WalMart, the great saviour of small format filmmaking...

[MovieStuff]

I'm just saying that capitalism produces and reproduces inequality through a system of exchanges that shift wealth into the hands of the few by taking away from the hands of the masses.

What you are pointing out can happen and, unfortunately, does far too often. But there is absolutely nothing inherent in the capitalist system that dicates it must happen. The capitalist system is just an arena. The fairness of the game shouldn't be judged by the integrity of the competitors.

We live in a society that rewards producers for being ruthless. You are right that competing doesn't mean you have to be abusive, but it sure is hard to compete with a producer that has the freedom to choose to be abusive and is to turn a greater profit.

That is what Walmart does.

To be clear, I don't consider Walmart to be without questionable ethics in certain areas. But, does Walmart really represent all that is wrong with capitalism? I think not. As you pointed out, we live in a society that rewards being ruthless. Perhaps, then, it is the level of ruthlessness that society allows in the game rather than the game, itself.

Anyway, I appreciate your kind words regarding myself as a craftsman. I also really appreciate having a nice debate like this. It is refreshing to have an intelligent discussion without someone resorting to name calling, etc.

Now piss off.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

It isn't a political affiliation but I'm a Frisbeetarian, myself. I believe that when you die your soul gets stuck up on the roof.

Roger

.....where do I sign up?

Steve

Well, as an Ordained Frisbeetarian Minister of Spin, I hereby declare you as a Deacon in the Frisbeetarian Brotherhood. Welcome, Brother Hyde.

I'll be passing the offering plate around later. Oh, and uh, since you are the only member in the congregation so far, you'll have to cough up more than your share to keep the church funds flowing. :twisted:

Roger

[monobath]

Should there be any such thing as "working poor" in this country?

That is to say, if a person works the equivalent of full time or more, should they be making ends meet? Or is it OK for that person to fall at or well below the established "poverty line"?

Poverty classification is a matter of definition that is somewhat relative to the economy and standards of living, as well as to estimates of the costs of basic necessities for individuals and families of various discrete size. The government chooses what to factor in, and it may or may not all be relevant to everyone whose earnings fall below the line.

Be that as it may, I would wish that there not be any people who fit your definition or the government's definition of the working poor. *1

But should there be? That's not the right question. That's like asking whether there should exist stars. The reality is that there are people who can't make ends meet, and there are a lot of reasons why. It's not just because people aren't paid a "living wage", as though they deserved something they didn't earn. But poverty is a real individual and social problem, regardless of where they stand with respect to official designations.

So what are you going to do about it? That's a good question. It's a matter for each person's conscience, those who can and choose to give, not a matter for government labor regulation or forced wealth redistribution.

----------------------------------------
*1 Your definition is a subset of what the U.S. Department of Labor classifies as working poor. They incluide people who worked less than 27 weeks per year. But for the full time workers fitting your example, it amounted to 3.1% of the work force in March of 2002. A Profile of the Working Poor

[monobath]

Should there be any such thing as "working poor" in this country?

That is to say, if a person works the equivalent of full time or more, should they be making ends meet? Or is it OK for that person to fall at or well below the established "poverty line"?

Oh, and I forgot to unambiguously answer your question, is it OK for a person working full time or more to fall below the established poverty line.

Yes, of course it is OK, in the sense that monsoons and draughts and disease and pestilence are OK. It's just a fact of life. If you answer that in any other sense, you are making a personal value judgement that is fine for you to make for yourself, but not for you to make for others.

In my opinion, all living humans have the same rights, but no human has a right to be fed or housed or employed at any calculated pre-determined level merely by virtue of existence.

[Evan Kubota]

"We live in a society that rewards producers for being ruthless."

Steve - and this is because of capitalism? On the other hand, I would argue that the reason society rewards the ruthless is because of the people who comprise the society, not because of the economic system. If every person avoided stores they perceived as 'ruthless' and was willing to pay higher prices because of that, then whatever incentive there is for producers to act mercilessly would be dismantled. However, your assumption is that people are rational actors when it comes to purchasing. I don't think that's universal enough to warrant the implication that a society favoring ruthless producers exists because of capitalism. Even in other economic modes, people will find alternative sources of goods and services.

[monobath]

It's astonishing to me when I read these continuous complaints about how Wal-Mart is exploiting workers. Do you think the majority of people working at Wal-Mart could qualify for a higher-paying job?

