Získej Prémium pro odstranění všech reklam
Zveřejněné: 73   Navštíveno: 80 users

Originální zveřejnění

Přidal KYBL, 21.01.2014 - 07:42
This is the argument of Albert Einstein against capitalism and my response to his argument. I encourage people to read it if they wish.

For his argument, see here: http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/uploads/Einstein%20on%20Why%20Socialism.pdf

My argument:

First of all, Einstein comes in with an argument based on a previous conclusion that competition is bad. He says that the goal of companies is to destroy each other through legal means and that this is inherently evil. He declares that the sole goal of these corporations is to create profit and destroy other companies. One fundamental flaw is that he ignores the consumer and only talks about the capitalists. While companies try to harm each other, one must realize that at the end of the day, whichever company survives is based off of two factors: Asset management and the consumer. If a company does not manage it's assets properly, the company will fail. This doesn't just apply to a company, but it also applies to governments. The difference is, if one company, unless it has a monopoly which would be unlawful in a capitalist society anyways, goes under, there are numerous other companies to choose from. If a government goes under, one does not simply leave the country. The second factor is the consumer. At the end of the day, it is the consumer who decides which company lives and which one goes bankrupt. Companies compete for the goal of making profit, something they can only get if the consumer feels that the company's product benefits them. If the consumer does not like a product, they have numerous other companies to buy from. In a socialist economy, if they don't like the product, they are still forced to buy it along with everyone else. So while companies may be harmed, ultimately, it is the consumer, the majority, which is benefitted.

Secondly, Einstein gets his argument completely wrong on wages. According to Einstein, workers are not payed based on how much work they do and how much they contribute (their worth), but rather get payed the bare minimum. If this argument were true, you would see 99% of Americans on minimum wage. However, this is not the case. Rather, only about 5-10% of Americans are payed minimum wage. The other 90-95% get payed above the minimum wage plus benefits because that is how much they are worth. A lawyer does not get payed minimum wage because he does a ton of work. A cashier gets payed minimum wage because he just stands there and says "fries with that?" while taking people's orders. These people can easily be replaced, therefore, they are not worth more than minimum wage. In a socialist society, however, this would not be any better. In fact, wages would be even more disproportionate based on work. In a socialist society, a cashier and the president of McDonalds gets the same pay, even though the president of McDonalds, despite popular belief among socialists who think running companies are easy, is much more work and is much more important than a simple, replaceable, cashier. Minimum wage has just created a long line of unemployed people who are worth less than minimum wage.

Next, Einstein discusses the flow of capital and how it generally ends up in the hands of a small few. While this may be true to an extent, this doesn't make it unjustified. Capitalism provides everyone the chance for everyone to become rich. Some succeed, others fail. Not everyone needs to be rich though. Capitalism gave rise to the middle class, a class between the rich and the poor. People in the middle class generally live comfortably without having millions, if not, billions of dollars to their expense. If all capital truly went into the hands of a small few, there would not be any middle class. Also, remember in the first paragraph where I discussed how companies succeed or fail based on consumer needs. The rich generally get rich off of those willing to buy their products. If these people become rich, it is solely because people not as rich as them are willing to buy their products. They got rich off of other people allowing them to.

Fourthly, Einstein discusses labor. He states that no way to ensure that everyone willing to work will get a job. However, there really is no alternative to this. In a socialist economy, jobs do not come out of nowhere and are not created for no reason, just the same as a capitalist economy. If a person is only skilled in one area of which there is no demand for more workers, neither a capitalist nor socialist economy will be providing him with a job in that field. Einstein also mentions that the free market brings forth technology that causes unemployment. The only reason such technology exists to put others out of a job is because it is simply cheaper for companies to use technology rather than actual people. This brings us back to the economic worth of an individual. For example, a fast food restaurant decides it can no longer continue paying it's employees minimum wage because it is causing them to raise their prices and lose business. For this reason, they replace the employees with self check-outs. This is not a product of capitalism, this is a product of social programs destroying the lower income earners. There is no reason to pay someone more than they are worth. Remember that when these employees are replaced by cheaper machines, prices go down and the consumers benefit. Einstein states that unlimited competition leads to a waste of labor, but the truth is, that is the only way to keep so many people employed. The more competition there is, the more companies there are, the more people are employed. If there was no competition, there would simply not be enough areas to keep the majority employed since you only need enough employees to create one company. Only with competition can you keep so many people employed.

