A continuation of our discussion in the "The club has 53 members...." thread

Everyone should read Michelle Alexander's book entitled The New Jim Crow
 
khansaheb said:
Because the owner spent MONEY to set it up initially......
Click to expand...
But where did s/he get the "MONEY" from in the first place???? ?
Ill-gotten gains from some previous nefarious enterprise or, equally likely, inherited from a long line of exploiters! ?
 
The Highlander said:
But where did s/he get the "MONEY" from in the first place????
Click to expand...
By inculcating PRUDENT and FRUGAL spending habits in self and family!!!! Before spending money - ask and answer the question - "do I really NEED it?"

My oldest son has thriving consulting business - where he employs educated/talented people - where anyone employee knows more than him in any one or more subject/s. But "overall" - he knows little bit of every corner of business. I did not have to provide any thing - other than being a "back-stop".
 
Last edited:
Steven G said:
As I stated in an earlier post, what you consider socialism is state capitalism.
To me, socialism is where the workers own and run the factories.
Click to expand...

From the beginning of the 20th century we've seen multiple socialist experiments. Soveit and National socialisms in Russia and Germany, Mao and Kims, Khmer Rouge,... all of them bloody and violent, often turning imperfect societies into "perfect" slavery states. Reaction of other socialists was either saying that those experiments weren't real socialism, or that they weren't actually that bad. And every time the socialists in free/capitalist countries insisting that they actually know how to build "good socialism". And that we should trust them to try again so that they can do it right this time.

Given a chance many workers from a "workers' paradise" tried to escape to a capitalist states. Is this why many socialists believe in "world revolution"? So that there would be no escape from their "paradise"?
 
The Highlander said:
But where did s/he get the "MONEY" from in the first place???? ?
Ill-gotten gains from some previous nefarious enterprise or, equally likely, inherited from a long line of exploiters! ?
Click to expand...
Often the owners invest their time and labor, Google being just one of the examples. Somehow don't see Google's happenning in any of the socialist paradises.
 
blamocur said:
From the beginning of the 20th century we've seen multiple socialist experiments. Soveit and National socialisms in Russia and Germany, Mao and Kims, Khmer Rouge,
Click to expand...
State capitalism or socialism? Sure doesn't sound like socialism to me.
 
Last edited:
khansaheb said:
Because the owner spent MONEY to set it up initially......
Click to expand...
So if I do all the painting for your painting company you feel that you deserve most of the money the company makes because you put up the money. To me, that is ridiculous! It is exploitation.
This is why there is such a huge gap between the rich and the poor. The workers should share in on the profit--after all they do all the work.
A former boss of mine became a millionaire while paying his workers between $2-$4 per hour (that was basically minimum wage over a range of time). Does that sound fair to you?
 
khansaheb said:
By inculcating PRUDENT and FRUGAL spending habits in self and family!!!! Before spending money - ask and answer the question - "do I really NEED it?"

My oldest son has thriving consulting business - where he employs educated/talented people - where anyone employee knows more than him in any one or more subject/s. But "overall" - he knows little bit of every corner of business. I did not have to provide any thing - other than being a "back-stop".
Click to expand...
Please explain why your son (probably) earns more money than the workers whom he employs. One should be paid according to what work they do. If they just sit home and wait for the money to roll in, then that is not fair.
 
I like to drink chocolate egg cremes.
Like ANY other soda, it has (chocolate) syrup and seltzer-and a little milk.
I suspect that the soda dispensers can't handle chocolate syrup as it is too think. As a result, it is hand made.
The cost of a soda might be $2.50 while a chocolate egg cream is $3.50. The extra $1 is because it has to be hand prepared. My question is why should the owner of the store make this extra $1 when it was his/her worker doing the work.What this says is if the worker does extra work, then the store owner makes more money. How can that not be exploitation?
Please respond.
 
Steven G said:
this extra $1 when it was his/her worker doing the work.
Click to expand...
The worker could be doing other work than mixing chocolate in your drink and the owner has to "pay" for that incremental "other work not done".

The owner has to pay for the extra-chocolate.

With the chocolate in your drink -you will hang around the "table" longer savoring your drink - the owner has to pay for the rent/utilities during that extra-time.

Note that the worker did not pay for anything - s/he just got paid.......
 
Steven G said:
why your son (probably) earns more money than the workers whom he employs.
Click to expand...
Because he has to run around and convince customers to pay for the services his company can provide. Exactly like when you had to go around and try to get employed as a teacher. Then you get a "graduate student" to do your work.....

Steven G said:
So if I do all the painting for your painting company you feel that you deserve most of the money the company makes because you put up the money.
Click to expand...
No - not only because I put up the money - I had go around get customers to pay for your painting ........ and that's not the end of the responsibility of the entrepreneur......
 
