Henry Ford Was Right

[Canard DuJour]

What is the alternative to capitalism? Socialism, communism, [which isn't all that different to socialism or Marxism] ?

All other systems fail.

There is hardly any example of capitalism working without rather a lot of socialism - nor vice versa. Unless the primitive communism of pre-agricultural peoples count, in which case it's been the most sustained and stable system. Feudalism and, before it, slavery lasted a long time without capitalism. You couldn't actually be much wronger.

A combination of the two as practised in countries where left wing governments have been elected, pay enormous tax rates for their social security as compared to market economies.

Generous social security doesn't make you not a market economy. The more socialistic mixed economies typically have higher tax rates but hardly "enormous" for most folks, who enjoy the world's highest living standards.

 

[SimpleDon]

This is an amazing thread. I don't know what is harder to believe. That anyone could read Henry Ford's statement as being literal, that he expected his generously paid workers to buy all of his car production. Or that so many people would be willing to string these unimaginative, literal people along for thirteen pages without letting them off of the hook.

No, Ford didn't expect that his auto workers to buy all of his cars. He was saying that his company needed customers who had the money to buy his cars and that this is a truism in the whole economy. That increasing wages in the whole economy would provide workers with enough money to buy his cars and many other products, providing the incentive to build more factories, creating more good paying jobs, more workers with the money to buy more products, creating a virtuous cycle. That this is the secret to prosperity.

 

[SimpleDon]

There is hardly any example of capitalism working without rather a lot of socialism - nor vice versa. Unless the primitive communism of pre-agricultural peoples count, in which case it's been the most sustained and stable system. Feudalism and, before it, slavery lasted a long time without capitalism. You couldn't actually be much wronger.

A combination of the two as practised in countries where left wing governments have been elected, pay enormous tax rates for their social security as compared to market economies.

Generous social security doesn't make you not a market economy. The more socialistic mixed economies typically have higher tax rates but hardly "enormous" for most folks, who enjoy the world's highest living standards.

Not to mention that the profit pursuing market model isn't efficient or isn't suitable for many parts of the modern economy. It is a rather simplistic, brute force model that is great at meeting consumer demand but it fails where consumer demand doesn't provide clear or desirable direction. For example, health care, national defense, jurisprudence, common infrastructure, education, basic research, etc. areas that we have established a separate model, a socialistic model even, of professionalism. These areas are controlled by doctors, generals, admirals, judges, lawyers, teachers, engineers, etc.

 

[angelo]

There is hardly any example of capitalism working without rather a lot of socialism - nor vice versa. Unless the primitive communism of pre-agricultural peoples count, in which case it's been the most sustained and stable system. Feudalism and, before it, slavery lasted a long time without capitalism. You couldn't actually be much wronger.

A combination of the two as practised in countries where left wing governments have been elected, pay enormous tax rates for their social security as compared to market economies.

Generous social security doesn't make you not a market economy. The more socialistic mixed economies typically have higher tax rates but hardly "enormous" for most folks, who enjoy the world's highest living standards.

But pay through the teeth for it. The problem is there's no such thing as a free lunch.
The Scandinavian countries where indeed they enjoy the highest standard of living, have high income taxes and consumer taxes that many people in the States and here would baulk at.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is an amazing thread. I don't know what is harder to believe. That anyone could read Henry Ford's statement as being literal, that he expected his generously paid workers to buy all of his car production. Or that so many people would be willing to string these unimaginative, literal people along for thirteen pages without letting them off of the hook.

No, Ford didn't expect that his auto workers to buy all of his cars. He was saying that his company needed customers who had the money to buy his cars and that this is a truism in the whole economy. That increasing wages in the whole economy would provide workers with enough money to buy his cars and many other products, providing the incentive to build more factories, creating more good paying jobs, more workers with the money to buy more products, creating a virtuous cycle. That this is the secret to prosperity.

It would have been good to talk for Ford and others as they were making the decision and not ten years after.

I agree with you on your second sentence about customers being able to buy his car, but he did that by improving the productivity of his model so that the cost of the car was in line with consumers, that's supply side and that is what is needed, not demand side.

 

[angelo]

Marketing is all about creating a need then supplying it.