Industry & Service: Government v. Private

[iLney]

Say, I hate to reply like that but I'm feeling I've been talking to a wall.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Turn on the TV for a couple of minutes, use your head a little and you'll realize that publicity is based on logical fallacies.

phail #1

However, without creating these false needs, capitalism in its constantly expanding spiral cannot survive.

P.H.A.I.L #2
How can "capitalism" can create false needs? Care to elaborate?

The most you can do is regulate it, which is what governments actually needed to do in order to prevent another 1929

I lol'd

But what do you think the current crisis owes the most to? To the push towards more deregulation during the late 70s (and most of what came afterwards),.

70s? Nah, it was rooted in 1913.

[WanderingKnight]

You didn't bother to comment at all on my explanation of what capital is. Which is natural, since your brain doesn't seem to understand it.

And you think you're talking to a wall... lol

How can "capitalism" can create false needs? Care to elaborate?

Do you need an iPod? Do you need a new cellphone every month? Do you need expensive perfumes?

All those needs (well, *everything* that is superfluous) are created by the consumerist society--which, as I explained, is a natural consequence of capitalism.

[LeoXiao]

Well people buys lots of things they don't need (i know this is somewhat subjective), the prices of which are unnaturally low and disproportional to their actual value (or what the value should be).
An example is companies making really cheaply-produced goods that are designed to satisfy the consumer temporarily and then break, only to be replaced by more cheap goods. This is a waste of our limited resources and while monetarily efficient for the corporation, is terrible in the long run.

EDIT: WanderingKnight beat me to it. damn.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

You didn't bother to comment at all on my explanation of what capital is. Which is natural, since your brain doesn't seem to understand it.

If you don't start a post with "you don't understand anything at all," maybe since I have quite enough of you from SOB to idiot and now something about my nervous system.

Do you need an iPod? Do you need a new cellphone every month? Do you need expensive perfumes?

New flash: demand are unlimited! But you phrase it wrong, terribly wrong, here is how it should be:

Do you want an iPod? Do you want a new cellphone everymonth? Do you want expensive perfumes?

===> Yes I want an iPod. Yes, I want a new cellphone not every month but every day. No, I don't want perfumes. And I also want to travel around the world. I want to live in the 10 stars hotel and I want that hotel moved to Paris instead. I want to travel in space...

So what is your point? You didn't tell me how "capitalism" creates false needs?

All those needs (well, *everything* that is superfluous) are created by the consumerist society--which, as I explained, is a natural consequence of capitalism.

Natural? If you like bashing the USA economy (which you believe is "capitalism"), read this:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Not only is our nation on the verge of bankruptcy, but so are its people and private institutions. We are now repeatedly hearing about businesses “needing to access the credit market to make payroll.” This is an unmistakable sign of more dire consequences ahead for the economy. If businesses must borrow just to make payroll, this is evidence of a severe undercapitalization that cannot be sustained, even for the short run.


Couple these facts with items such as the explosion of the “pay day loan” industry and the unmasking of the false sense of economic well-being is nearly complete. These pay day loan companies use preferred access to easy credit to inject cash into the hands of the working poor. They are nearly always set up in lower-income neighborhoods. These people, who are struggling to buy food and pay rent, get addicted to the credit drug. Their standard of living is only further depressed by the interest payments on these loans that make them profitable to their providers. Thus, the recipients are left even less capable of paying for items such as food and housing in the long run, without using this credit again and again.



These people are often the very ones being paid by businesses who “borrow to make payroll.” This is the dark underbelly of the fiat money, borrow and spend economy this nation has been building. As the government takes over more and more functions of the economy many see the rise of socialism as an antidote to this failure of “capitalism”. However, the fact remains that our economy has been increasingly running on debt, not capital. Capitalism does not exist without capital and debt is not, has never been and will never be a form of capital. Only now are we seeing the more dire implications of an economy without capital

[LeoXiao]

Okay, if we had "real capitalism," explain to me how things wouldn't be like the way England was in the industrial Revolution or how China is now.

[iLney]

What?..........

[WanderingKnight]

If you don't start a post with "you don't understand anything at all," maybe since I have quite enough of you from SOB to idiot and now something about my nervous system.

No, maybe, just maybe, it's because you have no idea of what you're talking about. Maybe.

New flash: demand are unlimited!

Newsflash: demand is not unlimited. What the hell do you reckon a recession is?

But you phrase it wrong, terribly wrong, here is how it should be:

Do you want an iPod? Do you want a new cellphone everymonth? Do you want expensive perfumes?

No, you don't understand (which is quite normal in you, apparently, but anyways). Those are fake needs. People who sell these things for a living create the illusion that, by buying such things, you'll be happier. Advertisement does it all the time.

My father works in the advertisement field (he's a graphic designer) and he would explain you quite well that the main point behind advertisement is to absolutely convince the viewer that he needs the object that's being advertised--but he doesn't. Advertisement is one big fallacy (actually, different types of advertisement can be broken down into certain types of fallacies, but that's just minor nitpicking).

So what is your point? You didn't tell me how "capitalism" creates false needs?

