Exploiting The Exploiters

[David Sklansky]

After reading that website by Alf Temme, it occurred to me that capitalism works as well as it does not so much because the rich are exploiting the poor but actually almost the opposite.

The reason I say this is that the end result of capitalism, the rich get a lot richer and the poor get a little richer, only occurs because there are a lot of sick puppies out there. And the mentally healthy middle class gets a chance to exploit these people under capitalism. I'm talking about people who are driven to produce far more than they need, not because of any lofty goals to help people, to accomplish great things or to be remembered (eg Bill Gates) but rather simply because of an unhealthy psychological need to amass points in the form of money to avoid coming to terms with their demons.

I believe more than half of the entrpreneurs are of this second type and that ironically if capitalism is immoral it might be more because the middle class is gaining by encouraging these people's sicknesses.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about people who are driven to produce far more than they need...

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason they can continue to produce more than they need, is because there is a demand for what they produce. Whatever their personal motivation is, they are still fulfilling some sort of need/want/desire in society.

How many books could you over-produce unless there was a market for them?

[JCCARL]

EGADS David!!I've completed my MBA, but I won't even go near this thought with a ten foot pole. Fundamental disagreements with how we view society and capitalism. Kindest regards,
Carl

[ojc02]

Sorry David, I respect you greatly but I couldn't disagree with you more on virtually everything you said.

If I were to try to find my key underlying disagreement, I think it would be that you assume a morality of altruism. I would argue that everyone should act in their own best interests (without using force to get their way). Why should everyone be concerned with helping others at the expense of themselves?

Entrepreneurs do more for our society in general than any other class of people. They are the ones with the foresight and persistence to see new technology or ideas through to the marketplace where *everyone else* benefits ENORMOUSLY.

Though I'm sure some (maybe a lot) of them agree with your stance, their intentions can be entirely self-serving, and moral, and they will still be of enormous benefit to everyone else.

Yes, they get handsomely rewarded for their risk, effort, and foresight, and they deserve to be. Really, it doesn't even matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks they deserve by way of compensation. All the people who have purchased their product or service have *willingly* given their money to them in exchange for said product.

[Lestat]

Intersting take. I don't quite get how the middle class exploits the unhealthy psychological needs of the drivin however. By working for them?

I'm also not convinced that amassing money is indicative of an unhealthy psyche. Yes, most are eccentric and most have an insatiable need to build and get bigger. But is that really less mentally healthy than the desire to get home from work and watch TV all night?

[Mickey Brausch]

Sklansky: [ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about people who are driven to produce far more than they need ... because of an unhealthy psychological need to amass points in the form of money to avoid coming to terms with their demons.

[/ QUOTE ]

JCCARL:
[ QUOTE ]
EGADS David!! I've completed my MBA, but I won't even go near this thought with a ten foot pole.

[/ QUOTE ]

[FortunaMaximus]

Those individuals don't recognize that some scenarios are unbeatable, and that victory isn't the object.

"When you lose, you stand up and walk away. To win it, you have to play forever."

I agree, though, on general principle.

The socioeconomic aspects, well, that's the thing about generational mortality. No generation starts afresh, and there are newer and different ways to create the self-illusion that you can beat it, and the sickness is rooted in the fact that those people genuinely understand that to beat it, you have to play literally forever.

And the rest of humanity softens the blow by being there, and can the distribution of wealth across the three proportions and the proportions of population ever be a true inverse?

I don't think so. This has to be exploitable by one class, and the upper class can never gather all the wealth. The lower class can never go completely broke. So the benefits end up in the middle class.

If the middle class is growing in proportional rates to both classes, in population ratio to the lower class, and in wealth ratio to the upper class, growth of overall wealth should always be on an upward trend.

It's just a guess though.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Entrepreneurs do more for our society in general than any other class of people. They are the ones with the foresight and persistence to see new technology or ideas through to the marketplace where *everyone else* benefits ENORMOUSLY.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is totally incorrect. Only some entrepreneurs benefit society, in the same way that only some benefit themselves, others have a nefarious effect on society. An entrepreneur can benefits himself and not society, and vice-versa.

The next important aspect is that whether the entrepreneur succeed or not in being, at least, of benefit to himself or to society, has usually more to do with chance than with merit, imo. By the way many entrepreneurs become so by pure chance, and anyone in the same would have achieved the same or even better. To my mind you have a very romanticized view of business. Just scratch the surface and look at the underlying reality! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ojc02]

You and David both use the term exploit. Is the implication that one group is unfairly using another? If so, what is the mechanism of the unfair exploitation?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Entrepreneurs do more for our society in general than any other class of people. They are the ones with the foresight and persistence to see new technology or ideas through to the marketplace where *everyone else* benefits ENORMOUSLY.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is totally incorrect. Only some entrepreneurs benefit society, in the same way that only some benefit themselves, others have a nefarious effect on society. An entrepreneur can benefits himself and not society, and vice-versa.

The next important aspect is that whether the entrepreneur succeed or not in being, at least, of benefit to himself or to society, has usually more to do with chance than with merit, imo. By the way many entrepreneurs become so by pure chance, and anyone in the same would have achieved the same or even better. To my mind you have a very romanticized view of business. Just scratch the surface and look at the underlying reality! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

An entrepreneur cannot not benefit society. If they are successful and survive then it is because there was a demand for their product and they satiated that demand (to whatever extent).

It is not possible for an entrepreneur to benefit himself and not the people he is trading with or the trades wouldn't happen.

(I am assuming that the entrepreneurs are not using force at all, for example: not stealing from some and selling to others)

[soon2bepro]

Err, David, how exactly do middle class people exploit the high class?

