Complexity and diversity of economic activities of larger countries make it harder to achieve more balanced/equitable outcomes. I'm not speaking just from the US, also from my native Brazil. A government might do a great job over a decade elevating a certain activity that lifts incomes in that activity and related, and elevates an entire region of the country and millions of people. But all the other regions of the country and tens of millions of people might be minimally or not at all affected.
“Socialism” vs. “Capitalism” debate
- Thread starter Kinsella
- Start date
I think that attitude is common in a little over half of the ex-Warsaw Pact and ex-Yugolsav population.
There are 3 ways of explaining it - life was actually better, old people looking back fondly on their youth, and nostalgia for being a world power rather than a second-tier country, far far behind the US and EU and China. Data from Russia -
Time series on "regretting the fall of the USSR" (yes, though less than right after it collapsed)
Why people regret the collapse: great power loss is a factor but the economy dominates
I think it's still possible that it is based on nostalgia for youth, but in many post-Soviet countries the destruction of the planned economy was a massive disaster which would justify those numbers. I think it is a unfair charaterise those who aren't fond of the transition as putting insufficient value on opportunity. The transition to a market system was accompanied by a sharp drop in the standard of living, including the largest modern decline in life expectancy, falling birth rates, and a loss of specialist jobs.
There's this use of "security" in the liberal jargon as if it was something icky. Ironically, the best most wage labourers can realistically hope to make out of their supposed grand opportunities is achieving some kind of temporary security. Emphasis on "the best", as worse alternatives are easily imaginable, and reality for many.
This is not a matter of population size, but rather lack of infrastructure and a poorly run government. The rules decided by the government should cover the whole country, not just certain regions. Regional policy should be for small-time stuff.
I don't know much about Brazil, but the US(for instance) definitely has the infrastructure and GDP to pull off a system that is fairly similar to the Nordic model. It may take some time and it may never be as good, primarily because of the country's role as World Police, but it's definitely possible.
Isn’t this whole fiasco with Boeing because they were seeking greater efficiency by just altering a plane design rather than making a new one?
Profits are used differently than in a capitalist system. Perhaps I should have clarified by saying capitalist profit motive.
This is far too simplistic a view.
Also, you have to define what efficiency even means. narrow economic efficiency? biological efficiency? energy efficiency?
Slavery was very efficient for the plantation owners economically. No regulations on health conditions was also very efficient economically for factory owners in the first era of industrialization. But both contained obvious human costs that far outweigh the benefits of "efficiency" for the elites.
Also plenty of studies show that innovation is not as tied to capitalist incentives as you think. Most scientists have intrinsic motivation to innovate. The PCR wasn't discovered because of "efficiency" or economic incentives but because of internal psychological motivation. Same with plenty of other key innovations.
And often times you need government investment like DARPA or the space program to innovate in ways that are not seen as instantly profitable on a quarterly earnings report.
That's not to say we should go full government controlled means of production either as there are obvious flaws there as well but you have to get past over simplistic ways of looking at things.
Exactly that.
Also, not everything has to be super efficient in terms of profits. Social services like health care for example need to be focused on the job and the person needing help, not focused on profits.
I was reading today about this woman who had a brain tumor removed and had to play violin while they were messing with her brain, so the doctors knew which place to avoid cutting so she won't lose the micro sensibility on her hand to be able to keep playing afterwards.
Obviously that happened in UK.
Pretty sure in my country they would have just maybe trying to save her, but wouldn't have gone out of their way to leave her 100%.
What would have happened to her if she was born in the US? In debt for the rest of her life or death?
A mixed system taking the best of Socialism and capitalism is the only way to go. You can't go one or the other.
Objective reddit accounts. Nice.
Another example against the conflation of cost efficiency and the efficiency of production/operating procedures as such. It's translated from the German Wikipedia article on shrimp fishing:
(The exploitation level of the North African workers is rather obvious there too, but that's a different point.)
This is efficient from the standpoint of profit generation, but ridiculously inefficient from the standpoint of resource and environmental management. I guess similar can be found in other globalized production chains as well: it's economically rational because of lower labour costs and other profitable conditions (like lax regulations etc.), but a gigantic waste of resources that also produces needless pollution through transportation. From a rational production standpoint, whoever suggests a production process like the one above could only be called incompetent or mad. Yet it totally makes sense in capitalism.
