UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / Corporations and the Free Market Structure
-
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 15:30:45QUOTE (Simån @ Jun 30 2008, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I dont think this is true, not even in a utopian world were everybody had been properly brainwashed towards what benefits the system. I think a free competetive marked with free will always be more effective. Cause in such a system all participant will always have to look for ways to improve up on them self or cease to exist. There is nothing in a communistic system there does that it has to keep improving, except the fear from the government of a revolution.
Naw a competative market doesn't really work because the strongest get stronger and stronger while the weak fall by the wayside and die.
Case in point: Large companies have power that rivals that of governments.
Large companies (the strong) treat the weak (the employees) how they will. -
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 16:09:08QUOTE (Mats @ Jun 30 2008, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Naw a competative market doesn't really work because the strongest get stronger and stronger while the weak fall by the wayside and die.
Case in point: Large companies have power that rivals that of governments.
Large companies (the strong) treat the weak (the employees) how they will.
I really dont see a problem with big companies getting bigger, as long as smaller companies keeps having a chance to enter the marked and grow if they can improve on what the big company does. This can be secured by law.
Big companies will never have the power over governments, only weak politicians would let large corporations control them. Not that politicians should be ruthless and without care for the indutry, but they should and do always have the power regulate the private marked.
And large companies cant treat workers as they like if the workers are organized properly in unions. That will give the employees the opportunity to go on a strike to get what want. If workers wont work, the companies will have give em what they want or lose profit and eventually die.
-
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 16:42:31QUOTE (Simån @ Jun 30 2008, 07:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I really dont see a problem with big companies getting bigger, as long as smaller companies keeps having a chance to enter the marked and grow if they can improve on what the big company does. This can be secured by law.
Big companies will never have the power over governments, only weak politicians would let large corporations control them. Not that politicians should be ruthless and without care for the indutry, but they should and do always have the power regulate the private marked.
And large companies cant treat workers as they like if the workers are organized properly in unions. That will give the employees the opportunity to go on a strike to get what want. If workers wont work, the companies will have give em what they want or lose profit and eventually die.
That might be theoreticly possible, if that utopian scenario existed. But I think it is still possible in a free, democratic and capitalist society,if the voters voted that way, to get some of the same results as those the communistic ideology aim at,like public healthcare, worker-rights, free education and social security, without being fragile to corruption and without giving up freedom of speech.
By your definition the world is not perfect, and only in a perfect world will large companies allow smaller ones to compete with them. There have been many if not all large companies that have stepped on smaller companies in order for them to go down while they are small, so this situation with free opportunities is almost impossible even with the law as it is today.
Also- politicians are funded by major companies as that is the place where most of the cash resides so it is inevitable having politicians promoting major companies and their schedules. -
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 16:56:53QUOTE (Thewave @ Jun 30 2008, 06:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>By your definition the world is not perfect, and only in a perfect world will large companies allow smaller ones to compete with them. There have been many if not all large companies that have stepped on smaller companies in order for them to go down while they are small, so this situation with free opportunities is almost impossible even with the law as it is today.
Bullshit, you might see some rare cases where the marked isnt 100% fair, some companies might try unfair means to keep their position in the marked, but in most cases they got caught too and get fined for it. It is quite possible to keep up a fair and competitive marked if the government controls it right.QUOTEAlso- politicians are funded by major companies as that is the place where most of the cash resides so it is inevitable having politicians promoting major companies and their schedules.
Then the voters will just have to see through that, and not vote for those who are weak and let them self control by major companies. -
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 19:17:26QUOTE (Simån @ Jun 30 2008, 07:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Bullshit, you might see some rare cases where the marked isnt 100% fair, some companies might try unfair means to keep their position in the marked, but in most cases they got caught too and get fined for it. It is quite possible to keep up a fair and competitive marked if the government controls it right.
Then the voters will just have to see through that, and not vote for those who are weak and let them self control by major companies.