One would tend to think it's the other way around...

Maybe you just meant there's the possibility of exploiting... Anyway I didn't understand what you were referring to. Can you give an example? Other than gambling /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
You and David both use the term exploit. Is the implication that one group is unfairly using another? If so, what is the mechanism of the unfair exploitation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for him, but I know what I mean by that. In an global economy with constant positive growth, the proportion of unfair exploitation in numbers lessens as the middle class grows, because there are less poor people to exploit.

So you could say the middle class is capable of positive, fair exploitation, because they aren't the causative agents for exploiting the poor, they are the market.

And they are vociferous. They can engender largescale changes in sufficiently large numbers. The slight edges they cause in democracy allows them to have that effect on politics and the economy, and the cumulative positive effects are less poverty and growing overall numbers.

The flaw in the global system, unfortunately, is while there are less poor people, in numbers, they are getting poorer and poorer. But there is an ultimate limit to how much you can exploit them. The flux, however, never sets the numbers on a steady ascending or descending scale, but it stays within a range.

And across the centuries, there has never been a society where this three-tier disparity was able to be redistributed equally. It may be impossible since we operate on primal dominant-submissive psychology in every aspect of our life.

To create a perfect society, every individual would have to be immortal and have an infinite amount of time to work with. Oddly enough, even if this were so, the systems would remain the same, because that is the level of comfort for humans.

The middle class is the Gordian knot. And it also holds the sword for that knot. How would you resolve this, and what would you need first and foremost to resolve this in a practical fashion?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't speak for him, but I know what I mean by that. In an global economy with constant positive growth, the proportion of unfair exploitation in numbers lessens as the middle class grows, because there are less poor people to exploit.

So you could say the middle class is capable of positive, fair exploitation, because they aren't the causative agents for exploiting the poor, they are the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

This all assumes that the poor are being unfairly exploited at all. The people who provide jobs, products, and services to them in exchange for labor, money, and money, respectively are not unfairly exploiting them. Everything that goes on in those transactions is done willingly by both sides because both sides derive utility from it.

There seems to be an assumption that wealth needs to be redistributed. Why? Money or property has been earned by those who have it (except if they stole it then it obviously needs to be returned). What right have we to take by force the money or property from those who have more of it?

Edit: Just to add, there was a post earlier about if the amount of money someone has is proportional to their intelligence. I would say that the amount of money someone has is proportional to the amount of utility that they have given to other people.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...except if they stole it then it obviously needs to be returned ...

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I think as one here. Thinking of it, perhaps you may have a vary narrow and self-justifying definition of stealing! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...except if they stole it then it obviously needs to be returned ...

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I think as one here. Thinking of it, perhaps you may have a vary narrow and self-justifying definition of stealing! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

My definition of stealing would be taking someone elses property against their will... Is your definition the same?...

Sorry, I'm being slow. Not really sure where you were going with that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Edit: Hey! My 100th post! woohoo!

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be an assumption that wealth needs to be redistributed. Why? Money or property has been earned by those who have it (except if they stole it then it obviously needs to be returned). What right have we to take by force the money or property from those who have more of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, it doesn't have to be. If it isn't possible within a century or a century and quarter, why even waste endless sums of time to change it? You just create a situation where you actually put yourself in that class.

As for taking from the rich? The more intelligent the rich man is, the more he's likely to notice the effects of an individual doing the "theft" not by outright robbery, but creative, amusing guild. Because both individuals are aware of what the other is aware of.

When there's a William, there's a Waylon. Just jazz.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be an assumption that wealth needs to be redistributed. Why? Money or property has been earned by those who have it (except if they stole it then it obviously needs to be returned). What right have we to take by force the money or property from those who have more of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, it doesn't have to be. If it isn't possible within a century or a century and quarter, why even waste endless sums of time to change it? You just create a situation where you actually put yourself in that class.

As for taking from the rich? The more intelligent the rich man is, the more he's likely to notice the effects of an individual doing the "theft" not by outright robbery, but creative, amusing guild. Because both individuals are aware of what the other is aware of.

When there's a William, there's a Waylon. Just jazz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try to give an example to make sure I understand what you mean: Tobacco company offers cigarettes which people foolishly try (often when young and unaware), they get hooked, they wind up spending a lot of money the rest of their lives on a product that may well kill them.

Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

[FortunaMaximus]

Basically? Yeah. Do they get more enjoyment from the same sum of money that an individual does by smoking?

Not on an per-unit basis. Those corporates hold power by being able to collect those sums into one bigger sum, which can cause more effects on a wholesale basis.

If this individual quit smoking and decided to use the revenue in an accelerated compound strategy to buy the company and dissolve it or break the corporate into spinoffs, eliminating tobacco divisions, and used this profit to move on to the next tobacco company, and do the process again, in time, he would win in the long run.

This would not be stoppable. But why would he bother?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically? Yeah. Do they

[/ QUOTE ]
The tobacco company you mean?
[ QUOTE ]
get more enjoyment from the same sum of money that an individual does by smoking?
Not on an per-unit basis. Those corporates hold power by being able to collect those sums into one bigger sum, which can cause more effects on a wholesale basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of changes? Is this a bad thing?

[ QUOTE ]
If this individual quit smoking and decided to use the revenue in an accelerated compound strategy to buy the company and dissolve it or break the corporate into spinoffs, eliminating tobacco divisions, and used this profit to move on to the next tobacco company, and do the process again, in time, he would win in the long run.

This would not be stoppable. But why would he bother?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be an impressive feat. /images/graemlins/smile.gif He'd need a mean rate of return to get from cigarette money to tobacco company market cap.

