What is the goal of capitalism?

[Red Front]

I sense an ideological idiot or a troll at work here. Perhaps both.

Your senses are imbecilic that's why you're unable to cope with reality. Advanced 21st-century automation eliminates wage labor. Hello? Did your little birdbrain get that? Here let me help you.

No Wage Labor (or Not Enough Of It) = No Paying Consumers (or Not Enough Customers) = No Market (or Not A Large Enough Market Worth Investing In) = No Capitalism (No Capitalists Pursuing Capital) = Non-Profit Production (Socialism).

 

[Thunk]

This is just a philosophical question. Is there a goal for capitalism at all? Is it to maximize personal liberty or production? or is it to maximize well being?

The goal of capitalism is to better the quality of life for all.

Take the saying: The best thing for high prices is high prices.

It's true. High prices suck when you have to pay them...but they are great when you are selling/producing.

Lets say chicken was at an all time high in price. More people start growing chickens to cash in on the high prices...the supply increases and the prices come down.

Everybody has chicken at low prices and everybody is happy. Their life has been made better automatically by a self correcting function of capitalism.

Then look at the patent system. If the inventor has no chance of making a profit, why would he risk the money to bring his idea to market? But when he can protect his idea for 20 years...he has time to make a nice profit for himself & then his idea becomes "public domain" which means anybody can produce it...and the price comes way down.

That's why we all enjoy aspirin that's dirt cheap...and everybodys quality of life goes up!

Capitalism ain't for the individual...it's for the masses...by being for the individual.

A rising tide floats all boats.

 

[Red Front]

The goal of capitalism is to better the quality of life for all.

Take the saying: The best thing for high prices is high prices.

It's true. High prices suck when you have to pay them...but they are great when you are selling/producing.

Lets say chicken was at an all time high in price. More people start growing chickens to cash in on the high prices...the supply increases and the prices come down.

Everybody has chicken at low prices and everybody is happy. Their life has been made better automatically by a self correcting function of capitalism.

Then look at the patent system. If the inventor has no chance of making a profit, why would he risk the money to bring his idea to market? But when he can protect his idea for 20 years...he has time to make a nice profit for himself & then his idea becomes "public domain" which means anybody can produce it...and the price comes way down.

That's why we all enjoy aspirin that's dirt cheap...and everybodys quality of life goes up!

Capitalism ain't for the individual...it's for the masses...by being for the individual.

A rising tide floats all boats.

Everybody has chicken at low prices and everybody is happy. Their life has been made better automatically by a self correcting function of capitalism.

Market adjustments don't happen overnight, and while food prices are high, people starve. The market needs to be supported and regulated by an authority for it to function properly.

The bottom line of capitalism is profits. Private capital accumalation. That's it, nothing else. Whoever asserts otherwise is naive.

 

[Thunk]

Market adjustments don't happen overnight, and while food prices are high, people starve. The market needs to be supported and regulated by an authority for it to function properly.

I didn't say it was overnight...it takes time to grow food.

But you can either have high prices or shortages. And if prices don't go up...those shortages will last forever.

Price controls greatly worsen shortages!!!

So which would you rather have?

 

[Red Front]

I didn't say it was overnight...it takes time to grow food.

But you can either have high prices or shortages. And if prices don't go up...those shortages will last forever.

Price controls greatly worsen shortages!!!

So which would you rather have?

Market adjustments can take years, way longer than one or two growing seasons. The market left to its "invisible hand", might not lower prices for a particular needed product until thousands, even millions of people get sick or even die. A responsible government would intervene before that occurs. In WW2 Uncle Sam imposed price controls, rationing, and a long list of other policies to support the war effort, making sure our military was well-provisioned.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "but you can either have high prices or shortages" and the idea of "shortages will last forever"?

That depends on the cause of the increased prices. Price controls can stabilize the market and make the goods more available to the public while ensuring producers are still making a profit.

It's not a zero-sum, one or the other. Within the context of a capitalist market economy, there are several options governments have to stabilize and deflate inflation while ensuring goods and services are still available to the public.

 

[Thunk]

Price controls can stabilize the market and make the goods more available to the public

Complete and utter hogwash!

Price controls have never worked in all of history...they have ALWAYS made shortages worse! EVERY SINGLE TIME! They also create a black market for any good that's in short supply...and that means HIGHER PRICES.

If there is a profit to be made (due to higher prices)...more people will produce it & more supply becomes available (lowering the prices).

It's really not that difficult to grasp.

