I've got a bone to pick with capitalism...

heaven's chimney · Post by **heaven's chimney** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:50 pm

"In a free market society, everyone is paid exactly what they are worth."

What a beautiful summation of what capitalism does to the living: it puts a price tag on it. Now we can look at people as labour and the environment as resources to be converted to its dead and useful state - is there even another way to look at life anymore?

Teachers are paid according to what the people paying them (taxpayers) think they are worth.

Then why are so many people grieving the funding cuts for education? If a poll was given to the american people that said "Should we buy one more bomb at $2Million or should we forego the bomb and put the $2Million towards education?" you really think people would say buy the extra superfluous bomb?

Even with my limited knowledge of current government and tax protocol, I would aver that "the people" have little say in education wages. I say this to contrast it with the subsidies that giant corporations continously get. Do "the people" wish for this system - this Welfare For The Rich? And would they wish for it if they knew what was happening - if they were EDUCATED? "Aww poor multi-million dollar corporation! Take a $24Million subsidy to help grease your wheels!"

Doctors are paid according to what the people paying them (hospitals/practices, patients, insurance companies - not necessarily in that order) think they're worth.

And what are the alternatives?

thletes and entertainers get paid exactly what the people paying them thinks they are worth.

That's a little bit silly. While consumers are a group, it's not like they conspire together and decide a wage for entertainers. Maybe I think the Dillinger Escape Plan should only get $10. Now how do I stop other people from giving them money so that they only get $10. Not to mention the other people involved in bringing entertainers to me. Do I feel that managers should get 10% (yeah, probably; bad example)? Do I feel that a company should allocate a significant portion of the price I pay towards advertising (no! I dont, dammit!)? So what are my alternatives?

Subsidies for factory farms:
In no way whatsoever do I approve of any tax money going towards subsidies to 1) put private, small farmers out of business 2) funnel economic sustainability out of the area and into the hands (well, electronic bank accounts) of a few gigantic firms/oligopolies 3) put sentient animals through an incessant life of terror and abject brutality. What do I do? What are my alternatives? Democratically, is this what people want? (Again, I would also say that EDUCATION plays a part here)

So the price of hamburgers DOES NOT include the cost of water, and probably to a large extent "feed." I remember hearing that if you honestly account for the cost to produce a pound of hamburger, it would be like $20/pound. So how do local farmers compete with that?

(Big Businessman) Dwayne Andreas: There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians.
(taken from here)

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:05 pm

So what economic system do you suggest then?

heaven's chimney · Post by **heaven's chimney** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:11 pm

any one that WORKS. no civilized economic system is sustainable (or has been sustainable).

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:03 pm

Quote:
Teachers are paid according to what the people paying them (taxpayers) think they are worth.

Then why are so many people grieving the funding cuts for education? If a poll was given to the american people that said "Should we buy one more bomb at $2Million or should we forego the bomb and put the $2Million towards education?" you really think people would say buy the extra superfluous bomb?

Even with my limited knowledge of current government and tax protocol, I would aver that "the people" have little say in education wages. I say this to contrast it with the subsidies that giant corporations continously get. Do "the people" wish for this system - this Welfare For The Rich? And would they wish for it if they knew what was happening - if they were EDUCATED? "Aww poor multi-million dollar corporation! Take a $24Million subsidy to help grease your wheels!"

Education is primarily funded by local taxpayer's property taxes in most districts, while the bomb is funded by federal taxation of income. Also, we are not a direct democracy. We don't get to vote on where our taxes get spent - well, unless you're in a direct milledge state (voters vote yes or no on raising property taxes to increase school funding). What we do is vote for representatives who are supposed to represent our interests while in office. Of course, most of them don't, but then we're too stupid to vote them out the next time - which is why I favor strict term limits (one or two terms MAX)...

Anyway... That quote would be better put this way, "In a free market society every employee's wage correlates directly to the value placed on that employee's labor by their employer." Poor English, but you get the point.

Another of my favorites... "Democratic Capitalism is the second worst system ever concocted by man. Unfortunately, everything else is tied for worst." I can't rememer whom to attribute that to...