[FortunaMaximus]

Exactly. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most American tobacco companies have their fingers in multiple pies?

If they would reduce the poisonous content and improve the scent of tobacco, while retaining the nicotine levels, that'd be [censored] perfect. Not gonna happen anytime soon, but the potential for positive change is inherent in every corporate.

Impressive, Yes. Worth it? Probably not. Sisyphus never learnt how to roll the stone up the slope faster than it could roll down. This doesn't mean he wasn't capable of doing that.

Somebody who can hold multiple infinite sets and determine quantum probabilities of a zero at the same time simply gets bored when talking about millions, billions, trillions. What's the total sum of money on this planet? It isn't infinite, and it wouldn't take an infinite sum of time either. A pseudorandom closed system is more fun to watch anyway.

Besides, there are better things to accummulate than money on a scoring level. Temporal intervals, for instance.

Another enjoyable day. 'night, y'all.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
My definition of stealing would be taking someone elses property against their will... Is your definition the same?...

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess so, like all the unilateral breaches of contract and treaties by the US or its states governments against native Americans.

Now, let see, there is principal, accrued interest on principal, general exploitation and resources exploitation. Umm, could easily bankrupt the US government and it will upset a lot of people that may have to relocate.! Perhaps you are suggesting that if you father steals and you inherit proceed of theft from him, it should be rightfully yours? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But this is only one injustice, how about those that achieved economic advancement via slavery?

Better stop here. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Skidoo]

To interject with a general definition:

A condition of exploitation exists when value taken exceeds value returned.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
To interject with a general definition:

A condition of exploitation exists when value taken exceeds value returned.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is crucial to state value according to who. It is not value according to any third party.

Person A buys product from Company B. Both A and B get more value than they give up, otherwise they wouldn't do the trade. No trade would ever occur if both parties didn't think they were increasing their utility by doing the trade.

[David Sklansky]

I think some people are misunderstanding me. My only point was that capitalism gives opportunities for psychologically unhealthy people to immerse themselves in money making ventures that add little to themselves except the opportunity to feed their obsessions. These ventures often raise the overall standard of living. If tomorrow all these people were "cured" it would hurt everyone else. So in that sense they are being exploited.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some people are misunderstanding me. My only point was that capitalism gives opportunities for psychologically unhealthy people to immerse themselves in money making ventures that add little to themselves except the opportunity to feed their obsessions. These ventures often raise the overall standard of living. If tomorrow all these people were "cured" it would hurt everyone else. So in that sense they are being exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, my bad, I guess I did misunderstand. Your estimate of >50% of entrepreneurs being psychologically unhealthy seems terribly high to me. I guess I would need some clarification on the nature of the problems you think they have...

It sounded initially like you thought that their illness was just a desire to acquire assets for themselves. What is the nature of the "demons" they're trying to avoid?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


The reason I say this is that the end result of capitalism, the rich get a lot richer and the poor get a little richer

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this isn't the main thrust of your post, but i wanted to point out that the poor have gooten hugely richer as a result of capitalism. Even in society's like the present day US where there are numereous lwas which serve to disincentise improvements in lifestyle the lowest 10% live a life which would be equivilient in many ways to kings of 500 years ago. Infant mortality rates are extremely low, life expectancy very high, availible nutrition very high, availible education high. Then you throw in indoor plumbing, electricty, better heating sources, easier travel, vaccinations as well as other advances in medicine, the end result is that each and every generation can be siad to be signifigantly better off in a material sense than the previous one.

[CityFan]

Interesting tie-in with the "Money measure intellect" thread.

I agree that there are a group of people obsessed with racking up a bank balance to prove their worth, when they might lead happier lives doing something else.

I don't agree that they make up half of entrepreneurs though. Many people do just enjoy happier working for themselves and building something out of nothing.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about people who are driven to produce far more than they need, not because of any lofty goals to help people, to accomplish great things or to be remembered (eg Bill Gates) but rather simply because of an unhealthy psychological need to amass points in the form of money to avoid coming to terms with their demons.


[/ QUOTE ]

On a recent episode of 'Gene Simmons, family jewels' (The guy from the band KISS with the super long tongue who is very obsessive about making money with his name and his image from KISS) he met with a psychologist. He was discussing his drive to make money with her. He related a time in his childhood. His father abandoned his family and his mother had to take 2 full time jobs, working day and night to support the family. He revealed to the psychiatrist that one night when he was a child he woke up screaming and crying but his mother was not there. He referenced this particular night and how he 'learned' from this experience that one can not depend on others, one can only depend on oneself. He equated money with security, the more you have the 'safer' you are.
--------------------------

I think a reasonanble way to look at this is that he is obsessively driven to continue to accumulate accumulate money due to his childhood trauma, his 'need' to protect that inner child from experiencing pain and abandonment.

It would also probably explain his philandering lol

[Nielsio]

Are you interested in an actual debate or more the usual hit and run thing? I supplied you with two Mises lectures in your last thread. Did you take the time to listen to an ACer making his case there?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some people are misunderstanding me. My only point was that capitalism gives opportunities for psychologically unhealthy people to immerse themselves in money making ventures that add little to themselves except the opportunity to feed their obsessions. These ventures often raise the overall standard of living. If tomorrow all these people were "cured" it would hurt everyone else. So in that sense they are being exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]

You want to cure people from their *values*? Is that the communist brainwash thingy, that was supposed to occur?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry David, I respect you greatly but I couldn't disagree with you more on virtually everything you said.

If I were to try to find my key underlying disagreement, I think it would be that you assume a morality of altruism. I would argue that everyone should act in their own best interests (without using force to get their way). Why should everyone be concerned with helping others at the expense of themselves?

