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

[myrkul]

in other words, you've claimed that, from the perspective of public good, monopolies are intrinsically flawed.

Of course they are. The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit.

Aaah, that's where the problem lies for you!  I have a very simple answer:  Who, in God's name, told you that raising prices is ever the incentive in any form of socialism, no matter how muddled?  The incentive is *helping fellow man*!

Oh, did I say "you get the most per unit profit"? I'm sorry, I meant "the workers get paid the full value of their labor."

[neutrinox]

Aaah, that's where the problem lies for you!  I have a very simple answer:  Who, in God's name, told you that raising prices is ever the incentive in any form of socialism, no matter how muddled?  The incentive is *helping fellow man*!

Even IF I give you that point (that there is no incentive to raise prices) -and I'm not sure if Myrkul is willing to do the same, then there is still this problem:

When you are working in a socialist system, your incentive is to do the absolute minimum you can get away with. Since you reap no rewards for working harder than your fellow man, there is no reason to do a good job. And there is no reason to strive for innovations. So even though they wouldn't necessarily try to raise the price, the monopolies would indeed produce inferior goods.

[crumbcake]

in other words, you've claimed that, from the perspective of public good, monopolies are intrinsically flawed.  

So, where does the burden of proof lie, with me or with you?  You've made some pretty global generalizations, why not back them up?  

The evidence for that is ridiculously obvious. I don't know one single socialist monopoly
a.) government or
b.) company

that would provide a better service to the people than a capitalist one does. [snippers]

Are we changing topics again?  Now you seem to be arguing that capitalist monopolies are better than ... the other kind?  So, to paraphrase George Orwell, all monopolies are evil, but some are more evil than others?

Just take a look at North Korea. Do you think the monopoly companies there produce goods that are of great quality? Or that the single political party monopoly is good for the folks in there?

So you consider North Korea a Communist Utopia?

The burden of proof is clearly on your side now to provide an example of a monopoly that gives a better end result to the consumer than free market capitalism.

In that case i have to fall back on my tired refrain:  Please re-read the thread, and point my snotty insolent nose in the exact place where I've claimed to solve the socialism riddle, instead of simply stating that socialism is an attractive social structure.  I was explicit in stating that as i understood it, socialism, and certainly communism, has never existed to my knowledge, and all of its supposed manifestations were but abortive attempts.  It is as fragile & attractive as the teachings of Christ -- another beautiful utopia instantly soiled by man.  Do you get my drift?  Another way of life to aspire to, instead of ... moar goldz

[crumbcake]

in other words, you've claimed that, from the perspective of public good, monopolies are intrinsically flawed.

Of course they are. The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit.

Aaah, that's where the problem lies for you!  I have a very simple answer:  Who, in God's name, told you that raising prices is ever the incentive in any form of socialism, no matter how muddled?  The incentive is *helping fellow man*!

Oh, did I say "you get the most per unit profit"? I'm sorry, I meant "the workers get paid the full value of their labor."

  how does this:
"The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit."
relate to this:
"Oh, did I say "you get the most per unit profit"? I'm sorry, I meant "the workers get paid the full value of their labor.""
   This a libber in-joke?

[myrkul]

in other words, you've claimed that, from the perspective of public good, monopolies are intrinsically flawed.

Of course they are. The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit.

Aaah, that's where the problem lies for you!  I have a very simple answer:  Who, in God's name, told you that raising prices is ever the incentive in any form of socialism, no matter how muddled?  The incentive is *helping fellow man*!

Oh, did I say "you get the most per unit profit"? I'm sorry, I meant "the workers get paid the full value of their labor."

  how does this:
"The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit."
relate to this:
"Oh, did I say "you get the most per unit profit"? I'm sorry, I meant "the workers get paid the full value of their labor.""
   This a libber in-joke?

Let me show you.
Take this:
"The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit."
And replace this:
"you get the most per unit profit"
with this:
"the workers get paid the full value of their labor"
And you get this:
"The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way the workers get paid the full value of their labor."
Which is the socialist version.

