Comments on How Much Profit is Enough?, page 3 of 6
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
b'b · 2003-07-02T09:20:00
I'd like to add my support for having personal political opinion in weblogs. I think we're all adult enough to recognize that people have different opinions on matters such as the so-called 'intellectual property' rights and corporate regulation and that such matters often touch on issues in software development.
An interesting read on the weblog's subject is "The World We're In" by Will Hutton, which examines the different approaches taken in post-war America and Europe to the public realm and responsibility of individuals and corporations to society (and no this is not about 'socialism').
P.S. I think the book is released in the US under a different title, "State of Interdependence" perhaps.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Ian Rae · 2003-07-02T12:51:00
> Voltaire, I don't have to agree with your beliefs, but > I'll fight to death for your right to have them.
Agreed. However, as with most critiques of capitalism, Mr Holden offers no alternatives. It's fine to have beliefs that profits are too high, or that ads manipulate people but what should we do about it? By offering no actual solutions, the simplest rebuttal is a Churchill-style remark that modern capitalism is the worst form of economics, except all the others!
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Ernie Varitimos · 2003-07-02T16:33:00
> Voltaire, I don't have to agree with your beliefs, but > I'll fight to death for your right to have them.
Agreed. However, as with most critiques of capitalism, Mr Holden offers no alternatives. It's fine to have beliefs that profits are too high, or that ads manipulate people but what should we do about it? By offering no actual solutions, the simplest rebuttal is a Churchill-style remark that modern capitalism is the worst form of economics, except all the others.
Being a glass half full type of person. I would restate that by saying, "Our system of government is not perfect, however it is the most perfect on the face of the Earth."
-ernie
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-03T06:02:00
> as with most critiques of capitalism, Mr Holden offers > no alternatives. It's fine to have beliefs that profits > are too high, or that ads manipulate people but what > should we do about it?
Although he seems reluctant to come out and say it, Mr Holden's implicit alternative is a totalitarian state. The ~state~ will seize excessive profits, the ~state~ will ban advestising .... the state will control every aspect of your life.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Tasos Zervos · 2003-07-03T06:31:00
I have a feeling that this discussion is getting a bit silly in term of polarisation...
A little moderation would be better. I have to disagree that since you don't have alternatives to current systems you shouldn't raise you concern(s).
Do you suggest that the current system is perfect? If the answer is no, then we should be looking for ways to make it better. It's not about a revolution, it's about evolution.
A key word that was mentioned, is greed. Another key word is balance.
It is not just Black or White... [end of clichés... :-) ]
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Daniel Yokomizo · 2003-07-03T07:57:00
> > Voltaire, I don't have to agree with your beliefs, but > > I'll fight to death for your right to have them. > > Agreed. However, as with most critiques of capitalism, Mr > Holden offers no alternatives. It's fine to have beliefs > that profits are too high, or that ads manipulate people > but what should we do about it? By offering no actual > solutions, the simplest rebuttal is a Churchill-style > remark that modern capitalism is the worst form of > economics, except all the others!
It's really difficult to make a real critique of something that is subjective or the status quo. First we need to define which are the grounds of the discussion and how can we measure an alternative. Next we need to verify which are the basic postulates behind each alternative. Then we need to verify the validity of our arguments, their consistency and interdependency so we can stablish a useful conclusion (including a "Insufficient data" result).
The primary critique people say about capitalism is: its base hypothesis are wrong. But what are they? Free market (should it include armies, police and government?), profit over selling of goods and services (and the question of this blog, how much profit is enough?), competition (how can we block monopolies or cartels without protecting incompetent business? perhaps Microsoft was using its power to destroy its competitors, but how come this action can be bad or good if they're a monopoly or not?), what else? When people saying capitalism they don't define what does it mean, so they can stablish quick rebuttals to anything. If the critique doesn't suggest alternatives it isn't true that the critique's target is incorrect.
Saying that, there are some good capitalism critiques available by the so called "anarcho-capitalists" (I don't agree with their postulates but some of their expositions are very good). There's also other written by economists following other schools of thought. I won't bother posting book names because, my personal belief, any non-scientific discussion is unable to teach people. If there's someone really interested, they'll research them, read and make their own judgements.
We can compare this critique to an imaginary dialogue between two pre-historic parents.