 

[Robert W]

How does that apply to what I said, that food production doesn't rely on capitalism or its markets?

" 2021, the federal government provided farms with $28.5 billion in subsidies, or direct farm program payments."​

Source: US Agriculture Statistics and Data Trends.

Without the US government and farmhands/workers, farms can't operate. The government can very easily automate all farms in America and nationalize food production. Modern 21st-century technology completely eliminates the need for capitalism and markets.

​

You forgot that capitalists made that tractor for capitalists to purchase, to harvest products we capitalist consumers get to purchase. Without capitalists, bye bye economy.

Would you be attacking communism by chance?

 

[Robert W]

Market adjustments can take years, way longer than one or two growing seasons. The market left to its "invisible hand", might not lower prices for a particular needed product until thousands, even millions of people get sick or even die. A responsible government would intervene before that occurs. In WW2 Uncle Sam imposed price controls, rationing, and a long list of other policies to support the war effort, making sure our military was well-provisioned.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "but you can either have high prices or shortages" and the idea of "shortages will last forever"?

That depends on the cause of the increased prices. Price controls can stabilize the market and make the goods more available to the public while ensuring producers are still making a profit.

It's not a zero-sum, one or the other. Within the context of a capitalist market economy, there are several options governments have to stabilize and deflate inflation while ensuring goods and services are still available to the public.

Capitalism is pure freedom. Since you so object to this freedom, what do you have in mind that keeps us free? Who do you want to run Government such as Biden?

 

[Thunk]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "but you can either have high prices or shortages" and the idea of "shortages will last forever"?

When demand is larger than supply you can "ration thru price" or you can "ration thru quantity" (shortage...can't get all you want no matter the price).

If there is no incentive (profit) for others to get in on producing that product why would they?

That means the shortage will never be resolved and the shortage will last indefinitely.

If the gov't put price controls on bread...so bakers are losing 2 cents for every loaf they produce...are you gonna start producing loaves of bread and selling them at a loss?

I didn't thunk so.

 

[Robert W]

How does that apply to what I said, that food production doesn't rely on capitalism or its markets?

" 2021, the federal government provided farms with $28.5 billion in subsidies, or direct farm program payments."​

Source: US Agriculture Statistics and Data Trends.

Without the US government and farmhands/workers, farms can't operate. The government can very easily automate all farms in America and nationalize food production. Modern 21st-century technology completely eliminates the need for capitalism and markets.

​

Sounds to me like China is lecturing America.

 

[Thunk]

You forgot that capitalists made that tractor for capitalists to purchase, to harvest products we capitalist consumers get to purchase. Without capitalists, bye bye economy.

Now here's a man that understands!

 

[Red Front]

Complete and utter hogwash!

Price controls have never worked in all of history...they have ALWAYS made shortages worse! EVERY SINGLE TIME! They also create a black market for any good that's in short supply...and that means HIGHER PRICES.

If there is a profit to be made (due to higher prices)...more people will produce it & more supply becomes available (lowering the prices).

It's really not that difficult to grasp.

Firstly, the idea that price controls have "never worked in all of history" is definitely hogwash. Remember World War II? The U.S. government implemented price controls, rationing, and a slew of other policies to ensure the war effort was well-provisioned. This was a necessary and pragmatic approach to ensure the nation's needs were met during a critical time and not left to your sacred "invisible hand" of the "free market".

Your assertion about black markets is a red herring. Black markets can and do emerge in any economic system, not just under price controls. They often arise due to systemic inefficiencies, which, ironically, can be exacerbated by your laissez-faire, Milton Friedman approach.

Now, let's address the "profit leads to more production" argument. While it's true that profit can incentivize production, it's a narrow lens through which to view an economy. The relentless, insatiable pursuit of profit can also lead to overproduction, waste, and environmental degradation. It can result in the exploitation of workers and the creation of unsafe, poorly manufactured products. The unchecked market doesn't always know best, because it actually knows nothing. It's not an ontological reality, but a chaotic, often, unpredictable phenomenon, relying on many different factors. When left to its own devices it can fail to address the needs of consumers, leading to gross inequality, hunger, sickness, and death.

Speaking of unchecked markets, let's talk about the boom and bust cycles, or the "business cycle" as it's often called. Left to its own devices, the market can and does spiral out of control, leading to recessions, depressions, and widespread suffering. It's here that government intervention becomes not just beneficial, but essential.