Lastly, Einstein states that only a planned economy can possibly work for everyone. Every country in history with a completely planned economy has failed. The USSR had the lowest GDP per capita in the world in 1989. North Korea is in famine. East German vs West German development shows how poorly the planned economy turned out for East Germany. A centrally planned economy is based on the assumption that government will always be in your best interest. Even if it is, one single organization cannot address the needs of every individual. Hundreds of thousands of companies, large and small, are what can provide for every individual need because they need to in order to turn a profit. Einstein continues by saying that education should be based more around social goals than competition. This only works as long as people do not realize that they can essentially do nothing and still be winners. The idea is simple. If there are too many people on the wagon and too few pulling it, you will not progress anywhere. Humans are not stupid creatures and they realize that if they can do nothing and still do as well as everyone else, they will do it. Humans are not ants and bees. Humans do not act purely based on instinct. Humans can think for themselves and for that reason, humans cannot conform to socialism.

I will finish this off by saying that Einstein got it completely wrong on his economic ideology.
28.01.2014 - 05:51
Napsáno Tik-Tok, 23.01.2014 at 04:53

Affirmative action.

Now, first of all I find myself unable to view the videos you have posted as I'm currently in a library, so you will have to excuse me for that. Regarding the point you are making: I'm not dogmatic enough to believe that the reasons I have given are the only ones explaining this phenomenon and I'm sure what you explain there plays into it too, albeit I personally would say on a much lower scale than you may suspect. There's still a lot of research left for me in this topic so I will refrain from commenting it any further.

Napsáno Tik-Tok, 23.01.2014 at 04:53

Wrong. They increased. Tax avoidance was far easier before this, taxes lowered by avoidance loopholes were also lowered. Despite the 90% tax bracket, almost no one ever paid that. Regulations actually increased, mostly to hurt small businesses. Consumer protections and health and safety issues were created to kill mom and pop stores which is why so many died out due to globalization and an ever increasing burden to tick boxes they couldn't afford to tick. Can you imagine how expensive it is to created a fire sprinkler system for a start up store? Its simple for a large retails tore but near impossible for a small store.

I should have chosen my words more precise there. Of course regulations increased in light of environment concern, aswell as safety issues. I was mainly refering to the deregulation of the finance market to which I will find more words later. As for tax avoidance- I'm sure you are aware of tax heavens like Switzerland, the Caymans, Luxembourg or even the Netherlands who channel most of the wealth of European companies to just these tax heavens. Nowadays you will find a family owned cafe on one side of the street with a nearly unbearable tax-burden, on the other side you will find a Starbucks cafe that effectively pays 0 taxes.
That's what capitalism is about and what I was refering to- small businesses are being destroyed, while the big and rich capitalists go free.

Napsáno Tik-Tok, 23.01.2014 at 04:53

Inequality came from entitlement. I cant even stand the word inequality. It's a ridiculous term when equality has never existed and can be given any realistic notion. Even now, after all the welfare programs and investment, Bankers get richer while average families have been getting poorer for decades but they are disillusioned by technology. I pads don't make you rich, Land does. Almost no one owns their own land or business and everything is more expensive, especially land.

I personally define an equal society as such a one where everyone has access to the basic needs in life, such as a home, education, health care and being able to live a life in dignity. This is what the redistribution of wealth in a welfare state is all about, to not let the people on the lowest end of society sink any deeper than a human being should. This is not just noble, but also neccessary if you want to have a truly healthy society. I see no alternative to this. It's true that the rich are still getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but this, again, is an economic problem, not one of entitlement.

