Any books portraying capitalism in a positive light?

[Rush Limborg]

Sure. I find fault in Brin's argument, too. Brin seems to think that Capitalism can be "fixed" to work the way it's "supposed" to. I contend that Capitalism's "blind market" inevitably collapses back into what he calls the "GAR system" where plutocratic elites undermine competition and erode freedom, that what Brin describes the corruption of Capitalism is actually Capitalism's inevitable result if it's not tempered by Socialistic elements through a mixed economy.
<SNIP>
A nice way of avoiding providing a counter-argument.

Cute. Credibility is credibility, Sci. If the source you cite isn't an expert in the field being discussed, his ideas are hardly more valid than yours or mine. He is interpereting sources that are credible--but he himself is not a credible source.


It's the same reason heresay is frowned upon in courts.

My counter-argument? You refer to Bin--I refer to those who debate with him in the comments thread.

Yet more attempts to evade formulating a counter-argument.

Uh-huh. Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

Once again--

When you trade, you trade your property with someone else's property. Last I checked, that property is considered private.

Here's a clue: I just described both Capitalism and Communism as its enemies.

You mean liberty?

Frankly, Sci, I'm curious as to how you define that. If private property has it limits, than freedom of ownership is not absolute.

I find it interesting you don't seem to hold that to "count" regarding liberty. What freedoms do count for liberty?

Amazingly enough, Rush, no, I do not think that in a situation where, say, one man is starving and one man has more money than he could possibly spend in his lifetime, that both people are free. In fact, I would contend that the starving man does not have freedom by any meaningful sense of the term, and that if the rich man is forced to give up some of his wealth by the rest of society (even as he retains enough wealth to perpetuate his elite social status), he has not lost his freedom in any meaningful sense of the term.

Excuse me? The rich man has been forced--against his will--to part with that which is previosly his.

As for the starving man--no one is forcing him not to pursue the means to end said starvation...unless the government/society is stifling said means.

And, no, I would not contend that a society where the rich get to endlessly inherit their wealth while the rest must convince the rich to hire them just to survive is free; that's an aristocracy, and aristocracies are inherently oppressive. Nor would I contend that a system in which huge inheritances are taxed is in any meaningful sense undermining of freedom; that's just ensuring that you have to actually earn your station in life instead of inheriting it from daddy.

So to give what is legally yours to who you want to give it to...is wrong?

ETA: Which is, after all, the essential problem. Personal property rights as an absolute would be a nice idea... if everyone actually earned their station in life from an even playing field. But they don't. Everyone starts off life unequal, and have to fight from an unequal start to get to whereever they end up. There's no "pure state" from which everything is earned. End Edit.

There's the matter of what they do with that wealth. If the heir wouldn't have been capable of creating that wealth on his/her own, they won't be able to maintain that wealth. Observe how many financial empires have collapsed due to wasteful heirs.

Saying that personal property rights are absolute and inviolate in a free society is as absurd as saying the same thing of free speech, or privacy. Even the most ardent free speech advocate recognizes the necessity of censoring some speech, such as child pornography. Even the most ardent privacy rights advocate recognizes some limits to one's privacy rights, even if only through warrants based upon probable cause.

And I agree, provided the issue involves force or fraud of some kind. Child porn is slavery, Sci--a form of force. (And it's not speech, but that's splitting hairs....)

Murder is force. Theivery is force. Due process of law is the enforcement limit imposed on said force, or fraud.

You need personal property rights to be free, yes -- but that doesn't mean that there should be no limits to how much you own. By comparison, you need caloric intake to be alive -- but that doesn't mean that there should be no limits to how much you eat.

So, the government should impose said limits on people's consumption?

 

[Relayer1]

Poverty, inequality, and crime are only side-effects of a capitalist system, not deliberate goals. I doubt any healthy mind wants to consign people to living in cardboard boxes.

I am afraid that many would do just that - just look at the opposition to universal healthcare in the US. A concept that many other countries view as an absolute right...

If your monetary assets--credits--are erased at your death--what is the incentive to contribute as much as possible, to gain as much as possible?

