Sad thing is nothing has ever worked so far, insiders will get what they want regardless
Communism and socialism are models that deal with wealth distribution.
Capitalism just require privates ownership and trade and doesn't care about how wealth should be distributed at all.
When I say "distribution of wealth" I primarily mean how it views who should own the rights to the rewards of an endeavor, which is really the primary thing that capitalist and socialist ideology clash about, and also a pretty enormous factor in the way society distributes it's wealth.
Communism has a retarded notion called surplus value that doesn't take 5 seconds to disprove and it's the entire basis of their "the capitalist class is evil!" argument.
The only reason people still see communism as viable is the fact that they never read any books by the Austrian and Chicago schools of economy.
I wasn't making an argument in favor of Communism though?
That's the thing, but far too many people are only able to see in monochrome
You're either a filthy capitalist pig or dirty communist scum
The fact that the vast majority of the wealth one produces is taken by the owner of the means of production already creates a dynamic of distribution. Capitalism doesn't (theoretically) require an outside actor to enforce unequal distribution because the system itself is built on inequality.
what's the alternative, just let companies do whatever?
If anything i'd like to see something of a bracketed bureaucracy where depending on how large your business is you get certain privileges. As an example a person setting up a mom and pop shop, small pharmacy or hospital they would have a 10 year window of opportunity to get all the registration and permits in order while also having a 10 year grace period from any zoning laws or intra-business lawsuits.
On the other hand businesses like Amazon or Wal-Mart would get no exemptions and would get a 2 year grace period because they have the money and resources to stand up for themselves or stand over other people.
Could it be exploited? Yes. Will it help more people than it will hurt? like all things if implemented properly no.
Keep in mind this is a post on a video game forum so its not all that complete.
The distribution is proportional. The mill owner should have more wealth than the miller because the mill produces more wealth than the miller himself. And the mill owner need more wealth to start a milling business than the miller needs to start being a miller.
Under capitalism, if you think your mill owner is not paying you enough, you can A) go in business against him or B) quit and join another mill or C) quit and have nothing to do with mills.
Without the miller, what does the mill produce?
How much wealth is the mill owner producing himself?
What does the article advocate for? He seems to use a lot of words to say 'monopolies are bad', which... yeah? They are. It would be innocuous if the obvious implication wasn't that THIS ISN'T REAL CAPITALISM - and what solutions does he propose exactly? As I said before, Countries with less of this red tape regulation still suffer from the exact same fundamental problems as everyone else so I'm struggling to see how the left and right are 'attacking fairytales' as he says, or what he wants to do to fix this.
so what are you saying then? Regulations aren’t enough, and we do need to move away from capitalism as a whole?
But the mill owner doesn't do anything except "own". Why should someone who actually dedicate time and effort into providing added value to society be rewarded less for it than someone who was simply lucky enough to be born in the right family and inherit means of production?
Do business owners really do nothing?
I don't know. Generally I've held that a good degree of regulation is better and idealistically I'd think of myself of some kind of libertarian socialist. I'm however at a point where I'm not sure if we have the time to be bickering about what might have worked in the past.
I'd only post the same thing, so I'll link it instead
Facepunch Anonymous Political Confessions Thread
I don't think doing something extreme to uproot our systems and way of life is going to work to enact the change you want it to.
So, when _axel and everyone else replied "no one has even remotely argued for tearing down the system" that would appear to be incorrect?
I think regulations are a net positive, but they have to be enacted carefully with considerations for knock on effects. The regulations placed on many industries prevent competition, but we can't remove them whole cloth nor would I argue we should do so.
if you truly believe we're too short on time to actually take our time and work to create an effective system, then what are you advocating for? Extreme change? Radical interventions? And why should I believe those will work out as advertised?
Many business owners obviously put in work. If you're a very hands-on owner pulling an eighty-hour week, as opposed to the forty-hour weeks your employees are pulling, you would obviously be entitled to at least twice your employee's pay. Cost discounting means that your initial investment to start up the business costs you more than investing the same amount over a long period of time, so to 'make back' your money you actually need to make more money than break-even - so let's give you ten times your employee's pay.
But CEO-to-worker-median pay ratio is hovering in the range of hundreds to thousands - that is, in the range of 100 times employee's pay to three thousand times employee's pay.
And that's not even getting into the fact that today 'business owners' includes stockholders, who really literally do nothing but put money in.
