Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes)

[neutrinox]

edit:  As far as socialism & communism bringing about awful living conditions:  What are you basing this on?  

Isn't it quite obvious: just about every socialist country there has been trough out history. The Soviet Union, east European countries, DDR, Cuba, Mao's China... And of course the lovely North Korea for a nice current example. Let me ask you the opposite: where has socialism or communism ever worked to create a country that is better off than capitalist countries?

[crumbcake]

edit:  As far as socialism & communism bringing about awful living conditions:  What are you basing this on?  

Isn't it quite obvious: just about every socialist country there has been trough out history. The Soviet Union, east European countries, DDR, Cuba, Mao's China... And of course the lovely North Korea for a nice current example. Let me ask you the opposite: where has socialism or communism ever worked to create a country that is better off than capitalist countries?

Socialism has *never* worked.  The nascent socialist states, as predicted by Marx, have failed.  Throughout history.  It was stupid to to assume sheep can survive surrounded by wolves.
Your point?
edit: As far as living conditions in pre-revolutionary Russia ... brutal.

[myrkul]

To answer you, i'd have to go with a specific country.  I know Russian history ... well, sort-of, and would be comfortable using it in this context.  As far as monopoly (in its negative sense, as you're using it) goes, it's only possible in a capitalist system, agreed?

No, not agreed. Monopoly, in any sense, simply means one agency doing all the business in one particular industry. When you have a monopoly on Security, you'll have other companies coming to that monopoly to borrow it's use of force to set up their own monopolies. The monopoly on Security calls itself a State, and the borrowed force legislation.

In fact, Socialism is just one big monopoly, with it doing all the business. (except, of course, the black market)

[crumbcake]

To answer you, i'd have to go with a specific country.  I know Russian history ... well, sort-of, and would be comfortable using it in this context.  As far as monopoly (in its negative sense, as you're using it) goes, it's only possible in a capitalist system, agreed?

No, not agreed. Monopoly, in any sense, simply means one agency doing all the business in one particular industry. When you have a monopoly on Security, you'll have other companies coming to that monopoly to borrow it's use of force to set up their own monopolies. The monopoly on Security calls itself a State, and the borrowed force legislation.

In fact, Socialism is just one big monopoly, with it doing all the business. (except, of course, the black market)

I assumed you were using the word "monopoly" with its customary negative connotations, as in a "bad thing."  If you wish to use it to mean something benign, as in "in human body, brain tends to monopolize all the thinking," go right ahead.

[neutrinox]

I assumed you were using the word "monopoly" with its customary negative connotations, as in a "bad thing."  If you wish to use it to mean something benign, as in "in human body, brain tends to monopolize all the thinking," go right ahead.

Well no matter if the monopoly is made of a private company or state, it usually IS a bad thing for the consumer.

[crumbcake]

To answer you, i'd have to go with a specific country.  I know Russian history ... well, sort-of, and would be comfortable using it in this context.  As far as monopoly (in its negative sense, as you're using it) goes, it's only possible in a capitalist system, agreed?

No, not agreed. Monopoly, in any sense, simply means one agency doing all the business in one particular industry. When you have a monopoly on Security, you'll have other companies coming to that monopoly to borrow it's use of force to set up their own monopolies. The monopoly on Security calls itself a State, and the borrowed force legislation.

In fact, Socialism is just one big monopoly, with it doing all the business. (except, of course, the black market)

I assumed you were using the word "monopoly" with its customary negative connotations, as in a "bad thing."  If you wish to use it to mean something benign, as in "in human body, brain tends to monopolize all the thinking," go right ahead.

edit:  You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable.  If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing  

[crumbcake]

I assumed you were using the word "monopoly" with its customary negative connotations, as in a "bad thing."  If you wish to use it to mean something benign, as in "in human body, brain tends to monopolize all the thinking," go right ahead.

Well no matter if the monopoly is made of a private company or state, it usually IS a bad thing for the consumer.

See edit in post above
edit: will delete this post if not used in replies -- sorry.

[crumbcake]

I assumed you were using the word "monopoly" with its customary negative connotations, as in a "bad thing."  If you wish to use it to mean something benign, as in "in human body, brain tends to monopolize all the thinking," go right ahead.

Well no matter if the monopoly is made of a private company or state, it usually IS a bad thing for the consumer.

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable.  If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing.  TL;DR monopolies are not intrinsically bad, only bad in the framework of capitalism.

edit:  could elaborate if this isn't obvious on its face. 

