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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (8122)	4/21/2006 12:14:23 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

No truth values there. They can imagine what they like but it doesn't change what they do. You said my definition of capitalist admits that bandits think they are capitalists, but what do they do? Anti-capitalism. I think capitalism works because of trust and coordination. This may seem contradictory to my line of discussion, but trust is not needed. Can coordination proceed without trust? It depends on the efficiency and form of information distribution! In the final analysis one only needs trust that the system of coordination has coherent structure, not trust in the reliability of any individual in the system. The above is part of the claim that rule of law isn't necessary only sufficient for capitalism to operate, and degree of sufficiency admits degree of efficiency. Of course it's necessary to verify that someone or something is worth trusting. This is superfluous since what is being trusted when one trusts the system's structure is only that which has evolved naturally over thousands of years. One only has to trust that the good and evil in human nature will repeat itself. This is a Smithian concept. It is limited over eons of time, however, where human nature becomes changed by technology. But I tell you if I want something from an organization, capitalist or non-capitalist, I'd rather deal with a "manager", not a "coordinator". This is slave, "I'm secretly stealing from you", concept of organization. It comes from being surrounded with socialism. Remember what you said above, "they can imagine what they like but it doesn't change what they do"? You can imagine that you're better off under a manager, but it doesn't change what a manager does, deal with you as a slave. A robber cooperates in order to avoid risk. This is what the pseudo intellectuals of turn of the 20th century populist movement missed. The so-called robber barons were taking great risk, yet whereas they made tons of money, the big beneficiaries were the people on the low end where incomes were rising three times faster than they had previously. Hmmm. No one 'splained it that way, but the total truth of that was seen in the advancement of the US from an agrarian society to pre-eminent status as the world's richest nation. Hmmm. Sounds like China. Au contraire, if the farmers gained "real control", they'd unintentionally return the country back to the dictatorship of the proletariat! Can't return them to what they never had. Really? How quickly the lesson of the Soviet Union is forgotten. There the people revolted to change from the system where they had nothing to a system that promised them something, but which returned less than the previous system. I've really tried to work out how farmers owning land would lead to the outcome you describe. Right now, they get to use the land under the sufferance of petty bureaucrats. The countryside is a cesspool of corruption and petty tyranny. This sounds like a comment from wobbly boy who claims to negotiate with Chinese and therefore thinks he knows how China works. He only knows the stereotypes that come from western journalists seeking to contribute to socialist myth making, and it sounds much like yellow journalists of Victorian America seeking to extol populism. What have the farmers got to risk? Their rising incomes rising three times faster than previously. This is one scenario I imagine: Since they have nothing there worth risking, large numbers of farmers are deserting the countryside for the cities. This isn't what happened in the US. It took a hundred years. Eventually the countryside will be so deserted the government will have to give homesteading ownership rights to the farmers and bureaucrats who still remain and to businesses, and farmers willing to return. This is silly and ridiculous. How about agri-business. Are you saying that the Chinese can't consolidate? Socialism contains the seeds of both capitalism's destruction and tyranny. Tyranny is a subset of socialism. When tyranny exists in capitalism it means a society has a mix of socialism and capitalism, Samuelson's "mixed economy". All tyranny throughout history follows some kind of socialism. Tyranny can't exist under pure capitalism. But non ownership of land as in China doesn't preclude subsidies and all the other trappings of socialism. It doesn't matter who owns the land. Agri-business doesn't need to own the land it uses in order to profit. Property rights can be rented and inevitably will because land per se adds no value. It means they are starting practically from zero and this is a huge change because they remained at near zero for so long. It means they are burying the West in the pile of manure the West's byzantine constructs have brought. Point of fact, it(SBUX) does, even the baristas. It doesn't do enough of it. But I take your point with regard to other companies. Doesn't do enough is byzantine. The point here is that any business which has employees who aren't owners, is merely a form of socialism. Not tyranny. That requires coercion. These are volunteers. And they are free to start their own businesses. Is that what happened to GM, et all? Over the 20th century all those individuals were coerced into accepting the hegemony under which they toil. Like a drug addiction where the drug is guaranteed existence they can't shake tyranny for freedom. So you can hardly say, "not tyranny". It may be they have the most insidious tyranny of all time going there that only can be broken by Asian capitalism. The owners use the slavery contributed by those who don't think they can own to get more than they could by themselves. Slavery is involuntary, Then why is the US becoming the slaves of China? The US, like GM's auto workers, are choosing slavery. They like it. Someone takes care of them. employment with any given employer is voluntary. Do people have the right not to work? Ownership requires risk and not everyone is willing to take it. Don't take the risk, you only get a wage or a salary. The above shows inherent slavery. That is, some prefer to be slaves. I don't believe that. I only see a failure in education and drug addiction.