Like I said, I don't know. I did say 'idealistically' I'd think of myself as a socialist of some sort, but I don't understand how you think what the author proposed will do anything at all to solve the problems we're staring down the barrel of. How can we do something about climate change for example without some sort of radical change, be it popular or policy based?
The free will of the proletariat is a myth. When your ability to survive within this system is entirely contingent on you receiving money for your work, just quitting or going somewhere else isn't a decision you're necessarily always free to make. This is also ignoring how other mills may operate under the exact same business practices, or may be swallowed up by the one you are already working for. Competition along the lines of "treating your employees fairly" is not competition that will benefit the company treating its workers well. It's a race to the bottom, and for every position you vacate there will be someone who needs that job and will easily replace you (this is where unions come in). The problem with unions is that they've been on a steady decline for the past few decades, likely due to globalized labor, and I don't see that changing with the abundant supply of labor in the world.
Starting your own competing standard is even more questionable. What makes Capitalists powerful is that they own a lot of Capital and thus have more power than you in business. While we love to proselytize the bold risk-taking of entrepreneurs, the reality is that entrepreneurship is far more risky for the proletariat to engage in rather than the bourgeois. In fact, most successful startups are done with the existing capital, connections, and positional advantages held by existing Capitalists. Which makes sense. This is kind of the entire problem with Capitalism as a system. The inequality created by reaping the surplus value of production enables the Capitalists to invest and take more "risks", which gives them more and more capital further and further increasing the gap. It's a feedback loop.
The mill owner is responsible for everything from supplying grain to selling the result of the production. If there isn't a mill, there's no reason to produce that much grain, so the farmers (both those who use grain to feed animals and those plants who are going to be grounded into powder) lose wealth. There's not enough grain available to produce goods, so bakers would lose wealth. And you could even argue that there would be less demand for transportation and for merchants.
You can put all the duct tape you want capitalism, but just relying on bandaid fixes indefinitely without making changes to the system underneath is never going going to address it's fundamental problems.
That's not an intrinsic part of being an owner. If the owner is finding suppliers for grain and buyers for flour, then he's also working a second job as a logistics coordinator or business liason. Those are necessary jobs with definite labor attached, and he should be compensated for that. That's not where the vast majority of an owner's wealth comes from.
You answered none of the questions posed.
I didn't say strip regulations out of the industries as a whole, so I'm not sure why you're asking me as if I did say that.
I don't have an exact answer, but I believe that regulation that is thoughtfully crafted with informed and intelligent design backed by data from real world situations will be more effective than much of the regulation we have now, it won't be perfect, and will require an engaged populus. And that's the real issue. The populous is disengaged from these events, and from the role they can play in them. I don't think the burden of climate change should rest on individuals, or corporations. It literally has to be a symbiotic shift, and if that requires the creation of new companies, new businesses, and they find themselves stifled by monopolistic favouring regulations they may not be able to help offer a better service or product.
I don't know what people envision our alternatives as. We either allow individuals to make their own decisions, we empower governments or government groups to lead these charges, or we force regulations upon unwilling people, and hope for the best.
I don't know what the best solution is, but I don't think extreme solutions that seriously affect the lives of the majority of the planet negatively are going to be viable solutions.
I think the problem with this way of thinking is that it assumes the way things are as an acceptable baseline and measures harm from that. In reality, the way things are now are really hurting a lot of people, and the way it's looking that's going to get worse.
this is already the status quo.
I'm just working from the article. In an article with a title as grand as 'The Myth of (real) Capitalism' forgive me for extrapolating his pretty stated points into 'the free market will sort itself out'. Freer markets with this good well thought out regulation exist. Their problems haven't gone away. It's a nicer place to live sure, but they still have the exact same problems and cause the same consequences for other people around the world.
Private Ownership is the form of wealth distribution under capitalism. Well that and taming 'untamed lands' to their fullest potential.
You're oversimplified definition would mean we've had capitalism for as long as we've had civilization as private ownership has been an idea as far back as Mesopotamia.
A miller alone wouldn't have time to run the infrastructure necessary to run a mill.
Who builds the mill? You hire a mason or a carpenter and an engineer. You purchase land.
What if something breaks? You hire a carpenter or a mason.
What do you do with the flour? You hire a merchant.
Where do the grain come from? You hire a caravan and you have to pay for the farmer.
All these things need money that the miller doesn't have and that came from something else. It's easy to yell "seize the means of productions!" when everything is already up and running.
Have you ever heard of worker co-ops?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.