Bluntly put but I agree. The issue (if there really is one) gets clouded by activist types that feel Walmart is simply making too much money relative to the amount that they pay their workers; as if that was significant of something inherently unfair. I have yet to see a study that shows Walmart paying a checkout girl less than a checkout girl at, say, Target. The Walmart issue is always framed by how much Walmart makes relative to the pay of their employees.

For me its not about Walmart or how they treat their employees, its more because of the other stores that they help to put out of business by OVER existing in the first place..

I guess its really about monopoly and convenience. I just find it sad that our market trends dictate that Wallmarts will grow and mom & pop stores will close..

In my home town Walmart was physically part (attached) to one of our Malls. They have since seperated and built a new Walmart 100yards away. The mall is now a sad state of affairs to say the least. Nothing else can be built in that spot as it's now mostly Wallmart parking lot. I believe the reason they broke off was so they could sell food items as there was already a grocery store in the mall and I believe its a zoning bylaw of some sort that you can't have 2..

so, I guess my complaints have more to do with community Impact although there are lots of old people hanging out in the local Wallmart Mcdonalds, so I guess thats a pretty social enviroment.. Perhaps this has impacted the use of community centers or perhaps the old have been brainwashed by the low everyday prices???

Chachi, I don't deny that when Wal-Mart moves in, some local businesses die. I lament the loss of individualism and color and variety and choice under such circumstances. By the same token, I welcome the new products and services that a store like Wal-Mart will make available to me that none of the local businesses were able or willing to provide. It works both ways. There are gains and losses.

Times change, and so do ways of doing business. Fight to preserve what you like, and resist what you don't like. It's sort of like those of us on this board fighting to preserve our film stocks. If we buy enough, someone will find it profitable enough to supply it to us. (That's the theoretical promise of captialism, by the way; true when governments resist mucking about with the economic system.) If we only whine about it and shoot digital most of the time, the manufacturer may eventually decide that it isn't profitable enough to continue to supply us film.

The same thing happens when Wal-Mart comes in. Wal-Mart doesn't close down those Mom-and-Pop businesses. They shut themselves down because they lose economic viability. All they need to do to stay in business is to retain their customer base. Wal-Mart doesn't hypnotize the former Mom-and-Pop store customers or coerce them in any way to shop there. Consumers decide that on their own. That is the nature of business.

[monobath]

WalMart isn't the problem, capitalism is.

....perhaps one of the problems is that nobody stops to define explicitly what they are talking about. Nobody says, for example that they are using a definition of capitalism that is characterized by a division of labor among the capital owning class and the laboring classes. I see people painting capitalism with a broad brush e.g, if you work under capitalism that makes you a capitalist. That certainly isn't the definition I use.

When I reference capitalism I'm talking specifically about a political economy founded on inequality. Inequality is what makes capitalism.
Capitalism is about surplus value going to the capitalists instead of labor.
Therefore capitalsim is a political economy that was created by the rich elite to insure that the rich elite remain the rich elite.

Ideally, capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and are operated for profit. It is driven by a free market that determines production, prices, profits, income, and investments. It is fueled and regulated by supply and demand. Demand for a product influences production, while competition among producers and supply of products and raw materials and productive labor regulate the price. That's the ideal.

Yes, this is true, but you have conveniently left out my central point: that capitalism is based on inequality. Capitalism requires inequality. Capitalism produces and reproduces inequality. Surplus value has to exceed labor value for capitalists to accumulate capital. The greater the inequality among capital owning and laboring classes the greater the profit for the capitalist......Do you see a problem here? Is this a pathway to social justice?

No, capitalism is not based on inequality. Accumulation of wealth is a consequence of the vehicle by which capitalism operates. What capitalism operates on (in pure terms) is freedom of choice. In other words, the liberty of people who exercise their rights to make their own decisions about what to make or buy. Demand creates a market, producers compete to supply a product, prices are tied to that balance.

It seems as though you find something inherently wrong with inequality. I don't, but more to the point, capitalism has the ability to distribute wealth among individuals more justly and fairly than other economic systems because it rewards each individual's ability and effort. Few things provide better incentive to people to sharpen their skills and increase their efforts than profit. Communism, socialism, and feudalism can't do this because people under those economic systems are not permitted to benefit directly from their efforts to enhance productivity and profits.

Capitalism offers the best opportunity for individual justice for all, not some machiavellian government-enforced orchestration of wealth distribution. Tell me, where is the social justice in theft, or the morality, for that matter? That is, in stealing the wealth of one man to give it to another who did not lift a finger to earn it?

