Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Let's face it: the ebook market is FUBAR, thanks to pure greed
Paul Keith:
@Renegade
Well to me your initial post sounded more like it was talking about the impracticality of it all and yet the despair over the mass adoption of that impractical model that forces it to be necessary.
If economics or currency alone is what stands for capitalism then technically it's not capitalism that's the dictator but money and well... money makes the world go round isn't really a new idea and doesn't really go deep enough to dictate the market at all.
Plus I don't know if it's being fair to say Compared to so and so country something is socialist and yet at the same time assume that capitalism is a blanket. Either it's all general blanket statements or then it's not really fair to say socialism gets the right to be compared to other systems while capitalism can't have the issue of being "more capitalistic" or "less capitalistic".
I guess a simpler way of stating it is that there's no one capitalist economic model not even in the practical sense where as socialism is much easier in that there's a mindset of good will that runs much similar to Marxism or Communism except it accepts or admits to the economic failure of those two latter concepts at least based on how the applied systems deteriorated and that mindset alone even with the partnership of an economic model can still be narrowed down to one mindset not much different from virtues and vices. Capitalism on the other hand, it's linked to greed often times only because it's linked primarily to the exchange of currency with the ideal preference of getting more as it is a system based on competition. However once you add things like socialism into it for example or even the mere proliferation of corporations then there's always that different gap between how people view greed and how they spend their money. It all seems to really depend whether the acceptance is that it is a natural deterioration due to greed or that capitalism has many branches and often the wrong economic model forces it to take a wrong turn. Nonetheless as a blanket idea, the main thing against capitalism being a dictatorship is that money is widely used and money is most associated with capitalism. Of course I'm not really an expert and I'm not sure if by expanding on my opinion, I'm making it clearer or just making it more confusing but this is why I feel socialism is more widespread.
Renegade:
Well to me your initial post sounded more like it was talking about the impracticality of it all and yet the despair over the mass adoption of that impractical model that forces it to be necessary.
-Paul Keith (February 04, 2011, 09:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
I meant practicality in a personal sense in that we live in a predominately capitalistic society and must deal with it. (Same applies to corporations.) As for despair, yes. In some ways it is self-perpetuating as it entrenches vested interests which will always resist any perceived attack on their interests. e.g. It would be almost insane to believe that banks could be nationalized.
If economics or currency alone is what stands for capitalism then technically it's not capitalism that's the dictator but money and well... money makes the world go round isn't really a new idea and doesn't really go deep enough to dictate the market at all.
-Paul Keith (February 04, 2011, 09:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
If money is the dictator, then capitalism, being strongly linked with it, is guilty by association.
Plus I don't know if it's being fair to say Compared to so and so country something is socialist and yet at the same time assume that capitalism is a blanket. Either it's all general blanket statements or then it's not really fair to say socialism gets the right to be compared to other systems while capitalism can't have the issue of being "more capitalistic" or "less capitalistic".
-Paul Keith (February 04, 2011, 09:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
I believe that it's a matter of the "prevailing system" being capitalism, with various flavors of others thrown in as spice, e.g. Canada has a capitalist market economy, yet still has some socialist influences in there. It's not an all or nothing deal -- there are gray areas. e.g. By comparison, the US is more capitalistic than Canada.
The question is only one of which system is dominant, as in capitalism, socialism or some other system being dominant. (Having the most influence.)
I guess a simpler way of stating it is that there's no one capitalist economic model not even in the practical sense where as socialism is much easier in that there's a mindset of good will that runs much similar to Marxism or Communism except it accepts or admits to the economic failure of those two latter concepts at least based on how the applied systems deteriorated and that mindset alone even with the partnership of an economic model can still be narrowed down to one mindset not much different from virtues and vices. Capitalism on the other hand, it's linked to greed often times only because it's linked primarily to the exchange of currency with the ideal preference of getting more as it is a system based on competition. However once you add things like socialism into it for example or even the mere proliferation of corporations then there's always that different gap between how people view greed and how they spend their money. It all seems to really depend whether the acceptance is that it is a natural deterioration due to greed or that capitalism has many branches and often the wrong economic model forces it to take a wrong turn. Nonetheless as a blanket idea, the main thing against capitalism being a dictatorship is that money is widely used and money is most associated with capitalism. Of course I'm not really an expert and I'm not sure if by expanding on my opinion, I'm making it clearer or just making it more confusing but this is why I feel socialism is more widespread.
-Paul Keith (February 04, 2011, 09:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
My reason for stating that capitalism is the new dictator is because it is so entrenched, so prevalent, so all-encompassing that any attempt to extricate any country/society/state/whatever is certainly doomed to failure (back to vested interests -- capitalism fosters them in a financial and visceral way, and they are the major resistance against any change). Further, it has fostered forces in the market/society/life that are so strong that anything different is nothing more than a twig being swept along a raging river.
