"Next!"
"Go ahead Barry, Pelosi, and Reid, spend like crazy, the Chinese are suckers"
This is free market capitalism?
Posted on 12/28/2010 7:14:11 AM PST by verdugo
From Toward A Truly Free Market, by John C. Medaille:
G.K Chesterton put the problem like this:
Capitalism is contradictory as soon as it is complete. For the master is always trying to cut down what his servant demands, and in doing so is cutting down on what his customer can spend. He is wanting to treat the same man in contradictory ways: He wants to pay him like a pauper but expects him to spend like a prince.
There. Fixed it.
But in that summary, he speaks of the contradiction of treating your employees/"servants" in one manner and expecting them, as customers to spend in another. That need to find balance, to price your products appropriately and to compete for the customers is what makes capitalism function
Actually, now that I tried to read the rest of it... I see you did not provide a link and all I have to judge by is the short description here. Based on this, I stand by my statements, this is what makes capitalism work and work better than any other system on the planet.
"If an employer fails to understand this concept and underpays his employees, his more productive employees will move to a company that pays the proper amount."
The employer relocates his manufacturing to China, and underpays big time. All other employers have to do same or else they are uncompetitive. Productive worker is now among the unemployed.
How does your "parabola" handle that?
Explain yourself please. What Chesterton wrote of capitlsm contains no beauty, a country of many paupers and few rich, is not a place where any free man would choose to live in.
Chesterton does not say: “treating your employees/”servants” in one manner and expecting them, as customers to spend in another. That need to find balance, to price your products appropriately and to compete for the customers is what makes capitalism function”
Chesterton says the Master: “wants to pay him like a pauper but expects him to spend like a prince”.
Chesterton speaks nothing about a fare wage, or anything about the treatment of the employees. He is talking only about an unjust wage. “wants to pay him like a pauper but expects him to spend like a prince”.
I was cut off by a call, let me continue: Chesterton speaks nothing about a fare wage, or anything about the treatment of the employees. He is talking only about an unjust wage. “wants to pay him like a pauper but expects him to spend like a prince”.
The Master ideally wants to pay Chicom wages and have his customers spend like the rich & famous.
He doesn't "underpay" at all. He pays a competitive wage rate for the area he's in. If he does try to underpay, he won't have any competent Chinese employees.
Most of the comments here have been quite reasonable and pro-capitalism. But those of you who insist on whining about big corporations are always free under capitalism to work for yourselves.
Yeah, yeah, I know -- but it's haaaaaard.
I’ll have more to comment when I can read the rest of the article. But whatever this socialist cares to call it, keeping expenses low is part of competing for sales. If that means paying your employees at the lowest rate practical, well ok... so what? That IS the nature of competition
In my experience, anyone that says: "This really isn't that difficult", does not know the nuts and bolts of the subject. Practically EVERYTHING is "difficult", complicated, once you know the details.
re:The employer has to provide the best bargain when selling his goods and so must the employee offer the best bargain when trying to “sell” his labor".
Where does "the employee offer the best bargain when trying to sell his labor", when the employer, to provide the best bargain, moves to China?
You are programed to have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that criticizes the term capitalism. The USA is no longer a capitalist country in the sense of the word as you defend it.
I lost my country to communism, I know what liberty and freedom are, don't blind yourself, there has not been one socialist posting on this thread.
You know we're pretty far down a slippery slope when lobbying for government mandates is a far more effective way to increase your company's performance than producing something of value for your customers.
The employee has two choices: learn skills that make him more valuable or work for a lower cost. This places a huge emphasis on education, something that is very broken right now. But that is another subject.
Right now is really tough for people looking for work. I understand. Believe me, I understand. But just a few years ago this country had virtually full employment even with substantial outsourcing. Cutting off a market to prevent outsourcing also cuts off that market for our products, ideas and capital. It also raises the cost of living.
As for the difficultly question, I didn't say it wasn't complex, but the basic concept is not hard to understand. I have been both an employee and an employer. I know what it's like to look for a job for myself and to look for a job for my architecture firm. It can be very hard to execute, but the concept really isn't that difficult.
SAY, (as in Say’s Law) this is indeed an interesting subject.
We’ve lost our ‘competitive edge’ as in fewer understand ‘value creation’. That’s the fault of society.
We need more education not indoctrination.
Too many intelligent individuals went to get rich on Wall Street instead of becoming the innovative engineers and research scientists we need for the future.
And now the FIRE economy is up in smoke and no one knows how to ‘create’ any more.
We need to petition for free access!
I also had to exchange emails with my engineering consultants because a prospective client we met with yesterday is not willing to pay what we first asked for the services he needs. We have to find a way to become more efficient and get our engineers to become more efficient... or find a way to convince our client that our fees are worth paying for the level of service we will provide... or we don't get the job.
You claim I don't know the nuts and bolts of the subject. I think I have a pretty good understanding.
re: The employee has two choices: learn skills that make him more valuable or work for a lower cost. This places a huge emphasis on education, something that is very broken right now.
If the jobs go overseas, there are very few jobs left to “educate” for.
In the end, it comes down to who do you want to help, your neighbors around you, or someone in China. When your neighbor has no choice, but to come for your pocket, directly (theft or greed) or through the government (taxes)), you will understand who you had to help.
I disagree. There may be fewer unskilled labor jobs, but more knowledge intensive jobs such as computer programming or architecture or finance or any number of new and inventive professions. A few years ago the leftist argument for illegal immigration was that they did jobs that Americans were unwilling to do. I don't know that I buy that, but assuming it's true, why do you think Americans are unwilling to do certain jobs?
Just out of interest, what do you do for a living?
One more thing... please post the link to the source article for this thread. I’d like to read it in more depth. Thanks.
Nice post.
How do you read IRA’s, 401K’s, and other individually owned pension funds? Do they encourage the mandarin class of professional corporation and fund managers?
Clearly paperwork creating bureaucracies like the SEC and the many retirement fund oversight agencies do so.
I myself have dealt in 100’s of different manufacturing processes, that is, the manufacturing of totally different, unrelated products, from cars to candy. When you do that, you quickly learn that their are details in every endeavor. Economics is not “very simple”.In my experience, nothing is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.