"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Hypothetical situation.

An investor sees that in Town A there is a tanner selling leather. He buys it for a mutually agreed upon price. He hires a driver at a mutually agreed upon price to take it to Town B where there is a cobbler. He commissions the cobbler to turn the leather into shoes, at a mutually agreed upon price. He hires a driver at a mutually agreed upon price to take it to Town C where he sells the shoes for a profit.

Who did he steal from to make the profit?

Here's a niggle: "there is a tanner ... He buys it"

People are not usually sold like that any more. Nor are they referred to as "it".

If you meant "He buys the tannery", then when he moves it away from the tanner (who lives in Town A) the new owner will need to hire a tanner and manage the tannery. Chances are that whoever he hires is not as experienced as the tannery owner from whom he purchased the business. The new owner presumably now has a new distribution model as well, unless the previous owner already had transport and customers in Town C. What this comes down to, is that the buyer cannot afford to give the owner of the tannery a multiple of earnings or of revenue that would apply if, say, an employee of the original owner were to buy it and operate it while getting consultation from his former boss. THAT is what the complainers are bitching about - in your scenario, despite mutual consent, the tannery owner is "getting screwed". I vehemently disagree with that, even though I'm more like the tannery owner than the buyer. That buyer (in the real world more often than not, it's a hated "Vulture Capitalist") is assuming a bunch of risk and has a ton of work to do before any profit is realized, and the cost of that to the former owner is what anti-cap complainers focus on.

Just my $.02...

ETA: In the past when selling business I have stayed on for a while, consulting or actually working in the business. But have demanded YUUUGE compensation for my input, knowing that what I have to contribute isn't readily available elsewhere. More out-of-scale costs to the buyer... VC isn't as easy as people make it out, at least from what I've seen.

*Sigh*

He buys the leather.

 

[Elixir]

Here's a niggle: "there is a tanner ... He buys it"

People are not usually sold like that any more. Nor are they referred to as "it".

If you meant "He buys the tannery", then when he moves it away from the tanner (who lives in Town A) the new owner will need to hire a tanner and manage the tannery. Chances are that whoever he hires is not as experienced as the tannery owner from whom he purchased the business. The new owner presumably now has a new distribution model as well, unless the previous owner already had transport and customers in Town C. What this comes down to, is that the buyer cannot afford to give the owner of the tannery a multiple of earnings or of revenue that would apply if, say, an employee of the original owner were to buy it and operate it while getting consultation from his former boss. THAT is what the complainers are bitching about - in your scenario, despite mutual consent, the tannery owner is "getting screwed". I vehemently disagree with that, even though I'm more like the tannery owner than the buyer. That buyer (in the real world more often than not, it's a hated "Vulture Capitalist") is assuming a bunch of risk and has a ton of work to do before any profit is realized, and the cost of that to the former owner is what anti-cap complainers focus on.

Just my $.02...

ETA: In the past when selling business I have stayed on for a while, consulting or actually working in the business. But have demanded YUUUGE compensation for my input, knowing that what I have to contribute isn't readily available elsewhere. More out-of-scale costs to the buyer... VC isn't as easy as people make it out, at least from what I've seen.

*Sigh*

He buys the leather.

Without a tannery, he'll run out.
The rest of my points stand - and you should agree. If you know of some other reason that people like unter are so vehemently opposed to "capitalism" (scare quotes because I don't think he even knows what it is in the real world), please state it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, I can think of a reason people like unter are so opposed to Capitalism.

When you get your advanced degree in the Oppression Studies concentration in Sociology (and I'm not saying that unter has that degree) you are so much smarter and more aware than anyone else around you. Yet you can't get a job. Nobody is going to hire you to do social reconstruction for their company. Those uncouth boors who have never heard of the leading Oppression Studies scholars and majored in STEM, they're getting jobs. The guy who went to trade school after high school and is now a (pretty well) paid plumber has a pretty darn secure job. The auto mechanic, the plumber, the electrician, all of them out of trade school and are doing well. And the non-binary person with a Masters Degree in Oppression Studies an $80,000 worth of student loan debt is lucky to get a job as a cashier at Krusty Burger.

Obviously it is capitalism's fault. In a fair system they'd be highly rewarded for their greater intellectual abilities. And that's the reason. If the system were "fair" they'd be earning a lot more because they are so obviously superior. Something must be deeply wrong that someone of their greater intelligence and awareness is getting paid far less than a plumber or a chemical engineer.

