Short, from Oxford
05-03-2014 03:46 PM
#1
| |
|
Awesome presentation on capitalism and socialismShort, from Oxford |
05-03-2014 05:36 PM
#2
| |
|
Nope not at all. That's why there are numerous thriving socialist societies. |
05-04-2014 01:50 PM
#3
| |
| |
05-04-2014 03:56 PM
#4
| |
Bro, America's been Socialist for about 6 years now. Turn on the news once in a while. | |
05-04-2014 04:13 PM
#5
| |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable..._broken_window | |
05-04-2014 04:26 PM
#6
| |
|
Something as simple as zoning deregulation would boost GDP tremendously, boost living standards, and even likely eliminate homelessness. |
05-04-2014 07:43 PM
#7
| |
| |
05-04-2014 07:56 PM
#8
| |
| |
05-04-2014 09:09 PM
#9
| |
05-04-2014 09:18 PM
#10
| |
|
He didn't lead with Godwin's, and even if he did, he acknowledged it and it served a specific purpose. I'm not sure how you knock somebody for being straight up. We're supposed to be adults. It's hyper childish to not be able to talk about hard things |
05-04-2014 09:32 PM
#11
| |
|
Maybe it seems like I'm being too technical, but that's my response to stupid Godwin's. It's a worthless observation, and people routinely throw away the opportunity to learn just so they can act like they're offended |
05-04-2014 10:08 PM
#12
| |
It's soooooooooo cliche tho | |
05-05-2014 02:05 AM
#13
| |
I'm a bit disappointed. I thought this was going to be an awesome, eye-opening talk that would give me loads of material to wrestle with for weeks to come. Instead, the video can be responded to in pretty sure order, as follows: | |
Last edited by surviva316; 05-05-2014 at 02:11 AM. | |
05-05-2014 02:06 AM
#14
| |
Fuckfuckfuckfuck. Internet goblins ate the above post; luckily, I copypastaed it into a word doc, but it got horrifically mangled in the process. I'll try to save it, but forgive me if there are unreadable bits. | |
05-05-2014 11:20 AM
#15
| |
A 100% capitalistic society is doomed to fail. But so is a 100% socialistic society. | |
| |
05-05-2014 12:58 PM
#16
| |
Why is a 100% capitalistic society doomed to fail? I'm sure it would take you dozens of pages to answer so just give me 3 aspects of a 100% capitalistic society that would be aboministic in your mind. | |
05-05-2014 04:30 PM
#17
| |
|
I feel like when I post things like that, nobody wants to read/watch them. This presentation being simple doesn't make it simplistic, however. One of the biggest mistakes people make (IMO) is not continually reviewing the fundamentals. I've found what I learn is mainly about just developing a stronger understanding of the basics. The video addresses the difference between capitalism and socialism in a clear, concise way. |
05-05-2014 04:39 PM
#18
| |
|
Nobody knows how great a percentage of capitalism a society can have. I'd say there is reason to believe it could be 100% or that it could be close but not quite. Our current society can probably be close to 100%, but there are still some moral issues that aren't a flaw of capitalism but an attribute of human behavior, so capitalism can't be used for them. Healthcare is probably the best example. The reason why free markets do not work for healthcare exclusively is because of emergency care. Humans, as a whole, have decided that we will provide emergency care to those who need it, even if they can't pay. This is the right thing to do because it's moral, but it's also the right thing to do because not doing it would provide all sorts of logistical problems for people who can pay yet may not be able to prove it at the time care is needed. |
05-05-2014 05:44 PM
#19
| |
capitalism is gay, like marriage. | |
05-06-2014 07:02 PM
#20
| |
05-06-2014 07:43 PM
#21
| |
|
People do act rationally, just not perfectly. Rationality in economics is a little different than how we use it colloquially. Colloquially, we think of it as wisdom, but in economics it isn't necessarily about wisdom, but more about cause and effect and perhaps accountability. |
05-07-2014 05:40 AM
#22
| |
Yeah, I just read a fun book that talked about the differences between the Economic Man and, you know, actual people. So I disagree. | |
05-07-2014 09:16 AM
#23
| |
05-07-2014 04:40 PM
#24
| |
|
Economic Man sounds like a misinterpretation of rational behavior. By definition, it assumes perfection, yet economic behavior doesn't. I'm not sure why anybody would use Economic Man for anything other than an abstract model to aid explanation, not be a representation. |
05-07-2014 05:47 PM
#25
| |
I'm pretty sure he wasn't misinterpreting how economists handle rationality. He won a nobel prize in the field. | |
05-07-2014 07:30 PM
#26
| |
Answer me this capitalist swine, how did the commies get a man into space before you? | |
