I drink your milkshake! a metaphor for capitalism

[wkmac]

I say that because people's labor is being exploited because the net outcome benefits the business. No, it benefits both parties just like a sale. I buy a car which makes my modern life possible. Hugely beneficial to me. Did the automaker and dealer exploit me for making money necessarily? Of course not. Without making a margin on the sale, neither the automaker or dealer would exist, thus I don't have a car to live my life. This is the same process for everything. Therefore, you take everything away and you live in a cave and hunt for your meal each day.

Point is, things don't progress without personal benefit (profit, pay, etc.). Why was the iPhone invented? For Apple to make money. If no money was to be made, would they have spent billions to create it? This is basic stuff folks. I can't believe people don't get the fundamentals on why we enjoy our modern lives.

You missed the point but not everyone sees things the same but that's OK too.

 

[rickyb]

How would it come to monopolize with no entry barriers so that others can enter the market place and thus drive down its ability to profit? Slavery for example was only profitable when the law prohibited others in some sense from entering that marketplace and challenging the status quo. Even when the Civil War came to be slavery was dying and even the slave industry was trying to use State power to keep a dying system alive just a little longer.

Scratch farmers of the era who dared to even form cooperative groups to market their produce (a common approach across Appalachia) from a better bargaining position were crushed as a matter of law as the plantation system controlled the major market centers from which all goods circulated. And the State obiliged this situation because more economic gains would come their way as opposed to allowing the Scratch Farmers unbridled access the truly open markets whose goods would undercut profits. These conditions were arrived at by a matter of State law (market intervention) and not as a result of natural economic forces. Even in those days, there was a kind of elite verses common man.

As I said originally, there will be micro situations (as opposed to macro) where the conditions you speak of can arise but where there is no central power creating market entry barriers, market actors will arise, enter the market and undercut the ability of these exploitative systems the ability to profit.

i havent heard too much about this, but as a business grows it would be able to buy more of its stuff at volume for cheaper and undercut the competition? thats why i was thinking without the state, monopolies would still happen.

 

[wkmac]

i havent heard too much about this, but as a business grows it would be able to buy more of its stuff at volume for cheaper and undercut the competition? thats why i was thinking without the state, monopolies would still happen.

But the condition you speak of is that which occurs right now under a State!

 

[JL 0513]

You missed the point but not everyone sees things the same but that's OK too.

I look at the big picture which is necessary. There's unintended consequences to all of these silly ideological ideas. Just like socialism seems like an interesting idea to make things fair and all to small minded individuals without ever looking at all the end results.

 

[oldngray]

I look at the big picture which is necessary. There's unintended consequences to all of these silly ideological ideas. Just like socialism seems like an interesting idea to make things fair and all to small minded individuals without ever looking at all the end results.

The problem with socialism is it assumes most people are atruistic instead of being selfish and greedy.

The end result is people pretend to work and pretend they are getting paid.

No incentive to do more than the bare minimum required.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

The end result is people pretend to work and pretend they are getting paid.

No incentive to do more than the bare minimum required.

Sounds like the typical Union shop.

 

[rickyb]

But the condition you speak of is that which occurs right now under a State!

yea i dont dispute that. but am i not right in terms of buying in volume and undercutting?

 

[rickyb]

The problem with socialism is it assumes most people are atruistic instead of being selfish and greedy.

The end result is people pretend to work and pretend they are getting paid.

No incentive to do more than the bare minimum required.

sound byte nonsense. people pretend to work doing capitalist jobs too if you havent noticed; its called slacking off!

worker coops arent a perfect system but its better than the centralized power of capitalism.

 

[oldngray]

sound byte nonsense. people pretend to work doing capitalist jobs too if you havent noticed; its called slacking off!

worker coops arent a perfect system but its better than the centralized power of capitalism.

Socialism is far more centralized than capitalism.

 

[rickyb]

Socialism is far more centralized than capitalism.

yea state socialism is centralized. worker coop socialism can be decentralized. and wouldnt a corporation with a larger work force than a small state socialist country be more centralized?

