The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Capitalism Inevitably Leads to Higher Standards of Living forAll
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 31st, 2012 2:08 PM Author: Abnormal community account roast beef (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21224000) |
 |
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:34 PM Author: smoky library private investor *pours 99% of R&D cash into dick and baldness pills*
*pours 1% of R&D cash into tech that has more impact on the greater good*
*enjoys "higher" standard of living* |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:36 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine (Moron who thinks he knows what the "greater good" is) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255135) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:36 PM Author: peach wonderful tanning salon http://imgur.com/XgUmJ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255138) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:36 PM Author: smoky library private investor yeah i do, actually. it's not that hard to figure out. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255140) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:39 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine Define and explain. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255172) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:41 PM Author: smoky library private investor see: Jeremy Bentham (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255205) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:45 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine lol, oh god. I'll get past all the sticky stuff like whether you are talking about his statist or classic liberal half of his life;
Explain how Bentham's work can be used to show that spending resources on ED pills in order to enhance the sex life of older people does not qualify as "greater good" and how a reasonable alternative is. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:46 PM Author: smoky library private investor just do utilitarian calculus bro (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255261) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:47 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine Show me (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255269) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:10 PM Author: smoky library private investor no (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255429) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:09 PM Author: peach wonderful tanning salon http://imgur.com/cqOWh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255412) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:48 PM Author: Canary Pocket Flask Famous Landscape Painting why are you calling it "cash?" that makes you seem dumb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255275) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:08 PM Author: smoky library private investor rhetorical device (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255404) |
Date: July 31st, 2012 2:10 PM Author: Abnormal community account roast beef (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21224017) |
|
Date: July 31st, 2012 2:13 PM Author: Abnormal community account roast beef (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21224036) |
|
Date: July 31st, 2012 2:24 PM Author: Abnormal community account roast beef (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21224126) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 1:30 PM Author: Abnormal community account roast beef (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21250184) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:35 PM Author: Exciting Set Capitalism - Technology = 3rd world country
Capitalism + Technology = greater standard of living for all |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:39 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine Capitalism is precisely the system that best optimizes the production/development of new tech. You cannot split them apart like that since they are inter-related.
Moreover, why would tech from here not be available in our theoretical capitalist society which ends up being a 3rd world shithole? One need only look at HK and Sing to see examples of that very transition occurring. Infact I cannot think of a single example of "Capitalism - Technology = 3rd world country". |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:41 PM Author: stirring house stock car hong kong isn't really a traditional "capitalist" country; it's a weird type of oligarchic marketism.
this article does a fair job of laying out some of the basics:
http://atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/NH02Cb01.html |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:50 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine Incorrect response for the following reasons:
1) There is no "true" example of capitalism as long as the gov't exists and/or social norms lack a respect for private property. The question is about the closest representation of which HK is a decent example, linking something that may point out a couple of non-capitalist tendencies addresses nothing. Basket indexes, although still subjective and far from perfect, offer a much better picture.
2) I presumed above the article actually has merit. It does not. Take a an example:
"One might ask: how come that almost half of what Mr and Mrs Chan earn contribute to the coffers of Li Ka-shing? Do we really want to call this the freest economy in the world, or even a free economy?"
This is bullshit. So long as the products he offers continue to increase in quality and decrease in price (which they invariable are, as evidenced by the medium and longer term growth in GDP per capita on a PPP basis), the extent to which people patronize specific organizations is irrelevant. The same applies to Rockefeller in America.
