Sorry I don’t know if it just me but I happened upon an arguement at lunch yesterday that came into my head for the first time as I was talking, I haven’t come across it before but it made sense. It goes like this- if Capitalism is fundamentally an economic strategy then presumably economic efficiency is one of its prime objectives. Now within a capitalist structure the function of a company is to make money and thereby pay its investors a dividend on the profit which in turn entices more investment and allows the company to expand etc. etc. On the other hand free market capitialism dictates that it is all about the consumer having a wealth of choice because a competitive market forces high quality low cost goods to ensure a companies survival. OK so if you take these 2 strands to their extreme -the company is aiming for saturated coverage of its particular product this then means that they have full control over quality and cost because they have removed the competition thus overheads are cut and profits are higher. This scenario is terrible for the consumer -look at Microsoft, the consumer is practically held to ransom if they want the product there is no choice and therefore less guarantee of quality and value. For the consumer the best situation is to have a large no. of competing organisations because then the range and thereby quality and value must be assured, this tho’ is a disaster for the company who with the increased competition will only be able to make enough money to survive and will have to compete not only with their products but also vying for investment.

So you have a no win situation for both parties, this is not efficient, alternatively you have a compromise and this equally means that neither side can have the best fuctionality of the system in their favour, this is also not efficient. So how can a system that has 2 extremes which will favour 1 party by shafting the other or a middle ground that will offer peacemeal benefits to both be the approved economic model for the developed world? I just don’t see it -am I missing something vital here?

Anyway after the discussion at lunch he went away and thought about it and these were the questions he came up with:

Okay, so Communism works for what the people need, but what about what they want? Otherwise you have an entire state of people living mundane lives… what if i want to be instructed how to sail, or i want 2 laptops? or a bigger TV

But why do you implicitly assume that you should be able to have things that you may not need? Why in fact do you want things that you don’t need.
Sailing is a leisure pursuit and people need hobbies and leisure it is an important part of relaxation there is therefore no problem with learning how to sail.
2 laptops -why? If you can do what you need on one laptop why would you need another, it is only because you believe there is a certain status to do with quantitive acquisition that you feel 2 should be better than one. Can you use 2 at the same time, do you need to use 2 at the same time?
A bigger TV -why, are the programmes any better? Do you get more channels? If you need a TV with larger area for a reason such as eyesight or such like then sure that is a need but just big for big’s sake that’s absurd.
The problem is we have been brought up to believe that we should never be satisfied with what we have, we should always strive for more, the issue this creates is that it means we acquire like it is a duty and we rarely get to enjoy and appreciate what we have got because we always want more. This seems again a rather inefficient way of doing things it means you spend money on things you feel you ought to have and not on really what you want. So do you end up getting what you want or do you buy lots of meaningless purchases which prevent you ever having the money to buy what you want? How many people in all seriousness can look at all the stuff they have and say ‘no I was right to buy all that I needed it at least at the time’ there may be a couple of rather spartan spenders and good luck to them but I suspect the majority within which I place myself have a whole load of junk that seemed like a good idea at the time. Clothes that you look at now and think ‘what a shocker’. Electrical goods that were just gadget=ridden for the sake of it. Computer games that were never really played. etc. etc. I bought a Playstation PS1 a coupel of years ago -£75 it cost me and I got a couple of games and a decent gamepad so it was a bit over a ton. I was going to play games on it but the sort of games I was going to play I already had on my Mac and that was already set up and I didn’t need to hijack the TV to play so the PS1 sat in it’s box ever since. It could have been a DOA I should have at least tested it but I didn’t just one of those things.

Well I’ve come to the end of the train of thought but this is a work in progress so I may come back to it, in the meantime I’ll hang it out there for you to make comments.

Original Comments:


A visitor made this comment,
(drunk post, bare with me) we fall back on the ideological battle between communism and capitolism, democracy is left at the door step rightfully so.
I think what makes it most clear to me why Capitolism is more a realistic governing force is the old american proverb, “…but in theory communism works.” basicly when communism is in place, history tells us that less checks and balances exist to hawk over the elite policy makers. Although this is all simply theoretical ramblings, I think communism is harldly plausable today.

