Page 17 of 18
Re:
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:09 pm
by Walker
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:19 pm
"Socialism is supposed to be about just, equitable and/or fair distribution of what is produced and also about rational decision making."
Seems to me, the above translates into 'profit or benefit should go to all equally instead of the lion's share goin' to the one taking the on-going risk, and the suffering of all should be borne by a few'.
That's a fine deal for a lot of folks, but not so much for 'me'.
The key word is equitable, which means fair distribution, rather than equal distribution.
The NFL is a good example of capitalism.
The most equitable distribution of the bounty collected from advertising and sales is the one based on the importance of each individual element to the team. The team is a compound of elements.
Owners are the most rare element, so more gets distributed their way. That is equitable.
Coaches are the next rarest element.
Star players are the next rarest element, and some rival the value of coaches.
Regular players follow, then bench warmers.
After that is support staff down to the janitor. A janitor is the least rare element.
Each element gets its portion of the pie, according to its rarity, and value to the team, the most rare being the most valuable.
Each element is essential for the existence of the compounded team, but the equitable distribution of bounty to each element, is based on objective rarity.
It's the same reason why, when observing the compound known as the body, that the brain gets first dibs on the bounty of nutrition.
One of the reasons why the owner is so valuable is that it has the flexibility to forgo top compensation to keep the team alive.
Another reason is the mantle of responsibility.
(That only took about ten edits)
Re:
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:16 pm
by Londoner
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:19 pm
"Socialism is supposed to be about just, equitable and/or fair distribution of what is produced and also about rational decision making."
Seems to me, the above translates into 'profit or benefit should go to all equally instead of the lion's share goin' to the one taking the on-going risk, and the suffering of all should be borne by a few'.
That's a fine deal for a lot of folks, but not so much for 'me'.
Assuming there is any risk. The counter-argument is that capitalism seeks to eliminate risk by forming cartels or monopolies.
Walker remarks that '
The same principle applies to capitalism' but capitalism is not supposed to operate according to principles, it is simply about the optimisation of capital. Capital gets a better return if you can eliminate competition.
I know 'capitalism' is sometimes understood as 'markets', but markets have to be preserved by politicians interfering in the workings of capital, in the interests of the community at large, so there is no clear line between that and socialism.
Re: Re:
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:23 pm
by Walker
Londoner wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:16 pm
Walker remarks that '
The same principle applies to capitalism' but capitalism is not supposed to operate according to principles, it is simply about the optimisation of capital. Capital gets a better return if you can eliminate competition.
The principle is: Fair, equitable, and
natural distribution.
One might even say, objective according to natural laws.
After all, that is the design of the universe.
Pay the star player what you pay the janitor, and your team will suck in performance for a short life, like a crappy mutation, e.g., socialism.
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:10 pm
by henry quirk
"capitalism seeks to eliminate risk by forming cartels or monopolies."
Being horribly anti-social, I wouldn't ally myself in such a way even if I could (and I can't), so insofar as there are on-going risks (and there are many) in my self-employment, I bear them all.
Re: Re:
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:59 pm
by Arising_uk
Walker wrote:Pay the star player what you pay the janitor, and your team will suck in performance for a short life, like a crappy mutation, e.g., socialism.
And yet the USSR used to match the USA in the Olympics and Cuba did pretty well in the boxing arena?
Re: Socialism: What Has Gone Wrong?
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:23 pm
by bobevenson
Nobody matches the USA in the Olympics or anything else. And an American just won the Nobel Prize for Economics again, pounding another nail into the European coffin of socialism.
Re: Re:
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:49 pm
by Walker
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:59 pm
Walker wrote:Pay the star player what you pay the janitor, and your team will suck in performance for a short life, like a crappy mutation, e.g., socialism.
And yet the USSR used to match the USA in the Olympics and Cuba did pretty well in the boxing arena?
Those Rooskie athletes also receive an equitable distribution based on their abilities.
However, the US is a wealthy country, and compensation based on the supply and demand of ability reflects that.
Re: Re:
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:54 pm
by Londoner
Walker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:23 pm
The principle is: Fair, equitable, and
natural distribution.
One might even say, objective according to natural laws.
After all, that is the design of the universe.
For most of the history of the universe there was no capitalism, so if we going with the naturalistic fallacy and taking an 'ought' from an 'is', then capitalism would be bad.
Pay the star player what you pay the janitor, and your team will suck in performance for a short life, like a crappy mutation, e.g., socialism.
Professional sport is also a recent innovation.
Re: Socialism: What Has Gone Wrong?
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:59 pm
by Walker
Capitalism is a manifestation of the stated principle.
Excellence in any field is a manifestation of the principle.
Not all manifestations manifest at the same time.
Conditions must be right.
Re: Socialism: What Has Gone Wrong?
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:30 am
by Arising_uk
bobevenson wrote:Nobody matches the USA in the Olympics or anything else. And an American just won the Nobel Prize for Economics again, pounding another nail into the European coffin of socialism.
Well you certainly lead the world in fruitcakes bobby as your existence testifies.
Re: Re:
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:44 am
by Seleucus
Londoner wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:54 pm
Walker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:23 pm
The principle is: Fair, equitable, and
natural distribution.
One might even say, objective according to natural laws.
After all, that is the design of the universe.
For most of the history of the universe there was no capitalism, so if we going with the naturalistic fallacy and taking an 'ought' from an 'is', then capitalism would be bad.
Pay the star player what you pay the janitor, and your team will suck in performance for a short life, like a crappy mutation, e.g., socialism
Professional sport is also a recent innovation.
After reading Kuran's
Explaining the Economic Trajectories of Civilizations I got a bit of a new insight into capitalism and its significance. For a society to undertake major works, things like ports or bridges or sky scrapers, there has to be a marshaling of labor and resources for that major project. Under a centralized system, there is only one party who can sign-off on mega projects. When a central government is weak, large projects become almost impossible to carry out. Capitalism allowed for anyone, who could pool sufficient capital, to carry out a great works, exponentially increasing the ability of a society of carry out large scale projects.
Re: Socialism: What Has Gone Wrong?
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:47 am
by Seleucus
Capitalism and socialism are in fact both forms of monetarism. Rarely do we see that higher level of critiques raised against the use of money itself. Anarchist anthropologist David Graeber is at least one example I've seen.
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:38 pm
by henry quirk
"the USSR used to match the USA in the Olympics and Cuba did pretty well in the boxing arena?"
When you've been directed by the politburo to perform well and you're given the good shit denied to the average citizen, then you probably perform well. Also, havin' the KGB visit your family and rough folks up if you don't perform well is probably decent motivation too.
One can always squeeze out on more deadlift, one more session in the ring, when your Ma has a 9mm pressed to her temple.
Re: Socialism: What Has Gone Wrong?
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:29 am
by Melchior
Ever hear of the stock market, dumbass?
Re: Socialism: What Has Gone Wrong?
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:08 pm
by bobevenson
Socialism: what has gone wrong? A better question is, what has gone right? The answer, absolutely nothing!