Entrepreneurs do more for our society in general than any other class of people. They are the ones with the foresight and persistence to see new technology or ideas through to the marketplace where *everyone else* benefits ENORMOUSLY.

Though I'm sure some (maybe a lot) of them agree with your stance, their intentions can be entirely self-serving, and moral, and they will still be of enormous benefit to everyone else.

Yes, they get handsomely rewarded for their risk, effort, and foresight, and they deserve to be. Really, it doesn't even matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks they deserve by way of compensation. All the people who have purchased their product or service have *willingly* given their money to them in exchange for said product.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bist du ein ACer?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think some people are misunderstanding me. My only point was that capitalism gives opportunities for psychologically unhealthy people to immerse themselves in money making ventures that add little to themselves except the opportunity to feed their obsessions. These ventures often raise the overall standard of living. If tomorrow all these people were "cured" it would hurt everyone else. So in that sense they are being exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]

You want to cure people from their *values*? Is that the communist brainwash thingy, that was supposed to occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubt it. Posit on a niche of unhealthy people who are capable of exploiting the middle class while not quite adhering to their values, and potentially being in an income bracket that isn't middle-class, while retaining the comforts of such, while maintaining the ability of liquidity being in the upper class offers.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some people are misunderstanding me. My only point was that capitalism gives opportunities for psychologically unhealthy people to immerse themselves in money making ventures that add little to themselves except the opportunity to feed their obsessions. These ventures often raise the overall standard of living. If tomorrow all these people were "cured" it would hurt everyone else. So in that sense they are being exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

A far more likely (and less pessimistic) view is that human being have been bred for 40,000 years, and most intensively the last 10,000 years, to produce as much as possible, because producing as much as possible is directly to the benefit of the producer's genes. It is only an extremely recent phenomenon that even a tiny fraction of the population can quickly produce more than they ever "need."

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some people are misunderstanding me. My only point was that capitalism gives opportunities for psychologically unhealthy people to immerse themselves in money making ventures that add little to themselves except the opportunity to feed their obsessions. These ventures often raise the overall standard of living. If tomorrow all these people were "cured" it would hurt everyone else. So in that sense they are being exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm.... Are you crazy? Big capitalists exploit the workers, it's not the other way around :/

They may not gain much from all the piles of money, but they just keep filling their pockets, whether that helps them or not, it hurts the average person.

Bill Gates has an amassed fortune of about 50 billion dollars. I would say the well being of an average person is worth 1 million. So Bill Gates is denying 50 thousand people their possibility of living a good life.

And don't give me that crap about he trying to help humanity. His business is one of the most cutthroat, selfish, monopolizing one of the present times (not that I think that's "wrong" or that I wouldn't do the same).

Please David. Indian workers aren't happy to be working all day for a couple dollars a week so that some big fat capitalist is able to stock his pockets with more and more money he doesn't even use.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm.... Are you crazy? Big capitalists exploit the workers, it's not the other way around :/

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. They make a voluntary exchange, because each values what the other has more than what they themselves have.

[soon2bepro]

Agreed. Still the workers gain much much less from their work than the capistalist gain from the worker's work.

Don't get me wrong. Most workers are idiots who can't figure out a way to get out of their misery, which is fully possible under the current system (including, but not by any means limited to, the possibility of massively enforcing a change in the system). I don't sympathise with them.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. Still the workers gain much much less from their work than the capistalist gain from the worker's work.

Don't get me wrong. Most workers are idiots who can't figure out a way to get out of their misery, which is fully possible under the current system. I don't sympathise with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor I, generally. My sympathies are generally reserved for the lower class, so siphoning from the upper class and keeping the lion's share to myself while using the unnecessary amounts to help the poor is quite efficient for me.

I'm sure I'd be annoyed if I had to suddenly start paying taxes on top of that though, and I consider my methodology a voluntary tax of sorts, because it is a tax I'm willing and interested in paying.

Sales tax is unavoidable though. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some people are misunderstanding me. My only point was that capitalism gives opportunities for psychologically unhealthy people to immerse themselves in money making ventures that add little to themselves except the opportunity to feed their obsessions. These ventures often raise the overall standard of living. If tomorrow all these people were "cured" it would hurt everyone else. So in that sense they are being exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the clarification. Very interesting concept.

So if we were a small tribe on an island, and one of our members was this psychotic producer, let's say he was obsessed with catching as many fish as he could everyday, the following conclusion comes to mind:

It would be in our best interest to encourage his psychosis. In a sense we would all be enjoying the fruit (fish) of his disorder. We would probably end up bestowing high honors and praise on this person, encouraging others to follow in his footsteps. And putting an extra-ordinary amount of pressure on the young males, eager to establish their place in the tribe, to 'prove' themselves.

Am I understanding you correctly?

[soon2bepro]

I sympathise even less with the lowest class, for the same reason. They're idiots

Maybe you misunderstood... By workers I meant mostly the low class workers...

[soon2bepro]

But capitalists don't catch fish!! Workers catch fish, capitalists sell the fish for equally valuable goods (money), then give workers 1/4 to 1/100 of what they produced.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I sympathise even less with the lowest class, for the same reason. They're idiots

Maybe you misunderstood... By workers I meant mostly the low class workers...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, those are the same idiots I mean. I'm referring to the abused and those that are capable of more if offered an opportunity to run roughshod with budgeting and doors.

Low-income families with exceptional children, for instance. Justice for battered women and abused children, etc.

Then again, it's my upbringing. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif There's a time and place for justified violence, and for arming those with the means to take revenge. Makes for rather dramatic situations.