Marxism/communism were doomed to failure because people simply cannot act altruistically enough to give them a chance. (If everyone were like Mother Theresa, it wouldn't be an issue, but we aren't.) They need certain conditions to be met inside of people, and those weren't there, and aren't there. We all look out for #1, and capitalism works with that very well, and rewards that. I believe that's only a statement of the obvious, the way things are.
When I say "dictator", I mean that in the pejorative sense, the common sense of the word. However, I also believe that it could be otherwise -- we could have that dictator decide to become "the Philosopher Kingw". That of course is also subject to corruptionw, as are all things. But it is a goal.
It's ok to inadvertently take a wrong turn. It is not Ok to purposefully take a wrong turn. At the moment, it seems like greed is leading capitalism down a path of intentional wrong turns. e.g. It is NOT ok to pull young children out of school and pay them $0.50 a day to work in factories, even if the local laws permit it. (The argument logic is in many aspects the same as the argument logic against clitoridectomyw.)
It's one thing to be greedy and hurt people or do damage. It's another thing to be greedy and still manage to help people. Capitalism has both going on in it. I'd like to see the former stop.
Paul Keith:
I meant practicality in a personal sense in that we live in a predominately capitalistic society and must deal with it
--- End quote ---
See the thing is this is up for debate. I'm not one of the experts but if you check out the model, there's a lot of things that go both ways.
Example: Debt. Many would consider something like that un-capitalistic. However many also consider it a necessity to compete with a global economy full of needs and demands.
If money is the dictator, then capitalism, being strongly linked with it, is guilty by association.
--- End quote ---
Yes, that is what I was trying to imply. It could be guilty by association but guilty by association is not what a dictator makes. The same could be said for socialism. It's just that socialism is less about associating as it is about a prevailing mindset therefore it seems more akin to a dictator to me than capitalism but only if we are looking at which is more prevalent in our global culture.
I believe that it's a matter of the "prevailing system" being capitalism, with various flavors of others thrown in as spice, e.g. Canada has a capitalist market economy, yet still has some socialist influences in there. It's not an all or nothing deal -- there are gray areas. e.g. By comparison, the US is more capitalistic than Canada.
The question is only one of which system is dominant, as in capitalism, socialism or some other system being dominant. (Having the most influence.)
--- End quote ---
Exactly. Which is why it seems unfair how socialism can be more or less socialistic vis-a-vis another country but capitalism must somehow be the prevailing system "with various flavors thrown in".
Either both have various flavors thrown in or both have to be considered as one and there shouldn't be a comparison of what is and isn't socialism in a country.
My reason for stating that capitalism is the new dictator is because it is so entrenched, so prevalent, so all-encompassing that any attempt to extricate any country/society/state/whatever is certainly doomed to failure (back to vested interests -- capitalism fosters them in a financial and visceral way, and they are the major resistance against any change). Further, it has fostered forces in the market/society/life that are so strong that anything different is nothing more than a twig being swept along a raging river.
--- End quote ---
The thing though is, depending on which branch of people you inquire, capitalism may not be entrenched. It may not even be present.
This sound preposterous until you see how this sentence could be applied to both socialism and communism too:
Socialism fosters them in a financial and visceral way, and they are the major resistance against any change. (issues like opting out of healthcare, increased spending despite being in debt to help the needy, produce sharing at the cost of quality or necessity)
Communism fosters them in a financial and visceral way, and they are the major resistance against any change. (real historical flaw of Communism)
As you said:
Marxism/communism were doomed to failure because people simply cannot act altruistically enough to give them a chance. (If everyone were like Mother Theresa, it wouldn't be an issue, but we aren't.) They need certain conditions to be met inside of people, and those weren't there, and aren't there. We all look out for #1, and capitalism works with that very well, and rewards that. I believe that's only a statement of the obvious, the way things are.
--- End quote ---
Also depending on which flavor of capitalism, it doesn't always reward someone being #1.
It's ok to inadvertently take a wrong turn. It is not Ok to purposefully take a wrong turn. At the moment, it seems like greed is leading capitalism down a path of intentional wrong turns. e.g. It is NOT ok to pull young children out of school and pay them $0.50 a day to work in factories, even if the local laws permit it. (The argument logic is in many aspects the same as the argument logic against clitoridectomyw.)
--- End quote ---
Except that capitalism is a concept and not an entity. Just as schools, factories, food to eat, ease of start-up are all dependents.
Let's take your example, is it ok for young children to be forced to go to work anyway despite not being pulled because they have a poorer economy under socialism or an inferior equalized school quality under communism?
