From the article: And if the false charge against capitalism is that it allows "the strong" to exploit "the weak," …

That is not a false charge. The dialogue is not going to go anywhere as long as chowderheads like this author insist that capitalism is the system of the high-minded and honorable and its greatest beneficiaries should be canonized.

The false charge is that exploiting the weak is capitalism's only purpose.

Three sisters on welfare get $540,000 over three years (about $60,000 per year each) for babysitting their own children - all legal.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/38309864.html

Sorry, doombuggy, but I quoted from the article directly. It claimed that "capitalism … allows the strong to exploit the weak" was a "false charge." "Allows." Not, "is its only purpose."

Capitalism certainly does allow the strong to exploit the weak. It's called massive layoffs and outsourcing of jobs.

The previous administration enabled this policy with the idiotic notion that if you give the rich a tax cuts, they'll create more jobs. Yeah, right. What the "rich" did was saw that even more money was coming in with their tax cuts and were determined to keep it. Not generously create more jobs out of the goodness of their hearts. If they needed more employees, they outsourced the jobs.

Of course some might read this and think that I'm suggesting that it's wrong to be rich. Actually, sort of. I'm saying it's wrong to have more than you could possibly need and determined to get even more even at the expense of others.

I wouldn't even know what to with it if I had millions of dollars other than live modestly and give the excess to worthy causes.

"I don't feel bad about being subsidized by people who are working," Mrs. Davey told The Daily Mail.

And therein lies the problem - the over-inflated sense of entitlement. And the current system only encourages it, when it should be DIScouraging it.

The only way one person can exploit another is through fraud or theft. I have never heard a definition of capitalism that said these things should be legal. It's pretty much just that the only laws that should dictate the price of something are the laws of supply and demand, and I don't disagree with that.

It's wrong to have more than you need? Mushbrained nonsense.

You mean companies like Teh Won's buddies at GE?

Or perhaps Solyndra?

Or is it Fisker? that's a great idea: send US Government tax money to a foreign auto maker to build high-end electric cars that the average American can't afford.

Of course, we're shelling out Texas-sized shitloads of subsidies for the Chevy Volt...and at $40K it still isn't that affordable.

Actually, sort of. I'm saying it's wrong to have more than you could possibly need and determined to get even more even at the expense of others.

If I provide a good or service that is useful to the purchaser and I'm not unduly monopolizing the market or providing a shoddy good or service, or engaging in theft or fraud, what business is it of yours to determine how much I need? how am I "get even more at the expense of others"?

Patrick, you're parsing words that don't change anything.

There is more to capitalism than the exploitation angle.

Capitalism certainly does allow the strong to exploit the weak. It's called massive layoffs and outsourcing of jobs.

Also throw in mechanization and technological advancement. I'm pissed that production agriculture used to be 80% of the workforce, and now it's down to 1%. I want the good old days back.

Outsourcing jobs or laying off workers is exploiting the weak? No. There is exploitation in capitalism, but that aint it. Exploitation occurs when one party takes extreme advantage of the other's desperation or ignorance. When some yokel walks into a pawn shop with an antique worth $2K, and the shop owner recognizes the value, but pretends that giving the dude 50 bucks is doing him a favor, that's exploitation. It's legal, and it may even be perfectly acceptable to the yokel (he doesn't want to take the time and effort to find another buyer) and, yes, capitalism allows that. But outsourcing is simply choosing to hire one group of people rather than those who think they are entitled to work at those jobs. Massive lay-offs aren't even on the same planet as exploitation.

Capitalism certainly does allow the strong to exploit the weak. It's called massive layoffs and outsourcing of jobs.

Patrick, to "exploit" is to take unfair advantage of. Paying someone for the work they do and later finding someone else who will do it just as well but cheaper and switching to them is not exploiting.

Also, you're assuming the owner is always the strong and the worker is always the weak.