Besides, most of those fields are disproportionately male, and that only proves those fields are full of uncultured oppressors.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As for your answer to my hypothetical...

I also disagree that the tanner is getting screwed. My question was primarily aimed at unter and iolo who believe the capitalist adds no value.. Let me expand the scenario.

In Town A he buys leather from the tanner. In Town B he commissions a cobbler to make shoes. In Town C he sells his crate of shoes to the owner of Town C Apparel Store. He also pays drivers to transit materials between towns. In all cases the transaction is to a mutually agreed upon price, and at the end he makes a tidy profit. I'm adding the Apparel Store to eliminate any excuses about his profits being derived from selling the shoes directly to willing customers one at a time.

Since they believe profits are all made by the actual workers and the capitalist contributes nothing, who did this investor rip off in order to make his profit?

 

[Elixir]

Yes, I can think of a reason people like unter are so opposed to Capitalism.

When you get your advanced degree in the Oppression Studies concentration in Sociology (and I'm not saying that unter has that degree) you are so much smarter and more aware than anyone else around you. Yet you can't get a job. Nobody is going to hire you to do social reconstruction for their company. Those uncouth boors who have never heard of the leading Oppression Studies scholars and majored in STEM, they're getting jobs. The guy who went to trade school after high school and is now a (pretty well) paid plumber has a pretty darn secure job. The auto mechanic, the plumber, the electrician, all of them out of trade school and are doing well. And the non-binary person with a Masters Degree in Oppression Studies an $80,000 worth of student loan debt is lucky to get a job as a cashier at Krusty Burger.

Obviously it is capitalism's fault. In a fair system they'd be highly rewarded for their greater intellectual abilities. And that's the reason. If the system were "fair" they'd be earning a lot more because they are so obviously superior. Something must be deeply wrong that someone of their greater intelligence and awareness is getting paid far less than a plumber or a chemical engineer.

Besides, most of those fields are disproportionately male, and that only proves those fields are full of uncultured oppressors.

Good job - that is a very real dynamic. Whether it applies in this case - no way to know (for me, from here).
And I'm not arguing against the idea of added value as described in your "enhanced scenario". There is one fact we are both glossing over though; this system is subject to short-term abuse. But what system isn't? If we want access to goods and services, nobody haws EVER come up with a more effective and more fair system for providing it than capitalism.

I do agree that stock markets are largely parasitic - esp day traders and their ilk. The fact that someone has a wad of cash should not give them a pass to sit on their ass producing absolutely nothing, and reap rewards from other people's hard work.

 

[repoman]

someone in a video I saw recently made the distinction between capitalism and industrialization.

We are using fossil fuels with reckless abandon and it doesn't matter too much it is done by capitalists or communists. Actually the damage may be worse from communists operating massive industrial operations powered by fossil fuels. There isn't even a profit motive to be efficient for them.

Industrialization i think is more "real" than capitalism. It is actually taking ore and fuel out the ground and laying waste to habitat. Capitalism is just a bullshit game of distributing these spoils in a nepotistic fashion.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, I can think of a reason people like unter are so opposed to Capitalism.

When you get your advanced degree in the Oppression Studies concentration in Sociology (and I'm not saying that unter has that degree) you are so much smarter and more aware than anyone else around you. Yet you can't get a job. Nobody is going to hire you to do social reconstruction for their company. Those uncouth boors who have never heard of the leading Oppression Studies scholars and majored in STEM, they're getting jobs. The guy who went to trade school after high school and is now a (pretty well) paid plumber has a pretty darn secure job. The auto mechanic, the plumber, the electrician, all of them out of trade school and are doing well. And the non-binary person with a Masters Degree in Oppression Studies an $80,000 worth of student loan debt is lucky to get a job as a cashier at Krusty Burger.

Obviously it is capitalism's fault. In a fair system they'd be highly rewarded for their greater intellectual abilities. And that's the reason. If the system were "fair" they'd be earning a lot more because they are so obviously superior. Something must be deeply wrong that someone of their greater intelligence and awareness is getting paid far less than a plumber or a chemical engineer.

Besides, most of those fields are disproportionately male, and that only proves those fields are full of uncultured oppressors.

There is nothing fair about top down dictatorships. They are immoral and inefficient.

There is nothing to brag about in wanting to be a petty dictator.

It is usually just a way to be the slave of one.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There is nothing fair about top down dictatorships. They are immoral and inefficient.

