User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 26

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Good point about the collateral, but if he's successful the business should pay much more than the interest, shouldn't it? (Not saying that it necessarily will, at all...)
    Maybe. I think it depends on very specific circumstances. Generally I would say that for many start-ups, the chance of ending up on the street is very real, and they therefore deserve a risk premium. I know it from experience!

    However I don't know who was questioning this, so I'm not sure what was the point of the OP. We don't live in North Korea and that premise is basically accepted by everyone.

    Unless he was hoping to find a stray Marxist to have a 180 page theoretical debate with which will never be resolved because both have completely different unfalsifiable intuitions about the future, human nature, and the history of civilizations.

  2. #12
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yenom View Post
    The entreprenuer's role is to bear the cost of creating the product, so he is entitled to get the profits of selling the product. There is no guareentee that the product will be accepted by the market and be successfully sold, so the entrepreneur has to deal with this uncertainty.
    yes, or rather more accurately, the role of entrepreneurship in society is to experiment.


    as for the "blaming the labor" - that's BS - the cost of the labor exists because for them to survive and live in dignity (relatively to the social standards of what dignity means at the time), they need to pay for the labor and fruits of past entrepreneurship - more often then not the generations away from when the entrepreneur in the family line was involved, and yet that entrepreneur had every right to want the best to his/her children, and so did they to theirs, as do the laborers themselves. and by finding ways to secure that, eventually their children have a higher likelihood of gaining the capacity to afford the risks and be entrepreneurs themselves.

    to address your larger point: a free society means both the free market and the right to unionize. it's a never ending and highly circumstantial balancing act.

  3. #13
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    The only people who have a problem with capitalism are those people who only see the emotional morality of an issue.

    Sure, its greedy and "evil" to take advantage of a hurricane by selling generators for 500%... but you cannot deny the fact that greed has brought power to hurricane victims.

    With that being said, most laborers are self entitled and taught to be that way in school, promised they'll get a good job based on their education and if they work hard.

    Once you learn that your bosses are fallible humans too, you'll have a better grasp on how to take advantage of the situation and use it to your advantage. Entrepreneurship is true freedom.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I suggest relocating to the wonderful land of Somalia, free of central government, worker's rights or unions, no floor on wages, and where all of your capital and experimentation is left to your own descretion and defense. It's an entrepeneur's wet dream.
    It would help if he had the wonders of a modern infrastructure and technology in order to do the "experimentation." Somalia is too backwards, does it even have an internet connection in that country? Plus unless he wants to live a despotic ENTJ wet dream where he modernises the country using slave labour and forms his own market to sell his goods he would need to pitch his goods to foreign markets so would need to extensively research the cultural climate of potential customer countries. Somalia would only help cut costs of production. Unfortunately a large number of competitors already use cheap labour through outsourcing.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Arendee View Post
    The only people who have a problem with capitalism are those people who only see the emotional morality of an issue.
    - Or people who are losing out due to unscruplous deals by others in the name of profit e.g. companies here in Europe who risk losing significant amounts of shares and suffering permamently damaged reputations due to their Beef suppliers using Horse meat without telling said companies who in turn mis-sold them as Beef.
    -Or people who desire technologies, inventions or scientific discoveries to be made but which are not (if not deliberately suppressed) because there isn't much short-term profit or slightly lesser long-term profit as a consequence.
    -Or people who are unhappy with environmental destruction caused by wasteful consumption of resources by a company - who have rationalised the inefficiency by convincing themselves that said issues are irrelevant or without consequence.
    - Or people who run governments or organisations who face severe economic difficulties because banks fix interest rates and other activities.

    All the above are different expressions of the capitalist dream. They are not limited to capitalism and not the sole outcomes of the system. But capitalism has profit as its sole goal and in its pure form does not care how you make it. Plenty of encouragement.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    It would help if he had the wonders of a modern infrastructure and technology in order to do the "experimentation." Somalia is too backwards, does it even have an internet connection in that country?
    Doesn't that just show what happens when you remove the state from economic development, thereby proving the point?

    Put another way, has any developed country, become developed, using those policies?

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Arendee View Post
    The only people who have a problem with capitalism are those people who only see the emotional morality of an issue.

    Sure, its greedy and "evil" to take advantage of a hurricane by selling generators for 500%... but you cannot deny the fact that greed has brought power to hurricane victims.

