Why Capitalism is Doomed

[bigrebnc1775]

Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet or cable TV OR A CAR OR PLANE. No one would have had the incentive's to create what we have now.

 

[itfitzme]

Pay raises are automatic every two years, and the first 3 promotions are time based. If you don't screw up you get promoted after so much time in a pay grade for those first 3 ranks. After that promotions are earned through a complicated system of points for your evaluations, promotion test scores, decorations, time served, and other factors. It ain't that easy, most years the number of promotions is fairly small, especially as you get up into the higher pay grades. No favoritism, no cronyism, you make it on your own merits.

I'm not seeing any correlation to a socialistic organization here, for the most part if you do a good job you get rewarded. If you don't you get the boot. True, that ain't always the case, but for the vast majority it's a meritocracy.

Let me clarify. It's the well defined rule based handling of workers, worker rights and restrictions, that makes the military more union like than the pure free market. It is the central planning of resource distribution that makes it structurally like the socialist economic structure.

And, where the pricing for the free market is strictly based on supply and demand, the pricing model for the military, like any government organization, is based on taxes and whatever they do to determine those. It is not subject to the day to day forces of the free market.

The military is, an economy unto itself. What percentage of the GDP is it's budget? Defense spending was .9 trillion in 2012 or 24% of federal spending. GDP was about 14 trillion. And the military budget is 5.8% (exactly) of that size. 5.8% is a huge part of the of the economy.

The free market, in 2000, consisted of 7.7 million businesses averaging something like 16.1 workers per business. There were, on the order of 116 million workers. And while B of A has some quarter of a million employees, most businesses are small businesses with a few employees, including many where an individual has set up shop for themselves, and their business has only one employee.

In the free market, for most workers, you get a raise by getting a new job or making your business more profitable. There are no rules for pay increases, not even COLA. Any COLA is a result of the market directly.

Communism, (the supposed precursor to socialism) was basically just an extension of military structure to the full economy. Dumb idea. It's hard enough to plan a military with scarce resources, let alone a national economy.

You cannot run a military like the free market. It has to be run like a centrally planned system. There has been a lot of privatization of services by outsourcing. I do believe that has done a lot to mitigate costs.

Like you point out, "are time based. If you don't screw up you get promoted after so much time in a pay grade for those first 3 ranks. After that promotions are earned through a complicated system of points for your evaluations, promotion test scores, decorations, time served, and other factors."

Unions, like the military, has well established rules that deterimine those merits.

There is no "favoritism, no cronyism, you make it on your own merits" in the military is the same reason there is none in unions. Promotions have to be justified within the standardized rules.

And those right are negociated against a set of expections and restriction.

And how crappy or good the rights are isn't the point. It is how comprehensive the regs are.

How good the rights are has to do with how scarce the resources are. Markets with a lot of resources have unions that command more worker rights. Markets with scarce resources command not so generous right.

If you've worked in the free market, outside of unions, there are no rights, short of non-discrimination, etc. Even then, discrimination isn't easy to enforce. The bigger the company, the more they work towards no breaking the few laws.

In the free market, tomorrow, your job or company is gone, for no reason except you got beat in the market, as it crashed around you or your boss decided he just didn't like you. And crap, if your a consultant and you don't get paid? You can take it to court and win, but there is no guarantee of getting paid. Consultants, small businesses, do have losses to this regard.

If you want a raise, you go get another job. In 20020, employee turnover was 3.7 years. The average job stint in the free market was less then the basic four year contract of the military.

So, if we put things on a scale, from pure free market to the huge central planning of the USSR experiment, in terms of logistical planning of resources, it's more like the central planning of the USSR then like the free market. And it is more like government unions then like the free market. So just on a basic scale, it goes

Free market ------ Private Unions ------ Government Unions ------ Military ------ USSR Communism.
< ----- Low centrally planned logisics ----------------------------- High centrally planned logistics-->
< ----- Low individual worker rules ------------------------------- High worker rules ----(crap rights)->

But what else would we expect? If you've ever worked inside a huge free market company, it's to the right of the scale on a logistical planning basis. Where it sits on the union scale depends on the market.

And the military better be to the right of the scale, you cannot run a military as a free market enterprise (except perhaps MASH).

It simply has to be, it's just that big. That's how social systems work.

