Harry,
I approve of a free market system which is the opposite to those mixed systems. Arthur Can you offer any examples? Outside of a textbook, that is. -----Original Message----- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:16 PM To: Selma Singer; Brad McCormick, Ed.D.; Ray Evans Harrell Cc: Mantle, Rosalyn; Anthony, David; Bradskey, Teresa; Cole, Karen Watters; Dawn Anthony; Downs , Jason; Dunn, Darcy; H, Joan; harrell, jane; Krueger, Jack A.; Sagowa; Sleigh, Ben and Roz; Watters, Valorie; futurework Subject: Re: Whining ("Stop it! And say: 'Thank you'! .... ) Selma, As you probably realize, I'm replying to the interesting posts that I put on one side to answer later. I use the word "capitalism" to describe what we have now. Capitalism, in practice, is not a lot different from socialism, in practice. They are both mixed economic systems in which there is a divide between the leaders and the followers. In both, there are the very well off and the poor. I approve of a free market system which is the opposite to those mixed systems. You say the bottom line for capitalism is making a profit. I assume you mean the companies in the economy. How may that profit be maximized? In an economy that is swollen with subsidies, protection, and market regulation - or in a market economy in which "cut throat competition" and the "Law of the Jungle" describe the arena in which they struggle to supply us with the things we want. I should say in passing that in any sensible economics, profit has no meaning. It is an accounting term meaning an excess of income over outgo. So you can have a balance - or you can give higher salaries to the owners to mop up the balance. Or you can have a "profit" which is really "set aside" money for necessary maintenance or new equipment purchase. Profit is just an accounting term. It doesn't even show a healthy firm. Maybe you get a "profit" by not replacing equipment you should replace. That's a no-no. In a free market, how can a "capitalist" (which is all of us) advance its own interests? Only by supplying consumers with what they want - and doing it better than competing capitalists. Isn't that an excellent way to improve the health of the community? The capitalist who best services the community will achieve the best profit. The capitalist who fails to supply the community with what they want will go broke - or will need to change his ways. Do you consider it untangled, Selma? Harry ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Selma wrote: >So, maybe you can help me out here, Harry. > >I need to have someone explain to me how capitalism can exist separately >from the power it generates to maximize its own interests as the >corporations do when the fix prices and ask for government bail-outs, etc. >etc. > >The bottom line for capitalism is making a profit; given today's >technologies, that's not easily done by small businesses; the logical >progression of things (certainly not a new idea-see Karl Marx) is for >businesses to become larger and larger until only one dominates in each >industry. We are already seeing that progression. The very principle of >either get bigger or die seems to me to be antithetical to the idea of >competition. > >What I need explained is, as I said above, how can capitalism be divorced >from trying to exert its power in its own interests since capitalism is >based on advancing its own interests and not the interests of anyone else. > >I know that theoretically, an intelligent capitalist will recognize that >her/his interests are served better when the community is healthy but even >theoretically that appears to offer a conflict with making the most profit. > >So can someone untangle this for me? > >Selma ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
