• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Economic Socialism: Commerce At The Service Of Humanity

PureX

Veteran Member
I have noted on a few occasions that one of the most basic flaws of "free market" economics is that it becomes all about profits, at the expense of pretty much everything else.

For example: we build houses in this country (The United States) to make money (profits) rather than for people to live in. And as a result, our houses are generally over-sized, over-priced, and poorly made. Big, expensive, and shoddily build houses create the biggest profits, so that's what we build. And we don't bother to consider their actual livability, or their efficiency down road, for the people who do end up living in them.

In fact, this whole idea of looking "down the road" for future quality of life pretty much flies out the window in a free market economy. Everything is about fast and immediate profitability, and nobody is looking into the future to see what the effects of this kind of economic behavior is having on them, and will likely have on succeeding generations. Mostly, no one cares. We're all too worried about getting whatever we can get out of today.

The end result, it seems to me, is an economic "system" that ends up being our master, rather than our servant. The short-sighted greed of one person forces everyone around him to play the same game just to keep up. All decisions get made based on immediate profits, rather then on the well-being of the people involved in the enterprise. And as a result, we all become enslaved by the profiteering. And the quality of our lives are diminished. At least of many of our lives. The profiteers are doing fine. But everyone else becomes their servant.

Our freedom is lost to the profiteering of a few, and we all end up serving the "system" just to get by.

I say that it's time for people to wake up and stop serving the economy as though it were our god. Commerce should serve us, not the other way around. Commerce that does not serve the well being of everyone involved should be banned, as it's not commerce at all, but exploitation disguised as commerce. Profiteering should not be the goal of a business enterprise. The goal should be raising the quality of life for everyone involved. We need a new business manifesto; a commercial declaration of just what is and will be considered good business practice, and what will not be acceptable. We need to define the difference between commerce and exploitation once and for all, and ban the latter. It's time we put commerce in it's place, as our servant, where it belongs!
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
Your economic utopia is easier said than done. You bash the free market system of economics and preach the notion of equality, but you seem to forget that your suggestions only work better on paper, than in reality. In reality, people need incentives to move forward and do things that requires efforts. Complete free market cannot work (and we do not have complete free market, i.e: regulations), just as complete socialism or communism cannot work. The free market is NOT the master. The free market is driven by the ambitions of the people and until you come up with a way to curb the ambitions of the people and the inherent trait of self-interest, your entire piece of writing is hot air and completely irrelevent. For future reference, some real information to back up your argument would be nice. For example, your suggestions of the greatness of socialism should be backed up by examples where equally large civlizations or societies (as the United States, for example) employing socialism or communism has better economic success, national prowress, higher standards of living, lower mortality rate, higher life expectancies, and other benefits.
 
Last edited:

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Your economic utopia is easier said than done.
Everything is.

You bash the free market system of economics and preach the notion of equality, but you seem to forget that your suggestions only work better on paper, than in reality. In reality, people need incentives to move forward and do things that requires efforts. Complete free market cannot work (and we do not have complete free market, i.e: regulations), just as complete socialism or communism cannot work. The free market is NOT the master. The free market is driven by the ambitions of the people and until you come up with a way to curb the ambitions of the people and the inherent trait of self-interest, your entire piece of writing is hot air and completely irrelevent.
How about producing a superior product, and profiting that way? What ever happened to craftmanship and pride in one's work? :(
 

Wandered Off

Sporadic Driveby Member
How about producing a superior product, and profiting that way? What ever happened to craftmanship and pride in one's work? :(
Wal Mart, among others, has shown us that many people value low prices more than they value craftsmanship or pride.

I think you often can find high-quality products, but they usually cost more. Most furniture, for example, is virtually disposable these days, but a few stores sell quality stuff for more money. They are struggling because people would rather buy disposable and replace it often.

Of course, part of that could be that we can't afford to buy quality stuff - sort of a "forced preference."
 

Wandered Off

Sporadic Driveby Member
In fact, this whole idea of looking "down the road" for future quality of life pretty much flies out the window in a free market economy.
I don't think it's the 'freedom of the market' that engenders the short-term focus. I think that's more generally cultural. A free market allows and perhaps amplifies the expression of it, but it is not the cause, IMO. In our past we have been more long-term focused while holding to market mechanisms. It wasn't always only about the stockholders. Interests of the company, stockholders, employees, and the community were better balanced, because the various "sides" realized they were all in the same big picture. Somewhere along the way, people began to emphasize the interests of their own subgroup and consider the other stakeholders adversarial.
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
Everything is.

...