Fairly well-off and float on a socialist system, grow up learning the nature of power in a company, you'll end up like me. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Like I told Jasper a ways back, most of humanity is slave labor until we figure out something better to do with them. That includes the middle class.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
The more intelligent the rich man is, the more he's likely to notice the effects of an individual doing the "theft" not by outright robbery, but creative, amusing guile.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it is possible to steal from someone without them knowing about it: through subtlety?

That would disprove the theory that an "entrepreneur" must always do good or go out of business.

[FortunaMaximus]

It wasn't a typo, skidoo, but thanks for the correction. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Yes, there is, but as long as it isn't noticeable, it's no big thing unless he gets annoyed.

Sometimes those individuals end up getting hired. What subclass runs most IT security departments for Fortune 500 companies?

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]

An entrepreneur cannot not benefit society. If they are successful and survive then it is because there was a demand for their product and they satiated that demand (to whatever extent).

It is not possible for an entrepreneur to benefit himself and not the people he is trading with or the trades wouldn't happen.

[/ QUOTE ] This is far too simplistic; it ignores classic market failures.

1st: Imperfect information. If I think a book is going to be great, and buy it for thirty bucks, but it turns out that it was terrible, then I did not benefit from the transaction in any meaningful sense. Obviously, this could be worse: The Ford Pinto and some faulty birth control devices demonstrate that.

2nd: externalities. Even if the buyers of the product gain, others who are effected by the transaction but had no say in whether or not it occured might lose. An example: Giant company A makes sells some nice cheap products, but shopping at that store instead of others means:

More pollution.
More resources wasted.
Extinction of animal species.
Mom and Pop stores put out of business.
Lower paying, mind numbing jobs (assume A pays its employees less and treats them worse than competing company B. If more people shopped at B, that would mean more well paying, decent jobs because B would have a higher demand for labor).

[Propertarian]

This: [ QUOTE ]
Most workers are idiots who can't figure out a way to get out of their misery

[/ QUOTE ]

is in direct contradiction to what follows it:

[ QUOTE ]
which is fully possible under the current system

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, it is not fully possible FOR THEM ("most" workers), because they are too stupid to do it; you said they " CAN'T figure out a way...", not me.

Also, they might be stupid BECAUSE of the current system (say, because they and their parents have mind-numbing, stultifying jobs and went to an educational system built to produce people to perform these jobs, perhaps?), hence their stupidity would hardly be a reason for not having sympathy for them or supporting the current system.

This does not imply that I believe that someone's stupidity causes their well-being to be unimportant; in fact I believe that a society can be judged best based on how those who were not so fortunate in the natural and social lottery are treated within it.

If we reinstituted slavery, but based it on IQ instead of skin color, it would be equally awful.

[soon2bepro]

I agree with you, but it's not a contradiction as for what I meant. I meant it's fully possible were they not so stupid and unwilling to think for themselves.

Yes, of course this is a product of the system they live in, but that doesn't make me feel any more compassion for them. A murderer is also a product of the system he lives in, or rather particularly what he's experienced in his personal life. A scientific genious, a philosopher, a basketball player. Everyone is a product of causality, but that doesn't mean I have to like them all the same. Just like I don't have to like a rock the same I like my friends.

I like people that I can relate to. That is also a product of what I've lived through.


About slavery:
I don't think it'd be equally "awful". We treat other animals with lesser intelligence pretty much the same way people treated slaves back when. Or even worse. It only makes sense that we do the same, proportionally to their intelligence, to people.

On the other hand we could teach people so they wouldn't be so stupid, and unlike other animals they would learn (provided their basic needs and stuff were covered).

I'm fine with either method. Or better yet, both.


In any case, morality isn't something you can really reason with. It's based in feelings. It has an ultimate purpose, which is to make society a better place for everyone, but how to reach that goal, what's moral and what's not, is set by the feelings of the majority of people. So if most people feel X isn't moral, or have a negative feeling towards X, or X produces a negative feeling in them towards morality itself or society itself, then it's not moral. And vice versa.

[David Sklansky]

"A far more likely (and less pessimistic) view is that human being have been bred for 40,000 years, and most intensively the last 10,000 years, to produce as much as possible, because producing as much as possible is directly to the benefit of the producer's genes. It is only an extremely recent phenomenon that even a tiny fraction of the population can quickly produce more than they ever "need." "

But as Alf Temme points out this trait is exhibited in a fairly small minority of the population. Most people get lazy when they reach a certain standard of living. And I am not just talking about the incompetants. For instance I am quite sure that 70% of poker players and 70% of physicists, could, if they wanted to, be among the top 10% of entrepreneurs. For the most part, entrepreneurs are as rich as they are because they are more diven, often unhealthfully.

Meanwhile, capitalists should actually like my points because it is an argument that can persuade your average Joe to accept the system.

[soon2bepro]

David, I'd like what you say to be true, but that doesn't cloud my judgement. It's just not.

Or maybe you'd like to explain yourself better, to make me understand. (since you're usually not this far off when it comes to theory)

[Propertarian]

I agree that mores are not something you can reason about.

But their is a branch of philosophy called "ethics" or "moral philosophy" that uses various logical methodologies and arguments.

So clearly you can reason with mith morality. Perhaps you can't persuade people to change their moral beliefs very easily with reason, but that's not what I'm trying to do here.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

But capitalists don't catch fish!! Workers catch fish, capitalists sell the fish for equally valuable goods (money), then give workers 1/4 to 1/100 of what they produced.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in a free market, shouldn't we expect all the workers to organize, quit their jobs, pool their assets and start their own business?

[soon2bepro]

We should. But they're too stupid to do that.