Go back and read the post where I kindly explained how consumption relates to accumulation of capital.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Newsflash: demand is not unlimited.

You, Sir, should not talk about economics anymore.

[WanderingKnight]

Explain to me how that works when scarcity of resources is one of the fundamental principles of capitalism.

Oh, and please explain to me what capital is, too, and how would you define accumulation of capital.

[iLney]

Uhm, you've already won a life-time Nobel Prize in economics for that statement . In other words, you win economics! Don't bother capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.... such trivial stuffs could never withstand even just the shadow of your greatness.

[WanderingKnight]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

Plus, as Irenicus and I have stated a couple of times, the "desires are infinite" idea is not a scientific truth.

Also:

Oh, and please explain to me what capital is, too, and how would you define accumulation of capital.

[WanderingKnight]

Oh, and about this:

Explain to me how that works when scarcity of resources is one of the fundamental principles of capitalism.

It's Friday night, I'm drunk, and I realize my knee-jerk reaction got in the way of conveying a clear message. Sorry about that.

However, my point remains: people don't "want" an iPod--the whole rhetoric of "product xxx has filled xxx hole in the market" is bullshit. The desire for an iPod is implanted by those who sell them (thank you Apple)--there's no "desire for an iPod" before the thing actually comes into existence.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

However, my point remains: people don't "want" an iPod--the whole rhetoric of "product xxx has filled xxx hole in the market" is bullshit. The desire for an iPod is implanted by those who sell them (thank you Apple)--there's no "desire for an iPod" before the thing actually comes into existence.

I respectfully disagree. If people enjoy music and wanted an easier way to listen to music, that actually does fill a spot in the market. If people want easier transportation and flying cars came out, those flying cars would also fill a hole in the market.

However desire is not need. People don't need anything beyond food, water, and shelter to stay alive... So everything after that becomes purely a desire.

[iLney]

Oh, your greatness, what does the concept of marginal utility have anything to do with demand? I only dare say ‘demand’ since the light of your wisdom has engulfed the former’s boundlessness.

Oh, your majesty, since the one truth of this universe is the limitedness of demand, I follow the light of your guidance to the conclusion that the number of people going to StarBuck Coffee everyday would be the same if everything were free. Yes, that must be true.
/facepalm

Enough of the lulz:
Desires when compared to the available resources on Earth are unlimited. It’s the truth and the very reason for the existence of the thing called “economics.” And please don’t share your life-time Nobel prize with any other.

For capital and capital accumulation, here I’ll help you win economics in round #2:

_ Capital includes many things but all would be meaningless without labor!

_Capital accumulation is ....,what the heck, trivial stuffs, since everything related to capital must come from labor!

Conclusion: a capitalist can only make profit by exploiting labor. Therefore, capitalism is evil.

Das ende.
Satisfied?

[kyon.haruhi.suzumiya]

Well, private usually runs things better, if only to fight corruption. But basic needs like energy, water and oil should be under the government. Prices of staples like rice need to have a bracket (set by the government) to limit its price.

Therefore, for the most basic, the government does best. For all else, there's private sector.

[LeoXiao]

Oh and the government shouldn't be able to put the economy on steroids by constantly subsidizing the auto giants and whatnot. That causes it to overgrow and fall really hard.

[Anh_Minh]

I don't want to go into the particulars of the present situation, but there's a difference between subsidizing an industry all the time, and keeping it alive through a bad period. The latter makes more sense than letting it crash and then try to rebuild from scratch afterwards.

Not that the former doesn't have its uses too. Our agriculture is heavily subsidized because, well, we have to be able to grow on own food.

[LeoXiao]

To expand on the steroid analogy, I guess it would be like the difference between working out and pumping yourself full of questionable substances. Subsidizes can be good, but I think that the corporate lobby has turned them into something much less beneficial to society.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I don't want to go into the particulars of the present situation, but there's a difference between subsidizing an industry all the time, and keeping it alive through a bad period. The latter makes more sense than letting it crash and then try to rebuild from scratch afterwards.

Not that the former doesn't have its uses too. Our agriculture is heavily subsidized because, well, we have to be able to grow on own food.

In other words, too big to fail?

That is a very very interesting concept. It alters the mindset of many future entrepreneurs.

How to run a business in the 21st century:
.......
In time of crisis:
_Step 1: whine and inform the press
_Step 2: complain about how unfair life is.
_Step 3:"It's not my fault"
_Step 4: Convince people to believe that the world will explode if your business is gone.
_Step 5: go to D.C
_Step 6: if (business == "still fail") goto Step1 (this method guarantees success)
_Step 7: treat yourself a worldwide tour.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

To expand on the steroid analogy, I guess it would be like the difference between working out and pumping yourself full of questionable substances. Subsidizes can be good, but I think that the corporate lobby has turned them into something much less beneficial to society.

I'd say it's like medicine. It can be abused, there can be side-effects, but, well, sometimes, you've just got to take your pill.

Lobbies are a problem, I won't deny it. Another is that, quite often, we just don't know what we're doing.