Capitalism and Firefly
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 16:21
VIEWED: 10053
PAGE 5 of 11
@SergeantX:
The reason why I think that this is natural evolution is that in the beginning companies will earn money from there local surroundings. Then they may move to other towns/cities/etc. Then still not content they'll want to make some massive undertaking. Thus the idea of the corporation is a natural evolution of capatilism. At least that's my logic.
But, at least we agree that the playing feild should be leveled 
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:
Ethics have nothing to do with it.
Just because you say something, doesn't make it true.
Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:
How come the price of Gas, Milk, Water keeps going up? How about Rent in manhattan?
Well, some of it would be inflation, increased cost to transport goods, people will raise to a price that they think they can get away with, people will screw people out of as much money as possible (read: unethical - see it does play a role), etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:
How is people BID things up on Ebay to WAY over their Retail Value? Should the seller say " My God you bid way to much on this item, its retail price is far less. Let me refund the balance.
You are making an apples and oranges comparison here. This isn't something that is being sold on a store shelf, first come first serve; it's highest bidder. Selling at auction isn't about market value, it isn't about price gouging. It's purely about what it's worth to the people bidding, period. Thus the people bidding set the price, NOT the person who puts it up for auction.
ebay != store. Since we're talking about actual retail stores here, you're also going to have to explain to me/us how autions are relavent.
Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:
$20 you say is to High, is it to high for someone who Really wants it and cant find it any where else?
Yes. If market value says $3, then $20 is rather steep don't you think?
Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:
How about in 5 years when a 1st print of serenity will be worth $100? I bet $20 will seem like a steal then.
I'd hate to let you in on a secret, but 5 years from now isn't now. Since we are talking about now, this is a rather moot statement isn't it.
Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:
Wake up from this dream world you live in and open your eyes to the real life. Go back to school and learn about supply and demand.
I find it funny that when people refuse to agree with a certain type of person right off the hop, that certain type of person will imediately jump right to personal insults.
I'm actually well aware of this concept. Your problem is that you don't realize that in this case supply was/is still relavitly high, thus even by the supply/demand "rule", $20 is way too high.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sigma, I think you're misusing the term 'market value'. In a free market economy it means nothing more than how much something is being sold for. It is constantly in flux and dependent entirely on how much a customer is willing to pay. There's no central authority setting prices. That's why it says 'suggested retail' on the cover.
Now, I understand you're not in favor of the whole free market set up, which is fine. But you still have the same problem with deciding how much to charge people for items. (Even if you're suggesting just giving them away, someone still has to decide how much of a given item gets made and who gets them.) Who decides?
The safety valve in a free market, when someone makes an unreasonable decision (like trying to charge $20 for a comic book), is that you can look for a better price from another seller. But, if the prices are set by an authority of some sort, you're pretty much stuck with one price, take it or leave it. Isn't it better to have options in such a case?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is the most important point made in this entire thread.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The corps eventually amass enough power and money through the collective wealth of the shareholders that they can bend the government to their will.
The power is ultimately in the hands of government, not big business. Corporations spend millions (billions?) of dollars every year to influence the course of government in their favor. Why isn't it the other way around? Why aren't there gov't lobbyists stalking the halls of Microsoft begging for favors? Because government has the power. Large corporations beg at the feet of government for ways to FORCE the market in their favor, instead of competing honestly. Cable and Telecom companies constantly have lobbyist wars at all levels of government to obtain the rights to work in certain cities, use which phone lines, sell to which customers. The lowly consumer isn't allowed to choose between Comcast and Charter cable, for example, because the local government has already decided for you.
Capitalist nay-sayers blame corporate abuses on free markets - as if that's what we actually have (business in the U.S. is almost as regulated and taxed as those in socialist western Europe). The problem isn't that there are greedy, amoral, jerks in big business that will take advantage of the little guy every chance they get (which there are), it's that they can borrow the massive power of the government to do their bidding.
Some people say give the government MORE power - regulate, give favors, tax, interfere with ALL business even more than now, whether or not the business in question is even suspected of doing anything wrong.
Others say get to the source of the problem. Take the power away from the government. Don't allow them to hand out markets to begging corps like a king's indulgence. Don't allow gov'ts to give your house, or farm, or place of business to Home Depot for a bigger parking lot. (Yes, it's wrong of Home Depot to take it, but they couldn't if the gov't wasn't permitted to give it away in the first place).
In any economic system there will always be cheats, liars, and dirty bastards. The question is, do we allow them access to the institution with the monopoly on force in the country (government)? Or do we SEPARATE THE TWO ENTIRELY and force business to get the money they want by pleasing their customers?
Also, Nathan was absolutely right to do what he did. I think people put up with too much shit in general; as customers, as employees, as neighbors, as citizens. We need more like him, even if they are Canadian.
And finally, a most impressive and important point - [insert any SergeantX comment here].
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
In any economic system there will always be cheats, liars, and dirty bastards.
EXACTLY, Tiger.
Look at those living like kings in communist Russia a few years back, they weren't corporate but they used the system to live large. Whatever system is in place, those who worship greed will find a way to make it useful to them. Capitalism is just a really good tool for that, and allows for the maximum # of 'kings'.
I totally agree that the way to solve it is for government to have less power.
My condominium association where I live is a good example; the group was supposed to represent the will of all the owners, being owners themselves. But over the years people got on the board who owned, but didn't live here. They started to receive 'incentives' from the company managing the property to vote on issues in ways that favoured the company, not the owners. It was the work of two very dilligent souls that raised owner awareness to the problem, and through their tireless work, the management company was voted out by 51% of the owners (I'm making it sound a good deal simpler than it was here). We subsequently found out they were skimming thousands of $ a year through kickbacks and such. Golly, and they seemed like such nice folk...
Sounds like governments and corporations, huh?
Power to the people Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Look at those living like kings in communist Russia a few years back, they weren't corporate but they used the system to live large.
You mean after the collapse of communist russia when there was little or no system, perhaps?
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I mean before, you know, Stallinist Communist Facist white-haired guys runnin' the rubles (and developing the Firefox behind our backs)! The rulers, man! No-caviar-at-dinner-is-not-an-option types.
Originally posted by citizen:
You mean after the collapse or communist russia when there was little of no system, perhaps?
After the collapse we're talkin' the mob.
I'd like to see the ruler of ANY country drivin' a Saturn or a Hyundai - but we're gettin' off the topic (like that's ever been a big concern of mine...).
Educational Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see, so your likening present day capitalist corporations to the rulers of a Totalitarian dictatorship, organised crime, and possibly brutal murders like warlords.
Well, no argument here.
Big Execs and those types have a hell of alot in common.
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Like the dude in Die Hard said, some use a gun, some use a fountain pen, what's the difference?
I have two myself Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME