Why the Way in Which Capitalism Creates Winners and Losers is Wrong

[icehorse]

I think the key to human motivation lays in finding and understanding the balance between individual and collective well-being. The problem with the systems we employ, now, is that they depend too much on individuals desires, and well-being, at the cost of the collective society. And as a result we have a few individuals who's greed is bottomless, striving relentlessly to own and control everything and everyone, while the well-being of the many, suffers. And as those individuals gain in wealth and power, everyone else's well-being is decreased.

Competition, it turns out, really is not the motivator that serves us best. In fact, it's the motive that divides us against each other, and thereby destroys the fabric of human society.

Whereas cooperation (not competition), in the service of the well-being of the whole society (not just a few individuals within it) is what will serve everyone most fully, and result in the greater well-being, overall. And it mystifies me that we humans are so persistently unable to grasp this simple logic, and implement it.

I think human motivation is an extremely complex topic and that this explanation is also short of the mark. Dan Pink's book "Drive" does a good job of summarizing leading motivation science, as does this video, which is a good summary of the book:

 

[PureX]

I think human motivation is an extremely complex topic and that this explanation is also short of the mark. Dan Pink's book "Drive" does a good job of summarizing leading motivation science, as does this video, which is a good summary of the book:

OK, so why isn't this going to happen?

 

[icehorse]

OK, so why isn't this going to happen?

I'm not quite sure I follow, but I'll take a whack at an answer and let me know if it's in the ballpark?

The AMP (autonomy, mastery, purpose) type of motivation described in the video, also known as "intrinsic motivation", is the best, most sustainable flavor of motivation for emotionally healthy individuals. But the "wolves of wallstreet" types are often not so emotionally healthy. For those folks we need some good old rules and regulations to keep them in check.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Funny how it doesn't list illegal entry as a citizen, but ourselves and our offspring.

Why would it? They basically stole all the land for themselves to begin with.

"We the people of the United States" has been redefined by progressives to include anyone standing on the land.

I'm pretty sure citizenship is not granted to non-citizens, those here on a work or study visa, those visiting, and those who entered illegally. And what if it did? America was founded, developed, and built by immigrants.

 

[PureX]

I'm not quite sure I follow, but I'll take a whack at an answer and let me know if it's in the ballpark?

The AMP (autonomy, mastery, purpose) type of motivation described in the video, also known as "intrinsic motivation", is the best, most sustainable flavor of motivation for emotionally healthy individuals. But the "wolves of wallstreet" types are often not so emotionally healthy. For those folks we need some good old rules and regulations to keep them in check.

Why do the rest of us allow those wolves to set up and run our governments, businesses, and social institutions based on what motivates them: greed, selfish desire, ego, and so on?

I liked the video, and I identify completely with the motives being addressed. But I am an artist, and have been all my life. So the idea of working at skilled jobs to pay the bills, so that I can then do what challenges and gives me purpose (art) on my own time has long since been a way of life. But I am clearly NOT in the majority. And I am clearly at a disadvantage within nearly every socio-economic system we've set up for ourselves. So if these motives are so prevalent, as the video suggests, then why am I in the minority? Why are those who are motivated purely by money and power running everything? Why are they getting away with murder (literally, in some cases)? The only reason I can think of is that most of us want to be them, or are less aggressive versions of them, or are too busy just trying to survive, because of them.

 

[dfnj]

OK I see what you mean. The complexity of things like product standards can create barriers to entry to a market, that only a few large companies are able to surmount. Yes I agree, that is obviously true.

But then the problem is one of the trade-offs we make as a society. Do we consider it more beneficial to allow the choice of a cheaper car in which you are more likely to die in a crash, or do we say no, the saving of lives outweighs this, given that there is already a car with an airbag that most US or European citizens can afford? Or, do we force the makers of computers and TVs to comply with electrical safety standards to reduce the chance they electrocute you or set fire to your house? I'm sure China has some very cheap ones, if you are prepared to take the risk......