In any case, I'm not trying to say what should be, I was just saying that DS's claim seems totally wrong.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
So in a free market, shouldn't we expect all the workers to organize, quit their jobs, pool their assets and start their own business?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because not everyone has that particular aptitude, which doesn't justify anyone suffering poverty, however.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
We should. But they're too stupid to do that.

In any case, I'm not trying to say what should be, I was just saying that DS's claim seems totally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

And so it should. To the healthy.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
We should. But they're too stupid to do that.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, given the current distribution of income, loan process and the current safety net, it would probably be stupid for most workers TO start their own business.

On the whole, capitalists can take risks because they have a bunch of money, while workers have little or nothing, and therefore lose more well-being per dollar lose, and need to make a steady profit so they can feed, clothe, and shelter their family.

The current distribution of income and rules of the game exploit the workers more than capitalists do.

[valenzuela]

Why do you post this here instead of posting it on politics?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry David, I respect you greatly but I couldn't disagree with you more on virtually everything you said.

If I were to try to find my key underlying disagreement, I think it would be that you assume a morality of altruism. I would argue that everyone should act in their own best interests (without using force to get their way). Why should everyone be concerned with helping others at the expense of themselves?

Entrepreneurs do more for our society in general than any other class of people. They are the ones with the foresight and persistence to see new technology or ideas through to the marketplace where *everyone else* benefits ENORMOUSLY.

Though I'm sure some (maybe a lot) of them agree with your stance, their intentions can be entirely self-serving, and moral, and they will still be of enormous benefit to everyone else.

Yes, they get handsomely rewarded for their risk, effort, and foresight, and they deserve to be. Really, it doesn't even matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks they deserve by way of compensation. All the people who have purchased their product or service have *willingly* given their money to them in exchange for said product.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bist du ein ACer?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, but I think government is necessary to prevent the initiation of force. We probably agree about most things though (except that obviously).

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, morality isn't something you can really reason with. It's based in feelings. It has an ultimate purpose, which is to make society a better place for everyone, but how to reach that goal, what's moral and what's not, is set by the feelings of the majority of people. So if most people feel X isn't moral, or have a negative feeling towards X, or X produces a negative feeling in them towards morality itself or society itself, then it's not moral. And vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Morality is absolutely something that can be treated logically - it is one part of philosophical thought. You start with basic axioms and work your way through Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, and then Politics.

When you have an emotional reaction to something, that reaction is an aggregation of your past experiences, current thoughts, generalizations, wishes, doubts, and fears all bundled together by that neural net of yours which then spits out an answer. You can either make your moral decisions this way, or by actually trying to logically reason the problem with a consious, rational, and disciplined deliberation process. Personally, I choose the later, that's why I'm here.

If you're just going to say: "morality is whatever any individual or collection of individuals *feels*" then what's the point of even discussing it?

Edit: Sorry, bit off topic I know...

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The reason I say this is that the end result of capitalism, the rich get a lot richer and the poor get a little richer

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this isn't the main thrust of your post, but i wanted to point out that the poor have gooten hugely richer as a result of capitalism. Even in society's like the present day US where there are numereous lwas which serve to disincentise improvements in lifestyle the lowest 10% live a life which would be equivilient in many ways to kings of 500 years ago. Infant mortality rates are extremely low, life expectancy very high, availible nutrition very high, availible education high. Then you throw in indoor plumbing, electricty, better heating sources, easier travel, vaccinations as well as other advances in medicine, the end result is that each and every generation can be siad to be signifigantly better off in a material sense than the previous one.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not because of capitalists, it's because of technological and scientifical advancement. Both would exists (and there'd probably be more of) without big capitalists.

The same is true for production.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Umm.... Are you crazy? Big capitalists exploit the workers, it's not the other way around :/

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. They make a voluntary exchange, because each values what the other has more than what they themselves have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on. If anything, I'd say the Government is exploiting the poorer among us by creating a cycle of dependency with each additional piece of nefarious social engineering that they hope to buy votes with. (Sorry, this should probably be on the 'tics forum)

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The reason I say this is that the end result of capitalism, the rich get a lot richer and the poor get a little richer

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this isn't the main thrust of your post, but i wanted to point out that the poor have gooten hugely richer as a result of capitalism. Even in society's like the present day US where there are numereous lwas which serve to disincentise improvements in lifestyle the lowest 10% live a life which would be equivilient in many ways to kings of 500 years ago. Infant mortality rates are extremely low, life expectancy very high, availible nutrition very high, availible education high. Then you throw in indoor plumbing, electricty, better heating sources, easier travel, vaccinations as well as other advances in medicine, the end result is that each and every generation can be siad to be signifigantly better off in a material sense than the previous one.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not because of capitalists, it's because of technological and scientifical advancement. Both would exists (and there'd probably be more of) without big capitalists.

The same is true for production.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the alternative you are suggesting that involves no capitalists? (I'm frankly scared to ask)

[soon2bepro]

My point is that if the workers were smart enough, they'd cut the middle man and win several times as much; and everyone would be better off.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the alternative you are suggesting that involves no capitalists? (I'm frankly scared to ask)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for starters, since the workers are too stupid to realize they should get together and run their own businesses, the governement should invest in businesses. The capitalists simply couldn't compete with that. If we got rid of corruption somehow, or at least reduce the levels considerably, that'd be enough for a much better society. (for the average man)

The problem with corruption isn't some politician stealing from the people, it's when the politician takes bribes and makes calls that benefit (some) big companies, screwing over a lot of people in different ways. So don't go there.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, for starters, since the workers are too stupid to realize they should get together and run their own businesses, the governement should invest in businesses. The capitalists simply couldn't compete with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that what you are suggesting is that the workers become the capitalists. That's fine, someone has to own the company! I also think you are SERIOUSLY underestimating the value of the entrepreneurs, they are the ones with the intelligence, foresight, and risk tolerance to create these companies and sell a product or service that there is demand for.

