Soapbox defenders of Capitalism-attention

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by oddsos

Some of the "successful business people" on here might be interested in reading "Fooled by Randomness". The main thrust of the book is that those that succeed in management, or especially trading, do so more by luck than skill. Most of the abilities and responses to which such success stories attribute their earnings are more the result of carefully fitting a flattering narrative to events than reality.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Don't need to read it, see it everyday thanks.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Some peoples objection may be, I believe people such as redcgos wants no privately owned businesses.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not exactly Joe. The systemic change that i would prefer involves, as a first measure, the majority in society, ie, the working class who create the wealth, being able to control how that wealth is used. It follows from this, that once working class people have dominance over the state, they will also decide on the extent and size of any market enterprize initiatives within society.

Its perfectly possible for a decision to be taken that would allow a degree of 'private' trading. The important aspect is that everyone should be able to help decide exactly what happens. Currently, that doesn't happen, because there is very little economic democracy.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs
[brIts perfectly possible for a decision to be taken that would allow a degree of 'private' trading. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This will allow the purchase of special items for party leaders.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

The working class usually just do the work, they don't usually create the wealth. It takes more than just doing work as instructed by others to create wealth.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Under socialism , the individual is subsumed into the State, but the worst of this is that in no case where this has ever been tried was the State ever benign. So perhaps capitalism is the lesser of two evils.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Any 'socialism' worthy of support has one fundamental aim - the creation of a classless society. It follows from this that 'socialists', certainly of the marxist variety, are opposed to the very existence of 'the state', which is an instrument which enables and maintains the rule of one class (the rulers) over a subordinate class (the workers).

'Socialists' anxiously anticipate the 'withering away of the state', because the aim is to arrive at a situation where there is no necessity for one class to oppress another.

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

The working class usually just do the work, they don't usually create the wealth. It takes more than just doing work as instructed by others to create wealth.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

i would be interested to see all the raw materials needed for the manufacture of a car waiting for some force or other to come along and self assemble into an object of value Joe.

People's labour is the source of value. Products do not create themselves.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

...'Socialists' anxiously anticipate the 'withering away of the state'...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I hope they don't vote, then?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I hope they don't vote, then?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's a tough call Nick. i admit to being torn on the voting issue. i've often spoiled the ballot paper, but i wouldn't normally urge people not to vote, i'm quite mindful that working people died to win that right..

However, i certainly respect your position on it, it must be the anarchist within. [:)]

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

...'Socialists' anxiously anticipate the 'withering away of the state'...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I hope they don't vote, then?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It doesn't make any difference whether they do or not, because there's not enough of them to elect anyone.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

'Socialists' anxiously anticipate the 'withering away of the state'
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Who decides what to do if your 'Withered State" is subject to sudden invasion by, say, Iran?

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

'Socialists' anxiously anticipate the 'withering away of the state'
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Who decides what to do if your 'Withered State" is subject to sudden invasion by, say, Iran?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think they rely on it being so withered as to not be worth invading.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

'Socialists' anxiously anticipate the 'withering away of the state'
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Who decides what to do if your 'Withered State" is subject to sudden invasion by, say, Iran?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Anyone but you spire (don't take this personally), you are too secretive and irrational and bound up with furthering the interests of your rich mates.

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · June 2007

You may also be too ugly (don't take it personally).

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · June 2007

You may also have a body odour problem spire(don't take it personally), but your secretive habits do not allow us to know.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Gary Askwith · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Correction: 'earned' [:)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What exactly is the problem Gary? I took a big risk years ago when I borrowed money to start a business. It has done well and I now employ several people and have made a few shillings.

Are you really saying that is wrong?

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No. But given the only information I had of you was quote:" A greedy capitalist protecting 'my money'... you could have been a speculator venture capitalist or whatever... using money to make money whilst being utterly divorced from the production base....worthy of a jibe surely[:)]
I have no problem with small business, never have, the problem is everyone sees criticism of capitalism as criticism of all business, full stop. Why?

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

ransos · June 2007

What next though? Continued wealth creation requires consumption of resources and many of our resources are finite, or at least will not be replaced as quickly as they are consumed.

Russell_john · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Correction: 'earned' [:)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What exactly is the problem Gary? I took a big risk years ago when I borrowed money to start a business. It has done well and I now employ several people and have made a few shillings.

Are you really saying that is wrong?

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No. But given the only information I had of you was quote:" A greedy capitalist protecting 'my money'... you could have been a speculator venture capitalist or whatever... using money to make money whilst being utterly divorced from the production base....worthy of a jibe surely[:)]
I have no problem with small business, never have, the problem is everyone sees criticism of capitalism as criticism of all business, full stop. Why?

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

... because many in society think that if you own a business then you are a 'fatcat' exploiting the plebs working for you. It's easily digestible media fed pap and it makes for good headlines and its always easy to put peoples in a box. For every rotten business there's a good one. For every decent builder there's a rotten one, for every bad politician... Er actually i'll stop there.

are they wibbin me Centurwion?

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

The working class usually just do the work, they don't usually create the wealth. It takes more than just doing work as instructed by others to create wealth.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

i would be interested to see all the raw materials needed for the manufacture of a car waiting for some force or other to come along and self assemble into an object of value Joe.

People's labour is the source of value. Products do not create themselves.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

They create the product yes, but they don't create the wealth. I.e manage the business, invest in the future direction of business, lead the business etc,.

Businesses do not lead themselves.

redcogs · June 2007

i wouldn't dispute that organising the way in which a product comes into being is a necessary part of the process. But it ought not to be regarded as the primary aspect of production in the way you suggest.

Those involved in that particular organising role ought, IMO, to be accountable to the labourforce. ie, facing periodic elections and subject to recall if necessary.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

i wouldn't dispute that organising the way in which a product comes into being is a necessary part of the process. But it ought not to be regarded as the primary aspect of production in the way you suggest.