Those figures for the cost to raise beef are way off from reality too. My F.I.L. is a beef distributor and he makes a ton of profit selling meat for a lot less than that. He buys cattle, has it raised by a farmer (all natural, but not organic - there's a difference) at his cost, then has it butchered, processed, etc... and still makes a pretty good profit from it. There's no way those numbers can be even close to correct.

Big corporations get subsidies because they employ a lot of people. Take away that employer and there are a lot of people out of work. Also, the subsidies our government pays out are no where near what more socialist leaning governments do. One example - the reason drugs are cheaper in Canada is because the government subsidizes them (with taxpayer money obviously). Here your taxes are lower, but you pay more for your drugs. Reality is we probably end up paying the same or less than Canadians do - they pay more in taxes, we pay more at the cash register. It all evens out - unless you don't buy many prescription drugs, in which case their system really sucks for you. I'll take ours.

heaven's chimney · Post by **heaven's chimney** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:47 pm

preface: sorry for not having as solid and as swanky of an argument as i'd like. my brain is fried from prolonged and intensive multi-tasking. i'd have also liked to have more stats at my hands.

bassjones wrote:Education is primarily funded by local taxpayer's property taxes in most districts, while the bomb is funded by federal taxation of income.

1) Well then channel bomb money to education funds. If the government funds interstate commerce (which, i'm pretty sure it does) I dont see why it can't fund schooling. This is obviously a side issue.

2) What about people who get out of property tax? Assuming that the estate tax funds schooling: Correct me if i'm wrong, which i may likely be, but a significant amount of people get out of the so-called "death tax" (significant in quality, not quantity).

Also, we are not a direct democracy. We don't get to vote on where our taxes get spent - well, unless you're in a direct milledge state (voters vote yes or no on raising property taxes to increase school funding).

Then the wages of teachers aren't really decided by people - unless you're in a direct milledge state.

What we do is vote for representatives who are supposed to represent our interests while in office. Of course, most of them don't, but then we're too stupid to vote them out the next time - which is why I favor strict term limits (one or two terms MAX)...

Amen.

"In a free market society every employee's wage correlates directly to the value placed on that employee's labor by their employer."

Well I definitely can't argue with that. But then you've modified it so that it's tautological.

Another of my favorites... "Democratic Capitalism is the second worst system ever concocted by man. Unfortunately, everything else is tied for worst." I can't rememer whom to attribute that to...

I can better it:

Any economic system that is based on the hypexploitation of renewable and non-renewable resources is not and can never be sustainable. (paraphrased Jensen)

Those figures for the cost to raise beef are way off from reality too. My F.I.L. is a beef distributor and he makes a ton of profit selling meat for a lot less than that.

1) What's an FIL?

2) Sells meat for less than what? $20/pound? I'm talking about factory farms. I guarantee that "he" doesn't produce even close to the amount that factory farms do.

He buys cattle, has it raised by a farmer (all natural, but not organic - there's a difference) at his cost, then has it butchered, processed, etc... and still makes a pretty good profit from it. There's no way those numbers can be even close to correct.

That would be a local endeavor. I'm guessing that in the American meat economy, he's barely a flea.

(BTW: "All natural," last I heard, has absolutely no meaning whatsoever legally or any other way. Is there a new standard?)

Big corporations get subsidies because they employ a lot of people. Take away that employer and there are a lot of people out of work.

For instance Walmart. God bless Walmart for their unlivable wages and the destruction of every local economy they go into. You're talking about a free market - with subsidies it's not exactly a free market.

Also, the subsidies our government pays out are no where near what more socialist leaning governments do.

Well, I'm talking about millions and millions and millllllions of dollars. I'm not sure what socialist-leaning governments spend, but despite my own ignorance of the matter, i'd be willing to bet we're comparable.

It all evens out - unless you don't buy many prescription drugs, in which case their system really sucks for you. I'll take ours.

Yeah, helping people and caring about them and all that jazz is way passe. Seriously, what is wrong with "the common good"?

edittttt:

So what economic system do you suggest then?