This doesn't mean pulling young children to work in factories is the right moral path to take either but we don't exist in a vacuum. Something like everyone having a VCR under communism may sound good but everyone getting free internet might be better but everyone paying and supporting web developers thus increasing the number of people interested in that job branch may also seem even better especially if it could lead to cheaper sustainable products... but then again, they could be worse.
It's one thing to be greedy and hurt people or do damage. It's another thing to be greedy and still manage to help people. Capitalism has both going on in it. I'd like to see the former stop.
--- End quote ---
Again, the same thing can be said for communism and socialism if we are taking them up as blanket concepts.
johnk:
I've got nothing against "capitalism" or growing wealth, but at some point, capitalism starts running amok in ways that are not beneficial. -Renegade (February 04, 2011, 07:54 PM)
--- End quote ---
Going back to the core of your argument, Renegade, I don't think many would disagree with this statement. On the other hand, there seems to be little appetite among voters (particularly American voters) for state intervention in the economic process. And it's still America's view on this issue that matters most. America is still (just) the economic engine of the world.
Sometimes it's difficult to have these conversations across national boundaries because our own histories and teachings mean we have very different working definitions of capitalism or socialism, right-wing or left-wing.
For example, viewed from the comfort of my armchair here in the UK, American politics seems a very frightening beast. You have a right-wing party (the Democrats), an extreme right-wing party (Republicans) and another large political organisation (the Tea Party), for people for whom even the Republicans don't seem right-wing enough. Terrifying.
This is using the modern, narrow definition of right-wing to mean the extent to which you accept state intervention in everyday life (through taxation, or regulation).
The most right-wing party in the UK (the Conservatives) has as its leader a man who is a great champion of our national health care system (the state-funded NHS, free to everyone at the point of delivery), the same NHS that was vilified in TV ads by American Republican politicians during the "Obamacare" debate. Republican ads described the "nightmare" of being treated in the UK's "socialist" medical system. In the hands of American right-wing politicians, the word socialist has no definition. It simply means "a bad thing". To many people in the UK (including the Conservative Prime Minister) the NHS is one of the greatest achievements in Britain's history.
But of course the NHS is not immune from the capitalist model, indeed it interacts with it every day. Drug companies sell drugs at a price, and the state either pays up, or patients don't get the drugs (see Nudone's earlier post).
This has been concentrating my mind over the last year. I was diagnosed with cancer at a time when I had no employment and little savings. Without the NHS, I would have been in big(ger) trouble.
Ultimately, the length of time I will survive depends on whether I get access to new and expensive drugs. By a curious coincidence, shortly before I was diagnosed, a British television programme showed the curious process through which drugs are approved for use -- using as an example the very drug I am likely to need soon.
It's called Revlimid. The NHS will pay a maximum of £30,000 per patient (about $48,000) "per year of good life" for a single drug. The drug company wanted £45,000 a year per patient for Revlimid. The NHS refused use of the drug. So the drug company came back a few months later and said "okay, £42,000". The NHS has some discretion in paying more for what are seen as "end-of-life" drugs. They actually showed the committee's voting session on TV. The eighteen-member vote on whether they should pay £42,000 per year per patient for Revlimid tied at 9-9. The chairman's casting vote was yes. So I should get the drug. Which means that other patients with other conditions will be denied drugs, because the budget is always finite.
Allegedly, Revlimid was a "relatively inexpensive" drug to develop. It is an extremely profitable drug for the company. I try to be realistic about these things, but it is difficult not to conclude that drug companies hold health services to ransom.
Renegade:
I meant practicality in a personal sense in that we live in a predominately capitalistic society and must deal with it
--- End quote ---
See the thing is this is up for debate. I'm not one of the experts but if you check out the model, there's a lot of things that go both ways.
Example: Debt. Many would consider something like that un-capitalistic. However many also consider it a necessity to compete with a global economy full of needs and demands.
-Paul Keith (February 05, 2011, 07:29 AM)
--- End quote ---
With debt you're confusing governing economic systems with banking systems. It's possible to have debt/credit in capitalist, socialist, communist, fascist systems.
If money is the dictator, then capitalism, being strongly linked with it, is guilty by association.
--- End quote ---
Yes, that is what I was trying to imply. It could be guilty by association but guilty by association is not what a dictator makes. The same could be said for socialism. It's just that socialism is less about associating as it is about a prevailing mindset therefore it seems more akin to a dictator to me than capitalism but only if we are looking at which is more prevalent in our global culture.
-Paul Keith (February 05, 2011, 07:29 AM)
--- End quote ---
But capitalism is far more prevalent. There are no socialist or communist states (that matter). They are all captialist. Those that profess to be socialist/communist are in name only. Go to a "communist" state like China or Vietnam. It's a joke. They are capitalist all the way.