Steven G said:
State capitalism or socialism? Sure doesn't sound like socialism to me.
Click to expand...
Once your favorite version of socialism ends up in a horrible mess other socialists will come up with different labels for it, including "state capitalism".
 
khansaheb said:
The worker could be doing other work than mixing chocolate in your drink and the owner has to "pay" for that incremental "other work not done".

The owner has to pay for the extra-chocolate.

With the chocolate in your drink -you will hang around the "table" longer savoring your drink - the owner has to pay for the rent/utilities during that extra-time.

Note that the worker did not pay for anything - s/he just got paid.......
Click to expand...
This takes place in an ice cream store. The employees only serves customers. When I come in, usually I'm the only one there. For the record, I knew that would be your response.
Why don't you see why it would better for the workers to own the company and share in on the profits.
 
khansaheb said:
Because he has to run around and convince customers to pay for the services his company can provide. Exactly like when you had to go around and try to get employed as a teacher. Then you get a "graduate student" to do your work.....


No - not only because I put up the money - I had go around get customers to pay for your painting ........ and that's not the end of the responsibility of the entrepreneur......
Click to expand...
I have no problem with your son making money or you getting paid to get painting jobs.
I bet you that if your son hired someone to do his job that he would pay this worker much less than he pays himself.
 
Steven G said:
I bet you that if your son hired someone to do his job that he would pay this worker much less than he pays himself.
Click to expand...
Exactly right . If that guy is hired by my son - that worker is skilled. If s/he does not like what my son offering - the door is open the worker can utilize the better opportunity....
 
Steven G said:
Why don't you see why it would better for the workers to own the company and share in on the profits.
Click to expand...
Exactly right - in capitalist system the worker is not prevented from opening another store and flourish........ you make your own bridge and cross the river. You could even invent a boat and start a ferry business.
 
What is so wrong with people earning what they deserve to earn?
Most business owners make many times what one would be paid for doing the same job.
I am not saying that business owners shouldn't earn a living. I am saying that they should earn what others earn for the same work.
 
Steven G said:
As I stated in an earlier post, what you consider socialism is state capitalism.
To me, socialism is where the workers own and run the factories. Why does it make sense that one person, the owner of the factory, should make huge sums of money when the workers do all the work and don't even earn a living wage?
I was in a small factory today--a local pizzeria. Today the owner was there working. He treated all the customers extremely well (they make him big money) but was at a loss as how to work at the shop. An example I saw was when customer called, gave him their address for a delivery and he had to ask his workers if the store delivers to that location. The workers do all the work and he makes most of the money. Those workers are being exploited!

I understand that you'd like even more goods and services to be free than what's available now. I disagree. This would mean even higher taxes, more state control over the economy and the individual. That's complete nonsense. State control, taxes--doesn't sound like true social to me.
You think that there is enough food, shelter, hospitals, etc for everyone? Let's suppose that is true for a moment. Under capitalism what are the people in power doing about it?

I'll state it again: Farmers have been known to throw out their crop. Why? Because they can then say there is a shortage of crops and charge more money. As a competent tutor here, you know very well that you can sometimes make more money with less than with more.

I am surprised at those numbers you provided regarding college admissions and I'm willing to accept what you are saying as I believe you.
Did these students get in on their own merits? That I really question. It is nice that these colleges do that but why are these students of color not getting in on their own.

I grew up in East New York Brooklyn in the 1960-1975. This neighborhood changed from mostly whites to almost all Black by the time I moved out. The Junior High School and High School that I attended have been shut down for low (and I mean low!) performance after I moved out. Why is that? Are Black just not as smart as whites? Of course not.
I was very young when I was in 6 grade but years later I understood what happened. Keep in mind that I was in 6-1 (and it went to 6-6), which had the brightest students. This class had a mixture of white and Black students. Half of the white students resided in the housing projects and half of the Blacks lived in the housing projects. The teacher, who worked there for years, knew which students lived in the projects based on their address (many students having the same address = living in the projects). Years later I realized that my teacher treated us differently. The white students were treated the best, the Black students who did not live in the projects (their parents owned their own home) were treated 2nd best and the Black students from the project the worst. That's bad enough, but why were the whites who lived in the projects treated the same as whites who lived in a private house. This teacher was racist to the core. These were good smart hard working students who had a good future ahead of them and this teacher made sure to let her students know that they were not going to get anywhere in life if they were Black and lived in the projects. One more statement. Brownsville is a very tough neighborhood in Brooklyn (and has ALWAYS been tough) which also saw a change from white residence to Black residence. Brownsville, up until recently, was the only neighborhood in Brooklyn that didn't have a high school. The people in power couldn't care about the Black students/people from Brownsville. Under socialism everyone would be equal. You really need to see that capitalism causes racism.
Click to expand...
1. State capitalism?
Sorry, still not sure what you mean. I provided the widely used definition. Are you saying state owning the means of production is "state capitalism"? Don't get it.
In any case, my model with the state control over the economy parameter covers all possible systems - from free market capitalism, through mixed economies, to complete state control over the economy, where, for starters, the state assigns you your job. Is this any type of capitalism? Absolutely not.