If the government were to invest in businesses what would their motivation be? They have no reason to strive to be the most efficient they can be, they have the ability to point a gun at tax payers and demand further funding when they don't balance the budget.

The great thing about the profit motive is that it encourages companies to produce their goods or services as efficiently as possible which means lower prices and higher standard of living for everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
If we got rid of corruption somehow, or at least reduce the levels considerably, that'd be enough for a much better society.

The problem with corruption isn't some politician stealing from the people, it's when the politician takes bribes and benefits big businesses, screwing over a lot of people in different ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree that businesses bribing politicians is a terrible problem, but the solution is not for government to buy businesses, it is for the politicians to behave morally and stop taking the bribes.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that what you are suggesting is that the workers become the capitalists. That's fine, someone has to own the company!

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been implemented with varying degrees of success. A notable Canadian example would be Westjet Airlines which functions on a system in which employees are participating owners of the company also.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that what you are suggesting is that the workers become the capitalists. That's fine, someone has to own the company! I also think you are SERIOUSLY underestimating the value of the entrepreneurs, they are the ones with the intelligence, foresight, and risk tolerance to create these companies and sell a product or service that there is demand for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. Entrepreneurs pay experts to tell them about these things. They even pay a CEO to run the company for them.


[ QUOTE ]
If the government were to invest in businesses what would their motivation be? They have no reason to strive to be the most efficient they can be, they have the ability to point a gun at tax payers and demand further funding when they don't balance the budget.

[/ QUOTE ]

The motivation of the government as a whole should be the well being of the majority of the people. As for their personal interest in the matter, money & power should do, just like it does now. Some even do it because they like helping people.


[ QUOTE ]
The great thing about the profit motive is that it encourages companies to produce their goods or services as efficiently as possible which means lower prices and higher standard of living for everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same is true for any kind of business. Even if it's under a communist system, people want to work less to achieve the same. You don't need a "middle man" "raking" the production.

[ QUOTE ]
I totally agree that businesses bribing politicians is a terrible problem, but the solution is not for government to buy businesses, it is for the politicians to behave morally and stop taking the bribes.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't mean this was the solution to corruption, I meant corruption isn't a valid reason why this wouldn't work. At least not on it's own.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not because of capitalists, it's because of technological and scientifical advancement

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. who feeds the doctor while he works to find a cure for a disease? who pays the engineer's rent while he works on a caintainer for waste? Technology and scientific advancements need the accumulation of capital to allow for specialization.

[ QUOTE ]
Both would exists (and there'd probably be more of) without big capitalists

[/ QUOTE ]

People who become big capitalists do so because they are good at increasing production. Henry Ford, John Rockefeller, these people increased the standard of living for everyone with innovations and became stinking rich off it. They turned a large chunk of that money back into their successfull businesses and made people's lives better all over again and made a bunch more money.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that what you are suggesting is that the workers become the capitalists. That's fine, someone has to own the company!

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been implemented with varying degrees of success. A notable Canadian example would be Westjet Airlines which functions on a system in which employees are participating owners of the company also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there are a great many companies now that offer stock to employees to attempt to align the employees goals with those of the company.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the alternative you are suggesting that involves no capitalists? (I'm frankly scared to ask)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for starters, since the workers are too stupid to realize they should get together and run their own businesses, the governement should invest in businesses. The capitalists simply couldn't compete with that. If we got rid of corruption somehow, or at least reduce the levels considerably, that'd be enough for a much better society. (for the average man)

The problem with corruption isn't some politician stealing from the people, it's when the politician takes bribes and makes calls that benefit (some) big companies, screwing over a lot of people in different ways. So don't go there.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you solution is to "end corruption" (or minimize it) and then institute a system in which corruption would be the most beneificial that could be imagined.

[ QUOTE ]

The problem with corruption isn't some politician stealing from the people, it's when the politician takes bribes and makes calls that benefit (some) big companies, screwing over a lot of people in different ways

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW this IS stealing from the people. The problem with politicians taking bribes is that it hurts consumers. If the politician took a bribe and helped out a big company and no one else got hurt no one would give two [censored]. The reason people should be against corruption is not that it hurts company B in favor of company A, its that consumers are hurt because company B was producing a better product.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, for starters, since the workers are too stupid to realize they should get together and run their own businesses, the governement should invest in businesses. The capitalists simply couldn't compete with that

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...... ha. Your joking right? Please tell me your joking.
From Dilorenzo's "How capitalism saved America.

"Hill's Great Northern was, consequently, the "best constructed and most profitable of all the world's major railroads,"... The Great Northern's efficiency and profitability were legendary, whereas the government-subsidized railroads, managed by a group of political entrepreneurs who focused more on acquiring subsidies than on building sound rialroads, were inefficiently built and operated.... In fact, Hill's Great Northern was the only transcontinental railroad that never went bankrupt."

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
The motivation of the government as a whole should be the well being of the majority of the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the source of our fundamental disagreement. You believe that the government should do anything it can to "help" the majority. I believe the only purpose of government is to prevent the initiation of force. The ACers believe that government shouldn't exist at all.