There is nothing to brag about in wanting to be a petty dictator.

It is usually just a way to be the slave of one.

None of those mean old dictators would give you a job doing social reconstruction?

Perhaps you can tell me who, in my hypothetical, the investor ripped off to make his profit.

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing fair about top down dictatorships. They are immoral and inefficient.

There is nothing to brag about in wanting to be a petty dictator.

It is usually just a way to be the slave of one.

None of those mean old dictators would give you a job doing social reconstruction?

Perhaps you can tell me who, in my hypothetical, the investor ripped off to make his profit.

You seem to have trouble addressing the topic.

A sign when one has no more arguments.

Dictatorships are nothing to desire or defend.

That some have been so indoctrinated they actually support them just speaks to the corrosive nature of capitalist systems.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

None of those mean old dictators would give you a job doing social reconstruction?

Perhaps you can tell me who, in my hypothetical, the investor ripped off to make his profit.

You seem to have trouble addressing the topic.

A sign when one has no more arguments.

Dictatorships are nothing to desire or defend.

That some have been so indoctrinated they actually support them just speaks to the corrosive nature of capitalist systems.

All right then. In my hypothetical, who is the dictator?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, His Flatulence is not a capitalist by your own definition--he manages his companies.

He is not the manager of any of his real estate. I assure you.

Nobody calls the donald if their toilet doesn't work.

That would be a waste of time. He is unable to do any real work.

You are unable to recognize mental work as work.

Hint: I'm not paid to press keys or click mice. My boss doesn't give a hoot what I do in that regard. I'm paid to think--the act of pressing keys and clicking mice is simply how I convert those thoughts into a useful form. The only product he gets from me is files on the computer and words on the phone. I have been on-site 3 times--once when I was hired, once when we were doing something that needed his license key and his knowledge of a program and which would be a royal pain to do remotely, and once to swap printers. (That time I was actually on vacation but that took me within a mile of the office, I drove over, dropped off one printer, picked up the other and left and continued on down the highway.)

Now, that is not to say that Trump does a good job of mental work. It's obvious he doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

You're 37 years out of date.

Are you sure not 38?

You have no moral defense for top down dictatorial structures.

You merely falsely claim they are somehow needed when it was proven longer than 37 years ago they are not.

Apparently you missed the reference.

I was saying your post was 1984-speak.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Businesses do not start out with bank loans. It's always either personal assets or loans from friends.

2) While I have not been privy to the start of any of the businesses I have seen how the operate. The boss is always highly involved, probably working the longest hours. Bank loans only exist when secured by substantial physical assets. (Land, heavy machinery, vehicles.)

I've been part of at least three startups, 2 in which I had vested interest. That was the case in all three. I can't even relate to what some people in this thread are saying, other than to think "there must be some other way to do it that cheats the system, avoids hard work and yet results in a profitable, growing business".

The basic problem is a lack of understanding of complex thought. They see all mental tasks as very easy because they don't understand what they actually entail. Planning and the like does not take time any more than the plumber has to think about how to screw the pipe together.

Thus anyone who is being paid to do mental work is a freeloader.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Top down organization is just the most efficient way to organize a large group of people.

That is not close to a proven fact.

Actually top down dictatorial structures are very inefficient and insular and hard to penetrate with new ideas.

1) 99% of those "new" ideas are rubbish and often they're actually old ideas that haven't gotten any better since they were rejected the first time around. Of course it's hard to get them in.

2) If you truly have something superior but can't penetrate, make your own business and dethrone them. It's happened many times.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The have some strong efficiencies going for them and they have some weakness. But it's just one type of way to organize, but one with many advantages.

Yes, dictatorship is one way to organize.

An immoral inefficient way.

In terms of government most can clearly see it.

In terms of the totality of life some still have double standards there.

Dictatorship is bad because there are no choices.

In the business world that isn't the case. If you don't like McDonalds, go to Jack in the Box.

The competition between businesses eliminates most of the problem of the dictatorial nature of the business structure while retaining the efficiency that a dictatorship brings. (You have it backwards--a dictatorship is more efficient than a democracy.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hypothetical situation.

An investor sees that in Town A there is a tanner selling leather. He buys it for a mutually agreed upon price. He hires a driver at a mutually agreed upon price to take it to Town B where there is a cobbler. He commissions the cobbler to turn the leather into shoes, at a mutually agreed upon price. He hires a driver at a mutually agreed upon price to take it to Town C where he sells the shoes for a profit.

