A Capitalist Critiques Capitalism

[Perknose]

Nick Hanauer, in a Ted Talk.

He does, however, puncture the idea that capitalist are "job creators."

He says, "When business people take credit for creating jobs, it's like squirrels taking credit for evolution."

But don't let that sound bite, click bait type quote turn you off. Nanauer makes a deeply persuasive case, in a highly technical way, that it's consumer demand that creates jobs, and that when you eviscerate the middle class, you eviscerate that demand, in a vicious, downward cycle.

I agree.

This is exactly why Henry Ford unilaterally decided to pay his workers the then exorbitant sum of $5 a day . . . so they could afford the product he was producing!

If you've got the time, listen to all, or at least most, of his hour plus talk.

 

[KeithP]

This is exactly why Henry Ford unilaterally decided to pay his workers the then exorbitant sum of $5 a day . . . so they could afford the product he was producing!

Completely false...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...ridiculous-15-an-hour-mcdonalds-minimum-wage/

Ford didn’t raise wages so that his workers could afford his cars. What actually happened is that he hired and then lost some 52,000 workers a year in order to have a stable workforce of 14,000. This obviously had vast costs in trying to hire and then train all of these workers: as well as the costs when they walked off the assembly line disrupting production. The doubling of wages to $5 a day reduced those costs by more than the extra pay cost him. Which is why he did it.

The "capitalist" in question supports a $15 minimum wage, I don't think he really has much to say to other than the standard left talking points. In short, he is wrong.

-KeithP

 

[sm625]

If Ford were alive today, he would buy a bunch of robots and use the labor cost savings to buy back more stock. And import 90% of the car parts.

 

[Rebel_L]

I don't believe Ford is ever mentioned in the talk, he actually specifically states during the talk that one company alone doing this will only hurt itself, it needs a system wide adaptation (hence can be done via national minimum wage).

It was an interesting talk, he seems a little too assertive that he's right for the amount of explanation he gives for why his way is the way to go, but maybe I tuned out some of that as I was doing a couple of things while listening.

 

[bradley]

If Ford were alive today, he would buy a bunch of robots and use the labor cost savings to buy back more stock. And import 90% of the car parts.

If Ford were truly smart enough, he would have patented the production line. Thankfully he wasn't perceptive enough stifle the very type of idea advancement and innovation we enjoy today. This is an example of capitalism inadvertently at its best.

Capitalism isn't nearly as broken as the patent system, also corrupted banking, improper regulation and a politicized court system. Today's capitalism no longer supports new ideas as much as the power of the status quo.

Anyhow, remove all the conveniences of this modern civilization and you are left with a very capitalistic base. Those who don't forage for food or build shelter during the day don't eat or sleep at night.

Oh, btw, Ford was also a virulent antisemite of whom Hitler was a huge disciple... just in case anyone romanticizes the dude too much.

 

[sm625]

True enough. What we have today is definitely NOT capitalism. It is National Socialism, to the core. When huge corporations get in trouble, the central bank prints trillions to bail them out. They take those trillions and use it to buy back their own stock and give out dividends. All of it was just an offhand way of giving trillions to the richest 1%. Then the ex chairman of the central bank has the gall to say that he did not contribute to wealth inequality!

 

[Dessicant]

Nick Hanauer, in a Ted Talk.

He does, however, puncture the idea that capitalist are "job creators."

He says, "When business people take credit for creating jobs, it's like squirrels taking credit for evolution."

But don't let that sound bite, click bait type quote turn you off. Nanauer makes a deeply persuasive case, in a highly technical way, that it's consumer demand that creates jobs, and that when you eviscerate the middle class, you eviscerate that demand, in a vicious, downward cycle.

I agree.

This is exactly why Henry Ford unilaterally decided to pay his workers the then exorbitant sum of $5 a day . . . so they could afford the product he was producing!

If you've got the time, listen to all, or at least most, of his hour plus talk.

Utter nonsense. Capitalists are not only job creators, they are life creators. Everything we have in this society that is cool and amazing results from greed, the profit motive, and capitalistic advancement based on self-interest and individual achievement. There are the creators and the leeches, and the creators define and embody Caapitalism hook, line, sinker, and ocean.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are the creators and the leeches......

