"to be clear, i've never said 'all of capitalism is stupid' "

Oh, I was talking to putin, Orathaic. : )

"This overlooks risk. If a capitalist tries and fails, only he is seriously hurt. "

Err...no. I'm sorry, but did the employees of all these failed corporations over the past decade not get 'seriously hurt' when the capitalists mismanaged the companies into bankruptcy and then rewarded themselves with golden parachutes? Explain what happened with the investment banks, again? Most of the time these capitalists pass off their "risk" to taxpayers since they get tax breaks and subsidies to engage in their risky ventures. For example, why was Solyndra a big deal? That type of thing happens all the time. Government gives out goodies to companies because otherwise they wouldn't make any investments at all. Why not just cut out the middle man so we don't have situations where the government is on the hook for losses while the company makes all the profits?

@Putin, you ignored most of my remarks. Second, yes, but I was referring to early-career capitalists such as Jobs, which is what you were talking about.
Sorry for the overbroad language.

(In fairness, I ignored most of your remarks too. :-P)

On the capitalism = diversity of opinion = greater propensity to take risk, issue.

It is rather counter intuitive to on one hand say that risk very dispersed under government-control, but then capitalists are more prone to take risks and invest in technologies that might fail. If private capital holders are the ones who 'feel the pain' of failure, as you say, why would they be more prone to take risk or innovate?

I don't see this being particularly true in the renewable energy sector, or in the automotive sector. Government had to put pressure on auto manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles, and then complain whenever a new industry standard is imposed. The energy sector has resisted more efficient innovations ferociously. Government has ended up footing the bill for any effort or risky venture into innovation.

As for capitalism offering a variety of opinions compared to centralized planning, I don't know. Maybe at the early stages of a new industry with relatively little start-up costs, but the personal computer industry is rather exceptional. Not many industries began out of some hobbyist's garage. Corporations are immune from the constant pressures of turnover that government faces. Corporate CEOs can rule for a very long time, with board of directors that engage in group-think rather than critical thinking. This is what, for example, Toyota has been criticized for. So established companies can become very set in their ways and become very conservative about new ideas. New political elites almost always sweep into power with new ideas. Industries also tend to become very concentrated very quickly and start-up costs become bigger & bigger. So there's really not that much space for new thinking.

'Government had to put pressure on auto manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles' ... not everywhere.

Just two things to point out, Across most of Europe there were government drives to reduce the use of expensive imported oil. Thus petrol, or gas, was heavily taxed at the pump. Mainly this was because of concern about the security of supply, and national security.

However as a direct result, people wanted smaller more fuel efficient cars. In Europe and in Japan this became the norm. Thus it was government policy (based on the security reality) which drove the demand, and the demand which drove innovations in the auto-industry.

This did not happen in the US for a number of reasons, 1) US oil reserves, 2) Lobbying by US oil companies (any reduction in consumption would damage their revenues) 3) the ability of the US military to ensure national security (of the oil supply) be other means.

In any case, I don't know that any Auto-industry would naturally consider fuel efficiency, smaller less powerful engines as an innovation which they could sell.

There is no demand for slower, less energy intensive desktop computers.... though i suppose there is new thinking in that area regarding tablets, and smart phones... i'm still convinced it's just a fad.

The socialist model that dominates America education today is an abject failure.
A market solution would allow parents to send their children to any school they chose to.
Of course socialism can't tolerate freedom or choice because that allows people to escape the failures of socialism.
Socialism can only survive where it has the arbitrary power to eliminate freedom of choice and impose a one-size fits all mentality.

No one ever said creativity and socialism went together.

I put the idiot Putin on mute months ago.
Why waste your time reading the rantings of a helpless imbecile who leeches off the productive efforts of others.

Orathaic makes a false, indefensible statement " Across most of Europe there were government drives to reduce the use of expensive imported oil."
What kind of illogical mind calls government taxes on imported oil " a government drive to reduce the expense of imported oil?"
People never wanted smaller cars. People couldn't afford the artificially high prices of gasoline created by government taxation.
People wanted large cars, but couldn't afford the government tax associated with running them.
This didn't happen in the United States because the United States spans an entire continent with traveling distances much greater than those in Europe.
Also the United States does not have the population density to support mass transit, and mass transit across the distances traveled in the United States in impractical.

No one chooses smaller fuel efficient cars unless the cost of fuel makes it uneconomical to operate a large car.

You want to give the poor better educations?
Then give them a voucher for their taxes and let them choose any school they want to attend instead of forcing them to attend the local school staffed by the failed socialist education system.

Ooops. We can't do that though because that would call into question the entire basis of the socialist model.

Smart phones and ipads are just a fad?
Posted by someone ignorant of the power of HTML 5.