<flame mode='satire'> stranger: I don't think you should beat the crap out of your kids whenever they do wrong things. parent: Huh! So, what you're supposed to do when they misbehave? stranger: Well, you could punish him by not letting him do the things he like, or showing the error in his ways. parent: But what if he disobbeys you, and escape his punishments, don't listen to what you're saying and misbehave again. stranger: Hmmm, I don't think it'll happen most of the times. I believe children aren't evil. parent: Hah! So you can give a working alternative, just a lame excuse that can work only sometimes. I say beat him and if he doesn't learn kill him. My system always works and doesn't require beliefs on the human nature. </flame>
P.S.: My position about this issue is, the government should interfere less, including not enforcing IP-protecting laws. Contracts and laws should be simple, with more rules and less exceptions. Any time the goverment mess with things we have less freedom and more headaches. But this is my opinion, it doesn't have to be coeherent or rational, so don't flame me if you disagree.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Daniel Yokomizo · 2003-07-03T08:11:00
> > as with most critiques of capitalism, Mr Holden offers > > no alternatives. It's fine to have beliefs that > profits > > are too high, or that ads manipulate people but what > > should we do about it? > > Although he seems reluctant to come out and say it, Mr > Holden's implicit alternative is a totalitarian state. > The ~state~ will seize excessive profits, the ~state~ > ~ will ban advestising .... the state will control every > aspect of your life.
AFAICT he states he's a socialist, but that doesn't mean he's a totalitarist. In the early 1800 century anyone who believed in the government for the social wellfare was a socialist, including anarchists like Proudhon (who coined the term anarchist). There are lot's of social-democrats around the world, my country (Brazil) had a two-term run from a social-democrat president.
Also some forms of marxists believe in small communities instead of huge states, only resorting to larger forms of government for truly large issues, like wars and natural disasters.
Note that I don't like totalitarian states, as much as I don't like ruthless corporations. If the governmet taxed according to your income, be you a citizen or a corporation, with higher taxes for higher incomes, we could limit profits simply making them undesirable. We don't need to say "You can have more than 50% profit", instead we just need to say "For each zero over two in your annual income add 10% more of taxes". It would be nice, good for small business and bad for large monopolies. This is some top-of-the-head idea, it may have undesirable side-effects.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-03T09:41:00
> Mr Holden's implicit alternative is a totalitarian state. > The ~state~ will seize excessive profits, the ~state~ > ~ will ban advestising .... the ~state~ will control > every aspect of your life.
> ... he states he's a socialist, but that doesn't mean > he's a totalitarian.
Yes it does. Socialism can only work by coercion, and only the state has the power to coerce (use or threaten aggressive violence). Socialism is inherently a highly statist (totalitarian) doctrine. Social democracy is also highly statist/totalitarian.
> 1. Note that I don't like totalitarian states > 2. If the governmet taxed according to your income, be > you a citizen or a corporation, with higher taxes > for higher incomes,
Statement (2) contradicts statement (1). High taxes mean high state interference, ie totalitarianism.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Daniel Yokomizo · 2003-07-04T08:21:00
> > Mr Holden's implicit alternative is a totalitarian > state. > > The ~state~ will seize excessive profits, the ~state~ > > ~ will ban advestising .... the ~state~ will control > > every aspect of your life. > > > ... he states he's a socialist, but that doesn't mean > > he's a totalitarian. > > Yes it does. Socialism can only work by coercion, and > only the state has the power to coerce (use or threaten > aggressive violence). Socialism is inherently a highly > statist (totalitarian) doctrine. Social democracy is also > highly statist/totalitarian.
Hmmm, I don't seen to understand what are you trying to say here. How come that social democracy is highly totalitarian? If democracy is totalitarian and absolutism (e.g. monarchy, dictatorship) is, by definition, totalitarian, what isn't? A totalitarian state tries to regulate every possible part of it's citizens life. It decides what is right and what is wrong. It's orthogonal to how the decisions are based, and how the goverment expected outcome is (e.g. dictators expects to rule everything, while democracy expects to do what most of people want/need).
> > 1. Note that I don't like totalitarian states > > 2. If the governmet taxed according to your income, be > > you a citizen or a corporation, with higher taxes > > for higher incomes, > > Statement (2) contradicts statement (1). High taxes mean > high state interference, ie totalitarianism.
Let's do a little thought experiment: ten individuals form a state in an imaginary island. They agree to decide how much they'll give for common good each year, based on a unanimous voting. If any given individual doesn't agree with a given tax formula it's rejected. How comes it's totalitarianism? If everyone agrees with the taxes, how comes it's interference? I'm trying to understand which are the definitions (AFAICT unstated) you're using to totalitarism and interference, what are the propositions you're basing your argument so we can discover your disagreement. It's simple logic, only with a huge set of initial definitions. I think this is getting really OT so if you don't want to reply this I'll assume we simply disagree on our definitions.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Aahz · 2003-07-04T08:28:00
Advertisement
A couple of quickies:
* What we have in the USA is less "capitalism" than "corporatism". The limited liability corporation is a legal and social construct that has little direct correlation with capitalism.