Consider the numerous times the government has had to bail out critical sectors of our economy to prevent them from collapsing and causing the public an immense amount of harm. This isn't some benevolent act; it's a recognition that the market, left to "invisible hands", can be self-destructive. These bailouts are a testament to the fact that a hands-off approach can lead to systemic vulnerabilities that require government intervention. This has been proven time and time again.

​

 

[Red Front]

You forgot that capitalists made that tractor for capitalists to purchase, to harvest products we capitalist consumers get to purchase. Without capitalists, bye bye economy.

Would you be attacking communism by chance?

There's no such thing as capitalist tractors and the notion of all consumers being "capitalists" is absurd, because most paying consumers are working-class people who sell their labor to capitalists, who privately own the means of production. They're not capitalists themselves due to not owning the productive enterprise, but rather just being employed by it.

The capitalist owner class that exploits human labor to generate surplus value or profit, is the weakest and most unnecessary component in the productive enterprise. They're unnecessary middlemen, standing between the workers (those who actually produce everything through their labor) and the means of production, relying on the hard work of others to generate capital. Their incomes rely on the sweat, tears, and blood of other human beings.

 

[Red Front]

When demand is larger than supply you can "ration thru price" or you can "ration thru quantity" (shortage...can't get all you want no matter the price).

If there is no incentive (profit) for others to get in on producing that product why would they?

That means the shortage will never be resolved and the shortage will last indefinitely.

If the gov't put price controls on bread...so bakers are losing 2 cents for every loaf they produce...are you gonna start producing loaves of bread and selling them at a loss?

I didn't thunk so.

Your argument hinges on the idea that the only incentive for production is profit. While profit is certainly a driving factor in a capitalist system, it's not the sole motivator, nor is it always the most efficient or equitable way to distribute resources.

1. Rationing through Price vs. Quantity: The idea that we can only ration through price or quantity is a false dichotomy. In reality, economies often use a mix of both. For instance, during times of crisis or war, governments might implement price controls and rationing simultaneously to ensure both stability in prices and equitable distribution of scarce resources.
2. Incentive Beyond Profit: There are numerous instances where both the private and public sectors under a government contract or project, can produce goods and services for reasons other than profit. Healthcare and education in many countries are produced and delivered without a profit motive. The motivation here is societal benefit, not profit. It's supporting the nation's infrastructure, which increases production in many other areas of the economy.
3. Shortages and Indefinite Duration: The assertion that without profit motive, shortages will last indefinitely is nonsense. Shortages can be caused by a myriad of factors, including natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, or technological disruptions. In many cases, these shortages are temporary and would resolve even without a profit incentive. Moreover, governments and communities often step in to address critical shortages, recognizing the broader societal implications. Do you actually believe the well-funded administrative arm of the public (the government), wouldn't do anything to alleviate or eliminate critical shortages of important goods and services?
4. Price Controls and Losses: The hypothetical scenario you've presented about bakers losing money on every loaf of bread under price controls is misleading. Price controls, when implemented, are typically designed to ensure that producers cover their costs while preventing price gouging. They're not intended to force producers into losses. If a baker were indeed losing money on every loaf, it would indicate a failure in the implementation of the price control, not the concept itself.
5. Historical Precedents: Throughout history, there have been numerous instances where governments have successfully intervened in markets to stabilize prices, prevent shortages, or ensure equitable distribution. These interventions were not always driven by profit motives but by broader societal needs and goals.

 

[Red Front]

Capitalism is pure freedom. Since you so object to this freedom, what do you have in mind that keeps us free? Who do you want to run Government such as Biden?

Capitalism is "freer" than chattel slavery and feudalism, but it's far from "pure freedom". Actually, "pure" freedom amounts to chaos, hence nothing can truly be absolutely free and functional. It will break down. Even God has His boundaries.

Capitalism can function with a bit of socialism until advanced technology automates production to such an extent that it's no longer practical or efficient to hire human labor at a rate necessary to sustain the marketplace. Markets need paying consumers and under capitalism most paying consumers (94% of the population) sell their labor power to capitalists (6% of the population). That small group of capitalists owns the "means of production" (i.e. all of the land, facilities, machinery, vehicles, capital, credit..etc) and this arrangement will continue until intelligent robots begin to eliminate jobs (wage labor) to a point that it causes a serious economic crisis, along with a critical degree of social unrest.