Napsáno Tik-Tok, 23.01.2014 at 04:53

There was barely any deregulation. I may not sympathize with Libertarianism as much but they made most of their arguments correct. Deregulation is a myth with the growth of the Federal Government.

Let me give you a few steps in deregulation history:

-1980: "Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, signed by Jimmy Carter, lowering mandatory reserve of banks, aswell as founding a national deregulation committee which oversaw most of the following changes

- 1982: savings and loan institutions being allowed to engage in commercial, corporate business and investment activities

- 1988: "Glass-Stragle-Act" of 1933 repealed, which was the most important banking regulation, now allowing commecial banks for investment business, enabling pooling and selling mortage loans

- 1999: "Gramm-Leach-Biley Financial Modernization Act" enables subprime mortages

- 2004: banks are allowed to determine their own net capital

These are just a few of the many steps undertaken by zealot-deregulation advocates in something that is termed "desaster capitalism". Whenever there was a desaster of economic, human or social nature these guys wanted to answer it with even more deregulation. It's the school of people such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, with whom you as a Brit may be familiar, as Margret Thatcher implemented many of their policies.
This saw barriers for leverage lowered, which naturally also lowered the buffer banks had to defend themselfs against shocks/losses.
Financial institutions became able to package their loans into securities, which lowered the need to determine creditworthness and in turn meant more risk-taking.
Most disgusting of all are the private rating companies that are government recognized and rated bad loans with AAA in an utmost corrupt system where the rating agencies are legally allowed to receive fees from banks.
There's so much more in this deregulation mess such as shadow banking, deratives and hedgefonds, I could go on and on about this. All this amounts to an increased risk-taking and zealot spending which is widely perceived as the core of the crisis. Which makes me ask you, how is deregulation of the finance sector a myth?

Napsáno Tik-Tok, 23.01.2014 at 04:53

It was a result of terrible housing policy which forced companies to give people loans for housing they couldn't afford. These banks were more than happy to do so and they were forced by law to do it. It meant that when the people couldn't afford to pay back the loan, the banks took the house and when everything went to shit due to enormous debts created by bubbles and costly land. They were bailed out which gave them enormous amounts of land, free of charge and risk.

Again, I'm sure this may have played into the bigger scheme too. I don't think there is one definite answer to the financial crisis of 2008. But that this is not the single defining factor becomes clear when you look at the global scale of the crisis, which was already choking up banks with "empty" credit even in Germany pre-crash, like the Sachsen Landesbank.
It's all this multiple times packed easy credit behind which was no whatsoever value that flooded the market which made it possible and it may have been enhanced by the acts you have given there, but it's global reach certainly cannot be explained by this. Where there equal programmes in Greece and the other PIIGS? Population there did not need to have government interference to get cheap credit and live way beyond their means, they just did as it's in human nature to be greedy and this greed is fasciliated by capitalism. And this is why we need a regulated finance sector. But this, of course, will never happen (again).
Načítání...
Načítání...
28.01.2014 - 08:05
Napsáno Unleashed, 28.01.2014 at 00:27

Napsáno Skittzophrenic, 27.01.2014 at 23:17

Why do you people argue about nothing. Go to bed children.


This is your typical dumb american citizen who doesn't care about anything, then when he stumbles upon some problem wants to cry and complain about the unfair world. Ignorance is bliss but only temporarily, and one day you will pay the price of your indifference.


Napsáno Rock Lee, 27.01.2014 at 16:09

So who are you today, tunder or the same gotic jerk?


I would respond but tik already put you in your place better than I ever could.


"Hurr durr, I'm Unleashed hear me roar."
----




TJM !!!
Načítání...
Načítání...
28.01.2014 - 09:08
Napsáno Tik-Tok, 27.01.2014 at 16:58

Napsáno Rock Lee, 26.01.2014 at 15:19
Tik Tok - one of the reasons your ideiology makes sense to you (except mental distrubtion and childhood traumas, but it's only my opinion) is websites like richard silverstien's blog seem like legitimic source and proof for you, all sources you'v brought in the agruments i'v seen are in the good case rumors and in the bad case bullcraft that its purpuse is politican, you'v never brought approved or trustworthy source, and when we are doubt what you are saying you are turning to childish arguments which are unrelated to what we talked about, but if you want us to belive in your ideiology, you should tell us, when and why did you adopt that idiology.