2. Your definition.
Ok, in your type of socialism we have the state prohibiting private ownership of factories, etc. And the state is some type of world government. Do you agree? Or there won't be any governments? Then what happens if some of the workers decide that they don't like how things are done and want to sell their shares and create their own small factory, which they think they can manage better? If there is no law against it, can they do it? Or such selfish behavior will not be possible? But why? Will your socialism completely change human nature? Will our desires to be independent, to do the best we can, to innovate, to create just wither away?
I keep bringing up the PEOPLE - their desires, plans, attitudes, etc. But you never address this point. Your reply seems to always be "It's not fair that XXX". I think the system where one person can own a factory is a million times fairer than the system where people can't say to everybody else "Screw this! I am going to do my own thing!"

3. The pizza shop.
I fail to see the exploitation in your example. I am assuming you would agree that division of labor and specialization are positive concepts and they weren't invented by capitalists in smoke-filled rooms. So, generalizing your pizza shop example, given the complexity of modern factories, the number of different types of tasks performed there, and the different education and training required to perform these tasks, is it _fair_ to expect the owners to be responsible for some random jobs on the factory floor you deem necessary for them to perform? Why should they be? When you buy goods and services you are buying labor of other people. Does anybody ask you to go bake the loaf of bread you want to buy? No. Then you should not ask the factory owner to run the CNC machine if he pays somebody to do it.
Oh, wait. Did I just mention the worker getting paid? And the job the worker is doing was the job he voluntarily applied for. The worker and the owner agreed on the terms of employment. Where exactly is the exploitation?

4. Farmers throwing away harvest
I grew up in USSR. The same USSR whose leader (Boris Yeltsin) was amazed by a regular American supermarket (look up the video on youtube). Let me tell you, I hate throwing away food. I hate when Americans throw away food. We had to work for our food. From the earliest age my brother and I were tasked with shopping. That meant walking to a neighbourhood grocery store and carrying stuff back. (Cars? What cars? No, comrade, your turn to buy a car is in 20 years). Add to it long lines and shortages of one product or another. They were regular like sales here. You quickly learn to respect your and others’ time and effort spent on putting food on the table. So if there are cases where farmers throw harvest away and get a higher profit because of higher prices, I won’t be jumping up and down cheering them on. If you have a link to a few examples, please post it. I am sure the media reported them widely. Some examples I found had a valid explanation. E.g. if half of your restaurant customers cancel orders during COVID you can't just turn on a dime and ship to different customers or donate - there are different rules and regulations and additional costs. What should they do in such situation? Pay more out of pocket to donate the product after losing customers and eventually go out of business? Doesn't sound like a good solution to me.
By the way, USSR stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I’m sure you’ll say what I described above was not the real socialism. After all, who is Lenin to argue with you about what Socialism is?

5. College admissions.
The numbers I posted are from the colleges’ websites. Sorry, should’ve included links. Here's one for MIT: https://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/profile/
You are right to raise the question about students’ qualifications. As the recent Supreme Court case showed, some students are given bonus points and some have points taken away purely based on their race. I am glad this immoral and racist practice is being scrutinized and will hopefully end not just in college admissions but everywhere else.
I have no doubt what you observed in school is true. Racism is still a problem. But your claim that capitalism causes racism is a very serious accusation against any advocate of free markets and it would be nice to see some evidence. Books by Ibram X. Kendi promoting the same idea do not count as evidence.
On the contrary, I think that the best weapon against racism is free-market capitalism.
Let's consider your claim. First, definitions. If we are trying to prove that X causes Y, I think it's important to know exactly what X and Y are.
Capitalism is the extension to economics and politics of the fundamental moral principle of self-ownership - the individual is the owner of his or her person, and the products of his or her labor.
Racism is the idea that a person's race is one of his or her most significant characteristics, which warrants favorable treatment or persecution based on whatever race hierarchy the racist has in mind.
Can capitalism cause racism? Absolutely not. These two ideas are incompatible. Their views of the individual are not reconcilable. Racism, as a form of collectivism, puts race groups before the individual. Capitalism puts the individual above all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top