How about producing a superior product, and profiting that way? What ever happened to craftmanship and pride in one's work? :(
Your logic is flawed because your conclusion has an underlying assumption that our system of free market does not produce superior products, when it fact, it most certainly does. Computers get faster every year, cell phones get smaller and superior every month, revolutions have happened to technologies in home place - televisions, LCD, wireless phones, IPODS, sound systems, heating systems, sound proof, green technologies - cars getting safer, faster, virtually everything is getting better.

All of these are the product of innovation, which is encouraged through copy rights, patents, trademarks, and other features that lets it's MAKERS PROFIT. This is why people strive to make newer better things - because there is a demand for the product and they can oust the competition.

What the original poster suggests is the same old dead horse of an idea - equality for all, free market is bad, etc etc. How much incentive would people have to make new innovations and technologies if they had to give up their pioneering thoughts or discoveries for the utilitarian goodness of mankind?

I can see that a lot of things sound good on paper, but in reality, things work differently. There is the human element. Our inherent traits of survival, self over others, self-interest, and ambitions.
 
Last edited:

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Depends on your standard of measurement, I suppose. Things may advance, but none of them last.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
...


Your logic is flawed because your conclusion has an underlying assumption that our system of free market does not produce superior products, when it fact, it most certainly does. Computers get faster every year, cell phones get smaller and superior every month, revolutions have happened to technologies in home place - televisions, LCD, wireless phones, IPODS, sound systems, heating systems, sound proof, green technologies - cars getting safer, faster, virtually everything is getting better.

All of these are the product of innovation, which is encouraged through copy rights, patents, trademarks, and other features that lets it's MAKERS PROFIT. This is why people strive to make newer better things - because there is a demand for the product and they can oust the competition.

What the original poster suggests is the same old dead horse of an idea - equality for all, free market is bad, etc etc. How much incentive would people have to make new innovations and technologies if they had to give up their pioneering thoughts or discoveries for the utilitarian goodness of mankind?

I can see that a lot of things sound good on paper, but in reality, things work differently. There is the human element. Our inherent traits of survival, self over others, self-interest, and ambitions.
But the bottom line is money, not quality. If I can make a better product for the same price as an inferior product, presumably my superior product will corner the market. But if my superior product costs more money than the inferior ones, which is most likely going to be the case, than in a profit driven economy/culture, the superior product will be sacrificed to the motive of profit. This is as true for the buyer as the seller.

The point is that we can't have it both ways most of the time. If profit is our goal, then quality is not our goal. And this is born out by the popularity of huge package stores that sell crappy products for less. These stores drain the communities they "serve" of capital, of jobs, and of better choices. But we don't care, as long as we get to save a few nickels and dimes.
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
How much incentive would people have to make new innovations and technologies if they had to give up their pioneering thoughts or discoveries for the utilitarian goodness of mankind?
I don't think anyone is suggesting we do away with personal incentives. Rather more consideration should go into more subjects than just profit.

This is why people strive to make newer better things - because there is a demand for the product and they can oust the competition.
Let's keep in mind "demand" is not interchangeable with "wants." Demand is the product of agreement between the producer and consumer, and in the American economy that usually favors the producer. This discrepancy between Wal-Mart and the normal consumer allows for big business to calculate the probable cost of lawsuits and still proceed with distributing faulty or dangerous goods.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: d.

d.

_______
In reality, people need incentives to move forward and do things that requires efforts.

'to move forward' can mean a lot of things. it doesn't necessarily mean smaller ipods.

people needs 'incentive' - or to be forced - to produce things they wouldn't produce spontaneously or volountarily, yes. perhaps if you would spend some time with poets or artists you'd find there's plenty of people who create things that are of immense value to others without any hope of economic compensation.

innovation,[...] is encouraged through copy rights, patents, trademarks, and other features that lets it's MAKERS PROFIT.

not necessarily. there is in fact a lot of environments where innovation is held back by copyrights, patents, trademarks and not least the constant requrirement that a product generates profit. for example, have you ever wondered why for every innovative tv show, there's a thousand that are exactly the same?

I can see that a lot of things sound good on paper, but in reality, things work differently.

you say that over and over again. nice words about incentive and better products aside, 58.5% of all americans will spend at least a year below the poverty line at some point in their lives. this is not because of a lack of resources. in reality, 'competition' means not only that some people win, but that the majority loses. reality can mean a lot of things. the question is : what kind of society do we want to live in?

Our inherent traits of survival, self over others, self-interest, and ambitions.

'inherent', or learned in a society who encourages those traits.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Is there a way to begin changing our greed oriented economy to a quality oriented one? After all, even greed is the servant of of the idea of a better quality of life. It's just a particularly selfish servant. Is there a way we could curb our greed for the goal of a better quality of life for all of us?