I doubt anything I say is ever going to change your mind. I assume you've already been involved in many threads on similar topics with people much more eloquent than me (b-dog etc) and you still think these things so my effort is likely to be wasted. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
"A far more likely (and less pessimistic) view is that human being have been bred for 40,000 years, and most intensively the last 10,000 years, to produce as much as possible, because producing as much as possible is directly to the benefit of the producer's genes. It is only an extremely recent phenomenon that even a tiny fraction of the population can quickly produce more than they ever "need." "

But as Alf Temme points out this trait is exhibited in a fairly small minority of the population. Most people get lazy when they reach a certain standard of living. And I am not just talking about the incompetants. For instance I am quite sure that 70% of poker players and 70% of physicists, could, if they wanted to, be among the top 10% of entrepreneurs. For the most part, entrepreneurs are as rich as they are because they are more diven, often unhealthfully.

[/ QUOTE ]

All human traits have bell curves. That some people are more driven to produce than others does not imply that all people are not driven to produce. They are, by their wants and needs (Say's Law). Only when the incentive structure is upset (by for example a government handing out the means to consume without have to first produce) does this break down.

I'm not saying that there are not people who are pathologically hard to satisfy (thus leading them to produce more and more); again, there will be a bell curve of such a trait oin the population.

But to identify all wealthy capitalists as pathologically dissatisfied misnthropes or something is silly. Money is like a point count system in a game; it's just that to accumulate points you have to continually satisfy consumers.

The only way to achieve vast fortunes under capitalism is to continually innovate and satisfy others.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, capitalists should actually like my points because it is an argument that can persuade your average Joe to accept the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a silly argument. There are infinitely better ones. If you have an hour sometime, take a listen to this lecture by Dr, George Reisman, on The Benevolence of Capitalism (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2005/mu05-Reisman3.mp3). Brilliant stuff.

[Borodog]

By the way, Alf Temme looks to be an idiot. His "Universal Demand Law" looks like fuzzy, muddleheaded new age claptrap.

What if you place a demand on a living thing to strengthen it's skull by shooting it in the head? That's a pretty drastic demand. I bet the "improvement" will be spectacular.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the source of our fundamental disagreement. You believe that the government should do anything it can to "help" the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the majority who voted it, isn't it?

[ QUOTE ]

I believe the only purpose of government is to prevent the initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't how democracy works. Check again.

I'm not saying democracy is the best possible government, just pointing out that this is not what voters think the government should do.

[ QUOTE ]
The ACers believe that government shouldn't exist at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agree with them, but it's utopian. We're talking nowadays. Take out the government and it's back to the jungle and survival of the fittest.

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt anything I say is ever going to change your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite open minded in most areas. Btw, For myself I prefer the system to be like it is now, as it's really easy to exploit. But I won't let myself believe this is the best for everyone. The system works for me because it's easy for me to become a parasite, sucking others' blood. A system with all parasites doesn't work.

Anyway, long term, I think a more utopian system and society like anarchism or AC would be better for most people, including myself; but in order for such a system to work, everyone or mostly everyone would have to be an intellectual, and it's just not the case right now. In any case, the transition time makes it not worth it for me for there to be much of a change of system.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the only purpose of government is to prevent the initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't how democracy works. Check again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh sure, I agree that is what happens in a democracy (and it's a horrible thing) but thankfully we live in a constitutional republic. I guess I mis-typed, I should have said:
"I believe the only purpose of government should be to prevent the initiation of force."

In a country with a strong constitution I hope it would lead to the situation I described.

[ QUOTE ]
The system works for me because it's easy for me to become a parasite, sucking others' blood. A system with all parasites doesn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think you're a parasite? Are you a pro poker player? Would you rather your profession was banned? (I guess it almost is now). Do you force anyone at the table to play? I'm pretty sure they all want to be there otherwise they'd just stand up..

(Srry again for being off topic)

Edit: Also, srry for implying that you're closed minded. I just have these conversations a lot and they never really seem to get anywhere. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Capitalism gives opportunities for psychologically unhealthy people to immerse themselves in money making ventures that add little to themselves except the opportunity to feed their obsessions. These ventures often raise the overall standard of living. If tomorrow all these people were "cured" it would hurt everyone else. So in that sense they are being exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]As long as one doesn't find oneself in their path !

Which becomes near impossible in our day and age.

Therefore, and after lighting a candle to past obsessives, such as the train barons or the computer super-geeks or the innovators of credit, we should pause and evaluate the pros and cons of the set up. We are not short-stacked anymore. And the game has quietly but irreversibly shifted from slow-paced, low-limit 5-card stud to ultra-high-stakes, no-limit, dealer's choice, with a number of unknown wild cards and jokers thrown in. We might just be placing quite a lot at risk.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Capitalists should actually like my points because it is an argument that can persuade your average Joe to accept the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

"We are sick. Bear with us !"

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[A_C_Slater]

"an unhealthy psychological need to amass points in the form of money to avoid coming to terms with their demons."


I propose that this be referred to as "Patrick Bateman syndrome."

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think you're a parasite? Are you a pro poker player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I make a living out of poker, but that's not just it. If I wasn't playing poker for a living, I'd use other methods to take advantage of the system, in other words taking a lot and giving back little, if anything. The average person contributes -and hopes to contribute much more in the future- than me to the system, and I get much more out of it.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather your profession was banned? (I guess it almost is now).

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously not. (I don't live in the US btw) But if it was it'd be a little harder for me to exploit the system.


[ QUOTE ]
Do you force anyone at the table to play? I'm pretty sure they all want to be there otherwise they'd just stand up..

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, but they'd be better off without me taking away their money faster. In fact, most of them, if they knew about me, or any other pro out there, would choose not to play against them. The bottomline is that my existence doesn't bring any good, or almost any good to these people, or society. So proportionally I receive a compensation of many many times the average (compensation).