The issue here, I am convinced, is to do with how much we demand "caveat emptor" from our citizens. To give you one example, when I lived briefly in the US I had to take out a corporate medical insurance plan. This came as a shock, as I am used to the UK's National Health Service. I was appalled to be given a book, almost as fat as a telephone directory, describing a huge vista of unwanted choice; a mass of bewildering options, involving different levels of medical cover at different costs. I had no idea what to do with this, at all! (If you are in the UK and get ill, you go to hospital and they fix you up. That's it. And you pay for that in your income tax.) Fortunately somebody at the company was able to advise me that most people opted for such and such option, so I picked that.

There are many products and services in modern life that are so complex that we cannot be sure we are fully aware of all the trade-offs when we choose. It seems to me that we are happy to rely on government to pre-select for us to some degree, to stop us getting shafted and to save us endless futzing around, checking every damned thing. For that we need regulation and that regulation will inevitably reduce the number of competitors.

Are side air bags really necessary. Every year the barrier is raised.

 

[dfnj]

Actually, the US governments main role is the protection of our country (system) and it's people from foreign adversaries. This includes a military. The "second amendment" backs it up with a well armed militia.

Article 1 Section 8 provides for Armed Services.

Government Military and Armed Militia are two different entities. The government legally cannot use the military against it's own people. The founders made sure of this with the second amendment. Domestic issues are addressed by the National Guard, which may be made up of former military, but are now militia (Country AND state) .

Does the Constitution even matter nowadays with endless war in the Middle East. Our country is owned and run by Israel.

 

[Stevicus]

But you inferred that Little Rascal and Scottish Groundskeeper types would make a comment that the poor are lazy and poor by their own device. I personally know a few Little Rascal and Scottish Groundskeeper types and I can tell you that this statement is specious at best and a complete fabrication at worse.

Well, okay, I don't like to play archivist, but since you asked:

It seems like there's a lot of "let's blame someone else for our problems so we can tell them what to do and how much to give us..." in this manifesto.

I propose #13......
We will hold down jobs, work diligently to improve ourselves, &
become productive taxpayers instead of being a burden upon them.

These posts carry insinuations that the poor are responsible for their poverty, that they don't hold jobs or work hard.

But never mind. Forget what I said. Please just answer my question: Why is the idea of giving fair wages so offensive to you?

That's really all socialism entails: Fairness. Why does that bother you so much?

Plus you totally missed the point about your keyboard (I may have been a little too subtle, sorry). Some capitalist thought up, designed, constructed, produced, and marketed practically every thing you use on a daily basis. Capitalist drive and competition keeps these items affordable.

Actually, a lot of inventions were inspired by government, military, and/or universities operating on government grants.

But as far as the keyboard is concerned, I decided to do some checking on this, and I found that the inventor of the QWERTY keyboard was a gentleman by the name of Christopher Latham Sholes: Christopher Latham Sholes - Wikipedia

Quoting a few key paragraphs:

At this stage, the Sholes-Glidden-Soule typewriter was only one among dozens of similar inventions. They wrote hundreds of letters on their machine to various people, one of whom was James Densmore of Meadville, Pennsylvania. Densmore foresaw that the typewriter would be highly profitable, and offered to buy a share of the patent, without even having laid eyes on the machine. The trio immediately sold him one-fourth of the patent in return for his paying all their expenses so far. When Densmore eventually examined the machine in March 1867, he declared that it was good for nothing in its current form, and urged them to start improving it. Discouraged, Soule and Glidden left the project, leaving Sholes and Densmore in sole possession of the patent.

...

Sholes took this advice and set to improve the machine at every iteration, until they were satisfied that Clephane had taught them everything he could. By this time, they had manufactured 50 machines or so, at an average cost of $250. They decided to have the machine examined by an expert mechanic, who directed them to E. Remington and Sons (which later became the Remington Arms Company), manufacturers of firearms, sewing machines, and farm tools. In early 1873 they approached Remington, who decided to buy the patent from them. Sholes sold his half for $12,000, while Densmore, still a stronger believer in the machine, insisted on a royalty, which would eventually fetch him $1.5 million.[13]

So, the guy who did all the work and had the know-how to invent the thing got $12,000, while someone who worked very little on the project ended up with $1.5 million.