* I call myself a "socialist libertarian" to indicate what I consider to be a dynamic balance.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
b'b · 2003-07-02T09:20:00
I'd like to add my support for having personal political opinion in weblogs. I think we're all adult enough to recognize that people have different opinions on matters such as the so-called 'intellectual property' rights and corporate regulation and that such matters often touch on issues in software development.An interesting read on the weblog's subject is "The World We're In" by Will Hutton, which examines the different approaches taken in post-war America and Europe to the public realm and responsibility of individuals and corporations to society (and no this is not about 'socialism').
P.S. I think the book is released in the US under a different title, "State of Interdependence" perhaps.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Ian Rae · 2003-07-02T12:51:00
> Voltaire, I don't have to agree with your beliefs, but> I'll fight to death for your right to have them.
Agreed. However, as with most critiques of capitalism, Mr Holden offers no alternatives. It's fine to have beliefs that profits are too high, or that ads manipulate people but what should we do about it? By offering no actual solutions, the simplest rebuttal is a Churchill-style remark that modern capitalism is the worst form of economics, except all the others!
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Ernie Varitimos · 2003-07-02T16:33:00
> Voltaire, I don't have to agree with your beliefs, but> I'll fight to death for your right to have them.
Agreed. However, as with most critiques of capitalism, Mr Holden offers no alternatives. It's fine to have beliefs that profits are too high, or that ads manipulate people but what should we do about it? By offering no actual solutions, the simplest rebuttal is a Churchill-style remark that modern capitalism is the worst form of economics, except all the others.
Being a glass half full type of person. I would restate that by saying, "Our system of government is not perfect, however it is the most perfect on the face of the Earth."
-ernie
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-03T06:02:00
> as with most critiques of capitalism, Mr Holden offers> no alternatives. It's fine to have beliefs that profits
> are too high, or that ads manipulate people but what
> should we do about it?
Although he seems reluctant to come out and say it, Mr Holden's implicit alternative is a totalitarian state.
The ~state~ will seize excessive profits, the ~state~ will ban advestising .... the state will control every aspect of your life.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Tasos Zervos · 2003-07-03T06:31:00
I have a feeling that this discussion is getting a bit silly in term of polarisation...A little moderation would be better.
I have to disagree that since you don't have alternatives to current systems you shouldn't raise you concern(s).
Do you suggest that the current system is perfect?
If the answer is no, then we should be looking for ways
to make it better.
It's not about a revolution, it's about evolution.
A key word that was mentioned, is greed.
Another key word is balance.
It is not just Black or White...
[end of clichés... :-) ]
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Daniel Yokomizo · 2003-07-03T07:57:00
> > Voltaire, I don't have to agree with your beliefs, but> > I'll fight to death for your right to have them.
>
> Agreed. However, as with most critiques of capitalism, Mr
> Holden offers no alternatives. It's fine to have beliefs
> that profits are too high, or that ads manipulate people
> but what should we do about it? By offering no actual
> solutions, the simplest rebuttal is a Churchill-style
> remark that modern capitalism is the worst form of
> economics, except all the others!
It's really difficult to make a real critique of something that is subjective or the status quo. First we need to define which are the grounds of the discussion and how can we measure an alternative. Next we need to verify which are the basic postulates behind each alternative. Then we need to verify the validity of our arguments, their consistency and interdependency so we can stablish a useful conclusion (including a "Insufficient data" result).
The primary critique people say about capitalism is: its base hypothesis are wrong. But what are they? Free market (should it include armies, police and government?), profit over selling of goods and services (and the question of this blog, how much profit is enough?), competition (how can we block monopolies or cartels without protecting incompetent business? perhaps Microsoft was using its power to destroy its competitors, but how come this action can be bad or good if they're a monopoly or not?), what else? When people saying capitalism they don't define what does it mean, so they can stablish quick rebuttals to anything. If the critique doesn't suggest alternatives it isn't true that the critique's target is incorrect.
Saying that, there are some good capitalism critiques available by the so called "anarcho-capitalists" (I don't agree with their postulates but some of their expositions are very good). There's also other written by economists following other schools of thought. I won't bother posting book names because, my personal belief, any non-scientific discussion is unable to teach people. If there's someone really interested, they'll research them, read and make their own judgements.
We can compare this critique to an imaginary dialogue between two pre-historic parents.
<flame mode='satire'>
stranger: I don't think you should beat the crap out of your kids whenever they do wrong things.
parent: Huh! So, what you're supposed to do when they misbehave?
stranger: Well, you could punish him by not letting him do the things he like, or showing the error in his ways.
parent: But what if he disobbeys you, and escape his punishments, don't listen to what you're saying and misbehave again.
stranger: Hmmm, I don't think it'll happen most of the times. I believe children aren't evil.
parent: Hah! So you can give a working alternative, just a lame excuse that can work only sometimes. I say beat him and if he doesn't learn kill him. My system always works and doesn't require beliefs on the human nature.
