A straw man wearing a suit to lend himself respectability.

I think a greater evil, TGM, would be a system that discourages such a drive towards dominance.

The world has winners and losers, and for the losers of the football game to be given the same spoils as the triumphant winners is a concept that seems, when taken to a sociological end, utterly repugnant.

Mozart deserves more recognition, monetarily and intellectually, than the members of his orchestra, and they more than those who clean and polsih their instruments, and they more than the drunkard who lies in the gutter outside of the theatre before Figaro opens.

The goal of humanity is to cease to be Human, All Too Human (and now you know where THIS is going with that reference) and to strive towards a higehr standard and mode of being, to strive towards perfection attained and sustained progression and excellence.

Not everyone is excellent.
Not everyone is a Mozart.
Not everyone is equal.

As human beings, we are, painfully, all equal.

As BEINGS, though, beyond humanity, we are NOT all equal.

Some are Mozarts.
Some are Shakespeares.
Some are Beethovens and Puccinis and Dantes and Homers.

Some are Kants, some are Mills, some are Nietzsches, some are Rands.

And, yes, there are those who, even before their life has ended, have come to their end, they do not matter as beings, they have lost their relevancy in the cold reality that, in fact, they are not equal to the task.

We all begin equal.
We do not all finish equal.

And so I am utterly abhored at the notion that we should be treated as equals in an economic manner, a manner intimately related to the success and potential for continued excellence amongst the successful.

Capitalism is not perfect.

But if it must be called evil, then it is the lesser of two evils, to be sure, TGM--for the pandering to the licentious denizens and destruction of the motivation and gains for the successful and elite...

THAT would be the greater in justice, the greater evil--the Death of the Supermen.

And @largeham:

At least TGM tried to put together a coherent and impassioned argument, and while I disagree, I can respect the effort.

There is no effort in your reply, and little thought as well, as well as nothing to support your argument...as you ahve none, and come only to throw stones at the arguments of others.

Develop a position or cease attacking others, throwing stones from the balcony is a sign of cowardice--come down to the arena floor or else leave the Coliseum.

Fine. What he wrote was an over the top, twisting of marxist ideology. What he talks about is not capitalism, or if it is, I don't know anyone who would define it as such. Capitalism is where those who own capital (the economic resource, includes money) pay others to work with/on, rent or somehow use that capital for a wage. It is exploitation, because the, uh, capitalist tries to increase productivity while trying to lower wages. Also, workers have no say in how the business is run. The owner will probably have investments elsewhere, while the common worker won't. It is easier for those higher up the chain to find other jobs, or get high pay outs/pensions (Tony Hayward get one million dollars a year in pension, and another job, albeit in Siberia (but it is a largely untapped area)). Many CEOs/chairpeople/directors worked in other large firms, and are generally related to older CEOs, etc. Yes, one could say that a CEO's job is mainly finance, but they should have some knowledge of their industry.

Well, I guess its up to you to make a compelling argument for socialism

obiwan: briefly, your argument is based on the notion that our capacity for success and failure is innate. If you cared about science, you would know that this is clearly ridiculous. All the evidence shows that the way people are socialized has a massive effect on their capacity to achieve. Yes, people are limited to some extend by their "nature," but it's pretty simple, if you design a society that encourages excellence in everyone, to raise the bar of achievement a great deal.

It's all well and good for you to compare Mozart to the people who clean his instruments. But you're forgetting the thousands of potential Mozarts who have been killed by malaria or polio or forced to labor as peasants so that the mediocre people of the First World could enjoy unimaginable wealth that we received for no other reason than being born in the right place at the right time.

Let me clarify.

No one denies there inequalities built into pretty much any system. However, every attempt to implement socialism has foundered. Usually the socialists scream that evil (external) capitalists are at fault, but the reality is socialism as an economic model sucks donkey dicks.

You think capitalism sucks? Fair enough. Tell me how to set up a socialist system that doesn't suck *more*. And before you try, I'd suggest a little comparative research, since I'm willing to bet the first twenty things you can think of have *already* been suggested and been shot down, either through practical experience or by the big brains

@ obiwan:

"We all begin equal.
We do not all finish equal."

/fail. This is clearly not true. Some people are born into rich families, some to poor families. Some people are born physically fit, some people are born with disabilities. We do not begin equal.

Please defend your position in light of my observation or, if you believe I am wrong, please prove that we are all born equal.


@Ghostmaker:

The work of an individual carpenter is NOT capitalism, and you know it. He is a tradesman, not a capitalist - indeed his starting capital is very limited, just his training in carpentry, and a few tools, perhaps.

When he has used his earnings from carpentry to start employing other carpenters, and when he is using his position as the chairman of the business to screw his employees out of a fair reward for their labour, THEN it is capitalism, my friend.

Also, to the redistibutionists:

Current world average GDP divided by population comes out to a very small number. How much of your excess income over that number are you giving to charities for the less fortunate?

What arbiter of fairness are we using in all of this? Fair reward, not to pick on Jamiet, seems very subjective...

@jamietUk99, but those trades people will make more money working for another more entrepreneurial tradesperson in a free-market than they will working for the state with a command economy.

Plus if they don't like the deal they are getting with one employer they can find someone else to work for. But if the state was the sole employer, it would limit options for finding alternate employment.

"The work of an individual carpenter is NOT capitalism, and you know it. He is a tradesman, not a capitalist - indeed his starting capital is very limited, just his training in carpentry, and a few tools, perhaps.

When he has used his earnings from carpentry to start employing other carpenters, and when he is using his position as the chairman of the business to screw his employees out of a fair reward for their labour, THEN it is capitalism, my friend."

It perfectly well is capitalism. Just as any employment of anyone in any capacity is capitalism. He was, for a short time, the employee of the banker, but is clearly screwing the banker for every penny he can, as any employee would and does. He is also exploiting the fact that the banker needs him and has the money to pay him.