Which are you?

 

[Paul98]

Utter nonsense. Capitalists are not only job creators, they are life creators. Everything we have in this society that is cool and amazing results from greed, the profit motive, and capitalistic advancement based on self-interest and individual achievement. There are the creators and the leeches, and the creators define and embody Caapitalism hook, line, sinker, and ocean.

Pure and utter BS

 

[norseamd]

Utter nonsense. Capitalists are not only job creators, they are life creators. Everything we have in this society that is cool and amazing results from greed, the profit motive, and capitalistic advancement based on self-interest and individual achievement. There are the creators and the leeches, and the creators define and embody Caapitalism hook, line, sinker, and ocean.

You know I am not certain how much egotism and ideological delusion must advance for a comment like this to even make sense as morally acceptable in your psychology.

 

[OverVolt]

We aren't in capitalism. In capitalism AIG, BAC, GM, and a whole host of others would have gone bankrupt.

 

[master_shake_]

Utter nonsense. Capitalists are not only job creators, they are life creators. Everything we have in this society that is cool and amazing results from greed, the profit motive, and capitalistic advancement based on self-interest and individual achievement. There are the creators and the leeches, and the creators define and embody Caapitalism hook, line, sinker, and ocean.

because people didn't fuck before capitalism was created right?

 

[OverVolt]

because people didn't fuck before capitalism was created right?

Because more food.

 

[Charmonium]

I didn't watch the talk but as a general rule, he's correct. About 70% of GDP comes from consumer spending. The more people you have that make enough money to buy shit - the greater your GDP. That's simple math. Even China is trying to shift more of their GDP to personal consumption. Currently, they have a primarily export driven economy. That's why they are trying to stimulate the growth of their middle class.

When you have a highly stratified consumer base, meaning one that has a very small percentage of wealthy people and many times more who are living on subsistence incomes, that drives down consumer demand and therefore GDP.

People tend to spend more the more they make. But that only applies up to a certain point. The person who makes $2M per year doesn't spend the same proportion of their income on consumption as the person who makes $200k. After a certain point, the more you make, the more you invest, not spend.

Since unregulated capitalism tends to favor the concentration of wealth, it is the job of government to attempt to prevent gross imbalances.

 

[Moonbeam]

Completely false...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...ridiculous-15-an-hour-mcdonalds-minimum-wage/



The "capitalist" in question supports a $15 minimum wage, I don't think he really has much to say to other than the standard left talking points. In short, he is wrong.

-KeithP

Utter nonsense. Capitalists are not only job creators, they are life creators. Everything we have in this society that is cool and amazing results from greed, the profit motive, and capitalistic advancement based on self-interest and individual achievement. There are the creators and the leeches, and the creators define and embody Caapitalism hook, line, sinker, and ocean.

The thing about these posts is that they don't belong in the discussion forum because they are nothing more than pronouncements and discuss nothing.

Mr. Hanauer states in his talk that everything we have been taught about economics is wrong and makes a case for it, then two recorded messages say it ain't so and nothing else. WEEEEEEEEEEE, what fun. These two posters don't know Jack from Shinola. See how easy it is to learn um.

 

[bononos]

Nick Hanauer, in a Ted Talk.

He does, however, puncture the idea that capitalist are "job creators."

He says, "When business people take credit for creating jobs, it's like squirrels taking credit for evolution."
......

Nick Hanauer was also in the 2013 documentary Inequality for All.

 

[Dessicant]

Nick Hanauer, in a Ted Talk.

He does, however, puncture the idea that capitalist are "job creators."

He says, "When business people take credit for creating jobs, it's like squirrels taking credit for evolution."

But don't let that sound bite, click bait type quote turn you off. Nanauer makes a deeply persuasive case, in a highly technical way, that it's consumer demand that creates jobs, and that when you eviscerate the middle class, you eviscerate that demand, in a vicious, downward cycle.

I agree.