Those involved in that particular organising role ought, IMO, to be accountable to the labourforce. ie, facing periodic elections and subject to recall if necessary.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Instantly making them more accountable and more senior than the 'workers' What would be the best way to reward those that want to become more accountable, let me think...

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Those involved in that particular organising role ought, IMO, to be accountable to the labourforce. ie, facing periodic elections and subject to recall if necessary.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Would anyone really want the additional responsibility without extra money?

redcogs · June 2007

Perhaps those with additional responsibility could initially be encouraged to participate with the reward of reduced working hours and greater leisure time. Everything doesn't come down to the question of money.

Many people are prepared to work for nothing (working unpaid overtime) in the NHS (and no, i'm not advocating that), because they recognise that doing so helps people who are ill in a vital way.

Its a question of encouragment and spreading the ethos of public spiritedness. It isn't impossible.

My neighbours here spent Boxing Day and several cold and wet days thereafter helping us to find and repair a damaged sewage pipe, without payment, even when offered. People can be, and often are, wonderfully sacrificing. remember how people pulled together to win the last war?

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Perhaps those with additional responsibility could initially be encouraged to participate with the reward of reduced working hours and greater leisure time. Everything doesn't come down to the question of money.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, but the people who are willing to take on additional responsibility are often the energetic types who don't necessarily want reduced hours. They might also want to be around during all of a shift so they are available to take decisions, advise etc.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Perhaps those with additional responsibility could initially be encouraged to participate with the reward of reduced working hours and greater leisure time. Everything doesn't come down to the question of money.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, but the people who are willing to take on additional responsibility are often the energetic types who don't necessarily want reduced hours. They might also want to be around during all of a shift so they are available to take decisions, advise etc.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Exactly why redcogs system doesn't work. It doesn't fit what others want, it fits what he wants.

redcogs · June 2007

You are too cynical Joe. Try looking for the optimistic side instead of the me me me money money money syndrome..

please look up to the stars.. ***

ankev1 · June 2007

I think where there are problems with business they are a matter of degree and not of principle as Redders maintains.

For instance I can't for the life of me see how any manager is worth more than 5k a week (I'm being over generous there as my instinct is to put 1k a week). To talk about responsibility in terms of the money shifted is nonsense: most managers are paid to take relatively commonsense decisions which almost anyone with a reasonable education can take.

OTH a research phycisist deserves IMO a lot more as he is really thinking and using his brain.

As for risk taking owner/managers I don't mind them earning an awful lot as in e.g. Russell John's case they are completely responsible for the existence of the whole effort. But most managers are just employees who are paid to take big but usually relatively simple decisions.

In other words: it is greed that is divisive and destructive in society. Remember: the people who justify managers' salaries are ... managers. They're just trying it on and are currently getting away with it.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

I think where there are problems with business they are a matter of degree and not of principle as Redders maintains.

For instance I can't for the life of me see how any manager is worth more than 5k a week (I'm being over generous there as my instinct is to put 1k a week). To talk about responsibility in terms of the money shifted is nonsense: most managers are paid to take relatively commonsense decisions which almost anyone with a reasonable education can take.

OTH a research phycisist deserves IMO a lot more as he is really thinking and using his brain.

As for risk taking owner/managers I don't mind them earning an awful lot as in e.g. Russell John's case they are completely responsible for the existence of the whole effort. But most managers are just employees who are paid to take big but usually relatively simple decisions.

In other words: it is greed that is divisive and destructive in society. Remember: the people who justify managers' salaries are ... managers. They're just trying it on and are currently getting away with it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

All depends what managers you have had experience of. The best managers motivate their teams, lead their teams, make their teams more efficient not just make commonsense decisions. Without this the team would not actually get anyway and would just tread water. Again, what typically happens in places of 'workers' bias.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

You are too cynical Joe. Try looking for the optimistic side instead of the me me me money money money syndrome..

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So because I don't agree with you I am cynical. I am thinking of what is best for the country and the people in it. A richer country brings about a better standard of living for all who live in it. That may mean that some are better off than others, but I believe the average person has a better standard of living in capitalist countries than they do in others.
The difference is that with capitalism you are free to at least try and change your own circumstances for the better if you so desire. In your 'system' that freedom doesn't exist. You are taking away what is a natural instinct for many people.

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

[
All depends what managers you have had experience of. The best managers motivate their teams, lead their teams, make their teams more efficient not just make commonsense decisions. Without this the team would not actually get anyway and would just tread water. Again, what typically happens in places of 'workers' bias.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I've done a bit of managing myself in my time and I agree with you that the qualities you describe are what make good managers. Your description adds up to management (which is a skill which can be learned) plus leadership (which is a natural talent which can be honed). Now although it is clearly difficult to quantify the latter quality in order to put a price on it, I stick to my view that many "top" managers are massively overpaid. They are simply pushing the principle of what the market will bear to its limits. This is no reflection of any skills they may possess; it is simply a reflection of their greed.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

So because I don't agree with you I am cynical.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No Joe, i don't think you are cynical because you disagree with me.

i think your view of why people behave as they do is cynical. You do not, if i understand your argument correctly, allow for any possibility that human beings can be motivated by considerations other than the wallet or individual concerns.

i find this to be a common problem with people who are attracted to free marketism and who are strongly individualistic in their orientations. However, i also believe that many who might share your disposition are persuadable on some issues at least. Sometimes, people can be convinced that it is more appropriate and more effective to organise service provision collectively, because it benefits them individually (NHS being a good example here).

i would prefer to see a society where that is taken as a very loose model for many more aspects of how we do things.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Soapbox defenders of Capitalism-attention

Comments

Categories