Atlas Shrugged

Michael Shermer addresses the Rand cult of personality in his book Why People Believe Weird Things, the book that introduced me to the creationism situation.

If she's so smart, why aren't people lining up to be janitors?I find the idea that competition and the free market is inherently good for us all very specious. At best, we benefit as consumers from capitalism only as a side effect. If capitalists could profit without actually having to provide anything to the consumer, they're immediately do so.Which is exactly what we see happening, thanks to organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, and the massive convergence of corporate and government interests. Do you know what Wal-Mart just did? In exchange for paying millions, they now get 15 days warning from the Justice Department before they're investigated for any hiring or payroll misconduct. Shit, how much do I have to pay to the police to get advance notice of investigations against me?

It's not, though. For instance, a thief takes your money without offering a service (unless you wanted your windows broken.) We have laws to discourage that; but what if the thieves are allowed to make the laws? Well, that's the real question, now isn't it? Is Capitalism the end state of Capitalism? Or, as appears to be happening in our country, is Capitalism the run-up to Fascism? Or Kleptocracy?At some point, resources and influence converge among an elite few, giving them the opportunity to direct a change in our society if they wish it. Why would they choose capitalism? Why wouldn't they choose the system where they gain wealth for absolutely no exchange of goods or services whatsoever?I think capitalism is great; I think it's way better than any of the other systems devised so far. But it's fatal flaw is that it can't persist. Every competition has an end; a winner and a loser. We the people only win while the race is still being run. When someone hits the finish line, we all lose.

Yes, I think that was my exact point. Capitalists aren't interested in providing value for your money; they're interested in your money. You getting a value is at best a side effect of that goal, and there is significant incentive to reduce or eliminate any value you might recieve in exchange for your money.The ultimate goal of the people that drive capitalism is to eliminate capitalism; they'd rather they got your money for nothing. Why wouldn't they? The money they gain will protect them from the ultimate consequences. Same as always - bread and circuses. Is it any surprise that the largest, most litigious industries in America are entertainment?

Demand what you like. If sellers have all the power, your demands are fruitless. Because it becomes mandatory to do so. There's always another market. Once the fatcats have stripmined us, they'll just move on to other marks. We'll all be ruined, money will have no value, we'll start a barter economy, and generations later, capitalism emerges, and the cycle begins again. It is, but what happens if the record companies decide that instead of providing you with the value of the song, they want to give the song away and charge you for the "value" of having it on your computer, for as long as its there? Or if Microsoft, instead of charging you for the value of Windows once, decides to charge you a subscription for the value of having your computer keep working?It's like the Mafia protection scam. Capitalism becomes kleptocracy when you stop paying to get things, and start paying to keep the things you have.

Yes. That's what I've been telling you all this time. That eventually, capitalism ceases to be capitalism. That's the problem with it. At least with those guys, you get a reasonable expectation that maintence will be performed; that the level of service will be maintained. My examples weren't made up; Microsoft is itching to run OS's on subscription basis. Do you think that your MS subscription will include coming out to fix your computer when it doesn't work? I doubt it.

I dunno. It seems like things like anti-trust legislation and social programs help slow that decending spiral; and of course, anything that progressively redistributes wealth (although that's all capitalism is, regressive wealth redistribution - the only one who can "create" wealth is the US Mint.) But I'm no economist. Good for you, but there's a lot of competition in the server market. There's much less competition in the desktop market.

It's slightly worse than that - under most contracts, your employer is entitled to 100% of not only the code you pound in the office, but any source code you develop at home, too.For any reason or application. If you design the next killer open source OS in your spare time, your employer owns it. Well, that kind of depends on how mobile you are, doesn't it? But if your wife has a job you can't afford to have her leave, and there's no other opportunities in the local market, you're kind of screwed, aren't you?It's a mistake to assume that workers are completely mobile, or that market forces can always iron out pay inequity.

I'd agree with you. The control the desktop OS market because their massive accumulation of wealth gives them the power to screw anybody else. I think the difference is that the people who buy servers know a lot more than the people who buy desktops; therefore they're more resistant to getting screwed, or to buying something just because its what everybody else has. And they're not generally spending their own money so they can justify paying more for better stuff.

No, unfortunately, if you're not paid by the hour, then you're probably a "work for hire" worker, which means that your employer owns the fruits of all your labors that fall under your job title. So, if you're hired as a "work for hire" software developer, your employer owns all the software that you develop during the period of your employment. No matter what it is, or where you developed it.At least in states where you have no legal protection against a work-for-hire contract. Unlike you, apparently, I don't consider Hobson's choice a choice. If you're unable or unwilling to percieve that the wealth disparity between employer and employee rarely works to the employee's advantage, and rarely puts them in a position to bargain effectively, I'm not sure you're paying enough attention to the situation. It's just another example of how, in the absence of what we might term socialist policies, capitalism is unsustainable.

Perhaps they do. Certainly in the past companies have exerted ownership over private projects developed by their work-for-hire employees in the past; and the courts have upheld this. Beware Employment Contracts - SlashdotThen it's possible I've overstated the frequency of this type of contract; I do hope I have. Of course, I'm no software dev myself; my field is currently "Sandwich Delivery."

Oh? You don't like eating, or paying the rent? The employee should have an advantage over the employer for the same reason that a seller should expect to have to provide a value in exchange for payment.In the best world, the employer and employee would be equally advantaged. What I meant to imply was that is rarely the case. Why don't you ask the (ex-)employees of Walmart in Jonquiere, Quebec?

If Walmart doesn't, then no company does, which means that you prove my point - capitalism is a failure, and we can't rely on it. The benefits that anyone who isn't a business leader gets - like a wage, or like the value of something they bought - is, at best, a side effect of processes designed for the specific benefit of very few. A side effect that is eliminated whenever possible.If companies don't exist to provide their workers with a living, then we simply can't rely on capitalism. It's insufficient for the needs of a human society.Which was my point in the first place.

Capitalism isn't, but people are, and free-market capitalism lets them do that. Capitalism rewards those who can gain the most while providing the least; the end state of that is of course kleptocracy, where the elite gain wealth without having to provide anything at all.

Can't think of a one; but then, I'm no economist. And hey, I work and spend money on things just like the rest of us, and I like that I live in a place where if I have the money I can have nearly anything I want.But that's no reason not to find something better, is it?