That's not always the case. I know several people who have taken the time to learn highly-specialized skillsets. They demand and receive high compensation from the companies or clients for which they work.

I advised all my nephews and nieces when they graduated from high school to go out and get a skillset they could sell on the open market and not to just get a job.

While we can't all become neurosurgeons or underwater welders, we can, in a free market system, get a skillset that will enable us to remain employed or employable despite economic fluctuations.

Or we can find a market need and start our own businesses to satisfy that need (like my brother-in-law did).

But outsourcing is simply choosing to hire one group of people rather than those who think they are entitled to work at those jobs.

And entitled to work at those jobs for a wage higher than the market says the work is actually worth.

By the way, outsourcing and off-shoring are not the same thing.

Off-shoring is moving a basic company function (manufacturing, customer support, etc.) to another country because of lower wages, lower taxes, and/or an easier regulatory environment.

Outsourcing is hiring a company to perform a function that your company needs done but cannot do well or efficiently itself. The outsourcing company could be here in the US or oversears. Companies outsource HR, payroll, IT, etc.; all kinds of functions the company needs but doesn't need to actually perform itself.

ADP, Accenture, and other companies provide these services for multiple companies and gain efficiencies of scale to reduce the cost. Instead of a medium or small company's HR or IT people not having enough work to keep them busy, the company outsources those functions to a company dedicated to performing that function.

I think Conan & Jenny make good points. I would add to them that mass-layoffs aren't an exploitation.

Companies usually don't WANT to do lay-offs. It is bad for morale, bad PR, can cause staff to flee a "sinking ship," and makes hiring good people to fill vacancies much harder.

Most massive layoffs I have heard of are when a company is bought-out by another (lost all my local Wachovia tellers through that), or the economy for whatever that company does starts to suck and operations are scaled back (CompUSA, I believe). The last case also covers a generally bad economy.

Regardless, I don't think the company management was going, "oh, let's get bought out by another company." Nor do I think that a company WANTS to have a sucky economic market. In either of these cases, there have to be cuts, or the company will go under (merger: who can afford two HR departments? The bad economy is self-explanatory). If the company goes under, the layoffs will be worse (everyone).

Sure, there are CEOs who are selfish jerks, just like there are selfish jerks everywhere.

An anecdote to illustrate:

I remember when my dad was working at a lower-level management job. Morale was bad when he started, and about 6 months in he decided to try and boost it by having a party (for birthdays/promotions/or something like that). He got this HUGE sheet cake for the first one - a surprise - but found out the day before hand that he was going to have to lay-off two people. It wasn't a huge layoff, but he HATED doing it. He even said his bosses all looked sick telling him. Obviously, he didn't take the cake in, as that would just be cruel (you're fired, but we're having a party!). The only cake I couldn't eat.

Forgot: The post seems to be a summary of the main points of "Atlas Shrugged."

Single mothers, for instance, love to vote for politicians who tell them how "heroic" and "victimized" they are, and who are eager to give them taxpayer dollars. Note that Obama has strong support from single women, while a majority of married women favor Romney. It is tough these days for a single, flesh-and-blood man to compete with Big Daddy Gubmint -- the biggest swinging dick around.

Is it any wonder why, as the government grows ever-larger and more intrusive in everyday life, the supply of single mothers is ever-increasing and the marriage rate is falling?

doombuggy, I'm am not guilty of parsing words. You are guilty of straw man arguments, like Pirate Jo, when she said, "It's wrong to have more than you need? Mushbrained nonsense."

I would consider it a tremendous favor if Pirate Jo would show me who said that "it's wrong to have more than you need." Oh? No one said that? And the only way doombuggy or Pirate Jo can score a point in this discussion is to LIE about what was said? Gee, no surprise.

I don't take kindly to be lied about. I don't know anybody who does. If I ever meet someone who does, I will encourage them to post here, so they can engage doombuggy and Pirate Jo in discussion, since they seem able to accommodate such a person.