"The mirror image of this policy is, inevitably, inequality. Hong Kong boasts some of the world's top billionaires, such as Li Ka-shing, the Kwok brothers and Lee Shau-Kee. At the same time no less than 18% of the city's seven million residents lived below the poverty line in 2011 - which was measured as HK$7,000 for a three-person household per month, according to the Hong Kong Council of Social Service. "
Again, another fallacious argument. First, both the poor and average HKers have made amazing strides in terms of wealth and measurable SOL. Second, $7K HK is hardly "poor" in a global sense which is the context of the original poster (i.e. "3rd world"). Finally, HK started 10 miles back of a country like America. It has very little space, no natural resources outside of a port, and has been relatively free for only a short time, so just the fact that it is creeping up on far more inherently wealthier western nations is already proof enough. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:55 PM Author: stirring house stock car bro, HK has over 100,000 people living in chicken-wire cages, and that is on the increase. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254160) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:58 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine That is irrelevant you tool. You can cite a similar, if not worse stat for America. The post I was responding to was a COMPARATIVE identification and classification. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254188) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:03 PM Author: stirring house stock car what do you think of america's "sacrifice zones," regions where capitalism gone amok has strip-mined entire areas and left them for dead:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/10494-journalist-chris-hedges-on-capitalisms-sacrifice-zones-communities-destroyed-for-profit |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:19 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine I got through 10 mins of that shit.
His criticism, where valid, is actually an attack against the gov't. Such as when he attack police brutality or when he attacks the gov't for taking over the land that was occupied by natives and then selling it to railroad companies. On environmentalism, he is out to lunch. He seems to be taken aback by the notion of "exploiting the environment". First, in so far as we have used those resources in order to produce things people want, what is the problem? We want cars, furniture, etc. This takes resources. The key has never been to stop resource extraction, but rather to allocate resources where they are most highly valued (one potential use of course is keeping them for recreation and tourism). In so far as the pollution produced from those companies causes permanent damage to the surrounding area, this again is an example of gov't failure to uphold property rights. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:43 PM Author: Indigo hateful psychic " You cannot split them apart like that since they are inter-related."
Neoclassical economists did just that for many moons. Suffice it to say your opinion is hasty and things are more complicated than that.
Capitalism - technology is feudalism. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:50 PM Author: Exciting Set Capitalism - Technology: Mexico, Philippines, Jamaica, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Bangladesh, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, most of South and Central America.
Capitalism + Technology: US, Europe, China, Japan, Singapore, Korea,etc.
|
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:52 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine "Capitalism - Technology: Mexico, Philippines, Jamaica, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Bangladesh, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, most of South and Central America."
How have any of those countries had a history of respect for private property (Which is what Capitalism basically is)?
In Mexico the cartel can knock on my door and demand to use my barn as their warehouse. And that is probably the closest "capitalistic" country on that list (with SA having some good pockets). |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:54 PM Author: Exciting Set there needs to be some industry of creating property before respect develops. This is precisely what technology does. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254158) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:55 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine I'm still waiting for you to show me how any of those countries are capitalist in the least. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254167) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:59 PM Author: Exciting Set quit waiting for answers to a silly question. Most of the countries in the world are capitalist. The southern US has a higher regard for personal property than the North and liberal states, but they certainly don't create the most wealth. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254190) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:05 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine "quit waiting for answers to a silly question. Most of the countries in the world are capitalist"
The countries you listed are not capitalist by any sane definition. In those countries the "police" stop by and demand "protection" money lest your business burn down.
"The southern US has a higher regard for personal property than the North and liberal states, but they certainly don't create the most wealth."
First this is not totally true and North and South have pros and cons when it comes to the extent of personal property rights. Second, they are so close to each other that OTHER factors enter (namely things like social norms, infrastructure, population density, demographics, etc.). |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:59 PM Author: Indigo hateful psychic You'll change the definition of capitalism if he does. You defined it above specifically to disqualify those countries as capitalist. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254191) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:01 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine "Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership ... Economists usually emphasize the degree to which government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), as well as the importance of property rights."
From fucking wikipedia. Now tell me how those countries could possible fall under that definition. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:03 PM Author: Indigo hateful psychic Capitalism is many things. I gave the narrowest definition.