    With that being said, most laborers are self entitled and taught to be that way in school, promised they'll get a good job based on their education and if they work hard.

    Once you learn that your bosses are fallible humans too, you'll have a better grasp on how to take advantage of the situation and use it to your advantage. Entrepreneurship is true freedom.
    I agree, but I don't think everybody who disagrees, is being emotional. A lot of them just think other systems are more efficient.

    Also in that example, the state could have simply prohibited them from raising prices so much, or facilitated transportation from other parts of the country at a normal price, and the hurricaine victims would have still got the power, but at 1/5 of the cost.

    Not saying its right or wrong, but there is nothing "inevitable" about it.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    Doesn't that just show what happens when you remove the state from economic development, thereby proving the point?

    Put another way, has any developed country, become developed, using those policies?
    I think you misunderstood a little what I was implying and ended up making a strawman. The only anarchist system I would see potential in would be a minarchist society with a techno-utopic, post-scarcity infrastructure. I would agree that a lack of government in a society with parameters short of these criteria would be a bad idea.

    What I was saying was that an entrepreneur would not do well in such an environment as he would have to do extensive legwork outside of the desire to innovate in order to make it suitable. A place like Somalia would be better for a globalist company which can move in, seize power or install puppet leaders and impose an efficient clear top-down regime of technological industrialisation. Once this has taken place (and the country is pretty much an extension of the company itself) entrepreneurs working for the company can do the experimentation there. Stable, ordered entities has been the only way for chaotic, disordered entities to grow throughout human history. Perhaps that is true for everything, I would need to look into it

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    I think you misunderstood a little what I was implying and ended up making a strawman. The only anarchist system I would see potential in would be a minarchist society with a techno-utopic, post-scarcity infrastructure. I would agree that a lack of government in a society with parameters short of these criteria would be a bad idea.
    Depends how optimistic you are about human nature.

    I think you would have Somalia, with better technology.

    It's not a perfect example, put the former Yugoslavia had decent infrastructure and economic development, but when the state imploded, collapsed into warring factions.

    Also I can show you countries in South America, which produce enough food to feed their population 100 times, but where a weak state means that different governors run their provinces like feudal kingdoms, and most people are hungry while the small regional elite in each area took everything. Not because of scarcity, just because of breakdown of republican central state democratic authorities.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    Depends how optimistic you are about human nature.

    I think you would have Somalia, with better technology.

    It's not a perfect example, put the former Yugoslavia had decent infrastructure and economic development, but when the state imploded, collapsed into warring factions.

    Also I can show you countries in South America, which produce enough food to feed their population 100 times, but where a weak state means that different governors run their provinces like feudal kingdoms, and most people are hungry while the small regional elite in each area took everything. Not because of scarcity, just because of breakdown of republican central state democratic authorities.
    I make the effort to be a bit objective regarding human nature (perhaps in part because it isn't my natural strength) so I don't think I'm overly optimistic.

    My view on the issue is unfalsifiable as it needs cornucopia to function so any failed examples can be chalked up to not being cornucopian enough (or pie in the sky enough!) An interstellar civilisation with interstellar space flight would have both space and resources which eliminates those needs and minimalises the need to fight over it. Easy yet immense energy output powers technology and utilities to increase the carrying capacity. Nano-repair bots construct and maintain technology (powered by the previously mentioned high energy output) which allows a degree of communication and high standard of living to be maintained. Star-trek style replicators would eliminate the need for labour intensive agricultural plans. Providing all the above were abundant in a region (and accessible on the near individual level) then a loss of government would not necessarily cause a destructive vacuum as they are purely self-sufficient and there is less friction due to the aforementioned minimalisation of problems. It of course would not make conflict or war obsolete but inhibit it for the most part.

    But this is all wild speculation on my part.

  10. #20
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    It would help if he had the wonders of a modern infrastructure and technology in order to do the "experimentation..
    Well, that flies in the face of libertarian chest beating about being self-made ubermenschen and whatnot. Infrastructure? What do they want next? Welfare checks?

Similar Threads

  1. Is language essential for rational thinking?
    By nightning in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 03-12-2014, 07:38 PM
  2. What is Philosophy?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 09:10 PM
  3. Replies: 196
    Last Post: 06-01-2009, 11:22 AM
  4. Timing is everything?
    By Littlelostnf in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 12-04-2007, 03:01 AM
  5. Which one of you is.....
    By targobelle in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 10:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO