Capitalism . . . working as intended.

[untermensche]

All workers are needed.

All have value.

None need to make themselves have some.

Generally those who create more value, earn more.

No. Always those at the top earn more.

And many of them lose value as they do it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Generally those who create more value, earn more.

No. Always those at the top earn more.

And many of them lose value as they do it.

Generally those that are higher up create more value and are thus paid more. However, there are many poorly managed companies that are inefficient and have higher up people who make more than they should based on their output. The US isn't a dictatorship, and inefficient companies are allowed to last as long as their shareholders are willing to keep them afloat.

 

[untermensche]

No. Always those at the top earn more.

And many of them lose value as they do it.

Generally those that are higher up create more value and are thus paid more. However, there are many poorly managed companies that are inefficient and have higher up people who make more than they should based on their output. The US isn't a dictatorship, and inefficient companies are allowed to last as long as their shareholders are willing to keep them afloat.

They don't create more value.

They have a role in a group effort and the whole group working together creates the value, no single person.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Generally those that are higher up create more value and are thus paid more. However, there are many poorly managed companies that are inefficient and have higher up people who make more than they should based on their output. The US isn't a dictatorship, and inefficient companies are allowed to last as long as their shareholders are willing to keep them afloat.

They don't create more value.

They have a role in a group effort and the whole group working together creates the value, no single person.

Some create more value than others. My attorney graduated with 19 years of school (MBA and law) and has 20 years of business experience. His assistant is awesome. She mostly takes care of me. However, she has 3 months experience and graduated with associates degree. Do you honestly not see who creates more value?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think a new word is needed to differentiate between what I mean when I say "capitalism" and what people around here mean when they say "capitalism".

Sort of like how communism needs a different word everytime someone tries to implement communism because it's never real communism.

I think a new word is needed to differentiate between what I mean when I say "capitalism" and what people around here mean when they say "capitalism".

We were using the term "free-market evangelist" for a while to denote the one TRUE capitalism.

I'm consistent when I use the term. I have not deviated. The same cannot be said of communists.

I have committed the unpardonable sin of saying that corporatism is something different.

 

[Jayjay]

Generally those that are higher up create more value and are thus paid more. However, there are many poorly managed companies that are inefficient and have higher up people who make more than they should based on their output. The US isn't a dictatorship, and inefficient companies are allowed to last as long as their shareholders are willing to keep them afloat.

They don't create more value.

They have a role in a group effort and the whole group working together creates the value, no single person.

That's only true if every member in the group is irreplaceable by other members of the group. Usually that is not the case. Higher-ups usually create more value becasue there is less of them and the quality (or lack thereof) of their work has relatively bigger impact on the output than the individual lower-downs.

 

[arkirk]

All workers are needed.

All have value.

None need to make themselves have some.

Generally those who create more value, earn more.

Come on, let's stop this silly language! Those who cheat more get more. It has nothing to do with value. Large fortunes also have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IDEA OF EARNING. I know you subscribe to the "great man" theory and think these mythical creatures actually exist. Actually you know it is not particularly great men that accumulate money. It is more notorious men....people who have done things most men regard themselves too moral to do. Show me a great fortune and I will show you a great crime...that is not always so, but too often to discount.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That's possible, but given that you are drawn to even more superficial explanations, that doesn't say much about you.

No one is disputing the decline of unions or the middle class, or saying that's a good thing. What I'm trying to point out to you is that politics are driven by events, not vice versa. And in this case, the events were the technological advances that enabled companies to operate with fewer workers, and operate at a distance, making outsourcing possible. Further, the money that in past times that would've gone to workers in the form of raises was now instead being loaned to them. The middle class had to resort to borrowing to make up the difference in their standard of living.

What Reagan's election represented was the victory of this mentality, not its inception. Every Pres since has mouthed the same cliches about America being competitive in a global economy.

What you call superficial I call an actual mechanism.

Something your don't seem to think you need.

Technological advancement has no logical mechanism to lower wages and benefits. In fact it should have the opposite effect.

The only known mechanism that raises wages is unions. No other mechanism exists.

Without them as people have always found, capitalists exploit to the greatest extent possible.

I don't think you're paying attention. Later.

 

[DBT]

I think a new word is needed to differentiate between what I mean when I say "capitalism" and what people around here mean when they say "capitalism".

What then is the 'correct' definition of Capitalism?

And why does it not marginalize those who do not appear to have the mental and/or material means to prosper within its boundaries?

 

[Axulus]

I think a new word is needed to differentiate between what I mean when I say "capitalism" and what people around here mean when they say "capitalism".

What then is the 'correct' definition of Capitalism?

And why does it not marginalize those who do not appear to have the mental and/or material means to prosper within its boundaries?

Those who prosper under it have something to offer other people that they want and they are willing to trade it at terms the other party finds acceptable. Those who have diminished mental or material means have little to offer others something that they want.

 

[arkirk]

What then is the 'correct' definition of Capitalism?

And why does it not marginalize those who do not appear to have the mental and/or material means to prosper within its boundaries?

Those who prosper under it have something to offer other people that they want and they are willing to trade it at terms the other party finds acceptable. Those who have diminished mental or material means have little to offer others something that they want.

This is some kind of a statement that some people trade with other people. So what? It means nothing at all because it is limited to the party of the 1st part and the party of the 2nd part irrespective of its social consequences and also irrespective of billions of other parties that may have something to say about the trade in question. Anyway, your definition really does not define Capitalism....try again!

 

[DBT]

What then is the 'correct' definition of Capitalism?

And why does it not marginalize those who do not appear to have the mental and/or material means to prosper within its boundaries?

Those who prosper under it have something to offer other people that they want and they are willing to trade it at terms the other party finds acceptable. Those who have diminished mental or material means have little to offer others something that they want.

Only those who have diminished mental or material means....or does it also include those who's skills are not sufficiently marketable in order to allow them to prosper?

 

[untermensche]

They don't create more value.

They have a role in a group effort and the whole group working together creates the value, no single person.

Some create more value than others. My attorney graduated with 19 years of school (MBA and law) and has 20 years of business experience. His assistant is awesome. She mostly takes care of me. However, she has 3 months experience and graduated with associates degree. Do you honestly not see who creates more value?

They do different tasks.

Show me this value either of them "create".

And what you're talking about are the very few with unusual or hard gained skills.

I am talking about the large majority. They are extremely powerless atomized and not acting within a union.

 

[ksen]

Those who prosper under it have something to offer other people that they want and they are willing to trade it at terms the other party finds acceptable. Those who have diminished mental or material means have little to offer others something that they want.

This is some kind of a statement that some people trade with other people. So what? It means nothing at all because it is limited to the party of the 1st part and the party of the 2nd part irrespective of its social consequences and also irrespective of billions of other parties that may have something to say about the trade in question. Anyway, your definition really does not define Capitalism....try again!

Well, it does a good job defining sociopathy for sure.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Those who prosper under it have something to offer other people that they want and they are willing to trade it at terms the other party finds acceptable. Those who have diminished mental or material means have little to offer others something that they want.

Not necessarily anything that is tangible, material, or mental is what is valued. This post ignores the fact that some of things that are traded are emotional, irrational and of no benefit to anyone.