How could we do something like this as a nation?
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
But the bottom line is money, not quality. If I can make a better product for the same price as an inferior product, presumably my superior product will corner the market. But if my superior product costs more money than the inferior ones, which is most likely going to be the case, than in a profit driven economy/culture, the superior product will be sacrificed to the motive of profit. This is as true for the buyer as the seller.

The point is that we can't have it both ways most of the time. If profit is our goal, then quality is not our goal. And this is born out by the popularity of huge package stores that sell crappy products for less. These stores drain the communities they "serve" of capital, of jobs, and of better choices. But we don't care, as long as we get to save a few nickels and dimes.

What are you talking about? You're confusing a lot of things, mainly common sense. There are quality things out there, but what you suggest is that quality things must be made at a higher cost and sold at break even or close to it for the sake of having quality things for lower price. This is just not reality.

There's plenty of quality things, but it takes more money to make quality, and people don't always want quality. Would you rather buy a million dollar Bugatti Veyron, 200,000 ferarri, lamboghini, or 300,000 bentleys and a whole host of other cars (all of which takes hundreds of man hours due to hand built quality, etc) or buy a regular consumer car for a fraction of that price? If you choose the latter than the former, are you really going to complain about "quality" when quality is already out there?

The only argument that I see here is that quality costs and that you want quality to be available at a lower cost. That's not even much of an argument as it is a complaint ...
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
I don't think anyone is suggesting we do away with personal incentives. Rather more consideration should go into more subjects than just profit.

There are other subjects more than profits ... but profit drives businesses. There's ethics, yes, social responsibility, sure - but above all, profit is the main tenet of any business and anyone who suggests otherwise understates the main motive behind every business out there in the free markets - to make money.


Let's keep in mind "demand" is not interchangeable with "wants." Demand is the product of agreement between the producer and consumer, and in the American economy that usually favors the producer. This discrepancy between Wal-Mart and the normal consumer allows for big business to calculate the probable cost of lawsuits and still proceed with distributing faulty or dangerous goods.

Demand and want are two different words with two different meanings, so I wouldn't even assume they're interchangable to begin with ... but okay. There is always an inferior good, a normal good, and a superior good - all on the scale of quality. Each with its own price tag and the examples you speak of is demand at work - not "want." The choice is there for many consumer goods at different levels of quality, but it is up to us to choose how much we want to pay, or how little. That is natural - that is free market capitalism. Anything that would force producers of quality products to make the same quality goods but at artifically lower prices would ultimately restrict choices as producers would scale down their production at a lower profit margin - economics 101?
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
'to move forward' can mean a lot of things. it doesn't necessarily mean smaller ipods.

people needs 'incentive' - or to be forced - to produce things they wouldn't produce spontaneously or volountarily, yes. perhaps if you would spend some time with poets or artists you'd find there's plenty of people who create things that are of immense value to others without any hope of economic compensation.

Okay ... that's great for those people. They must not be very good, though. Someone who is good at what they do is not afraid of charging or receiving some form of compensation. And even those who do free work often want to get their names out there for either noteriety or for future profits sake.

In either case, I hope you understand that the world or any business cannot operate with the suggestions you're making ...


not necessarily. there is in fact a lot of environments where innovation is held back by copyrights, patents, trademarks and not least the constant requrirement that a product generates profit. for example, have you ever wondered why for every innovative tv show, there's a thousand that are exactly the same?

innovation is held back by copyrights patents and trademarks? Yea, it's called rip-offs and stolen intellectual proeperties that are being held back - both of which are not innovation. Innovation is original and giving protection to those who originates useful ideas to society are given the right to profit from it because self-interest is innate. FYI: your example makes no sense.


... in reality, 'competition' means not only that some people win, but that the majority loses. reality can mean a lot of things. the question is : what kind of society do we want to live in?

That's weak talk. Competition is supposedly bad now? BS. Competition is the reason why you try hard at work, at school, at dressing nice so someone from the other sex will consider you - all of which is because of competition. If anyone has reached a point in their lives where competition seems somehow useless, they're either very old or failures and have given up. Competition drives innovation and everything we have that is great has come from some form of competition - sports, inventions, our country, land, military, cheap cars, cheap clothes, discounts, sales, etc.
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
Is there a way to begin changing our greed oriented economy to a quality oriented one? After all, even greed is the servant of of the idea of a better quality of life. It's just a particularly selfish servant. Is there a way we could curb our greed for the goal of a better quality of life for all of us?

How could we do something like this as a nation?

I'm starting to believe that you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Is it hard to comprehend that profit doesn't equate to greed? There are already quality products but our entire economy cannot support quality because people cannot afford quality. A lot of people are poor comparatively to those who prefer and can afford quality. Your arguments keep having false premises - mainly that there either our economy doesn't have quality products or that we are not quality oriented. No economy is ever quality oriented, since not everyone in the population will be able to afford quality. A viable economy has to offer products and qualities at different levels of income - low, moderate, and high.