05-07-2014 09:19 PM
#27
| |
|
With that settled I'm back to my earlier point that just because one thing in flawed doesn't mean a known something else is better, or in this case, it can probably be said that some unregulated environments are inherently problematic, but that doesn't mean that regulating them is any better. A central tenet of free markets is that they simply work better than regulated markets even though free markets aren't perfect. More or less, I agree with that. Where I differ is what I stated earlier about how healthcare is an example of something that humans inherently treat un-free, so then it must be regulated in certain ways. But I also still think that in aggregate, capitalism, regardless of the percentage to which it is adhered, is better than every single other known option. Every system is flawed, even the theoretically plausible best regulated one. And capitalism is better than that still |
05-07-2014 09:22 PM
#28
| |
|
Because you can still do things with socialism. You can't defy the ultimate arbiter in supply and demand, but a command economy can accomplish some tasks. Drafting citizens to build and operate war machines is one of them, and retooling that infrastructure to reach outer space isn't that much of a change in course |
05-08-2014 06:30 AM
#29
| |
I challenge any of the socialistly inclined in this thread to come up with one problem caused by free market capitalism that is assuaged by a socialist policy, and what the nature of that policy is. I will respond in turn with how that policy has a net negative effect on the very problem it intends to remedy. | |
05-08-2014 09:26 AM
#30
| |
I'm probably not your man then. I support free-market capitalism for the most part, with only a few exceptions, the environment being one of them. The libertarian approach to solve the pollution problem is interesting, but impractical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that environmental regulation on the free market technically falls under the blanket of socialism. | |
05-08-2014 09:33 AM
#31
| |
As much as I like to troll libertarians online, at home I have to play the staunch capitalist because wife is fairly left-leaning and hangs around some very anti-capitalism types. The other day she said to me "You know what, pizza is a great example of capitalism working. It's so cheap to order these two mediums because there's so much competition in that market". I nodded in approval. | |
05-08-2014 11:57 AM
#32
| |
Environmental regulation is not socialism in and of itself. In a completely voluntary society with no state there could easily emerge such regulations on a more local level, especially with empowerment of property owners and a redefinition of what constitutes an aggressive act against another property owner. Polluting someone's groundwater, for example, would be seen as a form of vandalism and one would be liable for damages. | |
05-08-2014 12:04 PM
#33
| |
05-08-2014 04:23 PM
#34
| |
The problem of having no money. | |
05-08-2014 05:11 PM
#35
| |
That's an easy one. Social programs contribute to devaluing money and increasing the prices of life supporting goods, exacerbating the problem. It has the nasty side effect of making things seem better by giving people free healthcare or education in the present, but sacking the next generation with an insurmountable debt. | |
05-08-2014 05:37 PM
#36
| |
Now tackle the problem of having no money. | |
05-08-2014 05:58 PM
#37
| |
|
It's capitalism, not money-ism. Capital = resources, including potential resources. |
05-08-2014 06:00 PM
#38
| |
The best thing you can do for that problem is to give people every means to contribute to society and earn money for that contribution. And for those few (VERY FEW) people who have nothing to contribute, having a free society with growing capital and cheap goods makes it easier for their families or charities to help them out. | |
05-08-2014 06:03 PM
#39
| |
|
They die ldo |
05-08-2014 06:23 PM
#40
| |
05-09-2014 02:05 AM
#41
| |
There will always be philanthropy and generosity. At least in a society where products are as cheap as possible, that stuff will count for more. People will also be far more likely to give when they don't have to pay 50% or more of their money to the government in taxes. | |
05-11-2014 12:17 AM
#42
| |
You know, it is possible for rational people to give time/money because the value they receive from giving charity is greater than holding on to money. Capitalism won't destroy these people in some respects the more money i have the easier it is to by moral rightenous with cash, which seems like a great trade to me. | |
06-06-2014 12:51 AM
#43
| |
|
Possibly the best explanation of what economics is on a fundamental level |