You're conflating capitalism with the rule of law. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:07 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine Capitalism is the existence and respect for private property, especially with respect to the means of production. There is no more basic a definition. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254275) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:09 PM Author: Indigo hateful psychic Arguing about definitions is an impasse. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254283) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:13 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine There is no alternative or more basic definition within the sphere of economics of the term "capitalism". If you want to define it as purple monkeys riding in a dishwasher, you can certainly do so, but that is irrelevant to this thread since the OP CLEARLY meant the definition I laid out and that is what is being operated under. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254328) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:57 PM Author: Indigo hateful psychic A capitalist economy encourages capital accumulation. Property rights may or may not be respected. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254177) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:00 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine How can capital accumulate if property rights are not respected? Sure, it is a matter of degree, in America we have accumulation with only moderate respect for property rights, but you need the latter at least to some extent for the former. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254195) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:01 PM Author: Indigo hateful psychic You could forcibly defend your capital with sufficient resources. Castle and keep. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254207) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:03 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine You dont go from zero to castle you tool. You start by building a hut and growing some tomatoes. In the ACTUAL way capital accumulates (And not in the fairy land you seem to think), you would not be able to form sufficient capital quick enough to forcibly defend yourself from a concerted attack. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254229) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:05 PM Author: Indigo hateful psychic You're right CGM how could I forget about the tomatoes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254245) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:01 PM Author: sexy green quadroon Discussions/debates about what capitalism does or doesn't do are almost universally awful because no one actually agrees on what exactly it is, so you just wind up with an endless stream of equivocations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254826) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:04 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine I appreciate the fact that thanks to the widespread libtard BA education most people get, they may have received mixed signals about what "capitalism" is. But how can someone who enters and posts in a thread about capitalism think that it is defined by anything other than private ownership of the means of production?
Sure, you can define any word however you want, but for the purposes of conversation we tend to agree on what "smile" or "table" mean, why is it so difficult for "capitalism"? |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:06 PM Author: sexy green quadroon Man, you are one po-faced motherfucker. You really don't see why an economic system is harder to define than "smile" or "table"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254892) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:11 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine In terms of a basic definition? Sure. Like I said, how much simpler can it get than private ownership over the means of production?
Lets actually look at mainstream sources:
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit
Webster:
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
Even Dictionary.com:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/capitalism
ALL of them have the basic definition and then sometimes layer a couple of additional things, but that basic definition of private ownership of the means of production is always there with mainstream sources. Again, how hard can it be then to agree on that basic definition as a starting point?
|
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:21 PM Author: sexy green quadroon Aha, but ALL of those definitions add additional "layers" beyond just private ownership of the means of production, suggesting that private ownership is necessary but not sufficient to capitalism. After all, the mere idea of private ownership long predates anything we'd call "capitalism" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255019) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:24 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine That is fine. But the idiots in this thread cannot agree on the private ownership part as a necessary condition. Just look above. The reason is the moment you do accept that as part of a definition of capitalism, the original argument of "Capitalism - Technology = 3rd world" goes out the fucking window because there are no examples of 3rd world countries with anything close to widespread existence and respect for private property.
If you want to argue that there are numerous complex definitions and that a detailed discussion in this format would never work under this, I would agree. But we are talking about a very basic definition and discussion. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:26 PM Author: Charismatic Learning Disabled Water Buffalo Background Story you're missing the point. it's not just private ownership but private ownership over certain inputs that are used to produce goods and services. contrast this with shared ownership over all inputs (indeed communism takes this to the extreme, where human capital becomes chattel of the collective) where there is no division between risks borne by investor vs laborer, and therefore there can no longer justifiably be a transfer of wealth from labor to kapital.
capitalism essentially is an exercise in risk allocation, which as you pointed out, requires private ownership in order to draw and correctly identify which risks are borne by whom, thereby determining how gross profits are distributed. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:51 PM Author: sexy green quadroon Capitalism doesn't reward "risk", it rewards having capital. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255299) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:54 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine A) That is not what he said
B) Capitalism rewards serving the consumer which tends to involve SMART risk-taking. Capitalism is pretty good actually at giving only minimal returns on pre-existing capital invested passively (you tend to see 4-8% returns), it is great at turning people with pennies (i.e. no former capital owned) into millionaires if they serve the consumer and take smart risks. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:55 PM Author: Charismatic Learning Disabled Water Buffalo Background Story contributing capital to produce outputs IS bearing risk. We distinguish between different types of capital that are included in the factors of production -- everything from stocks, land, financial, and human capital, contribution of which has different risks depending on the level of competition for those inputs and the opportunity costs created, as well as the level of information you have to make a decision ex ante, uncertainty about future outcomes, and so on. CGM was right; you are punching above your weight class. You should take an econ 101 class/read a basic UG text, if even just to get the basic concepts down. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255323) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:07 PM Author: nofapping national mediation Capitalism doesn't reward "risk", it rewards having capital.