I'm only talking in real terms about what is the case.
I believe that it's a matter of the "prevailing system" being capitalism, with various flavors of others thrown in as spice, e.g. Canada has a capitalist market economy, yet still has some socialist influences in there. It's not an all or nothing deal -- there are gray areas. e.g. By comparison, the US is more capitalistic than Canada.
The question is only one of which system is dominant, as in capitalism, socialism or some other system being dominant. (Having the most influence.)
--- End quote ---
Exactly. Which is why it seems unfair how socialism can be more or less socialistic vis-a-vis another country but capitalism must somehow be the prevailing system "with various flavors thrown in".
Either both have various flavors thrown in or both have to be considered as one and there shouldn't be a comparison of what is and isn't socialism in a country.
-Paul Keith (February 05, 2011, 07:29 AM)
--- End quote ---
Capitalism just happens to be the prevailing system world-wide. It's not unfair. It's simply fact. Socialism is only a flavoring right now.
My reason for stating that capitalism is the new dictator is because it is so entrenched, so prevalent, so all-encompassing that any attempt to extricate any country/society/state/whatever is certainly doomed to failure (back to vested interests -- capitalism fosters them in a financial and visceral way, and they are the major resistance against any change). Further, it has fostered forces in the market/society/life that are so strong that anything different is nothing more than a twig being swept along a raging river.
--- End quote ---
The thing though is, depending on which branch of people you inquire, capitalism may not be entrenched. It may not even be present.
-Paul Keith (February 05, 2011, 07:29 AM)
--- End quote ---
But it is the dominant system everywhere. (Everywhere that matters anyways.)
This sound preposterous until you see how this sentence could be applied to both socialism and communism too:
Socialism fosters them in a financial and visceral way, and they are the major resistance against any change. (issues like opting out of healthcare, increased spending despite being in debt to help the needy, produce sharing at the cost of quality or necessity)
-Paul Keith (February 05, 2011, 07:29 AM)
--- End quote ---
Not sure what to say about that.
Communism fosters them in a financial and visceral way, and they are the major resistance against any change. (real historical flaw of Communism)
As you said:
Marxism/communism were doomed to failure because people simply cannot act altruistically enough to give them a chance. (If everyone were like Mother Theresa, it wouldn't be an issue, but we aren't.) They need certain conditions to be met inside of people, and those weren't there, and aren't there. We all look out for #1, and capitalism works with that very well, and rewards that. I believe that's only a statement of the obvious, the way things are.
--- End quote ---
Also depending on which flavor of capitalism, it doesn't always reward someone being #1.
It's ok to inadvertently take a wrong turn. It is not Ok to purposefully take a wrong turn. At the moment, it seems like greed is leading capitalism down a path of intentional wrong turns. e.g. It is NOT ok to pull young children out of school and pay them $0.50 a day to work in factories, even if the local laws permit it. (The argument logic is in many aspects the same as the argument logic against clitoridectomyw.)
--- End quote ---
Except that capitalism is a concept and not an entity. Just as schools, factories, food to eat, ease of start-up are all dependents.
-Paul Keith (February 05, 2011, 07:29 AM)
--- End quote ---
I don't know what you mean by "dependents".
Let's take your example, is it ok for young children to be forced to go to work anyway despite not being pulled because they have a poorer economy under socialism or an inferior equalized school quality under communism?
-Paul Keith (February 05, 2011, 07:29 AM)
--- End quote ---
But there are no socialist or communist forces pulling kids out of school. Those forces are all capitalist or religious.
This doesn't mean pulling young children to work in factories is the right moral path to take either but we don't exist in a vacuum. Something like everyone having a VCR under communism may sound good but everyone getting free internet might be better but everyone paying and supporting web developers thus increasing the number of people interested in that job branch may also seem even better especially if it could lead to cheaper sustainable products... but then again, they could be worse.
-Paul Keith (February 05, 2011, 07:29 AM)
--- End quote ---
I don't see where that counterfactual has any basis in the world we live in. Can you provide an example?
It's one thing to be greedy and hurt people or do damage. It's another thing to be greedy and still manage to help people. Capitalism has both going on in it. I'd like to see the former stop.
--- End quote ---
Again, the same thing can be said for communism and socialism if we are taking them up as blanket concepts.
-Paul Keith (February 05, 2011, 07:29 AM)
--- End quote ---
There are no real example of socialism or communism, and that's the problem.
To be clear -- I like working in a capitalist system. I simply don't like the abuse of it.
@johnk -- it's way late here, and I need to get to sleep -- I do want to respond later though. :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version