1. Almost if not every major company uses illegal and manipulative ways to remain in control (not long ago we hard about the big Microsoft being sued for this, and this wasn't the only time) And also- do you think fines will help control and stop this? For a multi-million company fines are change, real and harsh restricts are needed, but sometimes even they are not enough to allow competition against the company.
2. About needing the people to see through it- people are influenced more by the TV than by any other means, and those who control the TV and the communication channels control the people's minds to some degree. So having to see through it has gotten alot harder these days and not all can see through it. -
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 19:56:20QUOTE (Thewave @ Jun 30 2008, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>1. Almost if not every major company uses illegal and manipulative ways to remain in control (not long ago we hard about the big Microsoft being sued for this, and this wasn't the only time) And also- do you think fines will help control and stop this? For a multi-million company fines are change, real and harsh restricts are needed, but sometimes even they are not enough to allow competition against the company.
You will have to come up with some examples if you want convince me that there is a general problem with unwillingness to compete in todays industial markeds. You hear from time to about corporations fix prices or spliting markeds but I will not say that it seems like a general problem. When big companies it is not just pocket change they are getting fined with, it is often in the multi-million or billion dollar level. And that thing with Microsoft you can hardly call anything serious, all it had to do with was that not all Microsoft's programs was compatible with other OS's than Window. I dont think that reason why Windows is the most popular OS right now is because Microsoft is pushing down opponents, but simply because they got the best OS on the marked right now. And I dont think there is anything wrong with being good at something.
And while you are at it, couldnt you give me some examples of some of the ways you think that every major company is illigally keeping down the smaller rivals.QUOTE2. About needing the people to see through it- people are influenced more by the TV than by any other means, and those who control the TV and the communication channels control the people's minds to some degree. So having to see through it has gotten alot harder these days and not all can see through it.
Most newspapers and TV-station puts a big pride in distributing objective investigative journalism, cause they that is what people want. I dont think many would hold back any stories there would indicate top politicians being controlled by big corporations. -
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 21:06:35QUOTE (Simån @ Jun 30 2008, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You will have to come up with some examples if you want convince me that there is a general problem with unwillingness to compete in todays industial markeds. You hear from time to about corporations fix prices or spliting markeds but I will not say that it seems like a general problem. When big companies it is not just pocket change they are getting fined with, it is often in the multi-million or billion dollar level. And that thing with Microsoft you can hardly call anything serious, all it had to do with was that not all Microsoft's programs was compatible with other OS's than Window. I dont think that reason why Windows is the most popular OS right now is because Microsoft is pushing down opponents, but simply because they got the best OS on the marked right now. And I dont think there is anything wrong with being good at something.
And while you are at it, couldnt you give me some examples of some of the ways you think that every major company is illigally keeping down the smaller rivals.
Most newspapers and TV-station puts a big pride in distributing objective investigative journalism, cause they that is what people want. I dont think many would hold back any stories there would indicate top politicians being controlled by big corporations.
I'll give you an example from my country:
Recently there was an auction for funding a power station in the south of my country.
Now the owner of the major refinery won the auction but in mysterious ways versus others (both big corporations and small) and is now being investigated. I know this isn't the best example but it just shows the way that big companies don't play fair.
And the issue you said about Microsoft isn't the one I meant, but I found another sue issue about Microsoft:
http://www.linux.com/articles/21694
Also I found an Opera sue against Microsoft for monopoly, but that is about IE being a part of Windows which minimizes fair competition.
Another issue was the B.M.W which used Google to redirect searchers to their site every time someone typed "used cars"- clearly a violation of the free competition.
And this is just for 10 minutes of searching- if you still need more proof I'll search for more. -
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 22:08:09QUOTE (Simån @ Jun 30 2008, 08:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You will have to come up with some examples if you want convince me that there is a general problem with unwillingness to compete in todays industial markeds. You hear from time to about corporations fix prices or spliting markeds but I will not say that it seems like a general problem.