This is exactly why Henry Ford unilaterally decided to pay his workers the then exorbitant sum of $5 a day . . . so they could afford the product he was producing!

If you've got the time, listen to all, or at least most, of his hour plus talk.

This interview proves that you do not have to understand economics or philosophy to a) be a success or b) discuss economics and philosophy. Mr. Hanauer is a common utilitarian-collectivist. His fundamental premise stressing the primacy of consumer demand is utterly foolish and falls apart under even cursory examination. What he builds upon that squishy foundation is of course irrelevant.

 

[Craig234]

I didn't watch the talk but I agree with the OP description of the talk.

I agree the OP above challenging the Henry Ford story as raising wages so they could afford to buy the cars. That message would be propaganda.

It doesn't make any economic sense. Ford's customer base was the country. He could hardly make a dent in his sales that way, and it'd be a very expensive way to get each sale - he might as well give them the cars for free as pay them more they then pay back to him for the car. What he would do is help his competitors underprice him.

The explanation about less turnover is what makes sense.

At a societal level it does make sense to have 'workers able to buy products'. On a global level that's hardly the case - Chinese workers making things for the US they can't afford - but we'd like a consumer class in the US. But that is done with broad policies, not company by company.

We're in pretty big trouble. Globalization, growing global equality that is good morally and good for others but will make the US less able to benefit from cheap labor, our move to plutocracy, the loss of our effective democracy as it is taken over by the servants of the wealthy, these so-called trade agreements that cripple elected governments' power to pass laws, and so on.

A Ted talk can be correct, but it doesn't change the policies or forces causing them.

I can point at Byron Dorgon's Senate speech warning de-regulation would cause a banking crash - but it passed and it did.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This interview proves that you do not have to understand economics or philosophy to a) be a success or b) discuss economics and philosophy.

I don't know that he proves that, but I also won't discount that it might be true.

Mr. Hanauer is a common utilitarian-collectivist.

Perhaps, but that does not make him wrong either.

His fundamental premise stressing the primacy of consumer demand is utterly foolish and falls apart under even cursory examination. What he builds upon that squishy foundation is of course irrelevant.

Oh good, then it should be no problem for you to tell us why? I see that you failed to do so. If you want your thoughts taken seriously when posting something in a discussion forum you should actually support your claims. Mr. Hanauer gives us support for his claims. Perhaps the are wrong? We don't know because you failed to refute them.

 

[Charmonium]

I didn't watch the talk but I agree with the OP description of the talk.

I agree the OP above challenging the Henry Ford story as raising wages so they could afford to buy the cars. That message would be propaganda.

It doesn't make any economic sense. Ford's customer base was the country. He could hardly make a dent in his sales that way, and it'd be a very expensive way to get each sale - he might as well give them the cars for free as pay them more they then pay back to him for the car. What he would do is help his competitors underprice him.

The explanation about less turnover is what makes sense.

At a societal level it does make sense to have 'workers able to buy products'. On a global level that's hardly the case - Chinese workers making things for the US they can't afford - but we'd like a consumer class in the US. But that is done with broad policies, not company by company.

We're in pretty big trouble. Globalization, growing equality that is good morally and good for others but will make the US less able to benefit from cheap labor, our move to plutocracy, the loss of our effective democracy as it is taken over by the servants of the wealthy, these so-called trade agreements that cripple elected governments' power to pass laws, and so on.

A Ted talk can be correct, but it doesn't change the policies or forces causing them.

I can point at Byron Dorgon's Senate speech warning de-regulation would cause a banking crash - but it passed and it did.

Good points. This is why people need to be concerned with the supreme court. Politicians have always been in the pocket of business but that was starting to change with campaign contribution restrictions.

It was the SC's decision in Citizens United that really opened the door to unfettered control of the political process. Now people like the Koch brothers can pour billions into a campaign and allow their candidate to out-shout everyone else.

And the SC is dominated by conservatives. You can argue that it's really split with Kennedy often having the deciding vote but Kennedy tends to lean conservative and was the swing vote in Citizens United.