@Tettleton's Chew
Paying for schools is not the unique, best model.
In Italy, except for Universities, most of the schools are public. And families can though choose which school their children will attend.
Books for children are bought by school, by local administration.
Access to education is the same for the poor and rich.
Rich people often choose private school for class, anyway rightful, reasons.
But you can verify searching on Internet, that quality of public schools in Italy are unsurpassed by private ones since 150 years.
The medium level of education from 6 to 14 years is very good in Italy, more than in some educational systems based mainly on private schools.
This is not socialism, this is welfare.
Socialism is a bit more different ;)

Don't even try explaining what *actual* socialism is to TC. It's a lost cause. I'm content though with him calling everything and anything socialism.

"The socialist model that dominates America education today is an abject failure. "

You must not live in America. On what planet is the American system of sub-standard charter schools, sub-standard private schools and privately owned virtual schools "socialist"? Charter schools have been an across-the-board failure and have utterly destroyed education in the State of Ohio.

"hen give them a voucher for their taxes and let them choose any school they want to attend instead of forcing them to attend the local school staffed by the failed socialist education system. "

Yes, funneling public money away from public schools and into the hands of unaccountable private schools did wonders for Chile. Your asinine policies have been implemented, unfortunately, and the results have been horrifying.

i said it before and say it again
free education must be a human rigth just like health
if you are looking for foundings it can be done by plublicity
i mean corps can advertice in the scholl walls paying an anual fee giving better education to their costumers

there is nothing wrong with capitalism as long as it human friendly

"How is this relevant? Try staying on topic for once. The point was about rich people somehow being extraordinarily capable people who are so much better than the rest of us. Are the Kardashians better than the rest of us? "
Look, you're doing exactly what I warned (whatever that means) you about. It has relevance in a way you decided not to see.
Addressing the last two sentences:
(*cough* you exaggerated) If the rich aren't more capable than us, than what's the difference? I'll let you use your brain, which I trust you have (joke), and figure that one out. Get the answer to me any way you like and you can trust I won't post it anywhere.

On my production:
There are two roles in simple economics and life in general. These two roles are as seen on a food chain pretty much anywhere. Producers and consumers. In the case of my cemetery job, I produce because I don't consume. I am one or the other. Your definition of produce equates to making a finished product (alert me if I'm wrong). When I go in, there is some part that looks like a mess, and when I go out, the mess (tree, bush, leaves, sticks etc.) is usually gone totally. I produce a view of the cemetery that is pleasing to those that visit. Please open your mind to this fact.
I have a question. Respect intended, but, are you employed? Do you work? I just need to know, I can't assume because that would go back on who I am, but it would explain a lot if you were unemployed.

On me and how I think all of you should feel sorry for me:
It's not true. My intentions for giving my age were short term for one use, and the long term use is that I was actually humbling myself, making sure that none of you thought that I was some stuck-up adult that was this evil capitalist that was posting for pay, and I wanted you to know I was doing this on my own will. But you ignored that, and accused me of *** kissing to whatever-the-quote-was.
I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me, nor should they. I don't whine, and this [your quote] is an exaggeration. I've never read Fountainhead, contrary to your assumption.
"You use personal examples and put your age on your sleeve, then whenever anybody (namely me) disagrees with you about anything, you cry for special treatment based on your age and say I'm being mean." Who is crying on who's sleeve? It seems that you are now seeking the same kind of "refuge" you accuse me of having.

I assume you didn't try asking yourself how you were wrong? I did. I was up until 11 thinking. I guess you should all feel sorry for me!

"but it would explain a lot if you were unemployed."

WTF is that supposed to mean? Any moral high ground you had goes out the window. You want to ridicule me if I say I'm unemployed. GFY. I love it when you people who constantly, *constantly* whine about everything and anything being a "personal attack" try to fish personal information out of people to use against them in arguments. I'm not unemployed, but I don't see why that matters. I guess you just like kicking people when they're down, or like dismissing their views because they're not as fortunate as you. And yet you're the very same people who cry about "class warfare" or painting the rich with a broad brush. I repeat, GFY.

Most of the rest of your post made no sense, and I'm too behind in my grading to care to figure it out.

"Producers and consumers. In the case of my cemetery job, I produce because I don't consume."

Evidently you disagree with Adam Smith:

""There is one sort of labour which adds to the value of the subject upon which it is bestowed; there is another which has no such effect. The former, as it produces a value, may be called productive; the latter, unproductive labour. Thus the labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master's profit. The labour of a menial servant, on the contrary, adds to the value of nothing. Though the manufacturer has his wages advanced to him by his master, he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon which his labour is bestowed. But the maintenance of a menial servant never is restored. A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. The labour of the latter, however, has its value, and deserves its reward as well" pp 429-430.

Services aren't "production" because there is no value added, it does not produce wealth. There are more than two roles. A servant is not a producer.

And in case you whine that I'm insulting you again, I'm also in the 'service' category. Unfortunately, educated undergrads don't really "add" wealth in any productive sense.

"There are two roles in simple economics and life in general. These two roles are as seen on a food chain pretty much anywhere. Producers and consumers."

Sort of just picked a quote of yours at random from the right part of your post so you'd understand what I'm trying to address.

