(June 7, 2013 at 1:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: See, in my idea of a free market, law is a product of government....so why not allow the private ownership of the means of production? Won't they allocate that resource more efficiently..or some such?

Isn't the insistence that the government serve in some capacity to "level the playing field" (and be immune to the influence of the actors in that market) just welfare for poor business models? If they have a valid model or product, why can't they buy their own congressman- compete in the market of government on their own merits?

Exactly. Also, in my view, we already have laws to protect people, and corporations are made up of people. A corporation can't do anything illegal; it has no ability to actually commit crimes. It is always the people behind the corporate action who should be prosecuted.

(June 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: nope.

Because consumers dont care over the ethical issues behind the products they consume. Just look at the history of products being produced through inmoral production methods. Look at Ryanair, Apple, Shell, Haliburton and others.

They all have bad reputations, some even have been convicted in courts of being involved in crimes. Yet they are all far from going down the toilet through low sales due to their reputation.

For every example you can give of a company ignoring customer demands, I bet I could come up with one that did listen, and improved their behaviour because of it. Even one of your examples (Apple) backed down in the face of consumer criticism and started improving working conditions at their Chinese factories.

Recently I heard that Costco received a bad batch of berries that made a lot of people ill. Not only did they recall the product before the FDA demanded it, but they are now giving out compensation, free products, and vaccines to anyone who was affected: http://consumerist.com/2013/06/07/costco...d-berries/

(June 7, 2013 at 2:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Because it's an attempt to bypass competition by out-producing, out-selling, or otherwise providing something your competitors can't provide as well as you.

Just another metagame within the larger overall competition. The other entity is free to do the same -again, buy their own congressmen. If they can't compete..why should anyone be subsidizing that?

Quote:The part of capitalism where it allocates resources efficiently? That is reduced when political favoritism is involved, whether it's a king or the more influential businesses themselves that institigate it. It's the cost of a reduction of efficiency without a corresponding desireable good to society that's worth the loss.

Political favoritism? I'm not talking about people picking favorites, I'm talking about congress going to the highest bidder. Working as intended.

(June 7, 2013 at 3:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 7, 2013 at 1:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: See, in my idea of a free market, law is a product of government....so why not allow the private ownership of the means of production? Won't they allocate that resource more efficiently..or some such?

Isn't the insistence that the government serve in some capacity to "level the playing field" (and be immune to the influence of the actors in that market) just welfare for poor business models? If they have a valid model or product, why can't they buy their own congressman- compete in the market of government on their own merits?

Exactly. Also, in my view, we already have laws to protect people, and corporations are made up of people. A corporation can't do anything illegal; it has no ability to actually commit crimes. It is always the people behind the corporate action who should be prosecuted.

(June 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: nope.

Because consumers dont care over the ethical issues behind the products they consume. Just look at the history of products being produced through inmoral production methods. Look at Ryanair, Apple, Shell, Haliburton and others.

They all have bad reputations, some even have been convicted in courts of being involved in crimes. Yet they are all far from going down the toilet through low sales due to their reputation.

For every example you can give of a company ignoring customer demands, I bet I could come up with one that did listen, and improved their behaviour because of it. Even one of your examples (Apple) backed down in the face of consumer criticism and started improving working conditions at their Chinese factories.

Recently I heard that Costco received a bad batch of berries that made a lot of people ill. Not only did they recall the product before the FDA demanded it, but they are now giving out compensation, free products, and vaccines to anyone who was affected: http://consumerist.com/2013/06/07/costco...d-berries/

Costco is probably one of the finest examples of good business practices I can possibly think of. Their employees are paid fat bank [seriously, $12.70 an hour STARTING PAY FOR CASHIERS?! SIGN MY ASS UP!], their prices are very fair, their customer service is tits, and their CEO refuses to take huge bonuses, instead distributing them throughout his company to keep up a motivated workforce.

If even just 25% of the rest of the companies in the US held such practices, all my gripes with capitalism would be completely and totally gone. If 50% did it, I'd renounce any and all forms of socialism. And if they all did? We'd probably be an economic golden age.

Quote:So...I'm rich now?

The divine Tiberius does not really want me to answer that question.

(June 7, 2013 at 4:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:So...I'm rich now?

The divine Tiberius does not really want me to answer that question.

I really do. I really want to know what logical justification you can come up with for me being rich. As far as I'm aware, you don't know anything about how much I earn, what I own, what my savings are like, etc.

By no means am I poor, but not poor does not equal rich.

(June 7, 2013 at 3:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: For every example you can give of a company ignoring customer demands, I bet I could come up with one that did listen, and improved their behaviour because of it. Even one of your examples (Apple) backed down in the face of consumer criticism and started improving working conditions at their Chinese factories.