 

[PingviN]

Anyhow, remove all the conveniences of this modern civilization and you are left with a very capitalistic base. Those who don't forage for food or build shelter during the day don't eat or sleep at night.

That's not really capitalism though.

 

[norseamd]

That's not really capitalism though.

Exactly.

Even libertarianism is more accurate although not even sure if that is that accurate of a description.

 

[Caravaggio]

Utter nonsense. Capitalists are not only job creators, they are life creators. Everything we have in this society that is cool and amazing results from greed, the profit motive

Drivel.
I sense that you have become over-excited after reading the first edition of F. A. Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom' but you have neglected to read the far more nuanced introduction to the more balanced 1956 US paperback edition. Few other Americans have read it either, but as Bruce Caldwell (the ultimate expert here) strongly suggests, it adds subtle truths you clearly cannot comprehend.

(Read: The Road to Serfdom, text and documents, ed. Bruce Caldwell, The Definitive Edition. Uni Chicago Press. 2007)

Should you want to do serious research as well as rant, try 'Capital in the 21st century' (2014) by Thomas Piketty. (he is a French economics Prof. but US academics paid for his work to be translated for people like you). The book is Belknap/Harvard, ISBN 978 9674 4300 6. It is on my desk now, should you wish to have an informed debate.
First...

Try a cold shower.

 

[Craig234]

Greed has its place - and that place falls short of the cult worship some people give it.

If it was about greed, then everyone would be watching a chance to steal from everyone around them with the only deterrent being criminal punishment.

And that's not how people are.

If greed was the only thing then we'd still have slavery.

But when you point this out to the cultists they start trying to play word games to try to keep their cult.

When you say, 'millions of people who have been helped by Bill Gates' philanthropy and that's not greed', you tend to get two responses from the cultists.

One is that the fact he feels good about the charity somehow makes it greedy he's doing it. A lie to avoid admitting they're wrong.

The second is to take at least a consolation prize by saying that the greed system is what let him get all that money to use for it, so it's still a good thing.

Ignoring a few things, besides how 'greed' isn't behind the charity, but including their error in discounting how a democracy deciding to tax and spend on a good cause is far more effective than charity generally. They don't want to admit that so they just say it's not the case.

Greed is part of the picture, but there's a lot more, including people saying things like 'we'd like an educated public, so let's have good public education'.

A lot is not about greed, but the cultist like the nice simply and contrarian claim otherwise, like the sociopath Ayn Rand, 'selfish is good, not selfish is evil'.

There's a nugget of truth to recognizing the role of selfish in the economy. These people take it way too far.

And when it comes to things like saying the people who make the most should pay a level of taxes for the good of society, these people fight it, with very harmful approaches.

 

[Moonbeam]

Greed has its place - and that place falls short of the cult worship some people give it.

If it was about greed, then everyone would be watching a chance to steal from everyone around them with the only deterrent being criminal punishment.

And that's not how people are.

As I see it, nature has imposed on us a context in which we exist, our survival into the future modified by survival of the fittest. I believe that the evolution of intelligence as a survival mechanism, the ability to transmit culture through language, would not have been possible if human beings were not social creatures. And the only way that societies survive is by cooperation. So there are two vectors that determine a person's survival chances, the extent to which he can secure his own life in a competitive environment, and the extent to which his society contributes to his survival. We are thus not only driven by the same impulses that solitary animals are, but by our later development of adaptability in society.

The result, in my opinion, is that what you can see of your own nature depends to a great deal on what you have had to survive, meaning, that if you have had to struggle to stay alive, if your life has been harsh, you will have a lot of faith in your greed, but if you have had stability and security as a child, your altruistic nature will remain more in tact.

The problem with having grown up in hardship is that it is difficult to relax or to have any faith in the good intentions of others. And since all of our philosophies and religious impulses will be driven by folk who are altruistic there will grow up around greed a certain distain. And since the ego doesn't want to see the self as having any kind of fault, a counter religion of greed is good is inevitable.

I have heard that Bill Gates was once a beast of a person and I wonder if one day he didn't wake up to the realization that he had become a God of Greed and found it essentially empty.