Actually, price fixing is a huge problem. For instance, the energy companies in the UK (gas, electric) use price fixing and everyone knows it. At this time when oil & gas prices are rising, they are putting their prices up. Understandable one might think. However, they are putting up their prices at a rate much greater than the price of wholesale oil and gas is increasing and every single major energy supplier is doing it pretty much exactly the same, all within days of each other. It damages the economy and affects people negatively (especially the elderly).
Also, big companies will use their greater purchasing power to take out smaller outlets, weather by buying in bulk so that their prices will always be lower, buying the best land so they will always acquire the best customers, or giving the most attractive salaries to the best employees to take the good workers.
Allowing free competition in the economy is a bit like taking the teachers out of school - The strongest would grow stronger while the weak fall aside. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 06:30:46QUOTE (Thewave @ Jun 30 2008, 11:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'll give you an example from my country:
Recently there was an auction for funding a power station in the south of my country.
Now the owner of the major refinery won the auction but in mysterious ways versus others (both big corporations and small) and is now being investigated. I know this isn't the best example but it just shows the way that big companies don't play fair.
And the issue you said about Microsoft isn't the one I meant, but I found another sue issue about Microsoft:
http://www.linux.com/articles/21694
Also I found an Opera sue against Microsoft for monopoly, but that is about IE being a part of Windows which minimizes fair competition.
Another issue was the B.M.W which used Google to redirect searchers to their site every time someone typed "used cars"- clearly a violation of the free competition.
And this is just for 10 minutes of searching- if you still need more proof I'll search for more.
The stuff you found there still seems pretty minor. The first thing with Microsoft looks more like mistake than anything deliberately. And it is quite old. And I will still that it is not stuff like that there keeps Microsoft so big, it is because they got the best product on the marked.
And the thing with BMW, might be bad publicity for google, but I dont see it as anything wrong in it. Google lives on selling advertisement, and that thing is just another of that sort. If a smaller company had the money they could probably buy the same treatment.QUOTE (Mats @ Jul 1 2008, 12:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Actually, price fixing is a huge problem. For instance, the energy companies in the UK (gas, electric) use price fixing and everyone knows it. At this time when oil & gas prices are rising, they are putting their prices up. Understandable one might think. However, they are putting up their prices at a rate much greater than the price of wholesale oil and gas is increasing and every single major energy supplier is doing it pretty much exactly the same, all within days of each other. It damages the economy and affects people negatively (especially the elderly).
I have heard the stuff about the gas before, I dont know if it is true but someone in probably look in to it soon. But i wouldnt be suprised if there was nothing in it, at these times, with high fuel prices people tend to get desperate and accusing anyone and everything for it. In the US the majority of the people think that it is Big Oils's fault that the oil prices are high, when they obviously dont have anything to do with it. They dont control raise in demand or selfish speculators and they right now only got control over 5% of the total oil prodution, the rest is nationally controlled. The point is, everybody in fuel industry are getting blamed for prices, because people are frustrated.QUOTEAlso, big companies will use their greater purchasing power to take out smaller outlets, weather by buying in bulk so that their prices will always be lower, buying the best land so they will always acquire the best customers, or giving the most attractive salaries to the best employees to take the good workers.
I dont see how anybody is hurt in this. So are you against companies paying skilled employees properly? And what is wrong with selling stuff cheap? I will agree with you that bigger companies got some advantages to the small companies, but it is not because they dont compete fairly, but because, like in these cases they got a better product and a more effective production. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 08:45:07QUOTE (Simån @ Jul 1 2008, 07:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I have heard the stuff about the gas before, I dont know if it is true but someone in probably look in to it soon. But i wouldnt be suprised if there was nothing in it, at these times, with high fuel prices people tend to get desperate and accusing anyone and everything for it. In the US the majority of the people think that it is Big Oils's fault that the oil prices are high, when they obviously dont have anything to do with it. They dont control raise in demand or selfish speculators and they right now only got control over 5% of the total oil prodution, the rest is nationally controlled. The point is, everybody in fuel industry are getting blamed for prices, because people are frustrated.
