Not sure what you're asking, but if you're asking if "greed" is the reason, then yes, that was my point.
Dunno. But I do know that there are people who could have been a great doctor, architectural engineer or nuclear scientist, but didn't because they were born in 'x' situation instead of 'y'. Could even extend that to people with athletic ability.
I'm asking if you understand the difference between a business in a true free market (meaning sans state intervention, inflation, protectionism, sanctions, taxation, etc.) and a business in a mixed/socialist economy like America's.
In the USSR alot of people, who were very capable in other fields, got funneled into physics/ hard science because it's harder to inject doctrine at gunpoint into hard science. Do you think many people have the opportunity to become a doctor in North Korea, where they have an invisible caste system based on who your grandparents supported during the Korean war ? Or what about in Cuba where doormen make more than doctors ?
I don't know if a true free market exists in today's societies.
I'm not a proponent of dictatorships. I'd also argue there is probably no true communism country in practice today. Even China has capitalism mixed in.
The Scandinavian countries approach it. Sweden is a shining example. They adopted socialistic practices, which severely damaged their economy, then they switched back to free market principles and now they're one of the top economies in the world.
The way Sweden pays for their social programs is by taxing the poor.
To me, it's obvious that the more control a state has in a market, the worse a market does. Therefore, no state would completely allow the market to serve the needs of the customer. The input of the sovereign consumers choices create a price index of demand, which tells manufacturers what goods to produce. This is not only necessary, but also the only way to morally and effectively allocate resources, leading to lower levels of pollution. Stake holder capitalism is bullshit because the consumer is supposed to be supreme. Without the input of the consumer the business will fail, thus why they need state titty.
Any economy that isn't a free market is by definition socialist, if controlled top down by workers, or communist if controlled by state.
China had to incorporate free market principles because the world was leaving them behind, as it has been since the beginning of their "century of humiliation". They only appear economically successful because they use violence to jail billionaires and steal their wealth, they infiltrate our colleges to steal research and tech.
You can only kill your Elon musks and not innovate for yourself for so long before you collapse under your own weight.
A single sanction on cotton had enormous impact on them.
Plus we know they lie about their reporting because communist countries work on a shoot the messenger style.
Lastly, what china has is called state capitalism, which is oxymoronic, but also definitionally what is meant by fascism, aka a nationalized economy with free market pockets, and don't forget that it would be an ethnostate as well, yay 92 percent Han Chinese.
It's true, the more money the government controls, the less a society can prosper. I think it was benjamin franklin who said "those who give up their liberty for security deserve neither"
__________________ Sig by Nuke Nixon Last Edited by Blakemore on Jan 1st, 2000, at 00:00 AM
I think your explanation of the labour theory of value is somewhat lacking. While nowadays mostly associated with Marxist thinkers, traditionally the labour theory of value has been a capitalist idea as well. The question is basically where does surplus value come from in a market interaction, and believers in the labour theory of value believe that the transforming element is labour, while capital is a static factor. So your example with a butter knife or chainsaw is pretty good, a butter knife or chainsaw by themselves can not create value, only the work of a person creates the value if they use the butter knife or the chainsaw, the tools just have different magnifications of their labour ability. The theory by itself doesn't really say anything about how we should organize the economy though.
It can be one building block the argument of the extraction of surplus value of labor and the equation of that as exploitation of the worker, though, it's not a bad argument really.
It's not based on labor whatsoever, outside of cost calculation, it has to do with the subjective valuation made by each and every individual consumer.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 24th, 2021 10:24 PM
= me