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why this question was posed. I sense a hint of smugness as if it was an un-trumpable, rhetorical question. If it was asked in innocent legitimacy, it's a damn fine question. I didn't really want to answer it because people can't handle it yet, but the answer is: no economy.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:30 pm

1) What's an FIL?

2) Sells meat for less than what? $20/pound? I'm talking about factory farms. I guarantee that "he" doesn't produce even close to the amount that factory farms do.

Father In Law - sorry.

Factory farms should, following sound economic principles, be able to produce their (substandard) beef for far less than he can.

By "natural" I mean no steroids or other artificial growth enhancement. They don't qualify as organic because the requirements are so strict. They do get vaccines and some antibiotic treatment to prevent disease, so in many ways "natural" is actually better than "organic", health-wise. Of course, he feeds for prime grading, which isn't exactly for the health conscious individual anyway.

Estate taxes go to the feds as income tax. I'm opposed to estate taxes for a variety of reasons, mainly because it's the one thing that is absolutely destroying the family farm. A family farm might only be making marginal profits, but because the family owns hundreds if not thousands of acres and hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment the heirs are forced to either sell off the farm or go broke trying to pay the inheritance taxes. It's asinine.

The reason many people don't want federal spending for education is that money comes with control. Local spending = local control, federal spending = federal control. Can't have it both ways. The people footing the bill are bound to want some level of control. Upset about "No Child Left Behind"? You can chalk that up to Federal spending on education. Don't ask for their money and then expect them to leave you alone to spend it how you see fit. That's not going to happen.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:43 pm

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why this question was posed. I sense a hint of smugness as if it was an un-trumpable, rhetorical question. If it was asked in innocent legitimacy, it's a damn fine question. I didn't really want to answer it because people can't handle it yet, but the answer is: no economy.

Nope it was an honest question. I don't know how much Star Trek you watch, here's why:

The Federation Credit is the basic monetary unit of the United Federation of Planets in the Star Trek.

It has been said in episodes like the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Neutral Zone" and movies like Star Trek: First Contact that the economy of the Federation is quite unlike the economics of the 20th and 21st centuries, almost unrecognizably. There is no poverty and no hunger, and the pursuit of money is not a driving force in society. According to Tom Paris in the Star Trek: Voyager episode Dark Frontier a "New World Economy" began to take hold on Earth and throughout the Federation in the late 22nd century, and eventually made money obsolete. He even mentions that in the 24th century, Fort Knox is a museum, apparently to money and capitalism.

In the United Federation of Planets, Replicators and other advanced technologies provide for virtually all basic material wants and needs equally and sufficiently to all. Every citizen of the Federation has plenty of food of virtually any type they want, clothes, shelter, recreational and luxury items, and has all their basic material needs easily met. A society based around self-improvement and collectively improving the human race instead of cutthroat competition, combined with heavy automation, means labor is essentially free and menial tasks are automated. As we've seen in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes with Jake Sisko and Joseph Sisko show that people are not paid in credits for their work, at least for running restaurants and being journalists.

When the Federation Credit is shown, it is shown in one of three capacities:
A bartering tool between the United Federation of Planets and other governments, presumably representing goods, services, or energy worthy of barter in a galaxy where physical wants often mean little. In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode (The Price), the Federation makes a large bid in Federation Credits to attempt to purchase the rights to a stable wormhole.

A means of internal budget allocation in the United Federation of Planets, such as in the Star Trek: The Original Series episode (Errand of Mercy). While it has almost unlimited resources, they have been shown to be finite (such as having limited numbers of Starships), and thus some method of allocating Federation and Starfleet resources must be used.

A way for Federation citizens to barter for objects that cannot be replicated, such as live animals, such as in the Star Trek: The Original Series episode (The Trouble with Tribbles), or for services that are far too costly to be given away freely, such as hiring the services of an entire starship (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock), or for the use of facilities (such as public transporters) that are in high demand and must have a method of rationing their access like in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode (Explorers).

