With all due respect, this is quite a long rant, but these are my frustrations with living in a Capitalistic society. Oh, and I have been on here for a little more then a year now, so I know pretty well of the ideas that is passed around Mises readings.
Now, I understand that CEO's are responsible for a company's profits, and that the entrepreneur is someone who sacrifices a stable job lifestyle for risking his personal savings. However, while this is true with small business', I have no problem with CEO's of small business. Though, if someone needs to find a job, they have no choice but to employ themselves at a crappy job where they will be exploited. My definition of exploited meaning no pay for overtime, keeping you overtime, no vacation, and taking money off of your paycheck for breaks. You can't control when an employer decides to keep you overtime to get more work done, but its ****ing bullshit when you have school and a life to maintain as well. People at low-income jobs barely make enough to even be worth all this stress, where someone with a BA in even Communication gets to work for an above average salary and sit in the comfort of his cubicle on a computer. Jobs shouldn't be a privilege, and if someone has to work for low income, they shouldn't be slaving a lot more then someone with an education earning a median-above average salary. This is exploitation. You know, the only reason someone working at McDonalds is getting ****ed in the ass is because CEO's don't want to cut their erroneous salary so that they can continue golfing on their private island, while hiring less people so that they themselves, who don't even do much with the Corporation they are the head of, can get higher salaries.
Do I think the honest ones, i.e. small businessmen, do so? No. In fact those types of CEO's live it like its a lifestyle, not just a job, they DO work their asses off.
Novus Zarathustra:Because I was never able to live my life the way I wanted do, I end up at the age of 40, with kids and having to spend his entire life working at a place Wal-Mart or Target if I get lucky enough to even get the job there and be paid decently. ALl the money I'm earning will go toward paying for my bills and feeding my kids because I was never able to go to school, never able to try to make it as an artist since I couldn't afford my tools so I could be making a better salary. Instead I work my ass of, am miserable, and will never be an artist. gg.
Only in a rich, formerly free country could one, in the midst of a horrific depression, think that working in a large store, earning just enough to pay bills and feed kids, is a bad thing. Try explaining to a resident of Tanzania that you are upset that you will stand in a building full of things and earn enough to eat for pressing buttons on a computer.
The Tanzanian works harder than you do, much harder. He spends all day carrying heavy things, and he just watched two of his children starve. So he won't stand for your whining. If you want to be consistent, at least complain on his behalf, not your own.
But it's not about work, it's about what you produce. You might think it is harder to press buttons than to do what a CEO does. But anyone can do your job, and you produce very little. You're only necessary at all because we have division of labor and such massive production that we can have stores. The CEO is an organizer. Without him, your labor would produce even less, because you would not have in front of you a computer to press buttons on. What you're doing is only valuable because of a huge supply chain and the related actions of thousands of people - and the people who bring it all together.
The Tanzanian doesn't have this kind of organization. He has no capital structure, and so has to produce directly from the earth. That is hard.
Now, I agree with a lot of your points, believe it or not. I would like to see more equity, I'd be happy with a lower standard of living with less organization, smaller organizations - and in addition, I think, with Kevin Carson, that in a free society organizations would be smaller with higher production anyway, so its a moot point. But those are my preferences, and I have no right to inflict them on you - to decide for you that production should be smaller and lower so that I can have more free time, or shop at smaller stores, or whatever. I have to find a like-minded group of people and build what I want. If you want a commune, build one. That's a task as hard as what a CEO does, for less pay - but it's building the world you'd like. Just don't demand that people who don't want what you want build it for you.
Novus Zarathustra: I'm not a socialist. I never declared being one. I can empathize with the ideas of Socialism and Anarcho Capitalism. The issue with Capitalism I have are the injustices and scarcity of things like jobs and the environment.
I'm not a socialist. I never declared being one. I can empathize with the ideas of Socialism and Anarcho Capitalism. The issue with Capitalism I have are the injustices and scarcity of things like jobs and the environment.
But that's the thing- the injustices with the scarcity of things like jobs and the environment aren't BECAUSE of capitalism. They're because of SOCIALIST policies. When there's no respect for private propert- THERE'S NO RESPECT for the environment and people/companies will dump their garbage everywhere. The scarcity of jobs recently has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with socialist government policies such as manipulating the interest rate and you haven't explained why you think it has to do with capitalism.