No-one is going to look into the pricing of energy - The government always say they will, they have for years, yet they never do. Also, when companies such as Shell raise their prices to 'maintain' profits, but then post record profits year upon year, what are they doing to help the customers there? In a free market, money has a way of leaving the many to benefit the few.QUOTEI dont see how anybody is hurt in this. So are you against companies paying skilled employees properly?
Well no, however, on the other hand, you must look at their smaller employees. Someone in management in a major company (I'm going to have to use British figures because I'm not sure what the scaling is for pay in other countries) will earn perhaps 25 000 - 40 000 pounds per year. This is enough to live on and enough to buy a small apartement or flat, or, with someone else on a similar wage, to buy a house. Now compare that to someone who works on a shop floor. They will earn around 12 000 - 16 000 per year. This is very little money. To buy even a flat you need someone else with you to help you afford it and if you must keep something such as a car (to get to work), that's going to take much of your income away. Now, if a company such as shell posts profits above £13 900 000 000 in year, why is it that the lower employees are on such small wages? If they increased those employees wage by say £2 000 per year it would make a massive difference to them, yet hardly dent their massive profits (100 000 workers * 2 000 increase = £200 000 000) bringing them down from
£13.9 000 000 000
to
£13.7 000 000 000
You see how the rich, in a free market, simply exploit the poor. And once they are rich, their power to exploit becomes ever greater, while the gap to the poor becomes ever wider. The poor are the majority and so the majority suffer in a free market. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 09:02:02QUOTE (Simån @ Jul 1 2008, 09:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The stuff you found there still seems pretty minor. The first thing with Microsoft looks more like mistake than anything deliberately. And it is quite old. And I will still that it is not stuff like that there keeps Microsoft so big, it is because they got the best product on the marked.
And the thing with BMW, might be bad publicity for google, but I dont see it as anything wrong in it. Google lives on selling advertisement, and that thing is just another of that sort. If a smaller company had the money they could probably buy the same treatment.
More like a mistake? Taking control of a field is not a mistake...
I know it is quite old but it just demonstrates that that the major companies will exploit their power over the weak ones in order to grow and maintain their status.
About the BMW thing- they illegally used their power and website in order for Google to do this.
Google was actually doing the right thing and removing all hacking tools BMW used in order to gain that "privilege".
And also- if these are the issues I found while I was searching for it in under 10 minutes- think what a wide scale global search of the major companies would find. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 09:29:01QUOTE (Mats @ Jul 1 2008, 10:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>No-one is going to look into the pricing of energy - The government always say they will, they have for years, yet they never do. Also, when companies such as Shell raise their prices to 'maintain' profits, but then post record profits year upon year, what are they doing to help the customers there? In a free market, money has a way of leaving the many to benefit the few.
niether Shell nor any of the other big oil companies set the price of oil, the marked does. And just because Shell makes profit on their oil prodution doesnt mean they have to drop the prices on the gas stations. Gas stations are losing money because the high prices of gas makes people cut down on their gas use. ExxonMobile is right now selling of all their gas stations, because they lose money on them. And they cant just give up the money from oil prodution on the gas stations, they need it for developing new oil fields, so that we can get out of this fuel crisis. Trust me, stockholders in those companies will not accept that they sit on the money, they want them invested in future.QUOTEWell no, however, on the other hand, you must look at their smaller employees. Someone in management in a major company (I'm going to have to use British figures because I'm not sure what the scaling is for pay in other countries) will earn perhaps 25 000 - 40 000 pounds per year. This is enough to live on and enough to buy a small apartement or flat, or, with someone else on a similar wage, to buy a house. Now compare that to someone who works on a shop floor. They will earn around 12 000 - 16 000 per year. This is very little money. To buy even a flat you need someone else with you to help you afford it and if you must keep something such as a car (to get to work), that's going to take much of your income away. Now, if a company such as shell posts profits above £13 900 000 000 in year, why is it that the lower employees are on such small wages? If they increased those employees wage by say £2 000 per year it would make a massive difference to them, yet hardly dent their massive profits (100 000 workers * 2 000 increase = £200 000 000) bringing them down from
£13.9 000 000 000
to
£13.7 000 000 000
You see how the rich, in a free market, simply exploit the poor. And once they are rich, their power to exploit becomes ever greater, while the gap to the poor becomes ever wider. The poor are the majority and so the majority suffer in a free market.
