Originally Posted by contracycle
|
|
No, not even slightly. Capitalists are like gangsters who steal $100 from us, and then force us to take a $100 loan at punitive interest rates for fear of starving. Then you want to claim the "natural justice" of us being required to pay interest? Fuck that.
|
So, again - Before they were multinationals behemoths, they were tiny corner shops... Someone had to create them....
|
Quote:
|
|
They did exactly what they were paid to do; the delivered on their side of the bargain.
|
Yes.
|
Quote:
|
|
They have not benefitted at anyones expense, and to present it as if they did is to resort to utter fiction.
|
I phrased them in a taunting fashion but, as I said, they're up (and, if they saved, they might even be the next bunch of entrepreneurs/capitalists) while this round's capitalists/entrepreneurs are down and maybe out...
|
Quote:
|
|
There are no "limitations" here becuase the theory is perfectly correct...
|
- Historical materialism is often quoted as an issue with the theory. But I personally don't mind it that much.
- Labour Theory of Value. One hour from X is not equal to one hour from Y, beyond productivity, whatever Marx says. If people want the product produced by X more than they want the product by Y, it doesn't matter how many hours X or Y put into their respective products. Supply and demand, baby.
- Law of diminishing profits. It's empirically false and fail to take into account the risk part of the risk-reward ratio, as far as I recall.
Etc... Give me more time and we can drill down those. But that should suffice for the time being.
|
Quote:
|
|
You just never realise that because the only theory you will accept is one that duplicates capitalism. Your dogma is too thick for me to penetrate.
|
I could just as easily say the same about you. My personal take is that Marxism is flawed (see above) and that other theories explain better what is going on. Furthermore, from the political pov, I tend to prefer them as they require minor adjustments (on a theoretical level, they're pretty big adjustments in practice) to the status quo.
|
Quote:
|
|
Lets say, for example, some capitalist lost 80% of their wealth in some investment. Well so the fuck what, I lose that every fucking month paying for rent and food and electricity.
|
But many entrepreneurs are ex-workers who saved and then used their eggnest to borrow money from banks. While they employ people who they sometimes pay well enough so that they save and then, if the venture fails, the first entrepreneur is back down to starvation worker status while his employees may have progressed so far as to be able to become entrepreneurs too, should they wish to.
|
Quote:
|
|
"Products failing" isn't nearly as big a deal in the first place, because its not a system in which people compete to overproduce worthless shit.
|
Right. And it may be true that some Native American entrepreneur who see his last attempt at introducing zebra-ed pants pathetically fail doesn't lose much. He had plenty of free time anyhow so all he may have to do is hunt a bit more in the next few days to catch up with Nawakeye in the next wigwam...
OTOH, I think that when you use technology to reduce workload rather than to increase surpluses, societies tend to stagnate as a result.
Which is not good if you enjoy technological goodies such as internet and healthcare...
Another way of saying "worthless shit" is only worthless to you. Clearly, some people are willing to pay for it and because they did so for hundreds of years, we are now where we are.
|
Quote:
|
|
There is NOTHING inane about that. It's perfectly reasonable and fair.
|
It's like saying that Sculley, Spindler and Amalio were as good as Steve Jobs. I keep using this example because 1- I am not a student of CEOs careers and 2- CEOs may not be all that relevant in many cases but Apple case does demonstrate they CAN be. To pretend that Sculley or Amalio deserved to be paid as much as Steve Jobs because they put in the same amount of time at work is patently ridiculous.
|
Quote:
|
|
That would only be true if the rest of us "chose" not to take that risk, rather than having been robbed blind by our employers and therefore being unable to take it. So no, not at all.
|
So that's a good point. But, one, you can try and work for specific companies. Indeed, these days, it's mostly small-medium companies recruiting in the West so you can and try to negotiate some equity stake of some sort into an early venture. Two, you can also work as an independent consultant - "eat what you kill" kinda stuff and/or create your own company.
Few people want to be entrepreneur not because they really are lacking the funds (long term unemployed have founded companies, with state help and cash generative, work intensive businesses have been a long standing favourite starting block for many immigrant families, the world over) but because it's damn hard work with precious little chance of working out - i.e. you will easily end up out of pocket compared to salaried work or even compared to doing nothing...
For Contra: Risk and Labour reward...
Linear Mode