Children like yourself should not enter into the domain of adults, little one. Every argument with you ends up with some ridiculous promotion of Israel. If you have the balls to step into the ring and counter what I have said, you are more than welcome to but cowards don't don the gloves against opponents they know they'll lose to. They prefer to heckle from the sidelines.


no, every time it overs at you repeats on baseless claims in 3 AD and the admin locks it in 7 AD, unless we are talking in the game, then you just flooding the chat with bullshit and refuses to read what i say, most of the time you are the one that does'nt know what he is talking about - "raping palestinian woman", you can call me coward but i'v always stood for my country, people and religion, unlike you that denys his culture, imagine his nation ruled by others and learns to hate, studying about others, you call me coward but again you avoided at proving your "sources" as trustworthy, and you still not telling us where are you from.

Talking about Einstein, even him was taught once, we are not in 19 century lithunia and not in London 2040. (and let's not take the fact that i'm considered by country as adult citizen as a fact).
----


Načítání...
Načítání...
28.01.2014 - 09:58
Napsáno Rock Lee, 28.01.2014 at 09:08

you still not telling us where are you from.

London 2040.


I think you answer your own question.

Tik-Toks ideology makes alot of sense, way better than communism and liberal nonsense, the only problem with his ideology is that he dosn't see blacks,whites,asians,etc as part of a single entity, but rather as different species.

He has yet to understand that humans have different races in order to fullfill a specific role, rather than competing with each other.
Načítání...
Načítání...
28.01.2014 - 10:39
Napsáno Krieger3, 28.01.2014 at 09:58

Napsáno Rock Lee, 28.01.2014 at 09:08

you still not telling us where are you from.

London 2040.


I think you answer your own question.

Tik-Toks ideology makes alot of sense, way better than communism and liberal nonsense, the only problem with his ideology is that he dosn't see blacks,whites,asians,etc as part of a single entity, but rather as different species.

He has yet to understand that humans have different races in order to fullfill a specific role, rather than competing with each other.

human diffrences does'nt justify breaking of their rights, Tik Tok ideology makes no sense, it's coward and selfish ideology and he knows that, It's all based on one motive - every thing you know is a lay, history is a lay, human rights are lay, our moral is a lay, and it's selfish, since it encourages violence and breaking of human rights not for justice or moral, but for your own interests, Tik Tok himself said that he would'nt care if whole Middle east would be genocided, after he said the middle east should be genocided "why would i care of genocide happens miles of my home", something is clearly wrong with that guy, and he surrenders himself with violent and selfish ideology because he fears of the real world, and we are coming back to the lay motive.
----


Načítání...
Načítání...
29.01.2014 - 07:59
Napsáno KYBL, 26.01.2014 at 10:13

Einstein is not an economist, he is a scientist. While I may be young, my opinion is just as valid as Einstein's is.

No worries, I didn't mean to suggest that your opinion is invalid. I just wanted to you to consider the value of experience. Let's not elaborate on this any further though, it's not part of the discussion.

Napsáno KYBL, 26.01.2014 at 10:13

If I were an employer, I would treat my workers as ethically as possible because that is just my nature. However, I do not think that it should be mandatory to go further than what employees agreed to in a contract when they originally took the job. My ethics should not be forced on others.

If you were an employer? I'm not sure how that is furthering your point in an objective way. Furthermore I think it was already explained that people do not necessarily agree to a work contract voluntarily. Economic pressure can always force people into that, for example the single mom who has to have 3 jobs because she cannot just say no. Employers tak advantage of her situation, that she will accept any job for any wage. Let's pick up your argument that most employers already pay more than minimum wage in the US. How much do you reckon is minimum wage for waiters in the US? It's about $2. When the minimum wage already borders to slave labour it's not a big deal to pay more than that. How many jobs will a single mom have to work to raise her children then? Do you think she can lead a decent life?