How does hoarding wealth automatically equate with contributing ? It is just as likely achieved through greed and exploitation.

So, the government should impose said limits on people's consumption?

You are damned right it should - one of the functions of government should be to protect the many against the oppression by the few. Violence, theft, greed etc.

If we accept that the world has finite and inadequate resources, unrestricted consumption is wrong.

 

[zarkon]

For the Federation's economy TNG and onwards, one possibility is that it works similarly to Wirr in "The Stainless Steel Rat gets Drafted", with people clocking up work hours.
Then they could exchange them for services/utilities or non-replicatable goods, but they would be non transferable and couldn't accrue credit. The more total people working, the stronger the value of one work hour - I recall in the book it was calculated that someone would have to work about 2 to 3 hours a month for the basic amenities of living - food, shelter, heat.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Poverty, inequality, and crime are only side-effects of a capitalist system, not deliberate goals. I doubt any healthy mind wants to consign people to living in cardboard boxes.

I am afraid that many would do just that - just look at the opposition to universal healthcare in the US. A concept that many other countries view as an absolute right...

A "right" invoked at someone's expense. Health care is not free--and it's going to have to be paid for by someone.

If your monetary assets--credits--are erased at your death--what is the incentive to contribute as much as possible, to gain as much as possible?

How does hoarding wealth automatically equate with contributing ? It is just as likely achieved through greed and exploitation.

As Milton Freidman said, "Well, first of all, tell me: is there a society that doesn't run on greed? What is 'greed'?"

To be blunt, "greed" is not a bad thing, in and of itself. "Greed" is simply the desire for reward--whether it be greed for life, for money, for love, or knowledge. It's what you do to satisfy that greed--that yearning--that's good or bad.

If you use your greed to provide a good/service, and satisfy it through making a profit--then greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Investors and financiers--like Mr. Offenhouse--contribute through investing in companies, and disposing of failures (break-ups) so the playing field is ripe for new players.

If you try to satisfy your greed through dishonest or forceful means--slavery, fraud, etc.--then the greed is bad.


"Exploitation", if meant in the literal sense (and not as the nonsensical accusation thrown so liberally--no pun intended--at those who are well off), is both fraud and force.

So, the government should impose said limits on people's consumption?

You are damned right it should - one of the functions of government should be to protect the many against the oppression by the few. Violence, theft, greed etc.

He was referring to limits on how one eats. Do you think the government should impose limits on what we eat?

If we accept that the world has finite and inadequate resources, unrestricted consumption is wrong.

Resources actually aren't as limited as you may think. Fossil fuels come from fossils--dead animals and plants. Nuclear energy comes from atoms--which are arguably infinite.

Grains, fruits and vegetables replenish via seeds--which increase in number, each generation. Same for animals ("meat").

By the 24th Century, then...we see even more ennergy tapped into--so that unlimited sources are accesed on a regular basis. Replicator technology using the carbon in the air--the possibilities are endless...and the economy of a society looks progressively less and less like the mythological "zero sum game".

 

[rfmcdpei]

^I'm sure the fact that both "opposites" are generally-tyrannical systems--as I stated in that post--are completely irrelevent to my point...?

Sorry, what is your point as I'm trying to find one, as it ain't there.

My point--which I'm astonished you didn't see--was that they are both tyrannical--and that someone like Offenhouse could not contribute positively to society when said society has an economy based on government tyranny--whatever its form.

Can you please define your terms? You seem to be using them in ways that don't seem to match with the ways others use them.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Y'know, as much as we insist that the UFP isn't a communist state(*). . . what if it is?

Poverty, inequality, and crime are only side-effects of a capitalist system, not deliberate goals. I doubt any healthy mind wants to consign people to living in cardboard boxes.

We've little idea what to term the economy of the Federation, which seems to be--first and foremost--a post-scarcity economy akin to but less advanced than The Culture.

It's plausible to argue that the Federation is such an economically productive entity that--at least in the developed core worlds--the main bottlenecks to growth aren't financial or material but rather related to the deployment of these resources in developing a workforce.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Sorry, what is your point as I'm trying to find one, as it ain't there.

