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 |
 |
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:34 PM
*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 |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:36 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:36 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:39 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:41 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:45 PM
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 |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:47 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:10 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:09 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:48 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:08 PM |
|
Date: July 31st, 2012 2:10 PM |
|
Date: July 31st, 2012 2:13 PM |
|
Date: July 31st, 2012 2:24 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 1:30 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:35 PM
Capitalism + Technology = greater standard of living for all |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:39 PM
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
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
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 |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:58 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:03 PM
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
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
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
Capitalism + Technology: US, Europe, China, Japan, Singapore, Korea,etc.
|
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:52 PM
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 |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:55 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:59 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:05 PM
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 |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:01 PM
From fucking wikipedia. Now tell me how those countries could possible fall under that definition. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:03 PM
You're conflating capitalism with the rule of law. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:07 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:09 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:13 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 8:57 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:00 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:01 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:03 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 9:05 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:01 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:04 PM
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 |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:11 PM
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 |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:24 PM
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
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 |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:54 PM
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 |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:07 PM
credited |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:11 PM |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 11:18 PM
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
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 |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:14 PM
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 |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:42 PM
so did slave society (see the Ancients)
what's the argument |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:47 PM
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
right back at you |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2012 10:55 PM |
|
Date: August 15th, 2012 10:51 AM |