The hidden ugliness of Capitalism

Meta777 · Dec 5, 2015

Longshot said: ↑

...

Perhaps we can go past this particular disagreement though....Could we at least both agree that the worker ought to be compensated for their time and effort?
Click to expand...

If someone agrees to compensate him for performing a service, sure.

I think we could,.....but the question then is how much should they be compensated?......Unless I'm mistaken, you're position is that they be compensated based on whatever they contractually agree to,...and that this agreement, simply by virtue of being voluntarily agreed to by both parties,...is fair. Am I on point so far?
Click to expand...

Yes, he should recieve the amount that he and his employer agreed to.

My point, which I mentioned several pages back, however, is that an agreement which appears voluntary, isn't necessarily as voluntary as it seems. I agree that contracts should be legally binding, regardless,...but on the question of fairness, I'll again restate the three factors which can lead one to otherwise "voluntarily" agree to a deal which they wouldn't under normal circumstance, and which could lead to one giving up a significant amount more in value than they receive in exchange:

1. One party of a deal lacks knowledge of certain relevant details regarding the deal (eg: fraud)
2. One party fears the consequences of not accepting the deal more than the other (eg: extortion)
3. One party has a more immediate need of the particular deal than the other (eg: exploitation, via monopoly, trust, disaster or other,...ie: price gouging)

So without continuing to harp on whether or not the employee does or doesn't take anything owned by the worker, can we at least agree that it would be beneficial, for fairness's sake, that the 3 above mentioned circumstances, or at least their effects, be minimized as much as possible??
Click to expand...

I can't see any circumstance in which a person would give something he values more in exchange for something he values less. It would seem nearly axiomatic that a person would exchange something he values less to get something he values more. Thus, the exchange makes him better off than without the exchange.
Click to expand...

In short, it can happen if a person either is forced to by fear or pressing need (case 2 or 3) or does so unwittingly (case 1).

-Meta

Longshot · Dec 5, 2015

Meta777 said: ↑

Have I cost you anything you would otherwise have had?
Click to expand...

You prevented me from using my office.

Longshot · Dec 5, 2015

Meta777 said: ↑

In short, it can happen if a person either is forced to by fear or pressing need (case 2 or 3) or does so unwittingly (case 1).
Click to expand...

Actually, I think in all those cases a person still doesn't give something he values more in exchange for something he values less.

geofree · Dec 5, 2015

Longshot said: ↑

Actually, I think in all those cases a person still doesn't give something he values more in exchange for something he values less.
Click to expand...

You are making a great case for land value taxation. The landowner isn't being forced to pay the government, he is just giving something he values less (money) for something he values more (protection). It is all voluntary.

Longshot · Dec 6, 2015

Meta777 said: ↑

My point, which I mentioned several pages back, however, is that an agreement which appears voluntary, isn't necessarily as voluntary as it seems. I agree that contracts should be legally binding, regardless,...but on the question of fairness, I'll again restate the three factors which can lead one to otherwise "voluntarily" agree to a deal which they wouldn't under normal circumstance, and which could lead to one giving up a significant amount more in value than they receive in exchange:

1. One party of a deal lacks knowledge of certain relevant details regarding the deal (eg: fraud)
2. One party fears the consequences of not accepting the deal more than the other (eg: extortion)
3. One party has a more immediate need of the particular deal than the other (eg: exploitation, via monopoly, trust, disaster or other,...ie: price gouging)

So without continuing to harp on whether or not the employee does or doesn't take anything owned by the worker, can we at least agree that it would be beneficial, for fairness's sake, that the 3 above mentioned circumstances, or at least their effects, be minimized as much as possible??
Click to expand...

I actually missed the words fraud and extortion yesterday. Just to clarify, I don't consider either fraud or extortion to be examples of voluntary exchange. I am discussing voluntary exchange only.

- - - Updated - - -

geofree said: ↑

You are making a great case for land value taxation. The landowner isn't being forced to pay the government, he is just giving something he values less (money) for something he values more (protection). It is all voluntary.
Click to expand...

As I said, I'm discussing voluntary exchange, not extortion.

Meta777 · Dec 22, 2015

Longshot said: ↑

Have I cost you anything you would otherwise have had?
Click to expand...

You prevented me from using my office.
Click to expand...

Exactly! By taking up space in your office, I have caused you to lose out on office time which you could have been using for something else.
It would then be reasonable then, for you to expect me to compensate you for that lost office time (in addition to returning access to the office),...right?

-Meta

Meta777 · Dec 22, 2015

Longshot said: ↑

In short, it can happen if a person either is forced to by fear or pressing need (case 2 or 3) or does so unwittingly (case 1).
Click to expand...