 

[JL 0513]

sound byte nonsense. people pretend to work doing capitalist jobs too if you havent noticed; its called slacking off!

worker coops arent a perfect system but its better than the centralized power of capitalism.

Do those slackers advance? Exactly.

 

[rickyb]

Do those slackers advance? Exactly.

probably not but thats the case for both systems for the most part im guessing.

 

[JL 0513]

probably not but thats the case for both systems for the most part im guessing.

No, in a system based on incentives and reward (profit), people work harder. The very foundation of capitalism. Work harder to get more. This is the result of producing more which also benefits others and society as a whole.

 

[wkmac]

The problem with socialism is it assumes most people are atruistic instead of being selfish and greedy.

"The problem with voting is it assumes most people are atruistic instead of being selfish and greedy."

Change just one word and it still loses none of its value.

As to performing the bare minimum, that too speaks to pure self interests.

 

[rickyb]

No, in a system based on incentives and reward (profit), people work harder. The very foundation of capitalism. Work harder to get more. This is the result of producing more which also benefits others and society as a whole.

ive done a ton of jobs where people do the bare minimum because you wont be paid more, you wont get promoted.

on top of that, i was thinking today that one of the managers at my job is stupid so how did he become manager? because capitalism centralizes decision making (ditto for feudalism, slavery, state socialism), this guy got promoted because too few people have too much say. whereas if more people voted on giving him a promotion he would have never got it.

 

[rickyb]

"The problem with voting is it assumes most people are atruistic instead of being selfish and greedy."

Change just one word and it still loses none of its value.

As to performing the bare minimum, that too speaks to pure self interests.

wkmac, ive noticed your quite critical of democracy (which alot of the guys i listen to are not), but you support worker coops. care to elaborate?

 

[wkmac]

wkmac, ive noticed your quite critical of democracy (which alot of the guys i listen to are not), but you support worker coops. care to elaborate?

Well let's be honest here, our idea of political democracy these days has devolved into 2 wolves and a sheep discussing what is on the menu for dinner. But if you are speaking of participatory or consensus democracy, then the conversation is very different. I like the consensus democracy that was the Iroquois Confederation or sometimes called the 6 Nation Confederation. If an issue was before the confederation, a consensus position was passed among the local tribe and a delegate selected to represent the local tribe at the higher Confederation gathering. The delegate was only authorized to vote according to the consensus decision of the tribe and if any matter of the issue before the Confederation changed in any way, the delegate must abstain from voting and return back to the tribe to pass a new consensus. In other words, the selected delegate can only vote according to the agreed will of the tribe and not his own will, unlike the form of democracy we have today in which the elected person is free to choose his/her own will regardless the opinions of the people for whom they represent. This form of democracy I find very appealing for a variety of reasons. These forms also can and do work well in worker coops and worker managed environments among others.

 

[rickyb]

Well let's be honest here, our idea of political democracy these days has devolved into 2 wolves and a sheep discussing what is on the menu for dinner. But if you are speaking of participatory or consensus democracy, then the conversation is very different. I like the consensus democracy that was the Iroquois Confederation or sometimes called the 6 Nation Confederation. If an issue was before the confederation, a consensus position was passed among the local tribe and a delegate selected to represent the local tribe at the higher Confederation gathering. The delegate was only authorized to vote according to the consensus decision of the tribe and if any matter of the issue before the Confederation changed in any way, the delegate must abstain from voting and return back to the tribe to pass a new consensus. In other words, the selected delegate can only vote according to the agreed will of the tribe and not his own will, unlike the form of democracy we have today in which the elected person is free to choose his/her own will regardless the opinions of the people for whom they represent. This form of democracy I find very appealing for a variety of reasons. These forms also can and do work well in worker coops and worker managed environments among others.

very informative.

as ive said before im a little weak on these ideas because by chance the guys i listen to dont really elaborate on democracy other than promoting the idea.

 

[rickyb]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825892720115843073

 

[wkmac]

very informative.

as ive said before im a little weak on these ideas because by chance the guys i listen to dont really elaborate on democracy other than promoting the idea.

Maybe you might consider broadening the people you listen too.