Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atlas Shrugged
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 117 (185909)
02-16-2005 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
02-16-2005 1:49 AM


Creating wealth vs Redistributing wealth
crashfrog writes:
It's not, though. For instance, a thief takes your money without offering a service (unless you wanted your windows broken.) We have laws to discourage that; but what if the thieves are allowed to make the laws?
A thief is claiming money, namely yours, for nothing. All you get in return is as you say, a window breaking service. No value is created and you certainly don't get an equal value for your money.
If you take the same amount of money and buy a service or a product then you get value for value. The seller, unless he's taking a loss or selling at cost, makes a profit. The sellers profit represents a "creation" of money. He had X amount invested and has Y amount after the sale. As a buyer, you've made an exchange for something of value equal to the Y amount.
Of course, the profit doesn't magically appear. The profit is created by using up the time the seller has in the product, natural resources, or even just a simple idea. The seller is gaining wealth by trading these items. But as you say:
crashfrog writes:
I think capitalism is great; I think it's way better than any of the other systems devised so far. But it's fatal flaw is that it can't persist. Every competition has an end; a winner and a loser. We the people only win while the race is still being run. When someone hits the finish line, we all lose.
In the end, we all lose when something runs out to be sold.
crashfrog writes:
At some point, resources and influence converge among an elite few, giving them the opportunity to direct a change in our society if they wish it. Why would they choose capitalism? Why wouldn't they choose the system where they gain wealth for absolutely no exchange of goods or services whatsoever?
In Atlas Shrugged, there are individuals with influence and power to do just as you say. They gain wealth simply from changing laws and redirecting the money toward them and their friends. They are no better than the thief that breaks into your house. In the book, this causes a backlash from the folks actually doing the work to create and sustain this wealth. The "wheels eventually come off" of society and those in power are left with a mess that money just won't fix.
I guess the main question is can a few powerful, influential individuals control a majority of the wealth and create a society that won't collapse? How do they keep the rest of the society, the ones actually doing the work of maintaining the wealth, from revolting?
Thanx for the great response!
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 1:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 3:48 PM portmaster1000 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 117 (185922)
02-16-2005 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by portmaster1000
02-16-2005 3:22 PM


Re: Creating wealth vs Redistributing wealth
No value is created and you certainly don't get an equal value for your money.
Yes, I think that was my exact point. Capitalists aren't interested in providing value for your money; they're interested in your money. You getting a value is at best a side effect of that goal, and there is significant incentive to reduce or eliminate any value you might recieve in exchange for your money.
The ultimate goal of the people that drive capitalism is to eliminate capitalism; they'd rather they got your money for nothing. Why wouldn't they? The money they gain will protect them from the ultimate consequences.
I guess the main question is can a few powerful, influential individuals control a majority of the wealth and create a society that won't collapse? How do they keep the rest of the society, the ones actually doing the work of maintaining the wealth, from revolting?
Same as always - bread and circuses. Is it any surprise that the largest, most litigious industries in America are entertainment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by portmaster1000, posted 02-16-2005 3:22 PM portmaster1000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 1:22 PM crashfrog has replied

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 117 (186211)
02-17-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
02-16-2005 3:48 PM


Re: Creating wealth vs Redistributing wealth
Money for nothing... reminds me of a song
Doesn't value act as a balance in Capitalism? Buyers demand value for their money. Sellers demand value for their product or service. If sellers aren't providing any value why would buyers provide it? Money is just an easily traded form of value.
Can you go into more detail about why the ultimate goal of capitalists would be to eliminate capitalism? If a group of folks are getting money for nothing then money is being given to them. Nothing would mean no effort on their part. How long could that last? What happens when this select group of folks have all the money?
If money (value) is only following one way eventually one side is left with none. No jobs would exist. No stores or markets would exist. In the end, would the money have any value?
crashfrog writes:
Same as always - bread and circuses. Is it any surprise that the largest, most litigious industries in America are entertainment?
Bread and circuses cost something to produce. Someone has to raise the wheat, grind it, bake it, and distribute it. Circuses need preformers, grounds, upkeep, etc. That's hardly zero effort. Even bread and circuses represent value.
Does the American enterainment industry really represent "bread and circuses"? If a movie or video game doesn't provide value it doesn't sale well and the producers take a loss. I am missing something or isn't that text book Capitalism?
thanx
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 3:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2005 1:46 PM portmaster1000 has replied
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2005 3:51 PM portmaster1000 has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 117 (186228)
02-17-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by portmaster1000
02-17-2005 1:22 PM


