Can capitalism exist without govt

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Cujoy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

healthcare and childcare for all workers.

iamoenaj's response: No way. Poor people aren't allowed to use doctors. They get nurse-practitioners and midwives at best. Health care is not a right.

[Loke]

Samoht's main problem is that (s)he is taking the worst parts of capitalism and attempting to use them to represent the entire system. What you are talking about mostly arises from monopolistic practices in a free(ish) capitalistic economy. However, even in those worst case scenarios (monopolies), the idea of capitalism does not always cause sole benefit to the producer at a detriment to the consumer.

Take for example the ALCOA case. They controlled 90% of the virgin ingot market for aluminum production - which was argued to be a monopoly based solely on the fact that there was a perceived possibility that they could use their considerable market control to ends which negatively affect competition, and thus the consumer. However, even with that 90% control, ALCOA maintained competitive prices and production quantities WITHOUT regulation, and they attained their monopoly status through essentially legal and ethically sound business practices. As even the Supreme Court acknowledged, ALCOA in many regards was guilty of simply being too successful at their business, and that success eventually reached a point where it could be considered anti-competitive - despite no definitive wrong doing (both legally and ethically).

Every situation has the possibility to cause unnecessary harm - in regard to the original question, that is why there is a need for guidelines (and thus a governing body to provide those guidelines).

Now, as far as this anti-capitalist sentiment goes, how would a socialized system be better? What is the motivation in a non-capitalist society? A for profit economy is one in which success is rewarded with wealth, thus motivation to be successful. Again, what motivation is there in a non-capitalist society? If you do not benefit from the rewards of your labor more so than an individual who labors less, what motivation is there to not decrease your production to the lowest common level? You talk about a production based society amassing capital and wealth at the top, but by definition, that would be counter productive to their profits, thus not profitable, thus not sustainable, thus no capitalist would consider driving an economy to that point. When everyone is concerned with their own self interest, that they will for some reason act contrary to that self interest is essentially what you are arguing. It just doesn't add up.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Loke [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you do not benefit from the rewards of your labor more so than an individual who labors less

Are you comparing against capitalism or utopia here? Capitalism DOES NOT pay for performance, if it did, common workers would be making 200 times than CEOs instead of the other way around. The executive board would be expendable instead of the employees. Unfortunately, we don't live in utopia and we're forced to work for crooks, because let's face it, we'd have to leave the country to find jobs working for honest employers who actually care about their workers.

[Cujoy]

agreed, but if I were a pure capitalist it'd be a necessary expense to make my workers as productive as possible.

[Duie]

that worker doesnt put billons of dollars on the line either So why should he be paid 200 times that of a CEO or owner who does?

Should we all start geting paid in stocks?hrmm

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Duie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

that worker doesnt put billons of dollars on the line either So why should he be paid 200 times that of a CEO or owner who does?

Neither does the CEO or owner? It's stupid to invest in your own ideas; you find other people to do it for you. Quit pretending they're so entitled.

Also, are you implying that only old money has the right to success? Are you only entitled to have a job if you have billions of dollars to begin with?

Originally Posted by Duie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Should we all start geting paid in stocks?hrmm

If it was originally part of your compensation package, yes.

Originally Posted by Loke [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This idea that your job should pay for your insurance or offer you stock options is just laughable. Why in god's name should your employer be responsible for YOUR health?

Because they promised it in compensation and then got away with cutting it out? Your statement is a contradiction (or a lesson that you lack reading comprehension) because I said they offered these programs that they cut back or took away. That makes them crooks. People like you are why corporations have gone out of control in the last 10 years.

[Loke]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because they promised it in compensation and then got away with cutting it out? Your statement is a contradiction (or a lesson that you lack reading comprehension) because I said they offered these programs that they cut back or took away. That makes them crooks. People like you are why corporations have gone out of control in the last 10 years.

Were you unable to quit that job and seek other employment? If what they did was so unreasonable, it is reasonable to assume you could find employment else where with benefits equal to that which you were originally offered. Maybe, however, economic times were tough, and to maintain their profits, and thus existence as companies, companies throughout the industry were making these cuts not by choice, but out of necessity.

The fact that at any time you were free to seek other employment is why it is not theft or immoral. It is in the companies best interest to keep and attract the best employees by offering the greatest compensation. Thus, employees themselves are a market in which companies compete. Your company must balance their output to maximize profits given the resources (including employees) available to them. It is in their best interest to have as many employees as possible to a point where further employment reduces efficiency. The simple fact was that in your industry, there was not enough business to support the number of employees and thus those greater numbers of employees being less profitable, the companies were able to offer lower compensation and stay competitive because their over all demand in the employee market was lower than it was when they hired you.

There are actual economics behind a lot of this stuff - not everything in business is that "they're thieves and hate their employees.. and kittens".

edit: minor grammar/spelling

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Loke [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Were you unable to quit that job and seek other employment? blah blah blah blah same stuff over and over durrrr

Unfortunately, employers demand unwavering loyalty (it's too bad that doesn't go both ways any more). The first thought that you might jump ship, suddenly you're "overqualified" and unhireable. There are so few jobs in America that at least 10% of the population would be willing to do yours for you at a fraction of the cost, but that brings up another issue: too many Americans are under-employed. People with doctorates, masters, BS, etc., are forced every day to settle and to swear that they're not overqualified as a direct result of companies requiring new hires to swear allegiance to their corporate flag. People with too many jobs over a certain time-frame are looked down on just as much as people who are unemployed for a large gap on their resume.

You know it's wrong to think that people can just walk out whenever they please.

You don't honestly believe any of this drivel your spouting, do you? Are you playing devil's advocate or do you truly believe that workers aren't entitled to fair compensation and secure jobs? Do you think that just because you can pay your Guatemalan gardener $2 an hour and get away with it since no one will enforce wage laws for illegals that you can treat any worker the same way?

[Loke]

I'm not going to actually respond intelligibly here if you are going to reduce everything I said to "blahblahblah" when replying. I made some fairly distinct points, and while I may have repeated the use of words, the arrangement of those words was deliberate, as were the meanings. Unless you actually have some reasoning behind what you're saying, and not just making unsupported claims like "employers demand unwavering loyalty", there is really not point in arguing them.

My last post was reasoning to explain why what you said was wrong. You made statements and then force me to provide reasoning as to why you're wrong - that is not something I really feel like doing. Unless you actually explain why the things are the way you claim they are, this is just pointless.

[Cujoy]

The question here should have been "can there be Democracy/Republic where there is true Capitalism?" And a side poll of "Do you know what Capitalism is or do you assume that American Capitalism is really Capitalism?"