Free market, cluster f'k. Military, well if you ask a lot of people in the military......;-) On the cluster f'k scale, they all sit way on one side. Okay, the cluster f'k measure isn't working well.

But the logistical planning scale and the worker rules scale does work. Remember, in the free market, you get to change jobs and move just because you want to.

In the military, you don't decide to change jobs, change careers, change profession, go to school, whatever, just because you want to. You need to wait until your contract is up or get authorization. Though I am sure that there are plenty, lucky enough to get "stationed" near a major university, and are motivated enough to take advantage of that.

Nice post, I'd have to read it and study a little more before I could respond to it. It's true that you can't change jobs, change careers, or change professions without authorization; sometimes the military will offer you the opportunity to do so, and sometimes that opportunity is denied. You can request a change, which does require approval and authorization from somebody. The military does make an effort to reassign people for humanitarian reasons, so your kid can be closer to a hospital where he/she can get the treatment they need, stuff like that.

As far as education goes, every base that I know of has an education office, and they offer off duty education programs to get a degree for a fraction of the cost. Don't know if the deployed folks have that opportunity, usually they're pretty busy and don't have the time. I suspect the Navy guys can work on their degrees even while out at sea, either on-line or in some cases on board ship. Thise things are almost always rubber stamped, if you want to do it, the military is very accomodating, cuz they want their service members as well educated as possible. It's a powerful recruitment tool, don't cha know.

You compare the military to a socialist organization and use unions as an example; do you think that is accurate? I don't think union members in the US or those in the military are close to the same as workers in a socialist country.

But here's the deal with the military - for them the mission comes first, everything is subordinate to that. You work together as a team very well, cover each other's ass and nobody is left behind. Such is not the case in any socialist organization that I know of; in those situations nobody at all cares about whatever the mission is, it's all dog eat dog and CYA. No honor, no integrity, no sacrifice. Sure, the military has a lot of CYA too, but when the bullets start flyin' you can count on the other guys in your foxhole, and such is not the case for the socialists.

The whole idea of worker rights is a completely different thing. It kind of folds the whole thing back on top of itself. And it really depends on what rights we are talking about.

The only right a worker has in the free market is the right to move, take what job they can get, and to quit. That is it. Sure, there are non-discrimination laws, but try enforcing them. They only get enforced for large companies. You can't necessarily prove discrimination even if it's clearly obvious.

The only way I can see of categorizing them is to distinguish between private citizens, before or after work, worker rights while on the job, and the level of written regulation of the rights. I doubt that any of us has personal experience with living and working in the USSR or China, but I am sure we are clear that they cannot move from one city to the other without getting authorization, leave the country, and a host of basic freedoms that we have. I can't speak to the level of regs, but I am led to believe that, for all practical purposes, the regs were restrictive, written or otherwise.

It even gets a bit more difficult if we consider rights vs restrictions. For our purpose, I would consider a sweeping policy of no rights unless explicitly allows as being highly restrictive and all rights unless explicitly not allowed as being high rights.

<--low regulation of rights ----------------------------------high regulation of rights -->
Free market ---------------------private unions --- gov unions -------military --- USSR


<--low restrictions -------------------------------------------------high restrictions -->
Free market ---------------- private unions --- gov unions ---military ---------- USSR


<--low individual private rights ----------------------- high individual private rights -->
USSR ---------------------------------milirary------------------free market--------democracy


<--low worker in job rights ------------------------------------- high in job worker rights -->
USSR communism --- Free market ---------------------private union -- govt union -- military

We can push things around on those scales. And you might consider that they need to be moved.

We can go after incentives, positive reinforcement. It isn't a necessary requirement of a socialist organization though. I think we are pretty clear that the USSR sucked at that. It's pretty clear that the military is really big on it. The free market is kind of sketchy. Your reward is you get paid, you get to eat tomorrow, you can pay the rent, put gas in the car. Your incentive is you get to live another day so you can work to live another day. Oh, you do get to use your free time to come up with your own incentives, education if you like. But that's not a guarantee that it will do anything for you. Somewhere in between are the unions. Still, it's fuzzy in the free markets and unions as it kind of depends on the particular market.

I'm figuring, roughly, like this.

