Communism

[draighox]

So what's your point? What's so bad in not producing something you can't afford to produce?

[Malchik]

Imagine this - someone comes up with a car that was so reliable, it would never break down, was so comfortable, you could practically sleep in it, was so smooth to drive, you literally felt like you were gliding along the road, was entirely noiseless, could outrace any other car you care to name, could also seat a family of 17, had a bigger boot than a dumper truck, gave off zero emissions, and gave about 1000 mpg, but would cost about £20 million to build each one.  How likely do you think it would be that any car company would actually try to start producing them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They might, of course, but they would have subtle ways of making you realise it wasn't any use after you'd had it a couple of months. It would be 'yesterday's' model, there would be something even better, they would stop making parts for it (and there would always be wear and tear).

 

One thing that pisses me off is spectacles. If I break frames I can never get replacement frames because the design is no longer made (which also means they cannot be repaired). I cannot transfer the lenses because the new fashion is a different shape. So every year approximately it's £150 for new specs without a new prescription.

 

Grrrr!

[Zmid]

So what's your point? What's so bad in not producing something you can't afford to produce?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My point is this - if capitalism encouraged the production of good quality products, somebody would produce this car. In reality, someone would only produce this car if they could do so at a low enough cost so that they would be able to make a profit out of it.

 

One thing that pisses me off is spectacles. If I break frames I can never get replacement frames because the design is no longer made (which also means they cannot be repaired). I cannot transfer the lenses because the new fashion is a different shape. So every year approximately it's £150 for new specs without a new prescription.

 

Yep - enforced obsolescence, a classic example of rampant capitalism at it's finest.

[draighox]

My point is this - if capitalism encouraged the production of good quality products, somebody would produce this car. In reality, someone would only produce this car if they could do so at a low enough cost so that they would be able to make a profit out of it.

Yes, of course. They have to make a living.

[Zmid]

My point is this - if capitalism encouraged the production of good quality products, somebody would produce this car. In reality, someone would only produce this car if they could do so at a low enough cost so that they would be able to make a profit out of it.

Yes, of course. They have to make a living.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Firstly, why do they have to make a living? Because other people are using the same principles of capitalism to sell them their house, their food, their clothing, etc, etc, etc and make a profit from that.

 

Secondly, I think you'll find it's not really a case of 'making a living', it's more like a case of 'sell it for as much as we think we can get away with making people pay for it'.

[MDRud216]

Of course not. It's not theirs. Only Gates can decide what to do with his money, otherwise it would be robbery.

 

If the government does it it's called taxation.

[draighox]

Firstly, why do they have to make a living? Because other people are using the same principles of capitalism to sell them their house, their food, their clothing, etc, etc, etc and make a profit from that.

Yes.

 

Secondly, I think you'll find it's not really a case of 'making a living', it's more like a case of 'sell it for as much as we think we can get away with making people pay for it'.

Yes again. They earn it.

 

If the government does it it's called taxation.

And they have right to do it, while it is payment for services the government provides.

[Zmid]

Firstly, why do they have to make a living? Because other people are using the same principles of capitalism to sell them their house, their food, their clothing, etc, etc, etc and make a profit from that.

Yes.

 

Secondly, I think you'll find it's not really a case of 'making a living', it's more like a case of 'sell it for as much as we think we can get away with making people pay for it'.

Yes again. They earn it.

 

Perhaps you better explain your point then, because you appear to be saying, somewhat bizarrely, that capitalism promotes the production of good quality products because, when producing goods, people and companies have to put 'reducing the cost of production' above every other consideration and, when selling goods, will charge as much as they think they can get away with purely in the interests of maximising their own profit.

 

It does also appear that you're trying to say that capitalism is necessary because of the effects of capitalism.

[KzinistZerg]

A bit of circular reasoning- but the point of capitalism is competition- that which keeps us different than mindless blobs of organic matter being pampered by a government.

 

"Wait" you say- "are you insulting communism?"

 

Maybe- you define your idea of communism-in detail- and I will tell you what I insult. Frankly- communism isn't the end-all of everything, because, aliens exist. And not all are peaceful- and not all are wise- and some may want humans for meat or slaves. Who knows? But competition is the way to the top- individually, communally, nationally, and for the entire species.

 

 

So is communism evil? Depends on who you're talking to.

[Zmid]

A bit of circular reasoning- but the point of capitalism is competition- that which keeps us different than mindless blobs of organic matter being pampered by a government.

 

Right, so, in order to have intelligence, you've got to make money?

 

"Wait" you say- "are you insulting communism?"

 

Maybe- you define your idea of communism-in detail- and I will tell you what I insult. Frankly- communism isn't the end-all of everything, because, aliens exist.

 

Personally, I'm inclined to believe this is true, but that is my own personal belief, not a proven fact (or even a theory supported by significant amounts of evidence). As such, it could be wrong. All we really know for sure is that we exist. Therefore, until we get evidence otherwise, we have to operate on the assumption that aliens do not exist.

 

And not all are peaceful- and not all are wise- and some may want humans for meat or slaves. Who knows?

 

Precisely. Who knows? Not you, not I, and I would be fairly confident to place a bet on 'not any human being currently alive on Earth'.

 

But competition is the way to the top- individually, communally, nationally, and for the entire species.

 

OK, if it's the way to the top for the entire human race, who are they on top of? These hypothetical aliens that may not even exist? Or, if they do, may not have the slightest bit of interest in Earth or mankind?

 

Do you not think mankind may be able to solve one hell of a lot of problems it's currently facing if it simply stopped competing with itself, and instead focused the resources of the whole of mankind on them?