And if the false charge against capitalism is that it allows "the strong" to exploit "the weak,"

Fortunately, Patrick can point us to the systems where "The strong" aren't able to "exploit" "the weak".

I'm sure he'll do that .... real soon now.

Well, none that would let you in, I'm sure, Jedi. But such a system would have to be governed by ethics. If you can find a system where the structure is basically benevolent or governed by laws where exploitation is punished, then you'll have your answer.

I suppose you wouldn't know what a good family looks like, huh? That would be a system where the strong do not exploit the weak. Yours must have been something out an Alfred Hitchcock movie.

And while they have their share of corruption, I'm certain that there are churches in this world where the powers that be don't exploit the members of the congregation and would act to remove those that did.

You must think there isn't a single human institution that does a goddamn thing to prevent exploitation.

Where do you work, Jedi? Samoa? You must, since you obviously don't believe that a single workplace that prevents exploitation could possibly exist.

Shall we continue, Jedi? Or do you feel quite stupid enough?

Direct Patrick quote: "I'm saying it's wrong to have more than you could possibly need"

You append this with "and determined to get even more even at the expense of others."

But that doesn't qualify anything. Every time I get a paycheck it costs my employer money. It is at their expense. Every time Starbucks sells a latte it is at the expense of their customer.

What, since everyone at Apple is already rich, they should give away the rest of the iPads they make for free?

"What the "rich" did was saw that even more money was coming in with their tax cuts and were determined to keep it."

"I'm saying it's wrong to have more than you could possibly need and determined to get even more even at the expense of others."

"I wouldn't even know what to with it if I had millions of dollars other than live modestly and give the excess to worthy causes."

You're right, Patrick. You don't know what to do with such money. Of course, that doesn't keep you from telling others what should be done with it.

Meanwhile, the bulk of Americans who are given money (those "worthy causes") fail to do anything but spend it and ask for more.

And - you seem to labor under the horrendous misapprehension that a millionaire's money is squirreled away, hidden from others, maliciously kept from those who desperately need it.

Not only no, but hell no. When a man like Romney acquires wealth by the rules - and these rules are complex, but amenable to study, as Dave Ramsey will gladly explain to you - he uses a system which preserves wealth.

The alternative is paying someone not to work. I hope you can see how that's failing miserably, but I doubt it given your statements to this point.

Shall we continue, Jedi? Or do you feel quite stupid enough?

No, please, can I have another?

Well, none that would let you in, I'm sure, Jedi.

To be certain. Well, maybe. Which ones are we talking about?

But such a system would have to be governed by ethics.

Excellent! By the way, what systems are we talking about? Names?

If you can find a system where the structure is basically benevolent or governed by laws where exploitation is punished, then you'll have your answer.

I'm asking you for the answer, since you say you know it, and I don't.

Ok, I apparently don't. So what systems are you talking about, where can we find them?

I just named three, Jedi. Predictably, because you know you look like a prize moron, you ignored them.

Pirate Jo, you're a liar. You know it. I know it. You deliberately plucked something out of context, then when called on it, you attempted a face-saving maneuver, you reintroduce the part you deliberately excised, then pretended the excision doesn't mean anything by applying a disingenuous interpretation of it.

Radwaste, I could enter a discussion with you on this, but only after you drop the "what I seem to think" portion.

Staunch defenders of capitalism, whose only means of making any points are straw men and pretending not to even see the parts that prove them wrong. The fact that you cannot speak honestly in support of capitalism speaks volumes and none of it good.