Capitalism is the private ownership of capital, and in this example the workmen own their tools, and their intellectual capital, and the banker owns his (rather derelict, it might be said) office. It is also free-market, because each of the relationships is voluntary. My short essay may not have explored more complex aspects of capitalism in detail, but the differences are only cosmetic.

I'm also surprised that regular posters managed to miss the fact that I was parodying the arguments made by those who defame capitalism by pointing out how the banker is exploited by the carpenter, the electrician, the plumber, the glazier, the chef in just the same way as it is often claimed that the banker exploits them.

In fairness, I think Jamiet twigged it

Plus if that tradesperson wants to go into business themselves they can. But hey not everyone wants to run their own business, and that us a matter of choice. And we haven't even touched on the topic of choice for the consumer.

TGM, I figured that out - it wasn't exactly subtle. My responses were to those who continue to parrot the socialist party line

obiwan at least seems to have been oblivious. (It wasn't intended to be subtle)

And remember that tradesperson is also a consumer. He cares not just about how much he us paid, but also for the price that he will pay for goods and services, abd the choice available.
How can your command economy compete?

TGM you had me fooled. I really thought you had become a socialist. I figured that after all those debates with jamiet you had finally converted to the cause.

My intention hadn't been to fool people, but to try to find out why the exploitation of an employer by an employee is not an issue, but the exploitation of an employee by an employer is.

Yes I saw the point you were making.

@TGM:
Because, the employer always has more power over the employee.

I am glad that you are starting to see that pure capitalism is evil.

"Because, the employer always has more power over the employee."

Errr... how so?

"I am glad that you are starting to see that pure capitalism is evil."

re-read the thread....

@TGM:
I didn't have to read the thread, it was all in the title. It is good to see you have grown so much :P

Any one employee is weaker than the employer. They can be replaced, demoted, removed. Now, all of the employees together can be as strong as the employer, but that is different. There are very few cases where this is not true, and those would have to do with unique employees(which are very rare). Sports starts, actors, geniuses. They have more power, though often still not equal to the employer.

@ Stratagos: "Current world average GDP divided by population comes out to a very small number. How much of your excess income over that number are you giving to charities for the less fortunate?"

The existence of charities largely demonstrates the failures of the state to operate the economy properly. I do not give to any domestic charities for this reason, as if the charities at home all shut up shop, it would expose the needs that government is failing to meet, and would force government to act. However, I recognise that this approach would not be as effective in terms of charities which operate in the third world, and therefore I donate to a number of such charities, principally Water Aid.

I currently donate just under 5% of my income to charity.


@Spyman: "but those trades people will make more money working for another more entrepreneurial tradesperson in a free-market than they will working for the state with a command economy."

Ah, but even if that were true, what value do you attach to the risk of unemployment? In a command economy, the carpenter would not be at risk of unemployment, so this must also be taken into consideration.


@Ghostmaker: "any employment of anyone in any capacity is capitalism"

This statement is factually wrong, for two reasons:

Firstly, this is not 'employment'. When the banker calls the carpenter in to repair his chair, the carpenter does not become his employee in any real sense. The carpenter does not sign a contract of employment with the banker, the banker does not become liable to pay national insurance contributions for the carpenter, etc. He is simply purchasing a one-off service from him.

Secondly, in a socialist system, you could still speak of the state 'employing' workers, but this would, by definition, NOT be capitalism.


@Ghostmaker: "My intention hadn't been to fool people, but to try to find out why the exploitation of an employer by an employee is not an issue, but the exploitation of an employee by an employer is."

Your example does not properly demonstrate the exploitation of an employer by an employee, because the banker is not the carpenter's employer. When I walk into a cobbler's shop, and give him a pair of shoes to repair, I do NOT become his employer.


@spyman: "And remember that tradesperson is also a consumer. He cares not just about how much he us paid, but also for the price that he will pay for goods and services, abd the choice available.
How can your command economy compete?"

Because it sets out to do something which capitalism does not - to end poverty and exploitation forever. That's more important than consumer choice. Consumer choice requires large surpluses of production, which is highly inefficient.

Also, Tantris +1

So you're saying that someone without special skills is in a weaker position... which is of course, why he accepts lower pay. Why should he expect other than average pay?

Furthermore, why should the skilled person be forced to accept average pay?

@TGM:
Actually, I didn't say any of that. I said the employer has power over the employee. They can also force much lower pay on thee employee, unless there is some force pushing back. Until minimum wage laws existed, you had people working for pennies, in bad conditions.

But, let us ignore the unskilled person, let's look at the skilled person. A programmer for instance. They are just as replaceable as anyone else. One of the first jobs I had, the employer needed to cut costs and fired all of the experienced programmers, then turned around and hired people fresh out of college. Our product quality went down, but it was much cheaper for them. Are you saying programming is unskilled labor? What exactly is skilled labor? A lot of programming has been sent off to other countries, not because of quality(because in some, quality goes down a lot), but because of cost. Do you believe the employee has power in this situation?

So, let us examine your statement again. There is a pipe fitter in the south that treats their employees horribly, and pays horribly. There is no other real employer in the town. Now, the employees could get some power by unionizing, but other than that they have none.

I guess CEO's are the most skilled people in America. They may make horrid mistakes, but they get paid the same as hundreds of their employees upon being fired.

In a capitalist system, connections and money matter more than skills. Our society no longer honors the skilled producer but the ones that control the companies and the people that loan out money.

@Jaime - then I give you credit. IMO, far too many people on your side of the debate are more interested in helping themselves at the expense of the "rich", than in helping those less fortunate - which could be defined as the vast majority of the planet compared to anyone who can afford a computer, internet access, and electricity