[monobath]

That's a fairly pure basic description of capitalism. Ideal capitalism isn't compatible with a command economy. It is not a political system, but an economic one. Of course, pure capitalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world, and neither does a free market. And political influence can't really be avoided because governments can't resist monkeying with the market and with business and trade in the form of tariffs, labor controls, taxes and duties, import/export quotas, subsidies and similar protectionism, legalizing products, outlawing products, banking and money supply controls, etc ad nauseum.

I strongly disagree with the central idea behind your argument here. Capitalism is not a political system? This is totally absurd. Captialism has its origins in colonialism and slave driven economics.

Consider this question: when did colonialism end? Can we even say that it has? Do you think colonialism was a political project? Of course it was and is. Colonialism has taken on a new formation. The geography of colonialism may have changed, but that is because territories need not be occupied when Capital owns the means of production there anyway.
Capitalism is an economic system of political design!! That makes it a political system.

Did I not say "pure" and "doesn't exist"? Capitalism, in the ideal, is not political. Yes, in practice it is a inseparably wound up with the political system. This is not a failing of captitalism, but rather an artifact of government.

You need to get your facts straight about colonialism and slavery.

I dispute your premise that capitalism has it's roots in colonialism and slavery. If anything, it was the birth of the industrial revolution that supplied the historical antecedents for capitalism, not slavery. The colonial era in which slavery thrived was characterized by a feudalistic agragrian economy, not a capitalist one.

It is true that capitalists took advantage of the market created by the demand for slaves and inhumanely traded in humans and sought to derive profit from such trade. But human rights violations such as you describe have existed throughout history under every political and economic system that has ever existed on a large scale for tens of thousands of years. It was the people of the era and their religious beliefs who were to fault for slavery, not the economic system of capitalism. To claim that such practices gave rise to capitalism is a disengenuous effort to ascribe guilt by association.

The capitalist economies of the 19th century, by the way, were the first to abandon slavery. Slavery wasn't profitable in an industrial society.

[monobath]

I suspect most people on this board who own or operate businesses do so with the expectation of realizing profit and improving their lives to the greatest extent possible, and would be both unwilling and unable to continue their business for long as charity. If one can't gain greater rewards by bringing greater energy and talent and investment to bear, what incentive would one have to excel? Why bother building and bringing a better product to market if you don't stand a chance to reap greater rewards? Why bother trying to compete with similar businesses if your sales and profit are determined by the state?

Now you are trying to compare capitalism to socialism. This is how the conversations always go. Instead of making a focused critique of capitalism we end up talking about communism. Don't you think human beings are capable of comming up with a political economy that isn't communism or capitalism?

Of course the conversation goes that way. Communism, socialism, feudalism are all undeniably both political and economic systems. You argued that capitalism is a political sysetm too. I disagree in the ideal, but concede the point in practical terms. The closest thing we have to capitalism are black markets, and after that, mixed economies like that of the US. And neither of those are really all that close to the ideal.

So if you object to capitalism as a economic and, as you yourself argued, political system, then what would you replace it with economically and politically, and why? It is a fair question.

While there are flavors and variations, the basic economic systems are fuedalism, capitalism, communism, and socialism. The first one and the latter two are inevitably also political systems because they are command economies in which the state entirely controls the means of production. Capitalism, as it is actually practiced, also has political implications because the governments of the ostensibly free countries of the world can't resist meddling in the economic system. As I said, there are no pure economic systems in existence.

Again, what about post-capitalism? I'm still baffled by your belief that free-market ideology is somehow politics-free. I'm not sure "pure economic systems" is a meanigful term. Are you talking about purely political, purely economic or purely based on the philosophy of some dead political economy professor like Marx or Adams. Economic philosophies are always open to interpretation and therefore a "pure" understanding of one is an ontological impossibility.

Please let's separate the ideal that I described from my question about the practical application of economic and political systems. I don't believe what you say I believe, I think that was pretty clear in my comments that you quoted above, so there's no reason for you to remain baffled.

Go ahead and explain post-capitalism, it's characteristics, and why you prefer it.

Those of you who oppose capitalism, please tell me which of the other three basic systems, feudalism, socialism, or communism you think superior to capitalism, and why.

I don't think any of these economic systems are superior. Let's dream-up some new rules to the games we play.

I'm game. Do it.

For my part, I favor capitalism. It's the economic system that gives me the best chance for creating my own rewards, based on my own efforts rather than the beneficence of government (LOL) or the unearned labor of others, and shifting the unequal distribution of wealth a bit more my way.