These billionaires see the writing on the wall:

​

Do you think they're offering people a "UBI" i.e. Universal Basic Income, out of the goodness of their hearts? No. They're well aware of the inevitable cataclysmic outcome of advanced 21st-century, intelligent automation (catastrophic for capitalism not socialism). It amounts to society being forced by necessity to adopt a non-profit, marketless, moneyless, democratic, centrally managed, highly automated system of production. Another word for that is socialism. There's also another term that I could use, but I'll use the less scary one.

​

Advanced automation ensures that socialism will become the successor of capitalism. It's the natural "inheritor" of the capitalist estate.

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ISN'T SO MUCH HOW YOU START THE RACE, BUT HOW YOU FINISH IT.​

 

[Robert W]

Capitalism is "freer" than chattel slavery and feudalism, but it's far from "pure freedom". Actually, "pure" freedom amounts to chaos, hence nothing can truly be absolutely free and functional. It will break down. Even God has His boundaries.

Capitalism can function with a bit of socialism until advanced technology automates production to such an extent that it's no longer practical or efficient to hire human labor at a rate necessary to sustain the marketplace. Markets need paying consumers and under capitalism most paying consumers (94% of the population) sell their labor power to capitalists (6% of the population). That small group of capitalists owns the "means of production" (i.e. all of the land, facilities, machinery, vehicles, capital, credit..etc) and this arrangement will continue until intelligent robots begin to eliminate jobs (wage labor) to a point that it causes a serious economic crisis, along with a critical degree of social unrest.

These billionaires see the writing on the wall:

​

Do you think they're offering people a "UBI" i.e. Universal Basic Income, out of the goodness of their hearts? No. They're well aware of the inevitable cataclysmic outcome of advanced 21st-century, intelligent automation (catastrophic for capitalism not socialism). It amounts to society being forced by necessity to adopt a non-profit, marketless, moneyless, democratic, centrally managed, highly automated system of production. Another word for that is socialism. There's also another term that I could use, but I'll use the less scary one.

​

Advanced automation ensures that socialism will become the successor of capitalism. It's the natural "inheritor" of the capitalist estate.

View attachment 814294

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ISN'T SO MUCH HOW YOU START THE RACE, BUT HOW YOU FINISH IT.​

As a very long time businessman, that is not factual.
Automation? Definitely how to relieve inaccuracies and jaw breaking labor efforts.
I believe totally in automation. It caused the mass emergence of industry. Industry produces incomes.
Ask my grandson if he wants it your way. He graduated college into a fine $165,000 year job as an computer engineer. And he is strongly a capitalist. BTW, that is lower by far than what he makes today.

 

[Zincwarrior]

This is just a philosophical question. Is there a goal for capitalism at all? Is it to maximize personal liberty or production? or is it to maximize well being?

Increase the wealth of those with capital, without consideration for any other needs.

Private profit, social costs.

Social costs will be born by the poor.

 

[Robert W]

There's no such thing as capitalist tractors and the notion of all consumers being "capitalists" is absurd, because most paying consumers are working-class people who sell their labor to capitalists, who privately own the means of production. They're not capitalists themselves due to not owning the productive enterprise, but rather just being employed by it.

The capitalist owner class that exploits human labor to generate surplus value or profit, is the weakest and most unnecessary component in the productive enterprise. They're unnecessary middlemen, standing between the workers (those who actually produce everything through their labor) and the means of production, relying on the hard work of others to generate capital. Their incomes rely on the sweat, tears, and blood of other human beings.

Thanks for the Chinese communist view of the economy.

And you clearly did not understand what I had said about the young capitalists who own the farm and equipment. They are not harming the working class.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Increase the wealth of those with capital, without consideration for any other needs.

Private profit, social costs.

Social costs will be born by the poor.

Increase the wealth of those with capital, without consideration for any other needs.

Capitalists make money by serving the needs of others.

 

[Mexicano]

As a very long time businessman, that is not factual.
Automation? Definitely how to relieve inaccuracies and jaw breaking labor efforts.
I believe totally in automation. It caused the mass emergence of industry. Industry produces incomes.
Ask my grandson if he wants it your way. He graduated college into a fine $165,000 year job as an computer engineer. And he is strongly a capitalist. BTW, that is lower by far than what he makes today.

The process is so old it has a name in economics: "creative destruction".
The usual pattern of creative destruction is that it destroys jobs but first, and afterward it slowly creates new jobs. Eventually the employment levels again.
AI is so pervasive that it may affect every single job ( manual jobs are actually safer than desk jobs during this phase), and the number of new jobs will be meager at best.
The ongoing writers and actors strike is a telling sign.