Patrick, you listed "a good family" which is less a system than some idealized happy myth. Even if it were a system on a par with a government (which it's not) good families absolutely fit your cock-eyed definition of "exploitation"---that is, most families outsource and lay off "workers". My 28-year-old cousin just got his severance; my aunt effectively gave his job to a landscaper and a handyman who will do it cheaper and better. Certainly there are *good* (no one is perfect) families in which exploitation of teenage children is the norm---teenagers who babysit their siblings with no pay and in addition to reasonable household chores often consider themselves exploited. And I will say, even as a faithful Christian, a Catholic no less, that, no, there is not a single church ever in which exploitation does not occur. But there again, a church is NOT comparable to a government at all! Churches and families of adults (a set of parents and their grown children, for example) work, to the extent that they do, because it's voluntary and because they actually CAN'T punish exploitation, other than by the exploited party leaving on his/her own or the rest of the group kicking out the exploiter. Either way, the exploiter isn't really punished so much as simply stopped---either the exploiter moves on to someone else in the congregation, or if kicked out, he/she is free to go on to a different church or a different family (by marrying in or some other means of ingratiating) as he/she still has freedom and all the property he/she's accumulated up to that point. A system you want, which actually punishes exploitation would have to have some real power to *punish* not just remove. The only systems that have that are governments, or very, very secluded communes in which expulsion is tantamount to death. Even then, the places in which expulsion is deadly are morel likely to see exploitation by the strong ("strong" in this case means charismatic, in charge of the group) because the stakes are so high. If you can name one single solitary government or very secluded commune in which there was no exploitation, feel free.

You also mentioned "workplaces" but given that your definition of "exploitation" includes laying off workers, I almost don't think it's worth asking. But, okay, I'll bite: Do you know of any workplace which has never laid off workers or "outsourced" or exploited it's workers by the owners making "more than they need"? Oh, and it has to be one that has existed for more than say, ten years, as a solvent, self-sustaining organization.

All systems are governed by ethics, and all are imperfect, because *people* are. Capitalism, with protections against fraud and extortion, does come the closest to perfect. Even the example of exploitation I listed above is arguable---if $50 is worth it to the yokel, who am I to tell him otherwise? My system of ethics wouldn't permit to do that to the yokel; I hope I'd tell such a person exactly what I thought it to be worth and either lend the man $50 or refuse to give him any at all (if I thought he'd spend it on drugs) but the pawnbroker is entitled to his own ethics, so long as he doesn't explicitly misrepresent the value of the antique. And, in our current capitalist system, if the pawnbroker did literally exploit the man, there would be recourse.

Capitalism certainly does allow the strong to exploit the weak. It's called massive layoffs and outsourcing of jobs. -- Patrick at July 13, 2012 5:24 AM

Yes, there can be massive layoffs. Why?

Some examples:

The union has rigged the system that senior employees can take 13 weeks (1/4 of a year) of paid time off. The union refuses to negotiate lower pay for the employees so that payroll is driving the cost of the product, not the market.

As for outsourcing:

If you hire an employee, you up your company's costs for insurance, unemployment insurance, the 401K or pension fund as well as other things. Additionally if the products you produce are even nominally seasonally driven -- printing tags for clothing -- why do I need 50 extra employees during the winter months?

Add in that I don't know what the next new government regulation is going to do to my industry. The EPA is doing the best they can do to put coal fired electric plants out of business. I produce the turbines for electric plants and there is a boom in the market as energy companies open up the gas fired plants. Nine months from now hopefully Romney will take the White House and roll back the EPA regulations. The gas fired plants may be finished, but will there be that much business after that?

You are living in a concept that is not realistic. A business needs to make a profit and those profits are driven by the market. The business is not there to keep any person employed just to be employed.

You can make the best buggy whip on the market, but unless there is a market for the buggy whip you won't make a profit.

An even better example -- you can make the best electric car out there, but if there is no market for it or the cost is so high that no one buys it you are going to shut down the manufacture of it. Am I going to continue paying employees to not do any work?

I just named three, Jedi. Predictably, because you know you look like a prize moron, you ignored them.

Pirate Jo, you're a liar. You know it. I know it.

Well, yannow, I just went and read every one of your comments again, and I can't see where you named one, much less three.