I think that's why everyone's confused as to where you're coming from in this thread.
Novus Zarathustra: chrispy: Novus Zarathustra:I'm saying we should go there, make accounts, and see if we can make a mark on RevLeft. They discussing Anarcho-Capitalism a lot recently, this is our chance to win them over. Perhaps, even hurt the ideology of socialism big time.. This is so confusing, I had to create an account here just to figure it out. You yourself are a socialist, that's the whole point of this thread. Why would you want to try to "win over" a bunch of socialists (presumably by convincing them that Anarcho-capitalism is superior), when you are largely in agreement with them? I'm not a socialist. I never declared being one. I can empathize with the ideas of Socialism and Anarcho Capitalism. The issue with Capitalism I have are the injustices and scarcity of things like jobs and the environment.
chrispy: Novus Zarathustra:I'm saying we should go there, make accounts, and see if we can make a mark on RevLeft. They discussing Anarcho-Capitalism a lot recently, this is our chance to win them over. Perhaps, even hurt the ideology of socialism big time.. This is so confusing, I had to create an account here just to figure it out. You yourself are a socialist, that's the whole point of this thread. Why would you want to try to "win over" a bunch of socialists (presumably by convincing them that Anarcho-capitalism is superior), when you are largely in agreement with them?
Novus Zarathustra:I'm saying we should go there, make accounts, and see if we can make a mark on RevLeft. They discussing Anarcho-Capitalism a lot recently, this is our chance to win them over. Perhaps, even hurt the ideology of socialism big time..
This is so confusing, I had to create an account here just to figure it out. You yourself are a socialist, that's the whole point of this thread. Why would you want to try to "win over" a bunch of socialists (presumably by convincing them that Anarcho-capitalism is superior), when you are largely in agreement with them?
Here's the sequence of events as I see it:
1. You claim not to be a socialist, but you 'empathize' with both socialism and capitalism
2. You start a thread which is basically a socialist rant (you complain about the injustice of a CEO who makes more than an entry level worker, you claim socialism guarantees you your choice of job while under capitalism someone makes that choice for you, you say you're entitled to a good paying job to the extent that someone should be forced against their will to hire you, you blame scarcity on capitalism, etc).
3. Then, in the very same thread, you do a complete 180 by encouraging people to go to RevLeft and convince them to give up socialism in favor of anarcho-capitalism.
Either you're right, and capitalism creates all these various injustices, in which case arguing in favor of anarcho-capitalism on a socialist web forum is counter-productive; or it doesn't, in which case starting this thread makes no sense. You seem to want it both ways: on RevLeft you're a capitalist, and on Mises.org you're a socialist. That's what's confusing to me.
Nice post Katz. The one thing I disagree with though is how insensitive business is. The biggest and strongest corporations were the most aggressive. The Ford corporation preyed on its workers lives, and was very selective about which employees would get to continue working for Ford. Ford had snooped on the lives of his employees, and his aggressive practices is what made Ford the top corporation at the time
Do you think its humanitarian for someone to be fired from their job, when they worked as hard as possible and didn't expect to be fired? I forgot his name, but this one guy wrote a book on how to raise a successful business, and it said something about firing the bottom %10 employees. Firing a person can hurt them consciously, and the assertion that someone, as a unit of production is worthless. This is something that can break a human being.
Consider the people who live in Atlanta, GA (Maybe its GA, and Im not sure) who's water supply is being used up by bottled water companies, who then sell the water back them. These people are upset about what the company has done to their communities water. However, this is only so that they can provide everyone else in the country with water.
Only in a rich, formerly free country could one, in the midst of a horrific depression, think that working in a large store, earning just enough to pay bills and feed kids, is a bad thing. Try explaining to a resident of Tanzania that you are upset that you will stand in a building full of things and earn enough to eat for pressing buttons on a computer. The Tanzanian works harder than you do, much harder. He spends all day carrying heavy things, and he just watched two of his children starve. So he won't stand for your whining. If you want to be consistent, at least complain on his behalf, not your own.
I find it really annoying when elitists, liberal assholes, and americans complain about their wages when Tanzinanians would LOVE to have the wages we have that the americans don't want. I joined a group on Facebook about Stop n Shop and the strikes and saw a woman who was upset about what she is getting paid because she has kids and is a parent. So if its such a big fucking deal, then WHY THE HELL DOESNT SHE LIVE BELOW HER MEANS? Spoiled elitist fuck like the liberals piss me off to know end.