[neutrinox]

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable.  If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing.  TL;DR monopolies are not intrinsically bad, only bad in the framework of capitalism.  

Yes I agree with you. A monopoly is great for the company. It's bad only for the consumer.

I'm a bit confused crumbcake, what is your position on this debate? Are you defending or attacking capitalism?

[myrkul]

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable.  If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing  

It's good that you put a laughing smiley after that, because otherwise I might have thought you were serious... and therefore a moron.

Monopolies are never guided by public needs. Even the ones that say they are, are running solely on self-interest alone. And if you want efficiency, a monopoly is the last place to seek it. The incentives are all backward.

[crumbcake]

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable.  If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing.  TL;DR monopolies are not intrinsically bad, only bad in the framework of capitalism.   

Yes I agree with you. A monopoly is great for the company. It's bad only for the consumer.

Not my point.  My point is this:  Monopoly is great for a consumer if it's created to help the consumer (in socialism/utopia/pipedream) instead of maximize its profits (uncut capitalism).  Do i need to explain how? (i will, i just type slow )

[crumbcake]

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable.  If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing  

It's good that you put a laughing smiley after that, because otherwise I might have thought you were serious... and therefore a moron.

I am serious.  As i said before, be polite, otherwise: fuck you

Monopolies are never guided by public needs. Even the ones that say they are, are running solely on self-interest alone. And if you want efficiency, a monopoly is the last place to seek it. The incentives are all backward.

In socialism, monopolies serve public good.  By definition.  Let's at least raise the bar a notch & stop spewing cliches.
edit: "And if you want efficiency, a monopoly is the last place to seek it. The incentives are all backward. "  Goofy & unsubstantiated, but i'll give you some bullets of monopoly being efficient:

• No wasted money/energy for advertising
• No redundant tooling costs for identical products
• no redundant/identical products
• streamlined planning/transport/delivery ... ...

Want more?

[neutrinox]

Not my point.  My point is this:  Monopoly is great for a consumer if it's created to help the consumer (in socialism/utopia/pipedream) instead of maximize its profits (uncut capitalism).  Do i need to explain how? (i will, i just type slow )

I disagree with that. A government run monopoly has very little incentive to improve its service. They have no competition so they can run the monopoly with minimum effort. Customers have no way of protesting with their wallet, since the monopoly is the only source of that service in the country.

For the consumer, competition is always best. That is also the reason why having only one political party tends to lead to bad bad things..

[myrkul]

Monopoly is great for a consumer if it's created to help the consumer (in socialism/utopia/pipedream)

You know why it's a pipedream?

First off, because nobody can understand and anticipate the needs of all the consumers. This is known as the economic calculation problem. Secondly, let's assume you manage to find an omniscient person to do the dictating. Is there any guarantee he would be benevolent? Finally, let's assume you had a benevolent, all-knowing dictator to run things. He'd have to be immortal, too, because there's even less chance that his successor would be either all-knowing, or benevolent.

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable.  If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing  

It's good that you put a laughing smiley after that, because otherwise I might have thought you were serious... and therefore a moron.

I am serious.  As i said before, be polite, otherwise: fuck you

Monopolies are never guided by public needs. Even the ones that say they are, are running solely on self-interest alone. And if you want efficiency, a monopoly is the last place to seek it. The incentives are all backward.

In socialism, monopolies serve public good.  By definition.  Let's at least raise the bar a notch & stop spewing cliches.

[crumbcake]

Monopoly is great for a consumer if it's created to help the consumer (in socialism/utopia/pipedream)

You know why it's a pipedream?

First off, because nobody can understand and anticipate the needs of all the consumers. This is known as the economic calculation problem. Secondly, let's assume you manage to find an omniscient person to do the dictating. Is there any guarantee he would be benevolent? Finally, let's assume you had a benevolent, all-knowing dictator to run things. He'd have to be immortal, too, because there's even less chance that his successor would be either all-knowing, or benevolent.

You've given me a laundry list of potential problems with monopoly, none of them a fundamental flaw with monopoly itself.  No one can predict how many people travel at the same time, this doesn't mean we need multiple towers & multiple teams of air traffic controllers to keep the planes from bumping into each other, does it?

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable.  If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing  

It's good that you put a laughing smiley after that, because otherwise I might have thought you were serious... and therefore a moron.

I am serious.  As i said before, be polite, otherwise: fuck you

Monopolies are never guided by public needs. Even the ones that say they are, are running solely on self-interest alone. And if you want efficiency, a monopoly is the last place to seek it. The incentives are all backward.