Last edited by wufwugy; 06-06-2014 at 01:04 AM. | |
06-07-2014 12:13 PM
#44
| |
Well I missed the boat on this discussion. At any rate it seems to me that Wuf has certainly made quite a journey from his views of like 4 years ago. I know this sounds douchey, and I don't mean it to be, but I found nothing to disagree with out of what he said lol. | |
| |
06-07-2014 02:51 PM
#45
| |
|
agreeing with me is a dangerous thing |
06-07-2014 04:36 PM
#46
| |
Grunching a little but I take great issue with the idea that capitalism or capitalistic thinking is in opposition to people being happy and having leisurely lives or spending time with their families or helping one another. In fact, those all sound like great luxuries to me, luxuries that cannot really exist outside of a free market context. It wasn't until societies had accumulated enough wealth and productivity to feed themselves amply that people even had time to look at the stars or be academics or artists. Almost everything people in modern society do for pleasure they do because they make enough money in little enough time that they can spare time and money for such pleasures. | |
07-07-2014 05:04 PM
#47
| |
I've gone a long time without responding to this post, even though the very first part of it did incite an immediate reaction from me. There is one particular part that made me loathe to get into it for a long time. | |
Last edited by surviva316; 07-07-2014 at 05:06 PM. | |
07-07-2014 06:31 PM
#48
| |
My point wasn't that capitalism is a time succubus meant to make you work 20 hours a day, sleep 4 hours and dream never. I was simply rebutting the speaker-in-OP's point that "Capitalism harnesses energy to a social, usable end." For the purposes of this conversation, I have no interest in the distinction between hours spent on consumption and leisure; I have interest in "energy" spent toward "social, usable ends" and energies spent otherwise. My daily actions of least utility are the ones I do to earn capital; just about everything else I do with my day is of more social and usable worth than my hours of consumption. | |
07-07-2014 08:23 PM
#49
| |
|
I'd say that's accurate since I was trying to analyze the meaning in its most fundamental nature. At that level, premises are assumed |
07-07-2014 09:35 PM
#50
| |
Since I'm rebutting implied points, I was being generous by going with the softer fallacy. I actually think it's much more likely that you're using circular reasoning. | |
07-07-2014 09:45 PM
#51
| |
My last quote and rebuttal might be a case of losing the forest from the trees. If I'm responding to your post as a whole, I'll say this: | |
07-07-2014 10:39 PM
#52
| |
|
I believe herein lies the root of our disagreement. If we start from scratch and try to figure out who owns what, we can more accurately say "you own your body" than "the state owns....anything". This implies that the philosophical framework we should use should be what most reflects the truth that each person owns their own person as opposed to any other entity owning the person. The philosophy of non-coercion is to network this. It proposes a state that best maintains that nobody owns anything as much as a person owns himself/herself. Because we are conscious beings and many other things are not, we can expand this idea to a place where not only does somebody own his own body, but he owns inanimate things that he more or less creates. We can further expand into abstractions, like a person owning his choices |
07-07-2014 11:00 PM
#53
| |
|
I should add that the idea of ownership works beyond social philosophy and into applied macroeconomics. My best sources (like currently teaching professor Bryan Caplan) claim that when economists discuss policy, they're discussing incentives. This suggests that even if ownership is a problematic idea in some way, it still is a productive idea in macroeconomics |
07-08-2014 12:23 AM
#54
| |
No we can't. This is utter sophistry. | |
07-08-2014 03:12 AM
#55
| |
|
I guess I'm curious where you think ownership lies. Marx and Lenin believed ownership lay more in the hands in the laborers than in the managers and they wanted the state to enforce that. Even though I don't disagree with the idea that ownerships of product creation may lay more in the hands of laborers than managers, that doesn't mean that I think the state can create policy to effectively address this. On the contrary, I think the idea is most effectively addressed by capitalism. In capitalism, laborers far more appropriately reap what they sow. This sort of thing may have seemed far-fetched in the early years of the industrial revolution, but today we live in a time where the true limiting factor to somebody's success is themselves |