Re: Creating wealth vs Redistributing wealth
quote:
How long could that last?
Well, it's been over 63 years since the US entered WWII, and the defense contractors have been at the feeding trough ever since.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 1:22 PM portmaster1000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 3:42 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 35 of 117 (186233)
02-17-2005 1:54 PM


General question
Does creating wealth have value without redistribution?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 3:55 PM jar has replied

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 117 (186275)
02-17-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
02-17-2005 1:46 PM


Re: Creating wealth vs Redistributing wealth
Chiroptera writes:
Well, it's been over 63 years since the US entered WWII, and the defense contractors have been at the feeding trough ever since.
These contractors are being given money? They don't return any value for it?
Curiously
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2005 1:46 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 04-21-2006 9:34 PM portmaster1000 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 117 (186277)
02-17-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by portmaster1000
02-17-2005 1:22 PM


Buyers demand value for their money.
Demand what you like. If sellers have all the power, your demands are fruitless.
If sellers aren't providing any value why would buyers provide it?
Because it becomes mandatory to do so.
If money (value) is only following one way eventually one side is left with none. No jobs would exist. No stores or markets would exist. In the end, would the money have any value?
There's always another market. Once the fatcats have stripmined us, they'll just move on to other marks. We'll all be ruined, money will have no value, we'll start a barter economy, and generations later, capitalism emerges, and the cycle begins again.
If a movie or video game doesn't provide value it doesn't sale well and the producers take a loss. I am missing something or isn't that text book Capitalism?
It is, but what happens if the record companies decide that instead of providing you with the value of the song, they want to give the song away and charge you for the "value" of having it on your computer, for as long as its there? Or if Microsoft, instead of charging you for the value of Windows once, decides to charge you a subscription for the value of having your computer keep working?
It's like the Mafia protection scam. Capitalism becomes kleptocracy when you stop paying to get things, and start paying to keep the things you have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 1:22 PM portmaster1000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 4:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 117 (186280)
02-17-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jar
02-17-2005 1:54 PM


Re: General question
Allow me a rambling example...
If I run a drink stand and make profits from the drinks I sell I am automatically distributing any wealth and value I create.
I may have to pay rent for drink stand. Landlord gets part of my sales.
I have to buy cups. Cup supplier gets part of my sales.
I have to buy drink mix. Kraft gets part of my sales.
etc.
etc.
What do I do with my profits? If I buy a new bike. Trek gets a nice sale they wouldn't have gotten save for my drink stand creating value.
Creation of wealth adds to the economy as a whole. Upon creation it's like Prego (in there).
If I was a baron of old collecting arbitrary taxes from serfs then that is redistribution without any creation of value. Simply the serfs have less and I have more.
thanx
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 02-17-2005 1:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 02-17-2005 4:09 PM portmaster1000 has replied
 Message 41 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2005 4:11 PM portmaster1000 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 117 (186288)
02-17-2005 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by portmaster1000
02-17-2005 3:55 PM


Re: General question
If I was a baron of old collecting arbitrary taxes from serfs then that is redistribution without any creation of value. Simply the serfs have less and I have more.
They received nothing?
If I run a drink stand and make profits from the drinks I sell I am automatically distributing any wealth and value I create.
I may have to pay rent for drink stand. Landlord gets part of my sales.
I have to buy cups. Cup supplier gets part of my sales.
I have to buy drink mix. Kraft gets part of my sales.
etc.
etc.
What do I do with my profits? If I buy a new bike. Trek gets a nice sale they wouldn't have gotten save for my drink stand creating value.
How is that different from any other system?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 3:55 PM portmaster1000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 7:46 PM jar has not replied