Simple answer comes back to self-interest and competition. Work hard, make money, and anyone can afford quality - but it's artificially manipulating the economy so people who cannot afford quality are given quality by forcing producers to produce at some break even or loss cost - which by the way is one of the few ways possible to achieve the results that you are advocating.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I'm starting to believe that you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Is it hard to comprehend that profit doesn't equate to greed? There are already quality products but our entire economy cannot support quality because people cannot afford quality. A lot of people are poor comparatively to those who prefer and can afford quality. Your arguments keep having false premises - mainly that there either our economy doesn't have quality products or that we are not quality oriented. No economy is ever quality oriented, since not everyone in the population will be able to afford quality. A viable economy has to offer products and qualities at different levels of income - low, moderate, and high.

Simple answer comes back to self-interest and competition. Work hard, make money, and anyone can afford quality - but it's artificially manipulating the economy so people who cannot afford quality are given quality by forcing producers to produce at some break even or loss cost - which by the way is one of the few ways possible to achieve the results that you are advocating.
Commerce is the trading of goods and services, one person to another, to the benefit of both. For example. I like to make spears, and because I like doing it, I'm good at it. My neighbor likes hunting, and because he likes doing it, he's good at it. I'm not very good at hunting because I don't like doing it, and my neighbor isn't very good at making spears because he doesn't like doing it. So it would be to both of our benefit to make a deal, where I make spears all day, and give him some of them, so that he can hunt all day. And in return he will give me some of the meat he acquires on the hunt.

He'll bring in more game as a result because he'll have more time to hunt and he'll have better spears to hunt with. So the game he gives me doesn't short him. And I'll get food in return for doing what I enjoy and am good at: making spears, without my having to go and hunt for it. And the extra spears I can make with this extra time can be traded away to him without shorting me in any way. Both our productivity is increased by focussing our energy and time on what we're good at. And both our quality of life is increased by this trade. This is the rightful purpose of commerce.

Where it falls off track is when we confuse commerce with exploitation. We want all the quality in the deal, and we don't want to leave anything to the other guy. This happens when we're no longer trading goods and services directly with people, but instead are trading for money. For example, let's say our neighbor the hunter comes back from the woods with his cache of meat and takes it to the cooking hut. They take his meat and depending on how much he gives them, they give him some wooden meal vouchers in return. He can come back at any time and eat a cooked meal for one of those vouchers. He can also trade the vouchers to others, if he wants to, for some other goods or services. So he goes walking around the village looking to trade some of his meal vouchers for some things he might find useful or desirable.

Later, when he returns to the meal hut, he has just two meal tickets left. One for now, and one for breakfast in the morning before going back out hunting the next day. But the cooks want two vouchers for a meal, now. They say he's too big and will eat more than an average size meal. Or they say that hunting has been poor and they don't have a lot of food to sell, so the prices have gone up. Whatever the excuse, they are exploiting their position as cooks to cheat other people out of their rightful share of the deal. This happens because they are no longer interested in feeding the village. Now they just want to make a profit. And because the village must eat, the cooks can get away with such profiteering.

This is what I was referring to by the loss of quality in our commerce. A higher quality of life for all, as the goal, is exchanged for the unbounded greed of the few and for how thoroughly they can exploit their fellows. Greed, fueled by the abstract (all powerful) nature of money, becomes the goal of economic interaction, rather than improving everyone's quality of life.
 
Last edited:

d.

_______
Okay ... that's great for those people. They must not be very good, though.

Someone who is good at what they do is not afraid of charging or receiving some form of compensation.

there's no link between being 'very good' at art and generating profit. in fact, caring about artistic value is often in opposition to making money off your art.

In either case, I hope you understand that the world or any business cannot operate with the suggestions you're making ...

the world can 'operate' just fine. but i'm not necessarily making any 'suggestions' here. i'm pointing out that your givens aren't necessarily givens.

FYI: your example makes no sense.

thanks for the 'I'.:flirt: i'll explain it to you :

people who produce TV shows will try to repeat past successes. they do this by trying to replicate the 'winning formula' more or less exactly. this results in a lot of very similar TV shows. this kind of thinking is completely logical from a business perspective, but from a artistic/creative perspective we get a lot of repetitive, boring TV shows.


That's weak talk.

this is a discussion forum, not a PE class.

Competition is supposedly bad now?

competition can be very entertaining. i play a lot of chess myself. i'm saying that competition implies a winner and a loser. and that that has certain concrete implications for a society.

Competition is the reason why you try hard at work, at school,

it's not, i assure you. even if that seems an alien concept to you, it's not for everyone.
 
Top