Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (151194)	9/10/2002 12:57:37 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586653

Do you consider the losses that individuals, companies and gov't suffer during a recession to be great examples of the capitalist economy's efficiencies? Unless you can point to a system where no one loses money but that can still generate the wealth that capitalism does or more then I would say that they are not signs of its inefficancy. No, I can not point to a system that is better but that doesn't change the fact that capitalism is inefficient. An engine can never be 100% efficent. You can take an engine that has 60% efficancy and point to the 40% of losses and say that it means it is inefficent, but actually an engine that ran at 60% efficancy would be amazing and if our car engines couls use the energy from the gasoline they burn that effciently they could boost gas mileage and power at the same time. Capitalism isn't anywhere close to 100%. Clinton and related individuals showed us that a peacetime eco. expansion can last longer than 5-6 years. Slowly but surely, our recessions have grown less severe. We are getting better but the progress is slow. And I would not be surprised if some time in the future, our system evolves into something else. I am unclear why you are afraid that they're might be something better out there that may exist now but is not well known, or one that has yet to be invented. It seems to me that you either have a free market or you have a market subject to external (probably government) control. Free market is a misnomer in a modern, technological society. Some systems are just more controlled than others. In a developed modern economy with millions or billions of people the desired output is complex and shifting. And that's why capitalism is inefficient. When the economy's complexity shifts too greatly, the capitalist economy falters and sputters and then some times konks out. That's assuming there is nothing better. I don't believe that.....and I hope you don't either. There will always be something better then the specifics of what we actually have, but a free market will always be more efficent for more purposes in a complex economy then a command and control one. I don't believe you because you don't know. You're like the guy who said a car can never be better than the Model T. And yes, the analogy is apt. Capitalism encourages profit. When profit is the mantra of the entrepreneurial world, people get exploited. How? How? There are a million ways......cut down on the maintenance requirements of plant equipment to boost profits.....workers get physically hurt; cut corners on a residential development in order to bring project in early and boost profits.......homeowners end up having greater maintenance expenses; plant cuts corners and does not install proper environmental controls on a chemical plant and dumps noxious chemicals into the local drinking water in order to boost profits......community, domestic animals, wildlife suffer. The list is endless. If that's true, we may be limited to Earth and her existing resources. You yourself mention the astroids which could be a good source of resources. The most important resource limit is that of energy and we are not limited to the energy of the earth we can collect energy from the sun, but even ignoring this we have barely begun to tap the energy available on the earth. We have taped a lot of the energy that is cheaply available with current technology and techniques but we can and have improved the technology and techniques. The only absolute limit of energy from the earth is the energy that could be obatained by turning the earth into energy with 100% efficancy. A more realalistic limit is the energy that could be obtained by the combination of collecting a big portion of the solar energy that hits the earth and fusing hydrogen at a rate that uses up 10% of the ocean over say the time from now until the sun goes nova. Resources are not limited to energy.......there is iron, nickel, copper, aluminum, the rare metals, the rare gases etc. Do you not conceive of a time we run out? In fact, Russia was poor because it place its priorities in things that garnered it prestige and power, and because it siphoned its wealth off to the oligarchs, and consequently, its people were starving and given no real incentive to work harder. The wealth that went to the oligarchs and the military hurt but the biggest problem was how the wealth that went to things for the people was wasted. Many of their industries where value subtractors even ignoreing the graft. The goods they produced where worth less then the input, because there was no capitalist incentive to produce what people actually want, or price signals to even know what people really want in a timely fashion. Tim, don't you understand that the central authority sucked up all the wealth. People don't do good work simply because of money. Although its the predominant theme in a capitalistic society, it only partially explains the motivation of a worker. I don't try to do the best stock trades simply for the money although that's part of it. In Russia, the central authority around the dictator allowed only enough wealth to remain on the lower levels to keep operations at a minimumal level. So not only was the Russia worker underpaid but he was given little to work with.....equipment broke down 24/7.....everything was held together with bubble gum. He wasn't encouraged to innovate nor to ask questions. The products they turned out were noticably inferior because the materials and designs they used were noticeably inferior.....consequently, they broke down quickly. How could anyone take pride in their work in that kind of scenario. Closer to home......ours is a capitalist system.....the Japanese and Germans have more socialistic roots than we do. For years now, the Germans and Japanese have turned out better cars and other products then we have. How can that be? Why is the capitalist incentive not enough? Tim, I was speculating based upon the question you asked. I am not going try to defend it especially when anything non capitalistic automatically gets your ding. There is a free economy, or a government run economy. Any third way is really just different proportions of one or the other. You haven't presented anything really different for me to even consider but then I don't think there is anything really different so I can hardly blame you. BS......any economic model that's better would have to be somewhat complex and would require some work to develop. Frankly, I am not about to do that just for our amusement. Command and control economies almost automatically get my ding but if you can point to one that you think worked well I will look in to it with a decently open mind. Norway and Sweden to name a couple......Canada too. ted