Squeers

After reading the suggested titles of which I was aware, but confess to not having read, I realise I was trying to recreate a lot of work that has been done by far more knowledgeable minds than mine.

I agree that within any system - monopoly, midrange and small business that there exist those who are rapacious. My issue is that de-regulation was a huge mistake, resulting in the power imbalance we now have to contend with. I will never give up on the hope that there is a happy medium, a combination of cooperative, private and joint enterprises.

In getting back to your question, I think no matter where we are coming from in our opinions on the worth of capitalism, it is but one driving factor of increasing population.

Simple common sense tells us we cannot expand beyond the limits that is our planet and must adapt or fail.

*to appreciate the "ethics" of these entrepreneurial projects, or the fact that the whole colonial project (the white man's burden lol) was in fact capitalism in action*

Perhaps Squeers, it was just human nature in action. For if you
check out things in Africa, you will find that to this day, pygmies
are largely exploited by the Bantu, treated much as slaves and
often are not even considered human! Now I don't think that you
can go and blame that one on capitalism too.

What amuses me about critcs of capitalism, is that many seem to
be upset that somebody is "ripping them off" in the name of profit.
Yet when all those public servants look out their windows and watch
the cars going by, they have yet to realise that they are being
ripped off, as they are paying for it.

So where is the bigger rip off, in profit or in waste? What we
know about capitalism in action, is that if somebody is making too
much profit, somebody else will soon be along to compete, the
consumer wins as waste is cut, productivity is increased and our
standard of living rises.

I have yet to see too many Govt services become too efficient, my
rates bill only goes one way, that is up. Yet there are a whole
host of consumer products where we have seen massive efficiency gains
and we all benefit.

Competition seems to be the only thing which avoids human complacency.
Govts with their monopolies, unfortunately don't have any, so they
have no reason to care. Its not even their money that they are wasting.

Severin,

OT, but this is the most recent thread in the General Discussions area of the Forum to which you have posted. Just letting you know that it was I that pressed the crossed red bats on your post here: http://twitpic.com/22teaw , should it be taken down.

I had a look at your most recent posting history (http://twitpic.com/22ti0m ) in order to work out where you meant to post it, as Boazy/Polycarp/AGIR has nowhere posted to this point in this thread, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10628&page=0 , but couldn't see where it would be a seqitur.

Now I must show my ignorance. Who, or what, does (SIGWB) stand for?

Not wanting to be a stick-in-the-mud (well, maybe), I was understandably hesitant in asking that there might be a little more er, discipline, exercised under the now-more-relaxed posting limits with regard as to where you place your non-seqiturs (or maple leaves).

You couldn't possibly have been meaning to insinuate that there is any similarity in literary style between moi and AGiR, could you? Surely not! See, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2995#70254 (For those who don't know, Severin was once Fractelle.)

Thanks for the compliment. It's nice to be well regarded, even if one is hated.



PS I knew at the time what was perceived as my advocacy against the extradition of Polanski from Switzerland got up your nose, but I didn't realize how much. My advocacy was really that of upholding the rule of law and those ancient (British?)rights that act as a safeguard against the capricious exercise of political power and executive authority, without which many stand to be severely oppressed, not just sexually exploited women and children. Good post, BTW, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10644#175784

Pax?

My apologies to other posters for disrupting the thread, I hope not too much.

Oh joy, we have another of those 'other' libertarians here (whatever happened to Wing Ah Hume anyway? I do hope it wasn't something I said).
By 'other libertarian' of course I refer to the fact that I describe myself as a libertarian; unlike Stern who is clearly a free market libertarian, I am of the social libertarian clique.
The difference, I hear you ask? Social libertarians believe the greatest liberty is freedom from exploitation and oppression, whereas your common or garden variety free market libertarian believes liberty is the (presumably God given) right of anyone born or blessed (presumably by God) with the talent, intelligence or sheer ruthlessness to exploit and oppress other humans to their little hearts content.
In other words, the core of their intricate philosophy is “might is right”; and they firmly believe (quite sincerely, I think) that anyone who disagrees is simply consumed with jealousy.
It really doesn't appear to occur to them that others, far from being jealous of the obscenely rich, actually consider them to be morally vacuous, blood sucking parasites.
“Morally vacuous?” they query in earnest puzzlement. “What on Earth do morals have to do with anything?” After all, they can always refer back to the first and possibly greatest apologist of the free market cause, Adam Smith: “By having the freedom to become obscenely rich, we are actually helping the little people, since wealth flows down, passed as if by an invisible hand...”
You're quite right of course, Squeers, about the Russian experiment; what it demonstrated very conclusively is that a population can never escape a paradigm, or zeitgeist, in a single, or even few generations.
Neither Lenin or Stalin were communists, they were Czars; the party elites became the new nobility and the serfs as always...
It requires extreme prejudice to blame simple ratbaggery on ideology; -Christians in particular always get huffy when you mention the Borgia's, or Torqemada...
What the free market libertarians fail to appreciate in their paranoia, is that the greatest risk to private ownership by us little people isn't governments, it's the moguls.

*It really doesn't appear to occur to them that others, far from being jealous of the obscenely rich, actually consider them to be morally vacuous, blood sucking parasites.*

So let me see. For a long time the richest two blokes on the planet
were Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Gates made his money because
hundreds of millions preferred his products, to the expensive
and monopoly seeking Apple.

Buffett started selling newspapers as a kid and made his fortune
by buying companies, employing people and doing it well.

Now both have given their fortunes to charitable causes and both
will do far more for humanity then any single poster on OLO.

Perhaps Grim, you need to rethink your flawed philosophy :)

According to Professor G. William Domhoff of the University of California, the wealth distribution in the U.S. A. as of 2007 is that the top 1% of households owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth. The next 19% had 50.5% of the wealth - meaning that 20% of the people owned 85% of the wealth leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary earners)
In terms of financial wealth (total net-worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share at 42.7%.