[neutrinox]

Are we changing topics again?  Now you seem to be arguing that capitalist monopolies are better than ... the other kind?  So, to paraphrase George Orwell, all monopolies are evil, but some are more evil than others?

I'm arguing that all monopolies are bad for the consumer. Socialist countries simply provide good evidence of that.

So you consider North Korea a Communist Utopia?

I don't have to. I simply use it as an example of a state run monopoly.

In that case i have to fall back on my tired refrain:  Please re-read the thread, and point my snotty insolent nose in the exact place where I've claimed to solve the socialism riddle, instead of simply stating that socialism is an attractive social structure.  I was explicit in stating that as i understood it, socialism, and certainly communism, has never existed to my knowledge, and all of its supposed manifestations were but abortive attempts.  It is as fragile & attractive as the teachings of Christ -- another beautiful utopia instantly soiled by man.  Do you get my drift?  Another way of life to aspire to, instead of ... moar goldz

Okay if that is your stand then I'm done with this debate. I might as well argue that unicorns are the greatest rulers of men. I have no interest in purely theoretical utopistic discussions.

[crumbcake]

Aaah, that's where the problem lies for you!  I have a very simple answer:  Who, in God's name, told you that raising prices is ever the incentive in any form of socialism, no matter how muddled?  The incentive is *helping fellow man*!

Even IF I give you that point (that there is no incentive to raise prices) -and I'm not sure if Myrkul is willing to do the same, then there is still this problem:

When you are working in a socialist system, your incentive is to do the absolute minimum you can get away with. [snip]

So, when your daughter, let's say, asks you for a toy, you get her the shittiest toy you think you can get away with? Now imagine if your mindset was shifted ever-so-slightly and you began to think of your fellow man as family, or is that getting too hippy/Christian for you?

Since you reap no rewards for working harder than your fellow man, there is no reason to do a good job. [snip again]

This is both unnerving and educational for me.  In other words, the only reason you can conceive of for doing good is ... reward.  And the reward couldn't be something as basically human as excelling at something"?  
http://s20.postimg.org/laq12652x/2221.jpg

And there is no reason to strive for innovations. So even though they wouldn't necessarily try to raise the price, the monopolies would indeed produce inferior goods.

No.  You're wrong.

[crumbcake]

in other words, you've claimed that, from the perspective of public good, monopolies are intrinsically flawed.

Of course they are. The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit.

Aaah, that's where the problem lies for you!  I have a very simple answer:  Who, in God's name, told you that raising prices is ever the incentive in any form of socialism, no matter how muddled?  The incentive is *helping fellow man*!

Oh, did I say "you get the most per unit profit"? I'm sorry, I meant "the workers get paid the full value of their labor."

  how does this:
"The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit."
relate to this:
"Oh, did I say "you get the most per unit profit"? I'm sorry, I meant "the workers get paid the full value of their labor.""
   This a libber in-joke?

Let me show you.
Take this:
"The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit."
And replace this:
"you get the most per unit profit"
with this:
"the workers get paid the full value of their labor"
And you get this:
"The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way the workers get paid the full value of their labor."
Which is the socialist version.

I'm sorry i didn't get it right away.  I get it now.  They're *both* capitalist versions.  Is the debate over?  Are we just making funnies now?  Anyone win?

[myrkul]

So, when your daughter, let's say, asks you for a toy, you get her the shittiest toy you think you can get away with? Now imagine if your mindset was shifted ever-so-slightly and you began to think of your fellow man as family, or is that getting too hippy/Christian for you?

There's a limit to the number of people you can consider "us." Everyone else is "them."

I'm sorry i didn't get it right away.  I get it now.  They're *both* capitalist versions.  Is the debate over?  Are we just making funnies now? 

If you think that, then you don't understand socialism. Ask yourself, "Why the sickle and the hammer?" (hint: who uses them?)

[crumbcake]

Are we changing topics again?  Now you seem to be arguing that capitalist monopolies are better than ... the other kind?  So, to paraphrase George Orwell, all monopolies are evil, but some are more evil than others?

I'm arguing that all monopolies are bad for the consumer. Socialist countries simply provide good evidence of that.