It is unclear how citizens gain credits, but since they are not paid directly for their work in credits, but there is no poverty, there is some highly egalitarian and fair method of distributing the wealth of the United Federation of Planets to its citizens.

Interesting albeit incomplete, no?

heaven's chimney · Post by **heaven's chimney** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:33 pm

bassjones wrote:Factory farms should, following sound economic principles, be able to produce their (substandard) beef for far less than he can.

Completely contrary. The most economical form is easily hunting. There's been university studies that show the insane amount of feed and water that goes to produce a single pound of beef/pork/chicken.

By "natural" I mean no steroids or other artificial growth enhancement. They don't qualify as organic because the requirements are so strict. They do get vaccines and some antibiotic treatment to prevent disease

Ahhhh gotcha. Thanks.

I'm opposed to estate taxes for a variety of reasons, mainly because it's the one thing that is absolutely destroying the family farm.

1) Is there a book on where taxes go? This whole not knowing stuff is flippin' ridiculous.

2) The Estate Tax doesn't destroy family farms. According to the book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (with statistics to back this up), The Estate Tax affects really really rich people. The farm would have to be worth seeeeeeeeeveral million dollars to be affected.

A family farm might only be making marginal profits, but because the family owns hundreds if not thousands of acres and hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment the heirs are forced to either sell off the farm or go broke trying to pay the inheritance taxes. It's asinine.

Family farms are an endangered species. It's absolutely horrific what's being done to them. Economics alone, it sucks. Add to the mix the politics of genetic engineering (I refer to The Future of Food, a movie about genetic engineering) and how if AAAAAAAAANY (through NO fault of your own) genetically modified (and thus PATENTED) crops end up on your farm, you CAN be sued (and will be unless you sign a contract agreeing to use the GM crop on your land). HEINOUS.

The reason many people don't want federal spending for education is that money comes with control. Local spending = local control, federal spending = federal control. Can't have it both ways. The people footing the bill are bound to want some level of control. Upset about "No Child Left Behind"? You can chalk that up to Federal spending on education. Don't ask for their money and then expect them to leave you alone to spend it how you see fit. That's not going to happen.

I dont have a problem with the fed gov controlling sh*t so long as they dont mess it up. But when i said channel the money to the locals, i didn't mean feds give it to locals, i meant pay more to locals and less to fed. If I sat down and calculated how much we over-over-over-spend on the military industrial complex as opposed to under-under-under-under-spending on people (and the environment), I would gouge my eyes out at the injustice. (that's what i do when injust things happen - i gouge out eyes)

Sharkman: Very interesting. Technology wont save us (also check the books Why Things Bite Back: The Revenge of Unintended Consequences, Endgame Volume 1, and this essay

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:01 am

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I actually believe we've got the whole thing reversed. I believe almost all tax revenue should be collected and distributed locally, according to each local society's desires - education, welfare (if desired by that locale), city streets, etc... Then the State should tax for state highways, state police, and other state run necessary entities (which are few in my estimation), then the Federal government gets enough to pay for the defense of the nation and that's about all the Feds should be doing. Everything else should be left to the states and local elected officials to take care of.

Lies and the lying liars... is not what I would call a reputable source of information. It's at least as biased as anything ever written by any far right-winger, and possibly as biased as any of Michael Moore's "documentaries".

Another of my favorite Twain quotes - "There are 3 kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I still say basic economics suggest that substandard beef produced in mass levels should be able to be produced for far less cost than a single beef distributor butchering maybe 10 steers a year - tops, in a really good year for business. They buy cheaper food in mass quantities, so they should likely receive massive discounts. They have higher employment costs by far, but the amount of employment cost per head should be much lower than a single ranch hand raising 10 head of cattle. Every economist knows the highest cost for any business is paying wages and benefits to employees. I don't see how it would be possible to cost more for a factory farm to produce beef than it would for a small, family farm to produce that same amount of beef. I am guessing that anyone estimating "costs" that high is factoring in some sort of unmeasurable "environmental costs" or something, and manipulating the data at that.