Napsáno KYBL, 26.01.2014 at 10:13

This is not exactly Capitalism though. In a capitalist economy, companies would still be regulated. They couldn't kill each other and force people to work for them. In my ideal society, there would be militias, but strictly government regulated. Companies and militias would be separate. The German (that wouldn't exist in a capitalist society legally) and supporting terrorist groups.

Again, people can very well be forced into work by economic pressure. In Germany for example it is well known that armies of Eastern Europeans slave themselfs away each year on German fields in summer. You think they do that because they enjoy hard labour for an hourly wage of €1?
It's true what you say though, companies are regulated in our society. You know why? Because capitalism needs to be regulated. Take a look at the times of the industrial revolution. This is when the concept of capitalism was in it's purest form. This is when people worked 16h in factories and mines, together with their children. Now did capitalism take care of this problem?
No, it was socialist policies which stopped this. At least (mostly) in our western countries. But all this still exists, it was just outsoured. Our companies and corporations, although regulated by laws at home still bask in every capitalists dream and employ near slave labour all arond the world. Because capitalism will always seek the weak and unprotected in order to exploit them for the biggest possible profit. What do you think are our companies doing abroad?
That said, exploitation is still common in our countries too. But that we had already.

Napsáno KYBL, 26.01.2014 at 10:13

The biggest problem is that the average person does not take interest in politics. Obviously, you cannot force people to, just as you cannot force people to practice ethical behaviour to an extent. Remember that capitalism allows you to be as individualistic as you want, so you can be a consumer if you want, or you do not have to be. I reject the idea of being a consumer (In relation to consumerism) because I do not think I need the latest product to be "cool". I prefer to learn. That, however, is my choice, and I do not think others can be forced into it.

Obviously there is no man who stands behind you, ready to shoot you if you do not buy the newest iPad. But the world doesn't work as simple as this, it's not about free choice or being forced to do something. People get manpilulated, indoctrinated and trained like Pavlov's dog (I suggest you to read up on his respondent conditioning).
This society is not black and white, it's full of diffrent shades and I'm not even saying that there is some kind of evil conspiracy behind this to alter us into the drones we already are. I'm just saying that capitalism conditions people to be consumers, to make them as simple a human as possible in order to gain the easiest money. This is just economic reality. People will always look for the easiest way of entertainment. Complex movies will always sell less than your average Hollywood fairytale. Easy lies will always sell better than complicated truth. This is why people are not interested in politics, it's too complex for todays fast-food consumer society. And if you want it or not, I have a feeling like this also reflects in the way you paint the world in black and white. As if it is some kind of conscious decision to be made, up to every single person and devoid of outside influence.

Napsáno KYBL, 26.01.2014 at 10:13

Remember that capitalism is the voluntary exchange of labor and capital. I cannot see any exploitation when something is completely voluntary. Greed, however, is good. Greed is an incentive for people to work and make things that people want to buy, ultimately benefitting the consumer.

You say this is a lot, which makes it feel kind of redundant to again remind you that the overwhelming majority of people are probably not as good off as you and I. It's as if you see the world only in black and white. If a person has no job, no income at all and economically he's on the edge- do you think this person will say no to any job offer he get's? Do you think there's nobody there to exploit the misfortune of this person? And how may I ask you is greed good, when it is at the expense of others? I've already given you examples in Bayer AG and Apple and their manufacturing line of smartphones. Their greed kills people. And this is the only greed I was refering to.

Napsáno KYBL, 26.01.2014 at 10:13

The system eventually collapsed on itself though. More money generally leads to better standards of living. The US had much higher standards of living than the USSR did. Maybe you were not starving in East Germany, but your quality of life was not as good as West Germany.