I'm sure you're jumping in mid-stream & haven't read all of my posts (lucky you ).  If you read them, you'll realize we already went over this very turf.

So you consider North Korea a Communist Utopia?

I don't have to. I simply use it as an example of a state run monopoly.

Who's arguing that state-run monopolies can't be a bag of cocks?  Show me that man & he'll answer to my Browning!

In that case i have to fall back on my tired refrain:  Please re-read the thread, and point my snotty insolent nose in the exact place where I've claimed to solve the socialism riddle, instead of simply stating that socialism is an attractive social structure.  I was explicit in stating that as i understood it, socialism, and certainly communism, has never existed to my knowledge, and all of its supposed manifestations were but abortive attempts.  It is as fragile & attractive as the teachings of Christ -- another beautiful utopia instantly soiled by man.  Do you get my drift?  Another way of life to aspire to, instead of ... moar goldz

Okay if that is your stand then I'm done with this debate. I might as well argue that unicorns are the greatest rulers of men. I have no interest in purely theoretical utopistic discussions.

I'm sorry if i somehow mislead you into replying...  I'll try not to do it again?

[crumbcake]

So, when your daughter, let's say, asks you for a toy, you get her the shittiest toy you think you can get away with? Now imagine if your mindset was shifted ever-so-slightly and you began to think of your fellow man as family, or is that getting too hippy/Christian for you?

There's a limit to the number of people you can consider "us." Everyone else is "them."

I'm sorry i didn't get it right away.  I get it now.  They're *both* capitalist versions.  Is the debate over?  Are we just making funnies now? 

If you think that, then you don't understand socialism. Ask yourself, "Why the sickle and the hammer?" (hint: who uses them?)

I give.  Who?

[Elwar]

I give.  Who?

Murderers.

[myrkul]

I give.  Who?

Workers. Socialism is all about the labor.

"The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way the workers get paid the full value of their labor."

Is pure socialism.

[crumbcake]

I give.  Who?

Murderers.

[crumbcake]

I give.  Who?

Workers. Socialism is all about the labor.

There's actually a better PR story.  Think desperately pretending that ignorant dirt farmers = Marxist proletariat.

"The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way the workers get paid the full value of their labor."

Is pure socialism.

I think i see a joke there...  Though it's just as funny from the capitalist perspective:  Cut wages->let quality go to shit->goto 1.

[FinShaggy]

Just because people have to be judges and stuff doesn't mean they are a monopoly.

It does if there's only one place you can go to have your case judged. Coke and Pepsi, remember?

You could have a publicly owned republic with elected officials.

You could. But it wouldn't be what I'm talking about.

It would be what you are talking about. You just assumed that I didn't mean that there would be options. Even though I said repeatedly that the government programs would give you options. You pick your judge and lawyer, and there is no bond between any of them except that they are under the same roof, or under the same few roofs, and supporting the same publically chosen laws.

[myrkul]

Just because people have to be judges and stuff doesn't mean they are a monopoly.

It does if there's only one place you can go to have your case judged. Coke and Pepsi, remember?

You could have a publicly owned republic with elected officials.

You could. But it wouldn't be what I'm talking about.

It would be what you are talking about. You just assumed that I didn't mean that there would be options. Even though I said repeatedly that the government programs would give you options. You pick your judge and lawyer, and there is no bond between any of them except that they are under the same roof, or under the same few roofs, and supporting the same publically chosen laws.

Laws chosen by vote?

[FinShaggy]

Laws chosen by vote?

Yeah, common law infringes on personal freedom in my opinion. If there is no law for it, we don't need one unless we feel like voting for it.
Laws are already done by vote. We vote for officials, then they vote for us on bills and stuff. I just think if there is no need for a law, don't make a law.

[myrkul]

Laws chosen by vote?

Yeah, common law infringes on personal freedom in my opinion.

Then that's not at all what I'm talking about.

[FinShaggy]

Laws chosen by vote?

Yeah, common law infringes on personal freedom in my opinion.

Then that's not at all what I'm talking about.

If you are trying to say that the laws we make now are better than elected law, then that is what you are talking about.