The cost to feed out a single steer for a year (they are usually butchered at around a year old - meat's more tender and they have reached close to full size) can't be near $20 per pound. On a 500 lb steer that would mean it would cost $10,000 to feed it out for a year. That's a fairly small steer, btw. There's no way it's anywhere near that high. I'd like to see those statistics.

QWETTY · Post by **QWETTY** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:18 am

o jeez.... i love talking about this stuff.

In my youg minded thinking i realized that the USA is a cxapitalism with socialist tendancies. What is we were socialism (not dictatorship or communism, common misconception) with HIGH capitalist tendancies?

???hmmm?? that has like a 4% chance of working!!!

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:19 am

In my youg minded thinking i realized that the USA is a cxapitalism with socialist tendancies.

I would argue no. In socalism property and wealth are controled by the state. We can own property and wealth so I would have to disagree with you here.

Sharkman: Very interesting. Technology wont save us (also check the books Why Things Bite Back: The Revenge of Unintended Consequences, Endgame Volume 1, and this essay

Yeah, that was the problem the later ST writers faced. They didn't enjoy the 60's view of technology but rather they saw the 'unintended conquences' of technological leaps; which went against Gene Roddenbury's vision of the future.

It's a very interesting article. I like that they don't totally dismiss technology but rather show it in an honest light. The whole "Technology is part of the problem we face, not because technology is, in itself, "bad," but because the accumulated unintended consequences of those technologies".

I don't agree with everything in it (like the stuff about AIDS and the polio vaccine because that has been scientifically refuted) but overall it's very interesting.

heaven's chimney · Post by **heaven's chimney** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:38 pm

bassjones wrote:Lies and the lying liars... is not what I would call a reputable source of information. It's at least as biased as anything ever written by any far right-winger, and possibly as biased as any of Michael Moore's "documentaries".

That, sir, is a full-fledged ad hominem. The entire premise of the book rests on "truth." You can't debunk it unless you know what it says. I assure you, he has strong arguments. Get the audio book from the library, it is incessantly hilarious. I've been meaning to start a thread on it and its relation to "Fahrenhype 9-11" but just haven't gotten around to it.

As for its bias, yes it is biased towards Bill Clinton. He just can't shut up about the guy. That being said, regardless of its bias to suckle Bill Clinton, it has solid arguments.

Another of my favorite Twain quotes - "There are 3 kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I think i've heard that's a misquote and a few people are credited with it. But yeah, it's good. I can't wait to take some statistics classes in the next few years and beat up liars.

I still say basic economics suggest that substandard beef produced in mass levels should be able to be produced for far less cost than a single beef distributor butchering maybe 10 steers a year - tops, in a really good year for business.

That's the thing, meat production is NOT economical - well, in terms of economies of scale. But that's especially the case when meat producers have to morally deal with the huge quantity of feces that is the byproduct. (Morally in this case means not putting it into people's drinking water - a good rule of thumb with morality is not putting sh*t in people's water.)

I don't see how it would be possible to cost more for a factory farm to produce beef than it would for a small, family farm to produce that same amount of beef. I am guessing that anyone estimating "costs" that high is factoring in some sort of unmeasurable "environmental costs" or something, and manipulating the data at that.

I dont blame you for being skeptical. I dont have the time right now to get too down and dirty, but i did find:

1) Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calforie of protein from corn or wheat: 3 (David Pimentel)

2) Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein for beef: 54 (David Pimentel)

(both from Robbins' Food Revolution p. 266)

I also have some ridiculous water stats but I have to get a job today and perusing three books and the internet is second.

Basically in order to have a factory farm feedlot you have to have:
1) Massive MASSSIVE quantities of water
2) Massive amounts of food
2a) Massive amounts of land (to grow the food)
2b) A lot of pesticides

I'm not entirely sure where the subsidies go, but they're huge. And factory farms dont employ for sh*t - so as far as my logic goes, your argument that subsidies are given for employment really isn't practical. These subsidies given to giant agribusinesses are OBLITERATING family farms. Check out Fast Food Nation where he metions that ranchers had the highest suicide rate of any profession. In the movie, Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices, local business owners repeatedly say, disdainfully, that the towns do not provide subsidies for locals but will do it for Walmart.