The system in East Germany collapsed out of political pressure. There was no collapse of the social economy, it was a peoples revolution to overthrow their totalitarian government. And now, you are saying that people in East Germany had a lower standard of living. You present it as fact. Can I ask you to elaborate this point? I've already tried to convince you otherwise by both giving examples and perspectives, so I won't do it again. But I ask you to support your position aswell, instead of presenting it as a irrefuteable fact.
Načítání...
Načítání...
29.01.2014 - 12:06
Napsáno KYBL, 26.01.2014 at 10:13

Remember that capitalism is the voluntary exchange of labor and capital. I cannot see any exploitation when something is completely voluntary.


So much to read, I'll keep it short. For millenia the ruling class used slaves for labor. Untill they realized that productivity was higher if they allow the slaves to choose their occupation. So, they thought, if we allow certain liberties like choosing your occupation, these slaves will do the work with so much more productivity, all while thinking it was THEIR idea.

If you want to know more listen to this, maybe in the background like I usually do

----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired



Načítání...
Načítání...
30.01.2014 - 11:02
Napsáno Rock Lee, 28.01.2014 at 09:08

you can call me coward but i'v always stood for my country, people and religion, unlike you that denys his culture, imagine his nation ruled by others and learns to hate



So? That's what 99% of people do. You are not special. On the contrary, you're a brainwashed individual who can't see through the bullshit propaganda. "i'v always stood for my country, people and religion" LOL. That's what the elites need, someone who will stand for his country even when that country is doing evil. You are a drone. Look to the left. This is your life

----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired



Načítání...
Načítání...
30.01.2014 - 14:34
Well maybe you wanna tell me what kind of evil my country does? i wanna see who is the brainwashed of us.
----


Načítání...
Načítání...
02.09.2014 - 21:53
Sorry, I had to stop reading. Of couse someone from USA( and I think you might want to stop begin razist, because America is a CONTINENT, NOT A COUNTRY) earn a decent wage... what about the other countries? Exatly...

The currently neoliberalist economy and the Globalization has already proved their harmful effect. While countries like Brazil and China had get the best of this, the sad true is that still 2/3 of the countries in the world are affected hard by theses types of polites.

If you look at countries like USA or UK then yes you will away see capitalism as good. But please take a look at other countries, like Dominicain Republic, Argentina, Zambia, Rwanda, Haiti.....

What companies likes to do now is to go to a poor country and pay them 10 dollars for a week of job. Serious theses peoples dont even earn enough for live.
Načítání...
Načítání...
03.09.2014 - 15:17
 brianwl (Admin)
There are sufficient natural resources for everyone. The illusion is monetary policy. Those who control the money love it when 'we' argue over which 'ism' is superior, as the root problem is then never addressed. If you had two children, and gave them only enough food for one to survive, and told them whoever is stronger will win, what would happen? It's the pathology of the one who has the means to feed both, but creates a situation in which they need to destroy one another, so as to take the focus off themselves.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild. <
----

Načítání...
Načítání...
04.09.2014 - 16:26
Where does tito get this idea that you can't walk down a street in America and feel safe, I've walked through downtown Philadelphia (the second largest city on the US East Coast) for three, going on four years, every day and not once felt unsafe.
----
Načítání...
Načítání...
05.09.2014 - 14:49
Napsáno For Antioch, 04.09.2014 at 21:18

Napsáno Viruslegion, 04.09.2014 at 16:26

Where does tito get this idea that you can't walk down a street in America and feel safe, I've walked through downtown Philadelphia (the second largest city on the US East Coast) for three, going on four years, every day and not once felt unsafe.


What about that time you got robbed Virus? You felt unsafe enough to fork over your cash. Cities are bad, too many people. Likely targets for Canadian Invasions or weird South Korean Fish-Monster attacks.

that was more than three years ago, more pity than fear anyway
south korean fish monsters are indeed cause for concern though
----
Načítání...
Načítání...
atWar

About Us
Contact

Soukromí | Smluvní podmínky | Bannery | Partners

Copyright © 2025 atWar. All rights reserved.

Připoj se k nám na

Šiřte slovo