<--low incentives ------------------------------------------------high incentives -->
USSR ----- Free market ----------private unions --- gov unions ---------military


If we go after standard of living, it's kind of all over the map in the US. And I wouldn't know exactly how to compare things in the US for this reason. All we get is that we understand the standard of living under communism sucked, unless you like vodka.

But this was primarily a logistics issue. The problem with Soviet Union, and China, was the planned economy thing. Greenspan visited China and with Soviet officials in the US. The problem with China, as he describes it, was that they couldn't get new equipment, like tractors on the smaller farms, even if the farmer saw a need. Planned economies just don't work because the planners just cannot do it. You cannot precisely determine the needs of over 10 million businesses. Same with the USSR.

The lack of standard of living was on a lack of opportunity to increase personal production because of the planned economic structure. And this just held back increasing efficiency and production. Lacking the ability to increase efficiency and production, there remains a lack of product with which to increase efficiency and production. It just resulted in a static economy with little growth. No growth, no advancement, no future, no hope, why bother.

China got clever and privatized the smaller farms first. Things really took of.

The USSR failed, mostly because of there static, low growth model, and we just out built them. China got smart and is moving to a mixed economy, from the bottom up. The US and the rest of the western world has been running a mixed economy for like...forever....

It's just not so simple as the USSR was socialist and because they sucked socialism sucks. It is that grand scale socialism doesn't work, can't even be implemented. And grand scale economic planning doesn't work. It is based on the idea of shared resources with no private ownership.

Still, internal to the military as an organization, it's all shared resources with no private ownership. But you can, if you save enough and buy a house near base, because it sits within a larger economy based on capitalism and private property rights.

But when it comes down to it, the military is the greatest union every. And it's also the oldest, largest, and most functional central planning organization in the history of the world. As long as your in the military, and don't completely f up, you always have a bed to sleep on, a roof over your head, and a basic job guarantee, at least until your contract is up.

If you have been in it for just four years and come out, it was just another job. The average job turnover is close to four years, so you don't really see a difference there. If you're a career guy, when you come out you get points in applying for government positions. And the structure is much the same, so you probably don't really notice the difference. But the difference between having worked the free market continuously, having been in a union for decades, or having been in the military as a career is considerable. Most private, free market careers are from job to job, every four years, whether you choose to or not. You are better choosing to, then you don't notice.

In the free market, it's an "at will contract". Tomorrow, you may not have a job, simply because the economy went into recession and your company was third in the market, your boss left and the guy that got promoted and had been in competition with you, or any manner of reasons that have little to do with merit. It's just the way it is, total freedom, no guarantees except death and taxes. (Oh, and taxes aren't that much guaranteed apparently.)

But the level of standard of living, level of incentives, productivity, and types of right and regs aren't what makes something a planned economy or a socialist organization. Neither concept requires that it be done well, just that it be done. And there is no pure planned economy or socialist organization in practice. Social credit is a type of currency. Black markets and bartering exist in all economies. The key is how much of it is planned and how much structure their is focusing individual behavior towards the group goal, the mission of the group. Whether this mission is national safety or just farming for the groups sustenance, a mission is a mission. Even companies have mission statements

Maybe that's the thing, we are confusing the size of the dog for whether it is a dog. A Great Dane and a Chihuahua are still both dogs.

 

[itfitzme]

Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet or cable TV OR A CAR OR PLANE. No one would have had the incentive's to create what we have now.

Better yet, without middle income, or modest income, capitalism we wouldn't have those things.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet or cable TV OR A CAR OR PLANE. No one would have had the incentive's to create what we have now.

Better yet, without middle income, or modest income, capitalism we wouldn't have those things.

Who invented all those things we have now? It wasn't the government.

 

[itfitzme]

Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet or cable TV OR A CAR OR PLANE. No one would have had the incentive's to create what we have now.

Better yet, without middle income, or modest income, capitalism we wouldn't have those things.

Who invented all those things we have now? It wasn't the government.

The governments job isn't to invent things. It's job is to ensure a functional society and economy so that people can invent thing. The patent office assures that inventor enjoy the initial benefits of their work.

I usually think of middle class engineers like Hewlett and Packard, or university research, like that spawned Genentech. Or Velcro in 1948 by the Swiss electrical engineer George de Mestral.