Haywood

[Redbaron responds -well Haywood you have come up with the old chesnut so thanks for that -I may actually devote a whole blog to the answer because it is the thing always fired off that communism’s a great idea in theory but couldn’t work in practice. Not that it’s ever been tried of course so the historical analogy is a false one. So you ahve capitalism which is a shit idea in theory and a worse idea in practice or Communism which is a good idea in theory with questions about it’s implementation in practice, hmmm tough choice but I know which model I’d rather work on.]

comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-23 09:01:48’} GMT+01

David S made this comment,
you’d rather work on Capitialism right?
only joking.
But seriously why have no Communist countries been successful and most importantly free societies. Russia collapsed, China doesn’t have a great record on human rights and North Korea is just doing brillantly.
So why don’t you say, Communism…I just don’t see how it works?
comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-23 12:52:46′} GMT+01

David S made this comment,
Oh and make your gutter narrower this blog is shockingly hard to read and a right mess
Visit me @ http://glasgowdave.blog-city.com

[Redbaron responds -Yes, Sir Glasgow Dave Sir, sorry Sir, right away Sir. I feel extremely chastised by Glasgow Dave!!! He’s right tho’ the gutter is too wide but what do you mean a right mess?!]

comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-23 12:54:16’} GMT+01

Bob Red made this comment,
Unto the masses came the baron of red, and he did visit upon the summit of bob reds blog, and he was bestowed with the heavy burden of the traveller which had 40 score hits. And throughout the land of blog city a small voice could be heard shouting “fooking yes!!! i am the 800th visitor… GET IN!!!!”
Here endeth the sermon, go now unto your blogs and rant, rant like the wind. For tomorrow more misfortune cometh to piss us off again!

Well done my son you are Mr 800!
Father Red ( a bit like father ted, just not as funny!)

comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-23 17:52:20’} GMT+01

Rachel made this comment,
well. look at the underlining basis in the cases where mothers drowned their children. and although everyone feels that no one could REALLY do that unless they were suffering from an obvious psychological malfunction, i can’t be sure if all were convicted or committed. the point has been made. as far as sex offenders are concerned, i honestly can’t come up with any answer better than there’s something wrong wiith them, or they went through something traumatic when they were children. but that doesn’t make it any better or easier to accept.
comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-24 02:18:22’} GMT+01

A visitor made this comment,
you just don’t get it? maybe because you are MYOPIC, STUPID, and you are a “LEFTIE”.
Oyo

[Redbaron responds – Mmm yeah that must be it. Actually to be precise I’m long-sighted rather than short-sighted, as for stupid well I’ll leave others to make up their mind on that one, I don’t consider myself an Albert Einstein but neither do I consider myself a George Bush! As for being a leftie well, my friend guilty as charged, and proud to be so. I do notice that you neither leave a link for any rebuttal nor do you actually make an arguement -what is it about the right that they seem so incapable of cogent thought -sorry silly of me it’s precisely because they’re incapable of coherent arguement that means they think they understand politics and drift to the right. I’m up for a ruck now, I think I’m going to have to go and give Valhalla a pasting!]

comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-25 10:08:02’} GMT+01

David S made this comment,
I was just meaning that the blog is a bit, well busy, small writting lots of similar colours, photo background isn’t in line. I’ve always given up on photo backgrounds because you always have parts that make the writting hard to read.
It justs seems a bit to cramped but its your blog, I was just trying to help.
Oh and you didn’t resppond to my first comment
Visit me @ http://glasgowdave.blog-city.com

comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-25 15:43:54′} GMT+01

A visitor made this comment,
Your PC.
Your ISP.
Your freaking clothes- if you do wear one. I can imagine you still living in a cave and swinging on trees.
And you still cannot get what capitalism is about? You smell it e everyday. Eat it everyday. Wear it. Enjoy it. And you still can’t get it?

Man, how stupid can anyone get?