My point--which I'm astonished you didn't see--was that they are both tyrannical--and that someone like Offenhouse could not contribute positively to society when said society has an economy based on government tyranny--whatever its form.

Can you please define your terms? You seem to be using them in ways that don't seem to match with the ways others use them.

What, tyranny?

That's simply government presuming to dictate over you--to be the people's master. The people working for the government, rather than the government working for the people.

Under tyranny, the means of achieving success is to peddle influence--kowtow to the established order, be on the tyrant's "good side".

 

[Rush Limborg]

I must admit, I'm deeply fascinated by Walt Disney's old EPCOT project--what he'd intended EPCOT to originally be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Prototype_Community_of_Tomorrow_(concept)

I wonder if this could be a little hint towards the future.

 

[iguana_tonante]

To crib from Durkheim, in order for society to continue to exist in a system like this, people have to become more interdependent then they are now! (The organic model of society.) If there's no monetary benefit, you're working to ensure the system of perpetual resources continues as opposed to working to get some money and then trade it for subsistence items. If everyone lazed out, then the whole system crashes down even if there are a billion billion apples for everyone to eat. So the motivation to continue working is to keep the system going. As well, it also seems that the "crappy" jobs have gone away so people are able to go into whatever field they desire. (Garbage is not thrown out but fed back into the replicator, meaning no garbage men.)

I've seen many interpretation of the "abundance economy" of the Federation, and how/why it works without the need of monetary rewards. This is very interesting, and very forward-looking.

 

[Relayer1]

Getting back to the actual question, it's not a Trek book (and it's been years since I read them, so I'm a bit vague), but the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson.

I recall there being a point reached where corporations cease to make sense as money-making concerns and begin to implement world change with their resources as a way forward.

Maybe someone who recalls the details could assist ?

 

[Pavonis]

What I recall from the Mars trilogy is that the transnational corporations became so large and powerful in the late 21st century that they were bigger and more capable than nations. These companies were referred to as "metanats" - metanational corporations - that were de facto states.

The metanats had to change their tunes when they became so important that society depended on their functioning more than broken down nation-states. Ruthless metanats were rebelled against, I think. "Nice" ones had an edge in growth and power.

Now I'm going to have to re-read the Mars trilogy!

 

[Yevetha]

I like the idea. Corporations are like unions, some of them good and some bad.

 

[Relayer1]

I like the idea. Corporations are like unions, some of them good and some bad.

I wish I shared your optimism ! There's nothing to say that things won't change in the future though...

 

[Yevetha]

About unions or about corporations?

 

[Relayer1]

About unions or about corporations?

Whilst there's things I don't like about unions, at least in the UK they're generally positive, and necessary (if rather toothless thesedays).

Corporations are ruthlessly self interested and callous, for the most part...

 

[Yevetha]

Corporations are ruthlessly self interested and callous, for the most part...

Also lobby for regs that eliminate their competition.

 

[Rush Limborg]

To be blunt, unions often share the same characteristics. SEIU, AFL-CIO, UAW...see their lobbying to fight secret ballots, etc.

 

[Yevetha]

There were plenty of corrupt union leaders like Danny Greene and Jimmy Hoffa.

 

[Sci]

Unions aren't perfect, but they're not literally designed to function in a sociopathic manner. Corporations, on the other hand, as legal entities whose sole function and obligation is to pursue profit by maximizing returns and minimizing costs, are.

Corporations are inherently evil.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Something like Starfleet works on the idea that you volunteer your service to serve with perk of becoming a trained engineer, a career officer, trained doctor, or a scientist who can do their work freely (and without having to vie for funding!) by joining the military. In a way it's feudalism, you get protection and food in return for your service, in another way you get the benefit of all this training, exploration, life experience just for signing up. It's not quite the modern conception of specialized labor, but somewhere in-between.

Plus Earth sounds kind of boring in the 24th century so Starfleet probably gives people who want to do more interesting things a way to do so.