(The exploitation level of the North African workers is rather obvious there too, but that's a different point.)
Like you understand objectivity.
good post
Agreed, I wasn't using the term in a pejorative way.
Yes, why can't the consumer shell the prawns themselves?
Fair enough. But I do think the contrasting of "security vs opportunity" (instead of, say, insecurity) originates from that particular ideological background in the end, no matter if conscious or not.
I think you missed the point there.
Right, I don't but reddit does!
The process you're describing is as efficient as you can get I'd say. If the consumer base of the shrimp were environmentally conscious (increasingly the case) then they would opt for a locally shelled shrimp rather than a slightly cheaper North African shelled shrimp. Likewise if the North African workers felt being exploited was worse than either being employed (exploited) elsewhere or unemployed (the only options on the table) they have the option not to work. In fact I'd argue the shelling factory's very existence is the only means out of the exploitation you mention.
The more factories in Morocco, the more competition for labour. The more competition for labour the less likely workers are to accept substandard pay or conditions and greater chance employers offer better conditions/pay to entice labour. Over time poor countries become wealthier, pay increases and factories move to other countries that become richer. Poverty reduces, women become employed due to the demand, birth rates reduce to an environmentally sustainable level as a byproduct; so over time there's a huge benefit to women's rights, equality, poverty and the environment.
The only person who's pissed off is the wealthy (usually) white Western shrimp sheller whose lost his lucrative business, not to worry though he's almost certainly spending millions lobbying government to stop Moroccan shellers earning a living "because they're damaging the environment" and that the only solution is protectionist taxes/regulations. He'll probably succeed too.
At the end of my post, I wrote that my remark about sweat shop exploitation is a different point from the one I tried to make about efficiency. Long-term societal implications of these industries is yet another point. So like @Fiskey, you appear to have missed the point I was actually trying to make entirely.
Instead, you seem to deduce from the existence of low-paid shrimp shelling jobs in Morocco that the country and its people will somehow advance to unseen prosperity and freedom. En route there's insightful stuff like people dependent on shit jobs "have the option not to work". I also have to admit I'm completely clueless who that "wealthy white Western shrimp sheller" figure you talk of is exactly supposed to be.
So not really sure what to answer here.
Well admitting it is the first step. This is a whole new chapter in your life. Maybe you'll even be a good poster in CE.
If I am judged by a set of pro socialist eyes I am the worst poster here.
Every system depends on how it's implemented. It can be good or bad. Regulation matters.
It’s less about your beliefs and more about your posts. However you’re not the worst. @sun_tzu is the clear winner in that.
Not this again.
Are you claiming that there can be infinite supply and demand?
That is what you are claiming by saying "wealth is not finite". Of course wealth is finite. So natural resources are infinite by your phrasing.
I’d argue that economics 101 doesn’t apply to the real world anyway.
We're back to this
Wealth can increase or decrease over time . Natural resources ≠ wealth. You add labour, capital etc over resources plus factor in supply vs demand to determine wealth. You may hold a piece of junk now. 100 years later that same piece of junk would be vintage and you might end up wealthy. While resources are finite, wealth as a concept is not finite.
Anyway my reply was in context of earlier post. I.e. it is not finite as in there's not enough at bottom because there's hoarding at top.
Wealth hoarding has nothing to do with poverty and wealth inequality. Amazing.We're back to this
Wealth can increase or decrease over time . Natural resources ≠ wealth. You add labour, capital etc over resources plus factor in supply vs demand to determine wealth. You may hold a piece of junk now. 100 years later that same piece of junk would be vintage and you might end up wealthy. While resources are finite, wealth as a concept is not finite.
Anyway my reply was in context of earlier post. I.e. it is not finite as in there's not enough at bottom because there's hoarding at top.
I just explained this above
You take natural resources, add in capital, labour and a product is complete. The sum cost of the resources plus capital + labour etc becomes the manufacturing price of the product. Then add in some fancy marketing to drive up supply and then you sell the product...for a price is far greater than the actual manufacturing price.