Again we have to do with supply and demand. The demand on people with little or no education is there a little and increasingly smaller demand for, and employers will then not much for them. What they need is skilled worker, and therefore they will pay more for those. If the un-educated want more money on his paycheck he needs to get an education. How is fair that someone there has spend 10years educating them self, should get the same as someone there hasnt. And when you see people in management get even bigger check then that is becease good leaders are in very short supply and a CEO can be worth millions or billions in profit. I only think that it is fair that people get paid for what they are worth.QUOTE (Thewave @ Jul 1 2008, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>More like a mistake? Taking control of a field is not a mistake...
I know it is quite old but it just demonstrates that that the major companies will exploit their power over the weak ones in order to grow and maintain their status.
About the BMW thing- they illegally used their power and website in order for Google to do this.
Google was actually doing the right thing and removing all hacking tools BMW used in order to gain that "privilege".
And also- if these are the issues I found while I was searching for it in under 10 minutes- think what a wide scale global search of the major companies would find.
It is still pretty minor stuff you found. That does not convince me that it is a major general issue. I think the anti-trust law got the major things under pretty good control. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 09:51:38QUOTE (Simån @ Jul 1 2008, 10:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>niether Shell nor any of the other big oil companies set the price of oil, the market does. And just because Shell makes profit on their oil prodution doesnt mean they have to drop the prices on the gas stations. Gas stations are losing money because the high prices of gas makes people cut down on their gas use. ExxonMobile is right now selling of all their gas stations, because they lose money on them.
Shell sets the price of the products that come from oil. They buy oil at the wholesale price ($140 per barrel I think), refine it into useful products (for example petrol) and then sell these on at a higher price than they bought the crude oil. However, how much higher is that price? It seems to me if Shell are making 13.9 billion pounds profit that price is too high and that the selfish interests of the company Shell come before what is good for the population.QUOTEAnd they cant just give up the money from oil prodution on the gas stations, they need it for developing new oil fields, so that we can get out of this fuel crisis. Trust me, stockholders in those companies will not accept that they sit on the money, they want them invested in future.
What oil? There is untapped oil left in Afghanistan and some reserves untapped under the sea... But there is very little left. They need to invest in something other than oil, but this is another discussion for another time.QUOTEAgain we have to do with supply and demand. The demand on people with little or no education is there a little and increasingly smaller demand for, and employers will then not much for them. What they need is skilled worker, and therefore they will pay more for those. If the un-educated want more money on his paycheck he needs to get an education. How is fair that someone there has spend 10years educating them self, should get the same as someone there hasnt. And when you see people in management get even bigger check then that is becease good leaders are in very short supply and a CEO can be worth millions or billions in profit. I only think that it is fair that people get paid for what they are worth.
I don't suggest equal wages for all, I just suggest better wages for the lower paid workers. One cannot say 'everyone must get an education if they want to do well'. Some people are simply not clever enough to go through many years of education and pass exams, some do not have the oppurtunity. You didn't tell me how giving one hundred thousand people a better life wasn't worth Shell reducing its profits by around 1%. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 10:19:05QUOTE (Mats @ Jul 1 2008, 11:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>What oil? There is untapped oil left in Afghanistan and some reserves untapped under the sea... But there is very little left.
That is just so completely untrue, there i still a lot of unused oilreserved left all over the globe. It is estimated that we are only 1/3 though the total amount. There is plenty of oil there just havent been exploited yet, because it cost more money to get it than it could be sold for. But with the prices now it is now feasible. Those ressources are mainly found in Canda and Venezuela in very heavy tar oil there is hard to get out of the ground and hard to refine. They are found in the arctic areas, mostly as natural gas, which hard to transport by conventional means to the where it is needed. And all around the globe especially in the mexican golf is there oil to be found on very deep water. All this, plus developing the already in use facilities in the middle-east(where many of the big exporters there still have oil reserves big enough for over 50years at current rate of production) is there need money for, for us to have chance to get get out of this oil crisis. And most of those money has to come from big oil companies.QUOTEI don't suggest equal wages for all, I just suggest better wages for the lower paid workers. One cannot say 'everyone must get an education if they want to do well'. Some people are simply not clever enough to go through many years of education and pass exams, some do not have the oppurtunity. You didn't tell me how giving one hundred thousand people a better life wasn't worth Shell reducing its profits by around 1%.