It is not their factory. Foxcon is it`s own company which simply takes the production orders from other companies.
Apple is not even in the possition to make such demands from a company it doesnt even own. Anyway, they merely aknowleged that they found child labor in some factories, aswell as that some workers commited suicide due to the working conditions.
The only reactions made were that the company forced the workers to sign legal documents in which they promissed not to kill themselves (got to be the most usefull messure in history) and a number of police tanks which rolled over a protest of workers from that factory last fall.

Quote:For every example you can give of a company ignoring customer demands, I bet I could come up with one that did listen, and improved their behaviour because of it.

What would the point of that be?!?!???
What screwed up sence of law would one have to think that ones good actions redeem the criminal actions of others?!
The point of putting boundries on the way one can behave via laws is to prevent such behavior from happening in the first place.

And what the customer thinks is irrelevant anyway, and if one thinks that a companies behavior can bee entirely deemed to be responsible or irresponsible through what the public think than that is even a more idiotic conclusion on which laws should be set on the behavior of corporations. It is determined through the law - which determined by the republic and the high court. Other than that, the more pressing issue isnt consumer protection, but the excesses by some companies in third world dictatorships.

there it is not simply the behavior of single buisnesses but the practices undertaken by several buisnesses.

Almoust every single textile producer has his or her stuff produced in catastrophicaly managed sweatshops - and if the conditions there are changed after recent events cannot be seen yet.
The entire electronic gadet industry has it`s stuff produced in dictatorships under miserable working conditions.
And the excesses of the privat sector energy companies are the worst.
Non of these hit simple specific companies - but several companies follow the same trend, whiles consumers dont give a shit.

And dont pretend as if some economic trend depending on inhumane production messures will be abolished by those who have economic interest in it to continue.

Or are you?

[sarcasm]

Are you going to give the example of the farmers and plantation owners of the US, who during the 1960s peacefully accepted that slavery was inmoral and therefor freed all slaves?

The US goverment of the 1980s which insisted that China should only be alowed to open completly to the free market if it in return gives political freedom to it`s people?

The British goverment who declared before the end of appartheit that trade with a recist regime was not ok?

The British plantation owners in India during the 1870s who saw the need to give aid to famine striken ereas in which they caused a famine through the inplacement of different production means?

[/sarcasm]

as concluded in the short debate I had with Master Agenda - capitalism is not a system of ethics - it will therefor ignore all ethical aspects of sociaty it can ignore in order to reach it`s goals.
capitalism = fine - but only regulated and unavailable for dictatorships and countries which can be exploited.

Quote:Recently I heard that Costco received a bad batch of berries that made a lot of people ill. Not only did they recall the product before the FDA demanded it, but they are now giving out compensation, free products, and vaccines to anyone who was affected:

That is because if they were aware of the situation and had done nothing - the legal consequences would have been worse.
And I find it courious how people talking about the word compensation when talking about someone they admire giving it always leave out the adjective legal before the word compensation.
because even when the compensation is not determined by a court (which would cause bad press) it is still legal compensation which prevents those affected from suing the corporation.

Other than that. This is a first world problem which doesnt adress the graver issues of production and the working conditions there.

The availability of cheap and nonrebellious labor in third world countries does not only attract the attention of western corporation but could well create the same kind of dependency system that existed in the 19th century with slavery.

(June 7, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I really do. I really want to know what logical justification you can come up with for me being rich. As far as I'm aware, you don't know anything about how much I earn, what I own, what my savings are like, etc.

By no means am I poor, but not poor does not equal rich.

edit:

wrote something insulting therefor -snip-

(June 7, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Costco is probably one of the finest examples of good business practices I can possibly think of. Their employees are paid fat bank [seriously, $12.70 an hour STARTING PAY FOR CASHIERS?! SIGN MY ASS UP!], their prices are very fair, their customer service is tits, and their CEO refuses to take huge bonuses, instead distributing them throughout his company to keep up a motivated workforce.

If even just 25% of the rest of the companies in the US held such practices, all my gripes with capitalism would be completely and totally gone. If 50% did it, I'd renounce any and all forms of socialism. And if they all did? We'd probably be an economic golden age.

Sounds like you've just described all the ways that costcos model is inferior to Walmarts to me.

(June 7, 2013 at 1:44 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 6, 2013 at 11:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

So...I'm rich now?

Not all libertarians are rich, obviously. However, it's only logical that many, many wealthy US citizens would be libertarians because they do not want government being involved in their affairs.

Republicans are Libertarian wannabes. Libertarians are Somalia wannabes.

(June 7, 2013 at 6:19 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Republicans are Libertarian wannabes. Libertarians are Somalia wannabes.

When making such oversimplicistic statements what is the difference between you and some who deems all goverment social investment as communism?