Who did he steal from to make the profit?

Here's a niggle: "there is a tanner ... He buys it"

People are not usually sold like that any more. Nor are they referred to as "it".

But leather is. You're applying the "it" to the wrong thing. (Admittedly, I started out making the same mistake.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The master/slave relationship is inherent to any top down dictatorship.

One person serving as a tool for another is inherent to any top down dictatorship.

So the only kind of "business" that should be allowed to exist is in the Co-Op model?
What's the largest "Co-OP" you've ever seen? Could it do mineral exploration/extraction or manufacturing and distribution?
Once again, you're stuck with something that only works at the small tribal scale.

And fails horribly at capital-intensive business.

I want to start Acme Hurricane Forecasting. It's not going to be hard to do, a few of us weathermen can do it as a part time job (we need a group because the workload is intermittent but must be done on time so we must be staffed for the peak levels.) Unfortunately, we also need $100M for the weather satellite and another $60M for the rocket to put it up there. (And this is a cheap weather satellite!)

How can the few of us come up with the dough for the bird?

In unterworld there's no decent hurricane forecasting because nobody can afford to do it. Nor is there any satellite TV, same reason. Not that it really matters as there's not much to watch anyway--it's little above the indie level.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for your answer to my hypothetical...

I also disagree that the tanner is getting screwed. My question was primarily aimed at unter and iolo who believe the capitalist adds no value.. Let me expand the scenario.

In Town A he buys leather from the tanner. In Town B he commissions a cobbler to make shoes. In Town C he sells his crate of shoes to the owner of Town C Apparel Store. He also pays drivers to transit materials between towns. In all cases the transaction is to a mutually agreed upon price, and at the end he makes a tidy profit. I'm adding the Apparel Store to eliminate any excuses about his profits being derived from selling the shoes directly to willing customers one at a time.

Since they believe profits are all made by the actual workers and the capitalist contributes nothing, who did this investor rip off in order to make his profit?

And lets make it even worse.

After this success he turns around and hires the tanner, cobbler and driver. They're still doing what they were but now they're slaves who are being oppressed. How, though, their lot isn't any worse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're understand of Anarchism and the history of Anarchism in Spain sucks.

You have everything backwards.

The Anarchists were destroyed by the Communists because they were opposed to the top down structures inherent to Stalin's Communist state.

And I wrote something different?

They were not close to the Communists in philosophy.

Wrong again. The only difference is that the communists took orders from Moscow. The Anarchists had long meetings where they voted about stuff.

But they were both about as conformist and had the same ideals. They only differed in how to get there.

One final comment. The anarchists leadership structure was extremely impractical and leadership by committee is a bad way to win wars.

I don't think you understand Orwell's political views at all. It's like you read the words but project something else onto them.

I gave you a direct quote where Orwell sang the praises of the Spanish Anarchists.

I can help you understand no greater than that.

The fact that he praised it just means that he was happy about it. Not that it was paradise on Earth that allows you to put words in his mouth. The quote doesn't describe the Anarchist society one iota.

 

[barbos]

someone in a video I saw recently made the distinction between capitalism and industrialization.

We are using fossil fuels with reckless abandon and it doesn't matter too much it is done by capitalists or communists. Actually the damage may be worse from communists operating massive industrial operations powered by fossil fuels. There isn't even a profit motive to be efficient for them.

Industrialization i think is more "real" than capitalism. It is actually taking ore and fuel out the ground and laying waste to habitat. Capitalism is just a bullshit game of distributing these spoils in a nepotistic fashion.

But if you look at statistics, communists were emitting way less CO2 than capitalists. No wonder because average Joe the Communist in Soviet Union could not afford A/C unit and did not know electric driers even existed, not to mention he was driving bicycle instead of Ford Expedition.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, dictatorship is one way to organize.

An immoral inefficient way.

In terms of government most can clearly see it.

In terms of the totality of life some still have double standards there.

Dictatorship is bad because there are no choices.

In the business world that isn't the case. If you don't like McDonalds, go to Jack in the Box.

The competition between businesses eliminates most of the problem of the dictatorial nature of the business structure while retaining the efficiency that a dictatorship brings. (You have it backwards--a dictatorship is more efficient than a democracy.)

No. Dictatorship is inherently immoral in whatever form it takes.

It is the reduction of one human to the tool of another. It is a violation of human dignity and freedom.

Besides the fact that it is incredibly inefficient and an extreme waste of human intellectual capital.