Take for example iPhone X, the manufacturing cost of a iPhone X would be around $400, but it sells for $1000 thereabouts. Let's assume Raw Materials - $100, Labour - $100, the technical knowhow/prop information - $200. Brand value and marketing adds $600 to value of the product. The value generated by the intangibles (marketing, brand value, coolness factor whatever you want to call it) is far greater than the value generated by the labourer + resource ... and this is direct correlation to earnings of people involved. So you have CEOs who are in charge of brand value getting more income than the labour cost.
The popular concept that a CEO does nothing and any person can become a successful CEO is laughably absurd. Making is easy. Selling is hard.
Last edited:
That was a long response that has nothing to do with my post. Sorry you had to go through the trouble for nothing.I just explained this above
You take natural resources, add in capital, labour and a product is complete. The sum cost of the resources plus capital + labour etc becomes the manufacturing price of the product. Then add in some fancy marketing to drive up supply and then you sell the product...for a price is far greater than the actual manufacturing price.
Take for example iPhone X, the manufacturing cost of a iPhone X would be around $400, but it sells for $1000 thereabouts. Let's assume Raw Materials - $100, Labour - $100, the technical knowhow/prop information - $200. Brand value and marketing adds $600 to value of the product. The value generated by the intangibles (marketing, brand value, coolness factor whatever you want to call it) is far greater than the value generated by the labourer + resource ... and this is direct correlation to earnings of people involved. So you have CEOs who are in charge of brand value getting more income than the labour cost.
The popular concept that a CEO does nothing and any person can become a successful CEO is laughably absurd. Making is easy. Selling is hard.
Secondly, selling is way way easier than making. An absurd asinine concept to me as I have family who labor intensively in the Philippines and work harder than any CEO I’ve seen and get paid feck all. You've been sitting in offices for too long in Norway.
Really. Some absolutely out of touch assertion.
Why do I even bother!
Making is easy. There are so many companies making every type of product...but we know who the leaders are. There are better and cheaper phones from Taiwanese companies...but making people queue up for a iPhone for an outrageous price is insanely difficult. Establishing a correlation between hard work and remuneration is just naive. Simple hard work is easily available and not a scarce resource at all.
Whether you like it or not, there'll be millions of people ready to replace labour, but there can ever be only one Tim Cook or Larry Page or Sergey Brin.
Making is easy. There are so many companies making every type of product...but we know who the leaders are. There are better and cheaper phones from Taiwanese companies...but making people queue up for a iPhone for an outrageous price is insanely difficult. Establishing a correlation between hard work and remuneration is just naive. Simple hard work is easily available and not a scarce resource at all.
Whether you like it or not, there'll be millions of people ready to replace labour, but there can ever be only one Tim Cook or Larry Page or Sergey Brin.
Exactly, no point on having a discussion when the other side does not want to have a discussion in good faith.
What I want to know is why we're not giving some of our infinite wealth to the poor? It's not gonna cost us anything.
Steve Jobs can never be replaced except by the guy who replaced him, Tim Cook, who can also never be replaced. Whoever replaces Tim Cook will also be irreplacable.
We're back to this
Wealth can increase or decrease over time . Natural resources ≠ wealth. You add labour, capital etc over resources plus factor in supply vs demand to determine wealth. You may hold a piece of junk now. 100 years later that same piece of junk would be vintage and you might end up wealthy. While resources are finite, wealth as a concept is not finite.
Anyway my reply was in context of earlier post. I.e. it is not finite as in there's not enough at bottom because there's hoarding at top.
You keep making demonstrably false statements.
If you say wealth is not finite that means you believe wealth is infinite which is blatantly untrue.
It also means you believe the capacity for supply and demand of goods and services is also infinite.
You might want to go to your local university and have a chat with an econ professor about your belief that wealth is infinite.
Also your response is also clearly untrue as the mega rich dictate the salary of min wage workers.
Stop arguing in bad faith.
Sorry, I meant Jobs and Woz. Cook is no replacement for Jobs.
Last edited:
Wealth is not finite and I stand by it.
Have no idea what you mean by infinite supply and demand.
I'm reasonably confident on my knowledge.
Completely disagree. Poor being kept poor by the rish is just nonsense.
It's like arguing whether solar energy is finite or infinite. Yeah, even sun can run out at some point, but factoring that into any kind of equation is just ridiculous (till we build interstellar capability at least)
That would be the solution give an infinite amount of wealth to the poor and keep the rest of the infinite.