Naidi

[Redbaron responds -and lo, no forwarding address how very surprising. I really wish the right-wingers who land here would at least make an attempt to defend their position rather than just hurl some abuse and piss off again. Naidi you’re point is rather badly made, just because I live in a society does not mean that society works – I have already cited the fact that regardless of what comparative comfort I live in it’s efficiency and authenticity is undermined by the fact that so many others do not and that it is based on accident of birth.
So to tackle your points chronologically.

My PC -sorry I don’t and never will use a PC, a trifling detail I agree but I thought I’d point it out.
My ISP -bearing in mind my ISP is shite I’m not sure you want to use them as a validation of capitalism.
My freaking clothes – if you wear one. Well my dear fellow let me first correct your grammar clothes being a plural noun one does not wear one clothe. Secondly surprising as it may seem being left-wing does not proclude the notion of clothing, sorry to disappoint you on that. However I try not to wear clothes that have been made using child/slave/exploited labour. This is called ethics, you wouldn’t have come across it before.
As regards smelling it every day -you’re quite right, it is a hell of a stench.
Enjoying it -you presumptuous bastard why do you think I’m a leftie?!
Stupid? Hmm do you guys all have the same Right-Wing special Thesaurus on your PCs? Try a new word, I could refer to you as imbecilic, moronic, idiotic, foolish, half-witted, imprudent, and that’s just for starters. Try to perfect your own personal insults it’ll make you feel better. Sorry I forgot fascism is all about conformity and uniformity isn’t it? Oh and Naidi can be found at http://crimsonarrows.blog-city.com/ tho’ I’m afraid it’s something of an asinine read!]

comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-26 04:24:40’} GMT+01

A visitor made this comment,
Redbaron, first of all, i love it when i get commies and leftist to respond like you did. anyway, its disgusting to read and see people whine about something they E N J O Y and employ everyday.
“I have already cited the fact that regardless of what comparative comfort I live in it’s efficiency and authenticity is undermined by the fact that so many others do not and that it is based on accident of birth.”

So what do you plan to do about it? Bask in the comfort and bitch about it at the same time?

NAIDI

[Redbaron responds -I’m glad you like to illicit a response, I am more than happy to discuss any points with you but I note you still do not actually address many points of the arguement. Firstly what is it that I am supposed to be whining about and enjoying at the same time?
Secondly basking in the comfort and bitching about it you’re quite right to infer this would be a bad thing and most hypocritical. Please be assured that I do not do so, this blog is but one of my outlets, I have others that I am not going to go into. Suffice to say there is plenty of bitching, no basking and a little bit of action thrown in as well]

comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-27 03:33:12’} GMT+01

A visitor made this comment,
Your closed-mindedness reflected in your rather “passionate” response. See, when I said “clothes” – and said “if you do wear one, you took tha “one” as a literal one. Do you have yo be formally informed that I was speaking in general terms, meaning if you do wear clothes!? I cannot imagine an ego like you walk around naked.
Naidi

[Redbaron responds -Sorry this comment doesn’t make sense to me, if you could elucidate I’ll try to tackle it, I’m not sure if it’s just semantically gibberish or arguementatively so.]

comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-27 05:00:26’} GMT+01

A visitor made this comment,
if you wish for the “semantically gibberish” to be clearer, I’d be glad make it so for ya:
Taking “clothes” as a collective noun (since you have been the one saying there is no such thing as “clothe”, which is of course, debatable because you can actually refer to a single item of it and call it a clothing, depending on how I as the writer would want it to be ) in my case, i took it as a unit–therefore the “one”.

Naidi

[Redbaron responds – “a clothing” hmm never heard that one -let’s call it artistic licence shall we?]

comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-28 02:15:56’} GMT+01

A visitor made this comment,
by the way, for one who has raised grammar and symantics issues on people, you might wanna reconsider changing your words “illicit a response” with “elicit a response”.
You want to elicit a response, not “illicit” one.

Naidi

comment added :: {ts ‘2004-05-28 02:45:51’} GMT+01

Advertisements