credited |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:11 PM Author: Charismatic Learning Disabled Water Buffalo Background Story is this really a hard concept to understand? if you stuff dollars into your mattress, your purchasing power would erode with inflation. if you let a tractor sit in an exposed backlot in the elements unused, it's value would depreciate from failure to maintain. You have capital in both these scenarios but you aren't being rewarded. You must actually use the capital productively (meaning benefits exceed costs) to order to increase yield, and using that capital entails bearing some form of risk. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255431) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:18 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine And the degree to which you engage that capital in smart-risk ventures the higher return you will typically get on average. So that someone who does not have the ability to invest their millions will only earn 4-6% in mediocre vehicles. Someone who is actively involved and takes smart risks will earn more (such as starting a business, or smartly investing in a startup).
It is like these guys are unaware of the litany of athlete and playboys who have squandered fortunes in the 9 figures. Capital does not beget more Capital, smartly allocated capital begets more capital. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:23 PM Author: Charismatic Learning Disabled Water Buffalo Background Story at that point you get into the risk-reward curve, which is a separate yet related aspect, typically applied as to financial capital, and not something central to the definition of capitalism as a broader system of market allocation of resources.
As a basic definition of capitalism, it is a system where risks are allocated according to private ownership rights over contributed inputs, and extending from that price signals, if undistorted, will determine how much of an output is supplied and demanded at equilibrium.
How much reward one gets from these bearing risks at a basic, simplified level depends on the degree to which benefits of undertaking the activity exceed the costs across the time horizon of the investment.
To illustrate, labor, owners of human capital, may simply collect a salary which prices in its opp cost and thus take much less risk. This bargained-for downside protection is why it would be an expropriation to suddenly argue after the fact that labor should now be allowed participate in the upside simply because it supplied a key input. It negotiated for an assumption of risk of no upside (and a 100% certain outcome makes it no risk at all) in order to protect its downside and must live with the consequences of that bargain across the time horizon of its investment. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:10 PM Author: sexy green quadroon But ok, I'll bite -- "private ownership of the means of production." There's a little village with only five families. One owns a farm, one owns a blacksmith shop, one owns a shop where clothes are made and sold, one owns a carpentry shop and one has a little tavern where they all meet. The families trade with each other to get what they need. Is that what most people mean by capitalism? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21254927) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:14 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine A) Yes, and you have no right to be in this thread if you think that this is not an example of capitalism from the perspective of the basic defintion. It may not be the most prevalent form in modern day, but it is an example nonetheless. Just like this is still a table even though most would not think of it when they say "Table".
http://amazingdata.com/mediadata23/Image/amazing_odd_interesting_funny_table5_200907232359034870.jpg
B) I stated that agreeing on the BASIC definition should be relatively easy. If people want to add additional restrictions or qualifications (such as it being widespread or having a medium of exchange, which would eliminate your example), then they can be discussed, but the morons ITT did not even want to agree on the basic definition which I provide is widely accepted across the mainstream. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:29 PM Author: charcoal liquid oxygen stage CGM pissy as fuck ITT. Someone pour molten gold over this zealot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255068) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:42 PM Author: Bateful drunken whorehouse codepig so does communism (see the USSR)
so did slave society (see the Ancients)
what's the argument |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:47 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine How does Communism leads to higher standards for all? Or even the majority?
I know what you answer is going to be, so let me beat you to it: You are ignoring other variables and that it is "in spite of" rather than "because". |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:49 PM Author: Bateful drunken whorehouse codepig "I know what you answer is going to be, so let me beat you to it: You are ignoring other variables..."
right back at you |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:55 PM Author: pearl deer antler dopamine How can *I* be ignoring variables when you are making the claim without any substantiation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21255324) |
|
Date: August 15th, 2012 10:51 AM Author: Abnormal community account roast beef (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2010356&forum_id=2#21343033) |