How do local business owners "compete in the free market" with giant corporations who get the red carpet treatment from government?

There's no way it's anywhere near that high. I'd like to see those statistics.

I'll get 'em, baby, dont worry. I'm probably going to have to check John Robbins' Diet for a New America and Food Revolution, Fast Food Nation by Sissy Boy Schlosser, some Pimentel stats, and some Jeremy Rifkin stats (though I haven't read Rifkin yet so that will be harder). Feel free to check thems out too if you can.

Sharkman, i'm glad you enjoyed the article. I admit i haven't read it yet, but Jason (the author) posts on Ishcon and is pretty reliable for strong (and sometimes verbose) arguments. The love of technology isn't even bordering religious, it's absolutely completely religious. When I talk about Peak Oil with people, they talk about how Technology will save us - despite ALL evidence to the contrary. (The same with Capitalism and Pacifism)

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:01 pm

I think we've discussed these issues before, but OK:

Socialism assumes that humans are basically good at heart; that selfishness is educated into a person, and can be educated out of the psyche, and people can learn to act on behalf of the whole - sharing the community's/ world's resources unselfishly. When it doesn't happen, there is the coercion of government to make sure it gappens.

Capitalism assumes that humans are inherently selfish from birth, as babies are. People will always act in their self-interest. Ayn Rand takes it a step further, and says that Selfishness is a virtue, since a person acting in their self-interest to better their position do not need the charity or coerecion of government to gian what they need. Selfishness then, produces excellence and turns a human weakness into a strength.

The author of the book Freakonomics points out that Economics is not always about money; it is about incentive, of which money is but one of many incentives for people to act the way they do. I think Incentives are good way to discuss the merits and drawbacks of economic systems as a way to postulate a perfect economic system.

This is where I think Socialism fails - in the problem of incentive. Hard work and ingenuity are often not rewarded, but taxed to take that reward from the creator and give it to the 'parasites' -in Randian terms. That is a disincentive toward producing excellence. This taxing is charity caused by coercion from governemnt- and that is not charity at all. Charity given without accountability is not charity either; it is rewarding failure, which provides incentive for further failure. That is enabling.

Better is the concept of Community, where people recognize that operating in their own self-interest also means operating in the interests of their community as a whole. (This is where pure Capitalism fails) This has to come from a coercion WITHIN one's self - your values and morals. It can't come from the outward coercion of government. Community doesn't discount the value of private property, because people take care of what they own. People are then free to donate their property if they wish to help the community - not siezed to give to the poor.

Community really can only work on a small scale. I guess the only way it can work worldwide is if we saw the pictures of the factory workers in the 3rd world every night on TV, and even then, we'd switch the channel.

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:18 pm

Oh, as far as the teacher pay thing: As a skool teacher, I am a rare one that says I don't really feel I'm underpaid (or overpaid.) If I worked 12 months a year, my pay would be comparable with entry-level pay in the corporate world - and teacher bennies are some of the best in the country, (and are guaranteed, unlike the corporate world.) Most teachers don't get into education for the money, anyway.

The only beef I have is that problems in education are symptoms of other problems in society - not the cause, as many people believe. Plus, since everyone, including politicians, went to skool at some point, so they all think they know what the problems in education really are and they are certain of how they can be fixed. When I say I am a teacher, many people will expound on those views. (Remember people - in polite conversation, don't discuss sex, politics, religion OR education.

) Not just anyone can teach effectively. In a way, I think teachers are born, not created - you can do it or you can't.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:25 pm

The only beef I have is that problems in education are symptoms of other problems in society - not the cause, as many people believe.

Agreed - mostly. In many instances the problems in education contribute to the problems of society. In other words, the education system's biggest problems stem from other problems in society. At the same time, the failures of the education system contribute and enlarge those problems. Does that make any sense? My brain is tongue-tied right now....