Now, I agree with a lot of your points, believe it or not. I would like to see more equity, I'd be happy with a lower standard of living with less organization, smaller organizations - and in addition, I think, with Kevin Carson, that in a free society organizations would be smaller with higher production anyway, so its a moot point.
My main problem with Capitalism, is not "wage-slavery" or any of that bullshit. Its that there is scarcities, like what we have now in a recession. Capitalism does not seem to be very successful at reallocating resources when there is such a scarcity like there is now with jobs. Wheras in central planning there is always something for everyone.
The Ford corporation preyed on its workers lives, and was very selective about which employees would get to continue working for Ford.
Don't you think it is important to know if your potential employee has been a thieve?
Ford had snooped on the lives of his employees, and his aggressive practices is what made Ford the top corporation at the time
Do you have proof of this?
Do you think its humanitarian for someone to be fired from their job, when they worked as hard as possible and didn't expect to be fired?
1) What does it mean to be "humanitarian"? 2) Why does working hard matter? Am I entitled to something because I work hard?
I forgot his name, but this one guy wrote a book on how to raise a successful business, and it said something about firing the bottom %10 employees.
What's wrong with that? Why should an employer keep the least productive people? What if those fired employees find jobs where they are more productive? What if another industry needs more workers but the extra workers aren't available because it is illegal to fire the bottom 10%?
Firing a person can hurt them consciously, and the assertion that someone, as a unit of production is worthless.
Not being hired can also hurt the conscious. Should an employer be forced to hire all applicants? And if so, wouldn't that hurt the conscious of the employer?
This is something that can break a human being.
So can going bankrupt because of not being able to fire unproductive employees.
In your example, is the government involved in any way?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
... Capitalism does not seem to be very successful at reallocating resources when there is such a scarcity like there is now with jobs.
Proof? Government involvement makes it difficult for the market to allocate jobs. Also, do you know about the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle? This massive unemployment was caused by the boom, and the eventual bust, that was created by central planning.
Where as in central planning there is always something for everyone.
What do you mean by that? That in central planning there is always a job for everyone? How would the central planners know what jobs to create? Are the central planners omniscient?
"My main problem with Capitalism, is not "wage-slavery" or any of that bullshit. Its that there is scarcities, like what we have now in a recession. Capitalism does not seem to be very successful at reallocating resources when there is such a scarcity like there is now with jobs. Wheras in central planning there is always something for everyone."
These scarcities are created by governments screwing around in the marketplace. This isn't capitalism, this is a fault of government intervention. As for central planning, yes there is always something for everyone , you will all be equally impoverished with the exception of the politically connected rulers.
Thats not freedom at all, they're only choice is to work under those conditions. They have to either starve or be exploited.
Its the idea that workers, are sold off and thrown away like property. They are property. Lockean property, such as that of the company in Atlanta, GA gives the company that right to drought the land.
"Its the idea that workers, are sold off and thrown away like property. They are property. Lockean property, such as that of the company in Atlanta, GA gives the company that right to drought the land."
Well, I find your idea offensive and it hurts my conscious. The government should stop you from ever expressing that idea.
The company owners are the ones who decide to hire the CEO.
So these greedy company owners allegedly got to where they are now by exploiting others right?
So then why when it comes to hiring a CEO would they not want to pay him as little as possible as well?
If it was so damn easy why wouldn't these greedy capitalists hire you to do the job for 1% of the the salary they hire the CEO for, if you could do almost as good of a job?
These people probably do what they believe will be best for profits right?
Either A. they are inept businessmen and can't see that it isn't worth paying that much for a CEO or B. the CEO's talent is worth the salary.
If these people were bad at what they did their company would go under in a capitalist economy.
It is possible that these companies overpay their CEO's and are able to survive because of government privilege but that wouldn't be capitalism.
"It is possible that these companies overpay their CEO's and are able to survive because of government privilege but that wouldn't be capitalism."
Good point. Also, the fact that government regulation currently has such a substantial effect on corporations' bottom lines can make a CEO candidate who is well-connected with the Washington regulators worth a ridiculously large salary, simply because of the influence he/she can wield with regard to getting favorable legislation and regulations written.