competition. If it's possible to do the opposite then my previous statement (in the other thread I think) holds true.

I think that is your assumption.

I thought I made that comment to Dave....  It seems you're entirely missing my point. The context was "competition" and developing society, presumably.

Look:

A capitalist society encourages people to strive to do better.

Cheers

Ian

First of all, if we assume that is true in and by itself for the sake of making a point: That doesn't mean that what I said is without merit. The reason is because I wrote "the only way". The reason that makes a difference is the context in which it was all discussed. If teaching people to compete leads to development, or thriving, or striving to do better in a capitalist society, then that doesn't mean that it is the only means to do so. It even doesn't mean it is the best way to do so. So simply pointing out that it does doesn't invalidate other options. That's the context.

Secondly, it's a bit of a misleading statement you're making. "Better" is a value, but is that what capitalism unequivocally makes people strive for? Be honest. Why would a corporation dump toxic waste instead of spending the time and money to dispose of it properly? Why would any corporation knowingly break the law? They do so because the people leading them find that it increases profit which in turn benefits the owners. And the primary goal of capitalism is promoting profit. Just because we happen to like some of what is produced in a capitalist society doesn't mean we like all of it. And just because we think of some of it as "better", some clearly is not.

 

[johnheath]

"Johnheath,

It is not so much patience that we have for you, as great respect that you are so good at English  yet we are useless at your languages

Det är inte så mycket tålamod som vi har med dig, så stor respekt som ni är så bra på engelska men vi är värdelösa på ditt språk

DaveP"



It is not so often that I see correct swedish in this forum... But I like it.

Tack så mycket (thanks a lot)

/John

 

[mattiasNYC]

Matt,
It started from Mitz returning to the text of the original post, not the topic itself, it all sprang unhappily from that.

My continued answers to you stem from the vain hope that you might partially agree at some stage or at least concede there is some merit/common sense in what I and others have said.  But no, that never happens until in the end I am bored out of my skull.

Despite me "liking" some of your well made points, there is never any reciprocation, so arguing with you becomes sterile and pointless, I am not learning anything from you except that you are a very serious and devoted socialist who thinks he has all the answers.  Please have the last word on me, it will make you feel better.

DaveP

Ok. Well done Dave.

 

[johnheath]

In the beginning of the 90s I was stationed in the UN armed forces in Lebanon and in Bosnia and if there was anything I learned from that period is that if people want to communicate they will manage this even thoug the language is the barrier itself.

Today in my line of work I meet a lot of refuges and I face the sama again... if people want to communicate they will solve it, but if the don't they will never solve it

Just a personal point of view

Regards

/John

 

[Krcwell]

In the beginning of the 90s I was stationed in the UN armed forces in Lebanon and in Bosnia and if there was anything I learned from that period is that if people want to communicate they will manage this even thoug the language is the barrier itself.

Today in my line of work I meet a lot of refuges and I face the sama again... if people want to communicate they will solve it, but if the don't they will never solve it

Just a personal point of view

Regards

/John

Very interesting. In your experience, are there any similar things that people find funny across many cultures/languages?