So, speaking of moronic, and lying, perhaps you should climb down from the high horse you're in in the gutter and name, specifically, the systems you're talking about. So I can verify for myself that they exist, work, and you're correct that they prevent the "strong" to "exploit" the "weak".

All I see you saying is:

But such a system would have to be governed by ethics.

Would have to be? So it's hypothetical?

If you can find a system where the structure

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU. WHO'S ON FIRST?

is basically benevolent or governed by laws where exploitation is punished, then you'll have your answer.

So you don't know, but want us to look it up, find it, tell you, and we're the lying idiots, because you've told us to go look for it?

If you're trying to be deep, you're just looking stupid. If you actually think you're answering us, then you are stupid. I have this sneaking suspicion you learned "critical thinking" (which is really "critical pedagogy" in public school.

I suppose you wouldn't know what a good family looks like, huh?

Again with the supposing! I'm asking you, specifically, WHAT SYSTEMS YOU HAVE SAID (and repeatedly insisted that you know of) THAT WORK.

No more "supposing". What system(s) fill the requirements that meet your initial requirement, and do/have exist(ed) in the real, non-theoretical world?

That would be a system where the strong do not exploit the weak. Yours must have been something out an Alfred Hitchcock movie.

So the system you're telling me about, where the strong don't exploit the weak is the system where the strong don't exploit the weak, and I can find it where I find a system that the strong don't exploit the weak, and I'm an idiot from a broken home?

And while they have their share of corruption, I'm certain that there are churches in this world where the powers that be don't exploit the members of the congregation and would act to remove those that did.

That's the closest you've yet come, and you're still hypothetical, and you can't tell me where it is.

Staunch defenders of capitalism, whose only means of making any points are straw men and pretending not to even see the parts that prove them wrong. The fact that you cannot speak honestly in support of capitalism speaks volumes and none of it good.

I haven't defended anything. You're the one using straw men, and refusing to "see points", and insisting you've made them without the bother of making them.

Yes, it does speak volumes of our relative political and other philosophies.

Now, what systems can you point to that you claim exist (and you've enumerated) that meet your claim that the strong are prevented from exploiting the weak?

All I did was predict that you'd be unable to do that.

That's it. And so far, you haven't. But you've thrown a lot of vitriol around, that you started, and nobody's really retaliated.

So, Patrick, how about proving me _wrong_ and telling me what systems - not theoretically, or fictionally, or hypothetically, but where are these systems, so we can know and go there?

Pirate Jo:

BTW: I was quoting Patrick, and the html ended at the end of the paragraph, so the italics didn't continue. (It's not a bad idea, I forget sometimes this system does this.)

But just in case, let me be clear, that's me quoting Patrick, not endorsing his opinion.

"The fact that you cannot speak honestly in support of capitalism speaks volumes and none of it good."

What I did was quote you, then show that those statements demonstrated that you do not know what to do with money. It is appalling that you would speak of honesty when it is alien to you.

You've made the initial claim, failed to support it by being unable to name an alternative, failed to recognize that capitalism is not automatically exploitative, and yet this is my lack. I fear that your time in an Occupy camp has disabled you, and hope you are well enough to reason again quite soon.

Patrick?

I'm still waiting to see what system(s) you can educate me to their existance.

Since it's so elementary, I can't imagine why you've not yet - clearly - answered.

