Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I agree with this.
But I'm not sure I agree when you say:

[ QUOTE ]
Well then capitalism only exists in theory, and ancap is [censored] either way. I see no reason to believe you could have a "capitalist" system, i.e. where people sell their labor on the market without the state existing alongside it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you clarify? It seems to me that in a stateless society, there would certainly be a lot less wage labor, but I can certainly imagine there still being some who sell the labor on the market. And theoretically, I see nothing wrong with the idea of X and Y signing a contract in which X does some work for Y, and Y pays him or her a wage? Would this not exist in some forms in a free society?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could happen, but even if it did it would be radically different than now.. I find it unlikely that anyone would work under a capitalist when the could work in a coop or for themselves. I doubt you'd see any big corporations or such as you do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

A corporation is a government defined entity, so it clearly wouldn't exist in a stateless society. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Ignoring that semantics bit though, most ACists will agree that giant megacompanies cannot exist without aid from the government.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Make no mistake, "we"(I assume you mean USA?) do not have a capitalist system right now. It's mercantilism, there's a difference because right now there is heavy state intervention in the "free" market. Education, health care, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, our system is not mercantilism. What we have is called a mixed economy. Just having "heavy state intervention" doesn't make the system mercantilism. Mercantalism is defined by exports vastly exceeding imports, something we don't have and therefore the word cannot apply.

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I was lookin' at those wiki articles, before you posted them, you're right. Either way, we don't have capitalism.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
It could happen, but even if it did it would be radically different than now.. I find it unlikely that anyone would work under a capitalist when the could work in a coop or for themselves. I doubt you'd see any big corporations or such as you do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
so why should i believe pure capitalism can exist?

[/ QUOTE ]
With or with out a state? With a state I'd say it's impossible, without one it's definitely possible. Why would you say it can't exist?
[ QUOTE ]
I find it unlikely that anyone would work under a capitalist when the could work in a coop or for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you explain how these coops work, how they'll gain power and why you think they'll be better then the labor sale that happens now? Very interesting to say the least.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not independant of this country. This is so much more evident then any point I have seen you make. If this country falls into a depression it affects me, if this country's laws change it affects me. The big things affect me, the little things do, that's why Americans take interest in politics. If you would like to define away reality you are welcomed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOne of this speaks to legitimacy, or efficiency or morality or anything, it is just an observation that people interact with other people. It serves no basis in helping people make effective decisions, you defend it because it currently is in place, and so you aren't doing anythingmore than making an observation.

[ QUOTE ]

there is nothing skeptical or doubtful about this phrase, it is simply a turn of phrase that attempts to obscure an issue. I have no reason to consider myself as having the burden of proof, since, the basic phrase indicates you don't actually care whether or not it is true. You instead seek to throw mud, point fingers and make up definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the issue is obscured because you try to avoid it. The issue is why do you have MORE of a right to tell me waht to do than i do to choose what i do? Your argument boils down to if 1.01 people want me to do something then i have to do it because the 1.01 outnumbers my 1, ie might makes right.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway, capitatlism is part of the state, the state is part of capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state and capitalists are constantly interacting to screw everyone else. Both are based on hierarchy and power. For example, the state subsidizes business and works to destroy up and coming competitors, through not only subsidies but regulations that keep others out of the market. Capitalist companies have tons of lobbyists to try to bribe the state into giving them favoritism.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow. This is paranoid on so many levels.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it?

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not independant of this country. This is so much more evident then any point I have seen you make. If this country falls into a depression it affects me, if this country's laws change it affects me. The big things affect me, the little things do, that's why Americans take interest in politics. If you would like to define away reality you are welcomed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOne of this speaks to legitimacy,or efficiency or morality or anything, it is just an observation that people interact with other people. It serves no basis in helping people make effective decisions, you defend it because it currently is in place, and so you aren't doing anythingmore than making an observation.

[/ QUOTE ]
The discussion was over "vested interest." As for legitimacy the definition speaks for it self. Efficiency and morality aren't relevant. But certainly, the current rules for counting share holder votes in a corporation are neither efficient to the investors nor are they moral.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

there is nothing skeptical or doubtful about this phrase, it is simply a turn of phrase that attempts to obscure an issue. I have no reason to consider myself as having the burden of proof, since, the basic phrase indicates you don't actually care whether or not it is true. You instead seek to throw mud, point fingers and make up definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the issue is obscured because you try to avoid it. The issue is why do you have MORE of a right to tell me waht to do than i do to choose what i do? Your argument boils down to if 1.01 people want me to do something then i have to do it because the 1.01 outnumbers my 1, ie might makes right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Call it "might makes right" if you would like, but rights do not exist in a vacuum. Rights are a social construct. In any event, we're not talking about you playing ping-pong in your basement and 1.01 persons telling you not to, we're talking about the structural framework of corporations in America.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I agree with this.
But I'm not sure I agree when you say:

[ QUOTE ]
Well then capitalism only exists in theory, and ancap is [censored] either way. I see no reason to believe you could have a "capitalist" system, i.e. where people sell their labor on the market without the state existing alongside it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you clarify? It seems to me that in a stateless society, there would certainly be a lot less wage labor, but I can certainly imagine there still being some who sell the labor on the market. And theoretically, I see nothing wrong with the idea of X and Y signing a contract in which X does some work for Y, and Y pays him or her a wage? Would this not exist in some forms in a free society?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could happen, but even if it did it would be radically different than now.. I find it unlikely that anyone would work under a capitalist when the could work in a coop or for themselves. I doubt you'd see any big corporations or such as you do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

that would be fine by just about every ACer here, as long as people get to voluntarily choose what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, but i don't think capitalism would exist in an anarchist society, if it did the state would probably reform. i'm also against private ownership of capital, money, etc. having capitalists would create a hierarchical society again, which is what anarchy isn't. it's supposed to be classless.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so why should i believe pure capitalism can exist?

[/ QUOTE ]
With or with out a state? With a state I'd say it's impossible, without one it's definitely possible. Why would you say it can't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no reason to believe it would exist, no empirical evidence of this "pure capitalism."

[ QUOTE ]
I find it unlikely that anyone would work under a capitalist when the could work in a coop or for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you explain how these coops work, how they'll gain power and why you think they'll be better then the labor sale that happens now? Very interesting to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not going to write a thesis, but everything done by hierarcchial companies can be done by worker owned ones. it would be better because i don't think most people like having bosses, basically. they don't like part of what they produce going to a boss, they don't like the structure which i believe alienates the workers from others.

i mean who here really would want to work under a boss instead of in a company where everyone is equal, where everyone has an equal say in how the company is run?

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a theory that high CEO and top executive play has an unobserved function as an incentivizing mechanism. The corporation is typically structured as a pyramid; as you go up the ladder there are fewer and fewer employees at each level. To motivate the employees at one level to move up to the subsequent level you have to pay them a fair bit more to motivate them both to outshine their peers at their current level, and to take on more responsibilities at the next level.



[/ QUOTE ]

I have a theory as well. It is similar to this, but not quite the same. I think that CEO pay is so high and will always be high for the sake of the appearance of power and prestige. People are naturally intimidated when they know they are in a room with someone who makes 10000% more than they do. I think the high pay is a mechanism for maintaining control of an organization. Even when the corporartion isn't making money, the executives make sure they are paid an exhorbatant amount because they don't want to appear as weak.

I got this out of reading a book called Freakonomics. Really good book.