Can capitalism exist without govt

[Duie]

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

This is a horrible phrased question, there are so many factors to consider.

First, most free-market proponent, and even most anarcho-capitalist will agree that there is a necessary function of the government in a capitalist economy. Even in a truly free market, there needs to be a general guideline for conduct (contract law notably), as well as a place to settle disputes in relation to those guidelines (judicial system), as well as a mixed bag of other albeit less "economic" functions (defense, etc).

Now, despite your definition, as we've seen through our current economy, the whole idea of capitalism is a slightly ambiguous term. You really need to look at the entire economy to question whether government is necessary. Are you going to have a purely barter economy? If not, what kind of banking system would the economy have? If there was fractional reserve banking, would those banks be supported by a centralized reserve bank? What would be used as a medium of exchange? Gold? Gold backed currency? Fiat currency? If fiat currency, who would regulate and control it? I mean, if we're talking about the US dollar, you really have to think about the implications there as well. Since 1971, the US dollar has essentially been akin to gold in that is a universally accepted store of wealth - which has further implications when you start to think about the fact that the US government could essentially print gold (not really, but you get my point). That isn't even considering aspects of monetary policy conducted by a central governing body, which is something I won't get into...

So to answer your question, no. A free market economy certainly can exist in a variety of forms, but unless we return to a barter economy (and even then not really) we need some sort of governing body (not necessarily a federal government) to provide those fundamental and very limited guidelines and services.

I happen to be a proponent of the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics (there are aspects of both I really like; and yes, I know they're not the same thing..) which both tend to favor free markets. However, despite what the MSM and people like Krugman would have you believe, even us wacky free-marketers understand the need for limited regulation. The disagreement has never been over "government" or "no government" - it has been about "how much government". History has shown time and time again that intervention in the markets leads to unnaturally large bubbles that eventually burst. This all stems for the Keynesian idea that we can promote constant economic growth through the use of monetary policy to avoid down turns in the economy. There is a lot of debate about this even among economist, but the thinking I tend to agree with is that intervention through monetary policy only exaggerates the natural highs and lows of the business cycle, something which I tend to think is undesirable.

good post

[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.

[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

[Loke]

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

In the 2000's, I worked for five years for one of the wealthiest companies in the world - a true conglomerate. When I started, they were listed as one of the top companies in the world to work for. I got good ratings on my reviews, several raises and promotions as I watched them slowly cut benefits and raise costs of insurance. Stock options? Gone. Employee stock purchase program? Gone. 401k matching? Cut in half. Hiring was frozen. Morale was shot. They were no longer a top company to work for.

Yet they continued to flaunt record profits.

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? Their job is to compensate you for the work you do for them. You agree to work for them at a wage (or you don't) and then they pay you that wage assuming you continue doing the work to an acceptable standard. This is a free agreement you enter into with a company.

This notion of benefits comes directly from the existence of payroll tax. By offering you compensation in the form of healthcare and other benefits, the company is not forced to pay as great a penalty on using those funds. So the entire existence of employer based healthcare is a DIRECT RESULT of capitalistic desires to reduce cost and increase profit. Now, you must look at healthcare and other benefits as a portion of your entire compensation. Cutting benefits is no different than cutting pay - cutting payroll would actually benefit the company more than cutting benefits, but could you imagine the outrage if your salary was cut by $1,500 instead of your benefits increasing in price/being cut?

Finally, companies do not answer to their employees. Employees are free to quit and find other employment (they don't because employment has been made hard due to other economic factors) - but all a company owe an employee is the compensation for the work that employee provides. Profits however, are how a company must answer to it's owners (share holders). If you hold stock in a company, it is that companies job to maximize your profits. So a company does own something to someone - it is just the share holders, and not the employee as you seem to think.

[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

[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?"

[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.

[Samoht]

One thing: I'm not wrong. The people supporting inequality and injustices between social classes in America and around the world (you) are wrong.