Because it will make the already bad business of selling gas even worse. And it wouldnt even help society if they did it anyways, because that will create a demand for higher wages from other lower paid workers from companies with which doesnt have as high profits right now(because they are not in the oil industry), which then will have to fire people to keep up profits. When you give someone something it has to come from somewhere. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 10:29:05QUOTE (Simån @ Jul 1 2008, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Because it will make the already bad business of selling gas even worse. And it wouldnt even help society if they did it anyways, because that will create a demand for higher wages from other lower paid workers from companies with which doesnt have as high profits right now(because they are not in the oil industry), which then will have to fire people to keep up profits. When you give someone something it has to come from somewhere.
I'm not getting into the oil discussion here because it's seperate, however, large companies should be forced to give more profits back to the people. Perhaps the best way would be a windfall tax.
Anyways, back to the main point. In a free market:
- The masses lose out
- The strong get stronger (money makes money)
- Divides between rich and poor grow
- Quality of life is overall lower than if everyone had an equal share
-
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 10:40:39
If you want a demonstration of the true free democracy and economy-take for an instance the 1920's in the US.
I believe that was the only place in the world with a total free economy as it is presented in your statement and that flourished.
Now- even though the US enjoyed economic growth, it was only for the rich people.
While the normal people were given near starving salaries the owners of factories enjoyed their lifestyle without the need to look out for the others.
And also- in a factory when there is expenses and profits when they try to cut down on expenses they always cut down on the personal, if it's by lowering their salaries or by firing them.
I have very little when people get to power positions. As power corrupts and the more power you have the more corrupted you are potentially to be. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 11:00:16QUOTE (Mats @ Jul 1 2008, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm not getting into the oil discussion here because it's seperate, however, large companies should be forced to give more profits back to the people. Perhaps the best way would be a windfall tax.
I dont really know what you think profits are being used for, they are not just flushed down the toilet or given out to rich men. In most companies they are usually reinvested in stuff there create jobs, invent new things and makes products cheaper.QUOTEAnyways, back to the main point. In a free market:
- The masses lose out
- The strong get stronger (money makes money)
- Divides between rich and poor grow
- Quality of life is overall lower than if everyone had an equal share
You still need to prove those things then. I will agree with you on one of your points, free market makes the strong strong. That is true, but it makes the weak stronger too.
The masses dont lose out in a free capitalistic market, just look what is happening in India and China, capitalism embraces the middle class by giving them jobs and cheaper product.
That the quality of life is better overall better with equal share of everything is not true. Society needs a way to credit those who wants to work more and harder, those who educate them selfs and those who are most needed. Without that people wont do that extra effort. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 11:14:07QUOTE (Thewave @ Jul 1 2008, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If you want a demonstration of the true free democracy and economy-take for an instance the 1920's in the US.
I believe that was the only place in the world with a total free economy as it is presented in your statement and that flourished.
Now- even though the US enjoyed economic growth, it was only for the rich people.
While the normal people were given near starving salaries the owners of factories enjoyed their lifestyle without the need to look out for the others.
And also- in a factory when there is expenses and profits when they try to cut down on expenses they always cut down on the personal, if it's by lowering their salaries or by firing them.
I have very little when people get to power positions. As power corrupts and the more power you have the more corrupted you are potentially to be.