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 117 (186289)
02-17-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
02-17-2005 3:51 PM


Quick response for now while I'm still online.
(this is thread is turning into a lot of fun)
crashfrog writes:
Because it becomes mandatory to do so.
The system has ceased to be Capitalism when a purchase becomes mandatory.
crashfrog writes:
It's like the Mafia protection scam. Capitalism becomes kleptocracy when you stop paying to get things, and start paying to keep the things you have.
Down with the kleptocractic cable companies, phone companies, internet providers, and water, sewer, and electric providers... Why do we keep paying them since we already have those things!
More Later Crash
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2005 3:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2005 4:14 PM portmaster1000 has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 117 (186291)
02-17-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by portmaster1000
02-17-2005 3:55 PM


Re: General question
quote:
If I was a baron of old collecting arbitrary taxes from serfs then that is redistribution without any creation of value.
Actually, the baron was responsible for the organization and smooth running of the whole operation, and so his huge income was quite justified. At least, by the same argument used by contemporary CEO's of contemporary corporations.
And, unlike workers in a contemporary business, the serfs were only obligated the pay a certain fixed proportion of their production to the baron (and the church) -- the rest was theirs to dispose of as they saw fit. That isn't true of modern workers, who must yield the entire amount of their production to the employer, for which they receive a salary that is determined largely by the employer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 3:55 PM portmaster1000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 8:21 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 117 (186293)
02-17-2005 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by portmaster1000
02-17-2005 4:10 PM


The system has ceased to be Capitalism when a purchase becomes mandatory.
Yes. That's what I've been telling you all this time. That eventually, capitalism ceases to be capitalism. That's the problem with it.
Down with the kleptocractic cable companies, phone companies, internet providers, and water, sewer, and electric providers..
At least with those guys, you get a reasonable expectation that maintence will be performed; that the level of service will be maintained. My examples weren't made up; Microsoft is itching to run OS's on subscription basis. Do you think that your MS subscription will include coming out to fix your computer when it doesn't work? I doubt it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 4:10 PM portmaster1000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Wounded King, posted 02-17-2005 4:20 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 45 by portmaster1000, posted 02-17-2005 8:06 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 43 of 117 (186294)
02-17-2005 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
02-17-2005 4:14 PM


But you will be able to call a tech support line at premium rates.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2005 4:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 117 (186379)
02-17-2005 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
02-17-2005 4:09 PM


Re: General question
jar writes:
They received nothing?
Nope, this was total "arbitrary". Just on my whim.
jar writes:
How is that different from any other system?
Capitalism certainly isn't the only system capable of increasing it's own wealth. The example was a rambling way to say if wealth is created in the system it's automatically in the pipe for distribution.
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 02-17-2005 4:09 PM jar has not replied

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 117 (186385)
02-17-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
02-17-2005 4:14 PM


crashfrog writes:
Yes. That's what I've been telling you all this time. That eventually, capitalism ceases to be capitalism. That's the problem with it.
Call me dense (no, really go ahead ) but I didn't realize that was your main point.
Is this cessation a given flaw in Capitalism or can it be avoided? Or could you say that like all social systems Capitalism wanes and waxes?
Do more successful capitalist societies degrade faster or is the rate of change into another type of system steady?
crashfrog writes:
Do you think that your MS subscription will include coming out to fix your computer when it doesn't work? I doubt it.
Why not? When the IBM iSeries servers have problems where I work, IBM is right on it. Our company doesn't own the OS we do just as you describe, we renew it yearly. Service is top notch. The machines themselves alert of you impending problems and will even call out to IBM if the situation is severe enough.
Software subscription isn't new. Perhaps just new in the private sector.
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2005 4:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2005 9:47 PM portmaster1000 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024