In article <4a8572e9$1@news.povray.org>,
Invisible wrote:

>>> (I can't help noticing that not a single one of these systems makes 
>>> sense...)
>> 
>>   While the pages are humoristic, the "pure capitalism" actually *does*
>> make sense to me:
>> 
>>   "You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull."
>> 
>>   That's rational behavior, looking towards the future and welfare.
>
> Well, that's true I guess.

It makes perfect sense. But we don't have free trade. The most
capitalist countries intervene heavily on trades. Of course, things
are free until it goes against what we want; so that's not free at
all.  And, if capitalism, cannot live without intervention, then it
fails because that's what it proposes. (Nobody knows whether it can
live without it; we never had such thing.)

We don't live under free trade. We live under some form of economic
model based heavily on capital. The inhumane side of it is that even
humans are capital.

(*) What happens to human capital?

If you don't own your work, you don't own your machinery of
production, so you join someone else's machinery. So you are hired or
something. If you become useless, like a burned out cpu, you must be
replaced in the machinery. It doesn't really matter whether you like
it; it makes sense to replace a part of a machine that became
obsolete.

Sometimes it's too expensive to do that. Sometimes people fight
against being replaced or exploited, which increases the price and
burden of being replaced. Sometimes governments protect these parts of
the machinery. Sometimes companies see that it's cheaper to just to
move the useless part aside instead of replacing it. So the part is
still in the machinery consuming energy, but it does not bother the
production too much, and that is financially worth it, and the
machinery goes on producing its goods.

It is usually said that although this kinda sucks, with enough work
laws based on humane treatment of people and financial compensation,
that is... workable.

Post a reply to this message