The economy is divided into four categories
1: Resource Gathering
2: Manufacturing
3: Service
4: Innovation

Level 1 and Level 2 are producing meaningful products
Level 3 and Level 4 offer services, which do not produce a tangible product.

Level 1, 2 and 4 All work in a neat sort of loop. Innovations are used to speed up level 1 or 2, and resources flow from being harvested to being manufactured and finally to the consumer.

Level 3 then acts as an intermediary either between the consumer and the goods (no real value added,), provides a service for the consumer or producer, (moves the goods, cleans a lawn) All of these things don't create anything new, anything tangible. They just thrive off what is already there.

I'm not saying Level 3 doesn't have some purpose. However I place less value on it then I do on the other Levels.

In short, you aren't a Producer. Attempting to argue otherwise, based on personal accounts. Is simply illogical, and demonstrates nothing more then an base emotional rejection of the circumstances.

What you 'produce': a view, a clean area. Is nothing more then an intangible idea. Now if on the other hand your job was to collect deadwood for use as firewood, you would have produced something. A commodity, firewood. As it is you produce nothing more then the concept of a nice view.

where does the national lottery fit into this scheme of things?

i mean, it is essentially a way to redistribute wealth, but by making it somehow akin to a game it is 'producing' enjoyment/excitement for a large number of people (because people are particularly bad at judging the odds involved) while providing a fairly large amount of excitement for the winner (even if that threatens to alter their world view and they may not in the long run be able to cope with a change in lifestyle)

Entertainment is a service.

As Putin says, The lottery would fit quite easily into the Level 3, category.

Not really sure why you'd think it would fit anywhere else.

"WTF is that supposed to mean? Any moral high ground you had goes out the window. You want to ridicule me if I say I'm unemployed. GFY. I love it when you people who constantly, *constantly* whine about everything and anything being a "personal attack" try to fish personal information out of people to use against them in arguments. I'm not unemployed, but I don't see why that matters. I guess you just like kicking people when they're down, or like dismissing their views because they're not as fortunate as you. And yet you're the very same people who cry about "class warfare" or painting the rich with a broad brush. I repeat, GFY."
*sigh* I never wished to ridicule you. In fact, I hoped that you would send me the answer as a private message. I wouldn't blame you if you were unemployed, because we are in fact in a state of economic downturn with high unemployment.
I don't feel comfortable arguing without information, so I feel I need to know enough to not to make a bad assumption, but I guess I have a reason to make a bad assumption now.
I'm glad to hear I had moral high ground, considering I didn't really lose it.
And we do collect firewood, and I thought about mentioning it earlier but lost the time.
I agree with Adam Smith, and surprisingly you, that I don't create a tangible product. However my role increases the likeliness of someone choosing to bury their dead there, and therefore has value, at least.
More on my "weaseling of information" later, got to go.

I don't even really consider myself employed.

Considering i get paid per job and no steady income via monthly/weekly paycheck.

Regarding the question of what CEO's produce, Putin asked "What do they produce?"

The answer to this is they produce whatever it is the firm they work for produce. Most of the goods and services that we use and consume aren't "produced" by any one person, but rather by teams of people and the CEO is the head of those teams.. Take education for example, it is not just produced by the teachers, but by the janitors who keep the classrooms clean and the admin staff and the grounds keepers. Cars for example just "produced" by the guys in the factory, the sales staff are part of the team too. No one gets paid unless the cars are sold. It is all part of the process. The decisions made by a CEO affects everyone in the team, and a good CEO increases the productivity of everyone. That is why the get paid the big bucks. And ultimately, like all of us, those bucks are determined by market forces. If CEOs contributed nothing the market would quickly decide that CEOs weren't worth the price. And truly if they produced nothing we wouldn't have CEOs at all. Why would the share holders care if there was a CEO if a company could be run just as effectively without one? Why not just take the extra profit save from getting rid of an unnecessary salary. Or pass the savings on in the form of lower prices and thus great competitors. Why not? Because your idea that CEOs produce is nothing is wrong. Now some CEOs might not be very good CEOs but that is another matter. Also the notion of a good CEO is relative. One of the reasons that rich countries like America are so well is because of the level of management expertise, and of course the high level of other skill workers all the way along the production chain.

... okay after reading some more of this thread I can see you can a particular definition of production.

"And in case you whine that I'm insulting you again, I'm also in the 'service' category. Unfortunately, educated undergrads don't really "add" wealth in any productive sense. "

Well if you teach students you "produce" eduction. That education you pass is the "wealth" you create.
Imagine you live a small island country with just two people one is the a Cheese maker and the Political science tutor. The Cheese maker can trade his cheese for an eduction in political science. Both a richer for it. Without the political science teacher the only the produced on the island would be cheese.
Now if the cheese maker was interested in political science I suppose you could say the political science teacher produce nothing of value (and value is subjective).
But as it so happens you, Putin, do live in a world where some people value an education in political science, and those people are happy to trade what they have for what you have.

typo... I see you *have a particular definition of production (a narrow definition).