This pretty much proves my point.

 

[Revoltingest]

These posts carry insinuations that the poor are responsible for their poverty, that they don't hold jobs or work hard.

You just can't stomach my real intent, ie, that there's room for improvement.
Would you doom them to their lot in life because you believe they're capable
of no better?

 

[Phantasman]

Does the Constitution even matter nowadays with endless war in the Middle East. Our country is owned and run by Israel.

ROTFL......

 

[Stevicus]

You just can't stomach my real intent, ie, that there's room for improvement.
Would you doom them to their lot in life because you believe they're capable
of no better?

Not at all. I just think that if someone does a useful job (no matter what it is), they deserve a fair rate of pay - enough to live a good life. Even if it's something menial or something you might consider beneath you, it doesn't mean that these workers should be doomed to subsistence wages.

All I would advocate are wage and price controls. If a person needs X amount of dollars to live a good life, then that's what their employers should pay them. If they do not do so voluntarily, then it should be mandated by law.

Or, if they really are short of cash and can't afford to pay their workers better, another solution would be to mandate lower prices in order to make a good life more affordable.

I'm not talking about giving free stuff to people who don't work. I'm talking about decent wages for people who do work. As long as they work a job that's useful for society, they're entitled to a decent wage and a comfortable life comparable to anyone else's in society.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[dfnj]

ROTFL......

You don't think there's profit in endless war? What about the Yinon plan? It sure looks like the balkanization of the ME.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you have a problem with that?

Just a problem with your addressing something
you made up, instead of something I posted.

 

[metis]

Actually, the US governments main role is the protection of our country (system) and it's people from foreign adversaries. This includes a military. The "second amendment" backs it up with a well armed militia.

There are many roles for the fed that are spelled out in the Constitution. Secondly, the 2nd Amendment says "a well regulated militia...".

The main point is that through taxes we pay for a great many services that each of us benefit from directly or indirectly, and the U.S. Armed Services is only one of them.

 

[Stevicus]

Just a problem with your addressing something
you made up, instead of something I posted.

Well, if I misinterpreted your comments, you're always free to clarify and point out my mistake.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if I misinterpreted your comments, you're always free to clarify and point out my mistake.

And I often do.

 

[sun rise]

China? Seriously? You could probably count the successful business people in China on a very, very small abacus.

China’s GDP will overtake the U.S. level in 2029 at these projected average growth rates: U.S. 2.0% China 6.5% Here’s How Fast China’s Economy Is Catching Up to the U.S.

While it's true that per-capita income is still low in China, its growth rate should change that in a very few years. Country comparison China vs United States 2018

 

[BSM1]

China’s GDP will overtake the U.S. level in 2029 at these projected average growth rates: U.S. 2.0% China 6.5% Here’s How Fast China’s Economy Is Catching Up to the U.S.

While it's true that per-capita income is still low in China, its growth rate should change that in a very few years. Country comparison China vs United States 2018

This has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism except that the Chinese government had to resort to a very controlled government dictated form of capitalism a couple of years ago to prevent their entire economy from collapsing. This is also why they have pretty much left the Hong Kong economy alone; they know they need capitalism to survive.

 

[Sunstone]

You don't think there's profit in endless war? What about the Yinon plan? It sure looks like the balkanization of the ME.

US Marine General Smedley Butler certainly felt wars were largely cooked up for profit.

War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935

 

[Sunstone]

Not at all. I just think that if someone does a useful job (no matter what it is), they deserve a fair rate of pay - enough to live a good life.

It would seem difficult to argue that capitalism is a pure success that requires no major overhaul when at the same time arguing that some people under a capitalist system do not deserve a living wage. The latter is an admission that the system fails at least some people. At which point, one is reduced to arguing that those people deserve to be failed. A very problematic argument.