.....here I can see that you are assuming a level playing field rather than acknowledging the fact that politics infuses capitalism. Take the politics of racism as an example. Our political history (worldwide) is characterized by injustices based on racial differences. Racism is still one of the most divisive issues in the United States. How is it even remotely possible to have a level economic playing field when we still have racism???? It think it is clear that we cannot. My point is that not everyone affords equal life-chances here in the United States. The problems of inequlity are entangled in a sociological web of hegemonic cultural traditions. Capitalism is just the mode of production that insures that those inequalities are held intact.

Look, I think Karl Marx's teleological communist manefesto is full of holes and frankly I think it is one of the least interesting works that he produced. On the other hand, Marx's volumous Das Kapital, which he spent 30 years working on, is still the most interesting and salient critiques of capitalism ever written. What validates Marx's theories of the social problems of capitalist development is a simple survey of the history of economic development over teh past 150 years. Just look at the growing gap between the richest 10% in the United States and the poorest 10% as a sample. That gap is growing out of control. Who bennefits from that? Not the people that have been kicked down over the course of the past few centuries.

Yes, I based my final comment on the ideal conceptualization of capitalism, ignoring the fact that we really have a mixed economy with a lot of government control. Even in a mixed economy, though, it still affords me greater opportunity than the alternatives.

Racism is a problem. Capitalism is not the cause, nor does it particularly sustain it. It is a symptom of a much deeper social problem, and it is people's attitudes that sustain it, regardless of the economic and political system that obtains. I'm all for eradicating racism, as I find it personally and socially repugnant.

I don't agree with the labor theory of value or the immutability of class. Value is based on choice and need, on supply and demand. And government tinkering, regretably. You can say that you think the "gap" is widening all you want, but the general standard of living all over the world is improving too, and that is being fueled by capitalism.

[marc]

To be clear, I don't consider Walmart to be without questionable ethics in certain areas. But, does Walmart really represent all that is wrong with capitalism? I think not. As you pointed out, we live in a society that rewards being ruthless. Perhaps, then, it is the level of ruthlessness that society allows in the game rather than the game, itself.


Roger

Are we not the ultimate extension of the the animal kingdom? Survival of the fitest. And in nature there are generaly no issues about ethics. You survive or you do not. Now, amongst members of the same species there is a certain accepted political hierarchy; and there may also be fighting between different clans just as there is in human society. Only with our advanced brains we have managed to use this system for economic gain which is our means of survival. This means taking advantage of others. Is it right or wrong? Well, evolution did not play the game of ethics or fairness. In his book," The naked ape", British Zoologist, Desmon Morris says that it is our advanced brains that have gotton us into the mess that we are in now-and it is our brains that will be required to get us out of it. In this case he was refering more to the way that man has exploited the natural resources of the earth to the degree of doing serious damage to this planet. This, as well as the way that we exploit eachother, is why we humans need God; in order to transend our animal nature and develope a sense of spiritual equity.

[monobath]

Where does surplus value come from? It come from labor right?
nature + labor = value.

Not always and not mostly. If I buy an item from one market that considers that item to be worth X number of dollars and resell it in a different market that values that item at XX number of dollars, my profit is based on how much the market values my product, whether I have labor invested in it at all. If I make an item from scratch using hired labor, the degree of mark up on that item is determined not by any calculated inequality or greed on my part but, rather, by what the market will bear. If I am the only person selling that item and it is vitally needed, then my profits are high. If I have competition selling an identical item, then my profits are cut in half. But my cost to produce is still the same.

Roger, this is the best and most succinct simple refutation by example of the labor theory of value that I've every read. Value is not derived from a surplus created by labor, it is a differential created by market conditions.

[etimh]

Please..., stop. Or I'm gonna have to get back into this.

And nobody wants that.

Great discussion and many excellent points. Now, let's have a pint.

Tim

[steve hyde]

Please..., stop. Or I'm gonna have to get back into this.

And nobody wants that.

Great discussion and many excellent points. Now, let's have a pint.

Tim

Tim,

Yes, these guys have made many fine points. Before I destroy thier arguments with my rebutal maybe you should chime in....but, please don't throw gum in anybody's hair or you have to go to time-out. Steve

[Joe Gioielli]

"My cat's name is mittens, his breath smells like catfood." Ralph Wiggum

Joe

[ccortez]

"My cat's name is mittens, his breath smells like catfood." Ralph Wiggum

"It's got a picture of a train, and it says I choo-choo-choooose you." Ralph Wiggum

"I broke my wookie." Ralph Wiggam

"If California slides into the ocean, like the mystics and statistics say it will, I believe this hotel will be standing until I pay my bill." Warren Zevon, forever indeed.