</flame>
P.S.: My position about this issue is, the government should interfere less, including not enforcing IP-protecting laws. Contracts and laws should be simple, with more rules and less exceptions. Any time the goverment mess with things we have less freedom and more headaches. But this is my opinion, it doesn't have to be coeherent or rational, so don't flame me if you disagree.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Daniel Yokomizo · 2003-07-03T08:11:00
> > as with most critiques of capitalism, Mr Holden offers> > no alternatives. It's fine to have beliefs that
> profits
> > are too high, or that ads manipulate people but what
> > should we do about it?
>
> Although he seems reluctant to come out and say it, Mr
> Holden's implicit alternative is a totalitarian state.
> The ~state~ will seize excessive profits, the ~state~
> ~ will ban advestising .... the state will control every
> aspect of your life.
AFAICT he states he's a socialist, but that doesn't mean he's a totalitarist. In the early 1800 century anyone who believed in the government for the social wellfare was a socialist, including anarchists like Proudhon (who coined the term anarchist). There are lot's of social-democrats around the world, my country (Brazil) had a two-term run from a social-democrat president.
Also some forms of marxists believe in small communities instead of huge states, only resorting to larger forms of government for truly large issues, like wars and natural disasters.
Note that I don't like totalitarian states, as much as I don't like ruthless corporations. If the governmet taxed according to your income, be you a citizen or a corporation, with higher taxes for higher incomes, we could limit profits simply making them undesirable. We don't need to say "You can have more than 50% profit", instead we just need to say "For each zero over two in your annual income add 10% more of taxes". It would be nice, good for small business and bad for large monopolies. This is some top-of-the-head idea, it may have undesirable side-effects.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-03T09:41:00
> Mr Holden's implicit alternative is a totalitarian state.> The ~state~ will seize excessive profits, the ~state~
> ~ will ban advestising .... the ~state~ will control
> every aspect of your life.
> ... he states he's a socialist, but that doesn't mean
> he's a totalitarian.
Yes it does. Socialism can only work by coercion, and only the state has the power to coerce (use or threaten aggressive violence). Socialism is inherently a highly statist (totalitarian) doctrine. Social democracy is also highly statist/totalitarian.
> 1. Note that I don't like totalitarian states
> 2. If the governmet taxed according to your income, be
> you a citizen or a corporation, with higher taxes
> for higher incomes,
Statement (2) contradicts statement (1). High taxes mean high state interference, ie totalitarianism.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Daniel Yokomizo · 2003-07-04T08:21:00
> > Mr Holden's implicit alternative is a totalitarian> state.
> > The ~state~ will seize excessive profits, the ~state~
> > ~ will ban advestising .... the ~state~ will control
> > every aspect of your life.
>
> > ... he states he's a socialist, but that doesn't mean
> > he's a totalitarian.
>
> Yes it does. Socialism can only work by coercion, and
> only the state has the power to coerce (use or threaten
> aggressive violence). Socialism is inherently a highly
> statist (totalitarian) doctrine. Social democracy is also
> highly statist/totalitarian.
Hmmm, I don't seen to understand what are you trying to say here. How come that social democracy is highly totalitarian? If democracy is totalitarian and absolutism (e.g. monarchy, dictatorship) is, by definition, totalitarian, what isn't? A totalitarian state tries to regulate every possible part of it's citizens life. It decides what is right and what is wrong. It's orthogonal to how the decisions are based, and how the goverment expected outcome is (e.g. dictators expects to rule everything, while democracy expects to do what most of people want/need).
> > 1. Note that I don't like totalitarian states
> > 2. If the governmet taxed according to your income, be
> > you a citizen or a corporation, with higher taxes
> > for higher incomes,
>
> Statement (2) contradicts statement (1). High taxes mean
> high state interference, ie totalitarianism.
Let's do a little thought experiment: ten individuals form a state in an imaginary island. They agree to decide how much they'll give for common good each year, based on a unanimous voting. If any given individual doesn't agree with a given tax formula it's rejected. How comes it's totalitarianism? If everyone agrees with the taxes, how comes it's interference? I'm trying to understand which are the definitions (AFAICT unstated) you're using to totalitarism and interference, what are the propositions you're basing your argument so we can discover your disagreement. It's simple logic, only with a huge set of initial definitions. I think this is getting really OT so if you don't want to reply this I'll assume we simply disagree on our definitions.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Aahz · 2003-07-04T08:28:00
* What we have in the USA is less "capitalism" than "corporatism". The limited liability corporation is a legal and social construct that has little direct correlation with capitalism.
* I call myself a "socialist libertarian" to indicate what I consider to be a dynamic balance.
Older comments · Page 3 of 6 · Newer comments
Back to post