Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Tony Spencer" <tony AT tonyspencer.com>]

Thomas is absolutely right.  Entrpreneurs don't create businesses and throw
their personal savings on the line purely to help fellow mankind.  They do
it to make money and that's not a bad thing because in the process they hire
people, and if they are successful they hire a lot of people and make money
in the process.  

I'm hiring my first employees for my fledgling company as we speak.  Its
exciting for me to contribute to someone's salary and are my employees are
being screwed?  Absolutely not.

T O N Y  S P E N C E R
Notsleepy LLC
6512 Six Forks Rd.
Suite 502-B 
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919.848.0691
Mobile: 415.637.6481
tony AT tonyspencer.com 

  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:09 AM
> To: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> Subject: Re: [internetworkers] from the desk of Arianna Huffington
> 
> Alan MacHett wrote:
> > Given that, it strikes me as odd that you identify with the 
> Republicans. 
> > The Democrats are just as dyed-in-the-wool Capitalists, but the 
> > Republicans are more readily or widely associated with old-school, 
> > die-hard, all-about-me Capitalism (as you can tell from the 
> comments 
> > on the list, to which you've responded).
> > 
> > To be honest, I'm dumbfounded.  Until reading your emails, I would 
> > NEVER have associated 'Republican' or 'Free Market' with management 
> > having lower salaries than employees or with redistributing profit 
> > back to the community.  Well, I STILL don't associate those 
> things; I 
> > think you've mislabeled yourself.
> 
> Alan, I think that Don is saying that his employees 
> /currently/ earn more than he does from the business.  That's 
> because, as Owner of the business, Don's earnings come from 
> the profits of the business, and the profits are a little 
> lean just yet.  I infer, howevfer, that if things go 
> according to plan, the profits will be fat indeed, and that 
> Don will earn way more than his individual employees.  
> Capitalism in a nutshell.
> 
> Actually, as Philip says (quoted below), at its heart 
> Capitalism doesn't entail greed.  There are a number of 
> capitalistic businesses out there in which all of the 
> participants are compensated in proportion to their 
> contribution to the business.  At its most basic, Capitalism 
> is several people combining their resources to create a 
> business of far greater scope than any one of them could 
> individually, synergistically creating value, and sharing in 
> the profits derived from that value.
> 
> Tony Spencer wrote:
>  > Jeez.  I can't believe people still defend Marxism.
>  >
>  > Idealism at its worst!
> 
> Dude, you're saying that to a bunch of /Libertarians/!
> 
> You are also oversimplifying Marxism.  There's Marxism the 
> political movement, which springs from the same roots as 
> democracy, but which went awry (as noted) when implemented as 
> Soviet Communism. Then there's Marxism the political-economic 
> analysis, which was and still is an incredibly useful tool 
> for understanding the way the world works.  To sum up the 
> latter in three words:  "follow the money."
> 
> Marx recognized that as a practical matter, greed does enter 
> into Capitalism.  Capital is more than just people pooling 
> their resources into a business venture and synergistically 
> creating value.  It is about /extracting/ value from 
> resources and -- most of all -- from other people.  And using 
> the value thus created to amass more capital, more power, and 
> extract more value from more people.  Hence the inherent 
> confict between Capital and Labor.  Yada yada yada.  Setting 
> aside the value judgments, Marx's explanation of Capital 
> still makes eminent sense.
> 
> Marx thought that the conficting forces at work would lead to 
> Labor overthrowing Capital and eventually settling into a 
> system where there was no government and people shared 
> resources.  Kind of Libertarian, in a funny sort of way.  
> Marx was a brilliant economist, but not so hot as a 
> historical forecaster.
> 
> Phillip Rhodes wrote:
>  > Why not? Capitalism and Free Market aren't about 
> individuals not  > giving back to the community, etc.  
> "Socialism" (at least as it's  > commonly understood) is 
> about government based charity.
> 
> Socialism isn't about government-based charity.  The idea 
> behind Socialism that the best way to pool resources and look 
> after the common good is for the government to own and 
> administer all of the resources. 
> In particular, people are too greedy and self-interested to 
> adequately care for those who get screwed by fate or 
> economics, and that the state is in the best position to do so.
> 
>  > One of the
>  > reasons that Libertarians maintain that government charity 
> is not  > needed, is the belief that in the absence of it, 
> private charity  > would take it's place.
> 
> That reminds me of the joke about the physicist, the engineer 
> and the economist aboard the burning airplane, where the 
> economist says, "Assume a parachute."  Your assumption does 
> not reflect reality.
> 
>  > The relative greed and self-centeredness of individuals is 
> really a  > completely separate issue from whether  you live 
> in a socialist or  > capitalistic society.  In Soviet Russia 
> during the height of  > Communism (the ultimate form of 
> Socialism?) where there not  > individuals who managed to 
> accumulate great wealth while others went  > hungry?
> 
> That is probably true, but none of them got nearly as rich as 
> Rockefeller.  More true, probably, that some individuals 
> accumulated a lot of /power/ which, in that society, was 
> better currency than wealth.
> 
> The interesting thing about Russia is that between the fall 
> of the Soviet Union and sometime earlier this year, there was 
> a rampant capitalistic system in which a small number of 
> individuals took over the economic assets of the former state 
> and accumulated unprecedented wealth, while others . . . went 
> hungry.  There was little regulatory structure to manage the 
> capitalists.  The state was also poorly equipped to deliver 
> healthcare, utilities, infrastructure, and so forth.  In 
> particular, the state was unable to control the class of 
> gangsters who combined their power of violence with their 
> accumulating economic power to accumulate tremendouw wealth, 
> while others . . . went hungry.  Until Putin started 
> restoring the autocracy, modern Russia was probably the 
> closest system in history to a true Libertarian state.
> 
>  > Capitalism and "Free Market" economics do not 
> *necessarily* equal a  > selfish, "me first" attitude on the 
> part of everyone involved. Those  > attitudes transcend 
> political and economic affiliations, IMHO.
> 
> I think you explain there exactly why Libertarianism won't 
> work in real life.  This is the reality that your assumption 
> about charity does not take into account.
> 
> TaB
> 
> P.S.  Don't get me wrong here.  I believe in Capitalism.  I 
> have an MBA and I'm not afraid to use it.  But Capital alone 
> is not a panacea.  The State, alone, cannot provide 
> everything.  There's a balance to be found.
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list 
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
> 
>