Actually, I think in all those cases a person still doesn't give something he values more in exchange for something he values less.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

If I don't know that the car I'm buying is about to break down as soon as I drive it off the lot,
I might shell out thousands for it, even though I don't really think a car on the edge of life is worth thousands.

Similarly, if I am unfairly being forced to pay a lake owner 5 fish for every 1 I take home myself,
that doesn't mean I think 5 fish is worth more than 1.

-Meta

Meta777 · Dec 22, 2015

Longshot said: ↑

Meta777 said: ↑

My point, which I mentioned several pages back, however, is that an agreement which appears voluntary, isn't necessarily as voluntary as it seems.
I agree that contracts should be legally binding, regardless,...but on the question of fairness, I'll again restate the three factors which can lead one to otherwise "voluntarily" agree to a deal which they wouldn't under normal circumstance, and which could lead to one giving up a significant amount more in value than they receive in exchange:

1. One party of a deal lacks knowledge of certain relevant details regarding the deal (eg: fraud)
2. One party fears the consequences of not accepting the deal more than the other (eg: extortion)
3. One party has a more immediate need of the particular deal than the other (eg: exploitation, via monopoly, trust, disaster or other,...ie: price gouging)

So without continuing to harp on whether or not the employee does or doesn't take anything owned by the worker,
can we at least agree that it would be beneficial, for fairness's sake, that the 3 above mentioned circumstances, or at least their effects, be minimized as much as possible??

-Meta
Click to expand...

I actually missed the words fraud and extortion yesterday. Just to clarify, I don't consider either fraud or extortion to be examples of voluntary exchange. I am discussing voluntary exchange only.
Click to expand...

Again,...the point I'm making is that certain transactions involving any of the three factors may appear voluntary even though they really aren't.
Fraud, extortion, and exploitation via price gouging are used as simple clear examples to illustrate why such transactions aren't all as voluntary as they first might seem.

Its good that you're against fraud and extortion.....but wait!....What about exploitation via monopoly/trust/natural disaster induced price gouging?
Does your omission of that one mean that you aren't necessarily opposed to such tactics??? Or do you simply lump it in with extortion??

-Meta

TrackerSam · Dec 22, 2015

CausalityBreakdown said: ↑

Consider the last time you went shopping. Consider how many of those products have labels somewhere bearing markings like "MADE IN CHINA", or Indonesia, Vietnam, any number of less prosperous countries.

Now, think back to the early 1900s. Factory workers are fighting to get a decent wage and safer conditions. Bosses are cutting corners, even at the cost of lives. Thugs are hired to brutalize and often murder protesters. There's mass conflict, but in the end, American workers are guaranteed the right to a living wage and decent working conditions.

Cut back to today. Those jobs that were the main labour force in America, manufacturing and other such industries, they're no longer in America. They're in places where these laws don't exist. That suffering never ended. They moved it to China, to Malaysia, to places where we don't see it and thus where we don't care.

We have exported the suffering of the working class, and what did we buy in exchange?

We bought an economy where the average age of a McDonalds employee is 29. We bought a society where 40 hours a week on minimum wage isn't even enough to pay for a 2 bedroom apartment in any state. We bought a country where, for the most part, we no longer produce; we simply serve. We serve with a smile, even when the customer sees us as less than human. Companies wage advertising wars to convince us that theirs is the product that will make us hate ourselves less.

There was no benefactor to that transaction.

This only serves to benefit the ruling class more. The ruling class are those who own the workplaces. By making the suffering of the American worker more subtle, they've made themselves look better. They still take most of the value you produce, but now they've got you thanking them because you didn't die while doing it. They have you work as a salesman, or as a cashier.

Meanwhile, their factories halfway across the world are the same thing they were in the US in the year 1900, just in a new year and a new location. People toil for next to nothing at the constant threat of death.

Regulating capitalism doesn't make it nicer. It makes it sneakier. The only way to fix this is to abolish capitalism entirely.
Click to expand...

How'd that Occupy Wallstreet work out for you.

CausalityBreakdown · Dec 22, 2015

TrackerSam said: ↑

How'd that Occupy Wallstreet work out for you.
Click to expand...

Occupy was ultimately destroyed by their poor organization. I'd love to see how an occupy-scale organization of committed communists taking similar actions while held together by an actual party would work. Such an organization would be able to resist state violence against their demonstration effectively and stick around while building mass support for a long time.

Log in or Sign up

The hidden ugliness of Capitalism

Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

Longshot Well-Known Member

Longshot Well-Known Member

geofree Active Member

Longshot Well-Known Member

Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

CausalityBreakdown Banned at Members Request

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The hidden ugliness of Capitalism

Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

Longshot Well-Known Member

Longshot Well-Known Member

geofree Active Member

Longshot Well-Known Member

Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

CausalityBreakdown Banned at Members Request

Share This Page

Useful Searches