The reason why the workers was struggling in the 20's because there were not properly functioning labor unions. If the unions does not work a free market wont work. We have had many great rises in economy since then where the employees were reward just as much as the employers. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 12:50:38QUOTE (Simån @ Jul 1 2008, 12:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I dont really know what you think profits are being used for, they are not just flushed down the toilet or given out to rich men. In most companies they are usually reinvested in stuff there create jobs, invent new things and makes products cheaper.
You still need to prove those things then. I will agree with you on one of your points, free market makes the strong strong. That is true, but it makes the weak stronger too.
The masses dont lose out in a free capitalistic market, just look what is happening in India and China, capitalism embraces the middle class by giving them jobs and cheaper product.
That the quality of life is better overall better with equal share of everything is not true. Society needs a way to credit those who wants to work more and harder, those who educate them selfs and those who are most needed. Without that people wont do that extra effort.
- The stronger get stronger - We agree.
- The masses lose out
Perhaps what I mean here is, those who are not educated lose out (and attendance to university to here is less than 50%). Or those who are less educated lose out. Now, some people cannot be educated, for instance, if they cannot afford it or if they must support a family member (child or ill family) by getting a job quickly and they do not have time for education or a list of other reasons that are not the person's fault. So, some people lose out and it is not their fault. There is no system to help this kind of people (well there is, but it doesn't work and nothing is done to improve it).
- Divides between rich and poor grow
For example, the number of middle class children attending university is much higher than that of the working class children. This leads to the middle classes overall becoming more educated while the working classes become less educated. The gap in education grows and therefore the gap in wealth grows.
- Quality of life overall is lower than if everyone had an equal share
This is true. As it stands now, those who work harder tend to get a better life, however, their share is not always proportional to their work (take a look at Tialys' blog entry here which take a look at this issue somewhat). If everyone had an equal share, overall quality of life for the population would be higher.
-
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 13:26:36QUOTE (Mats @ Jul 1 2008, 02:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>- The masses lose out
Perhaps what I mean here is, those who are not educated lose out (and attendance to university to here is less than 50%). Or those who are less educated lose out. Now, some people cannot be educated, for instance, if they cannot afford it or if they must support a family member (child or ill family) by getting a job quickly and they do not have time for education or a list of other reasons that are not the person's fault. So, some people lose out and it is not their fault. There is no system to help this kind of people (well there is, but it doesn't work and nothing is done to improve it).
- Divides between rich and poor grow
For example, the number of middle class children attending university is much higher than that of the working class children. This leads to the middle classes overall becoming more educated while the working classes become less educated. The gap in education grows and therefore the gap in wealth grows.
Democracy and a free capitalistic market does still allow tax income to be spend on helping those least fortunate, by providing free education and healthcare for those who need it. It just depends what voters vote for.QUOTE- Quality of life overall is lower than if everyone had an equal share
This is true. As it stands now, those who work harder tend to get a better life, however, their share is not always proportional to their work (take a look at Tialys' blog entry here which take a look at this issue somewhat). If everyone had an equal share, overall quality of life for the population would be higher.
Labor prices follows supply and demand, and that is how it should be. I dont see anything wrong with moviestars, sports idols and CEOs earning millions of dollars each year, because that is what they are worth for their employers.
And the general quality of life does not increase by take all money and devide them evenly to all, again, then people wouldnot want to work as hard and we would lose production. But I dont see anything wrong in having progressiv tax system where those who has got more give more. As long as there always is a reward for working harder. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 14:23:09QUOTE (Simån @ Jul 1 2008, 02:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The reason why the workers was struggling in the 20's because there were not properly functioning labor unions. If the unions does not work a free market wont work. We have had many great rises in economy since then where the employees were reward just as much as the employers.
You are aware that unions/workers rights and other organizations to protect the worker are a socialist idea.
In the 20's they didn't even consider them because it was against the law to create them. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 14:49:13QUOTE (Thewave @ Jul 1 2008, 04:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You are aware that unions/workers rights and other organizations to protect the worker are a socialist idea.
Ofcourse they are. Socialism can still exist in a capitalistic system. Free market and humanity is not opposites.
Karl Marx had a lot of good intentions and ideas, but the ways he wanted to enforce them was totally wrong.