http://static.thepeoplescube.com/images/Democrat_Rights_1961_2012.png

"Of course some might read this and think that I'm suggesting that it's wrong to be rich. Actually, sort of. I'm saying it's wrong to have more than you could possibly need and determined to get even more even at the expense of others.
I wouldn't even know what to with it if I had millions of dollars other than live modestly and give the excess to worthy causes."
~Patrick
The "Hypothetically wealthy" are always the most "Hypothetically generous".
Having a lot is not morally wrong regardless of whether it is millions or hundreds of millions. What you build up in your bank account has less than nothing to do with morality.
If you've gotten rich playing the game of life, there is no rational moral code that dictates that you step aside and stop playing. That is just plain silly. I'm not a gambling man, but I'd wager Patrick, that your code of how much a person can morally have themselves…is conveniently well over your current salary, whatever that may be. I would also wager that you make a fairly good living, which even if you're lower middle class, rather than smack dab in the middle of the middle class, that you exempt yourself from the excess of generosity you say you would engage in if you had much more than you need, precisely because you do not count yourself as wealthy. But if you buy new clothes, if you have a computer and internet connection in your home, if you have a smart phone and a television, if you are single and have a two bedroom apartment instead of a single, if you have a video game system and a dvd collection…you're talking out of your ass.
You already have way more than you need. You can rationalize and point fingers about how "they" have so much more and are just greedy, since "they" have hundreds of millions while you have only thousands more than you require…but the root truth of the matter, is you cannot claim that you WOULD be generous if you had much much more, if you already have more than you need, but hold it for yourself or use your resources to enhance your own life.
Your moral code on this one is nothing more than an excuse for yourself.
Its funny that you talk about the outsourcing of labor as being a bad thing for people…well aren't those overseas people too? The outsourcing of tech support to India is creating a thriving middle class over there. The standard of living in those parts of the world where outsourcing has gone, has been rising steadily, I talk to people over there regularly as part of my side job, I've dealt with startup Pakistani & Indian companies that are adding employees to cope with the demand for labor, and I outsource some of my own business's work over there as well, because the labor cost in the states is to high for my company to afford.
And do you know what is happening? Those rising standards over there lead to a demand for new products, which means more American imports are going over to those countries, like that old saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. Yes there are some employment losses, but there are also employment gains, the big problem that arises is with the labor side of the house in the U.S. to few Americans understand how money really works. They get mad at the rich guy who profits when labor costs go down, but they don't understand why it happens, they never learn how money really works, and so they get just trapped in a cycle of dependency and ignorance that leaves them, predictably, angry, confused, and very often in debt. This isn't a problem with capitalism, if you try to play a game you don't know the rules for, its unsurprising when you do not do very well at it.
The old way of doing things is gone, you can't unring the bell, and Americans everywhere need to take a good long hard look at the system, and instead of griping, understand how they must adapt to the way the world works NOW. Because most of the rule changes they'd like to impose, might make them feel better, but will screw them in the long run.

------------------------

The rest of the lot here are right, layoffs and hiring elsewhere are not exploitation, you're on the wrong bloody planet, not even close to the right ballpark. Those are market practices that have to happen to compete. The idea that it exploits people to fire them, or to hire someone else, is stupid. Should you continue to pay for people who are overpaid, or even no longer necessary because a better method has been invented? Should you hire the more expensive person for the same job? Those are stupid things to do, and I'd wager you don't do it yourself. You make those same cost decisions on a daily basis, where do you choose to shop, where to live, what to buy while shopping, what you'll drive, all of those are the exact same process in thinking, "What am I getting for my money, can I afford it, and how well will it do what I need it to do?" Employers all go through that process, just like consumers, you seem to think that they should not, and I can't fathom how you think they SHOULD make those decisions, if not with that method.
------------

It would appear Patrick, that you are under the impression that money a rich person keeps is somehow idle. Like its in a mattress somewhere.
But it is not. He puts that money to work, that is why his wealth continues to grow.
He puts it into stocks, money from stock sales drives company growth, it pays employees, it pays dividends to investors, it drives product development and innovation, new factories and technologies, and yes, new hiring.
He puts money into banks, who use that money to make loans, those loans fuel startup businesses that hire employees, doing all the same as the above at a local or web based international level. Those loans earn interest, pay for houses, and all facets of market activity. The rich don't just "sit" on their money, they make it work. If you understood that, and how to do that, maybe you'd have those millions to engage in your hypothetical generosity.