But NASA has generated new products. The original computer was invented by the navy to calculate ballistic trajectories for battle ships. The invention of radio communications was originally for ship to shore communications. Oh, and it was congress that organized the start up of the internet, the fundamental idea of packets being the result of a couple of middle class engineers who's idea was rejected by there manager at Xerox.

Of course, we all know the story of both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were both out of an upper middle class garage, much as was Hewlett and Packard.

Herbert W. Boyerk, the inventor of the process that began Genentech was a university biochemist.

A lot of our trauma medical practice came out of the battle field medicine.

It's pretty much all over the map, government, universities, both dorm rooms and research, middle class start ups, every once in a while a major company will get in on the game.

Maybe you should google "famous inventions" and "inventions by government" and see what you can learn.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet or cable TV OR A CAR OR PLANE. No one would have had the incentive's to create what we have now.

Better yet, without middle income, or modest income, capitalism we wouldn't have those things.

A middle class cannot exist and never exists in a state controlled society

 

[itfitzme]

Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet or cable TV OR A CAR OR PLANE. No one would have had the incentive's to create what we have now.

Better yet, without middle income, or modest income, capitalism we wouldn't have those things.

A middle class cannot exist and never exists in a state controlled society

And yet without government, there is no contract enforcement and fundamental property rights necessary for capitalism, no patent or copy rights that give invention incentive. And without managed markets, there would be no middle class.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Better yet, without middle income, or modest income, capitalism we wouldn't have those things.

A middle class cannot exist and never exists in a state controlled society

And yet without government, there is no contract enforcement and fundamental property rights necessary for capitalism, no patent or copy rights that give invention incentive. And without managed markets, there would be no middle class.

Right and that's all government is supposed to do, the bare necessities

 

[itfitzme]

A middle class cannot exist and never exists in a state controlled society

And yet without government, there is no contract enforcement and fundamental property rights necessary for capitalism, no patent or copy rights that give invention incentive. And without managed markets, there would be no middle class.

Right and that's all government is supposed to do, the bare necessities

Yep, to ensure the markets are as efficient.

 

[Oddball]

Better yet, without middle income, or modest income, capitalism we wouldn't have those things.

A middle class cannot exist and never exists in a state controlled society

And yet without government, there is no contract enforcement and fundamental property rights necessary for capitalism, no patent or copy rights that give invention incentive. And without managed markets, there would be no middle class.

Little flaw in your logic there, Sparky.

Markets have never been more managed at any other time in American history than today, yet all the snivelers keep mewling about the shrinking middle class.

How'd that happen?

 

[Oddball]

And yet without government, there is no contract enforcement and fundamental property rights necessary for capitalism, no patent or copy rights that give invention incentive. And without managed markets, there would be no middle class.

Right and that's all government is supposed to do, the bare necessities

Yep, to ensure the markets are as efficient.

Bullshit.

They're there to keep markets free from aggression.

Mere politicians and bureaucrats wouldn't know efficiency if it punched them in the head.

 

[itfitzme]

A middle class cannot exist and never exists in a state controlled society

And yet without government, there is no contract enforcement and fundamental property rights necessary for capitalism, no patent or copy rights that give invention incentive. And without managed markets, there would be no middle class.

Little flaw in your logic there, Sparky.

Markets have never been more managed at any other time in American history than today, yet all the snivelers keep mewling about the shrinking middle class.

How'd that happen?

Good god no, things were far more regulated back before the '70s. Airlines would have to get permission to take a shipping package on board a passenger airline that had room in the cargo hold. Even the people that worked for the regulating agency thought it was ridiculous. Reagan spend years, as the spokesman for G.E., traveling across the coutnry talking to businesses and hearing about the excessive regulations. That's the story as I heard it.

 

[Oddball]

And yet without government, there is no contract enforcement and fundamental property rights necessary for capitalism, no patent or copy rights that give invention incentive. And without managed markets, there would be no middle class.

Little flaw in your logic there, Sparky.

Markets have never been more managed at any other time in American history than today, yet all the snivelers keep mewling about the shrinking middle class.

How'd that happen?

Good god no, things were far more regulated back before the '70s. Airlines would have to get permission to take a shipping package on board a passenger airline that had room in the cargo hold. Even the people that worked for the regulating agency thought it was ridiculous. Reagan spend years, as the spokesman for G.E., traveling across the coutnry talking to businesses and hearing about the excessive regulations. That's the story as I heard it.

Dereg of the airline and trucking industries hasn't even amounted to a minor dent in the overall expansion of federal regulation over the last several decades.


To show this, how many pages does the Federal Register (i.e. regulations) have today versus the '70s?

 

[itfitzme]

Little flaw in your logic there, Sparky.

Markets have never been more managed at any other time in American history than today, yet all the snivelers keep mewling about the shrinking middle class.

How'd that happen?

Good god no, things were far more regulated back before the '70s. Airlines would have to get permission to take a shipping package on board a passenger airline that had room in the cargo hold. Even the people that worked for the regulating agency thought it was ridiculous. Reagan spend years, as the spokesman for G.E., traveling across the coutnry talking to businesses and hearing about the excessive regulations. That's the story as I heard it.

Dereg of the airline and trucking industries hasn't even amounted to a minor dent in the overall expansion of federal regulation over the last several decades.


To show this, how many pages does the Federal Register (i.e. regulations) have today versus the '70s?

Never read it. Have you?

 

[Oddball]

Good god no, things were far more regulated back before the '70s. Airlines would have to get permission to take a shipping package on board a passenger airline that had room in the cargo hold. Even the people that worked for the regulating agency thought it was ridiculous. Reagan spend years, as the spokesman for G.E., traveling across the coutnry talking to businesses and hearing about the excessive regulations. That's the story as I heard it.

Dereg of the airline and trucking industries hasn't even amounted to a minor dent in the overall expansion of federal regulation over the last several decades.


To show this, how many pages does the Federal Register (i.e. regulations) have today versus the '70s?

Never read it. Have you?

Don't need to read it to know that more pages means more regulations.

So, how many more pages does the Federal Register have today than it did in the '70s?

 

[itfitzme]

Dereg of the airline and trucking industries hasn't even amounted to a minor dent in the overall expansion of federal regulation over the last several decades.


To show this, how many pages does the Federal Register (i.e. regulations) have today versus the '70s?

Never read it. Have you?

Don't need to read it to know that more pages means more regulations.

So, how many more pages does the Federal Register have today than it did in the '70s?

I thought you were the expert.

 

[Oddball]

Never read it. Have you?

Don't need to read it to know that more pages means more regulations.

So, how many more pages does the Federal Register have today than it did in the '70s?

I thought you were the expert.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out.

What's the size of the Federal Register today, versus what it was in the '70s?

 

[itfitzme]

Don't need to read it to know that more pages means more regulations.

So, how many more pages does the Federal Register have today than it did in the '70s?

I thought you were the expert.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out.

What's the size of the Federal Register today, versus what it was in the '70s?

So you don't now?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And yet without government, there is no contract enforcement and fundamental property rights necessary for capitalism, no patent or copy rights that give invention incentive. And without managed markets, there would be no middle class.

Little flaw in your logic there, Sparky.

Markets have never been more managed at any other time in American history than today, yet all the snivelers keep mewling about the shrinking middle class.

How'd that happen?

Good god no, things were far more regulated back before the '70s. Airlines would have to get permission to take a shipping package on board a passenger airline that had room in the cargo hold. Even the people that worked for the regulating agency thought it was ridiculous. Reagan spend years, as the spokesman for G.E., traveling across the coutnry talking to businesses and hearing about the excessive regulations. That's the story as I heard it.

Airlines are probably the one industry less regulated that they were in the 70's and prices have plummeted

What other "things" are less regulated today

 

[itfitzme]

Little flaw in your logic there, Sparky.

Markets have never been more managed at any other time in American history than today, yet all the snivelers keep mewling about the shrinking middle class.

How'd that happen?

Good god no, things were far more regulated back before the '70s. Airlines would have to get permission to take a shipping package on board a passenger airline that had room in the cargo hold. Even the people that worked for the regulating agency thought it was ridiculous. Reagan spend years, as the spokesman for G.E., traveling across the coutnry talking to businesses and hearing about the excessive regulations. That's the story as I heard it.

Airlines are probably the one industry less regulated that they were in the 70's and prices have plummeted

What other "things" are less regulated today

Your the expert. How many more regulations are there today compared to the '70s? And what is less and more regulated?