In socialism, monopolies serve public good.  By definition.  Let's at least raise the bar a notch & stop spewing cliches.

see edit in post above.

[crumbcake]

Not my point.  My point is this:  Monopoly is great for a consumer if it's created to help the consumer (in socialism/utopia/pipedream) instead of maximize its profits (uncut capitalism).  Do i need to explain how? (i will, i just type slow )

I disagree with that. A government run monopoly has very little incentive to improve its service. They have no competition so they can run the monopoly with minimum effort. Customers have no way of protesting with their wallet, since the monopoly is the only source of that service in the country.

You're saying this because you see the monopoly as a capitalist entity, with the only possible motivators for change being increased profits/fear of decreased profits/self-expansion.  The model doesn't change when you visualize a state-controlled monopoly:  apathy/assured survival/0 incentive to innovate or take risks.  
This is what we're familiar with.  It is not everything that's possible.  Imagine working for the good of the community.  We often see it on ridiculously small scale:  Family, perhaps even village.  Now, just as a hypothetical, project that onto a larger scale.  Tough, fragile, but certainly not evil & perhaps possible.  That's what i'm saying -- no more.

For the consumer, competition is always best. That is also the reason why having only one political party tends to lead to bad bad things..

edit:  Since amended capitalism is the only system we know, we model everything on it.  The choices you're given now are illusory:  Choosing between Dems and Reps is as pointless as choosing between strawberry or vanilla turds for dinner:  They're both turds.  Independent?  Deposit vote here.  So tell me how this competition has served you?

[myrkul]

Monopoly is great for a consumer if it's created to help the consumer (in socialism/utopia/pipedream)

You know why it's a pipedream?

First off, because nobody can understand and anticipate the needs of all the consumers. This is known as the economic calculation problem. Secondly, let's assume you manage to find an omniscient person to do the dictating. Is there any guarantee he would be benevolent? Finally, let's assume you had a benevolent, all-knowing dictator to run things. He'd have to be immortal, too, because there's even less chance that his successor would be either all-knowing, or benevolent.

You've given me a laundry list of potential problems with monopoly, none of them a fundamental flaw with monopoly itself.  No one can predict how many people travel at the same time, this doesn't mean we need multiple towers & multiple teams of air traffic controllers to keep the planes from bumping into each other, does it?

You've shot yourself in the foot with this one. There are multiple towers, and multiple teams of traffic controllers... at least one per airport, and most have separate teams for ground control, local air control, and the actual air traffic control. And each individual controller is responsible for a relatively small section of space. You can't expect one person to coordinate all the flights in the air at any one time.

As to your "efficiency":

No wasted money/energy for advertising
No redundant tooling costs for identical products
No redundant/identical products
Streamlined planning/transport/delivery

1.Unless you count propaganda. Monopolies have traditionally spent a great deal of energy and resources trying to convince people how awesome their shitty product is.
2/3. Good point. Making 100 left shoes, size 10, is much more efficient than making 50 pairs of assorted sizes.
4. Planning again . Please read up on the economic calculation problem.

[FinShaggy]

Though "standard of living" is fairly loosely defined, it's focused on measurable wealth, not converting wealth that's in your pocket into wealth in your gas tank.  Everything you've listed doesn't improve your standard of living (unless you're stealing the gas, sandwiches & robbing your pot dealer).

You're mistaken. Marijuana has been legalized in Colorado BECAUSE IT INCREASES STANDARD OF LIVING for terminal and chronically in pain patients. It has nothing to do with wealth, it is about outlook.

[FinShaggy]

Are you no longer hungry or thirsty? Your life has been improved.
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).

Just because your "Life is improved slightly" does NOT make your LIVING condition go up.

Yeah, that's pretty much the definition.

No it's not. Living condition is a physical thing, like "homeless" or "living in a house". Living Standard is how comfortable, fed, etc. you are in that place. That ones all about mentality.

Like, a homeless man would be considered to be in "Bad Living Conditions". But if he always wanted to sleep in a hammock an get away from people, then his standard of living is still at a comfortable level (since it's what he is comfortable with). Even though his living condition isn't good.

[myrkul]

No it's not. Living condition is a physical thing, like "homeless" or "living in a house". Living Standard is how comfortable, fed, etc. you are in that place. That ones all about mentality.

My apologies. "Standard of living" is the phrase that should have been used.