But capitalism depends on making profit. Making profit has to be predatory, because you're by definition overcharging everyone who buys from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
Printable View
But capitalism depends on making profit. Making profit has to be predatory, because you're by definition overcharging everyone who buys from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
You're attaching your own bias to the meaning of the word.
You are not by definition overcharging. You make a profit off of intangible quantities that go into the production of the good. You are paying for time. You are paying for skill. You are paying for quality. you are paying for labor.
Does it always work this way? No. especially not now. Modern products are a farce. The price you pay for most goods has nothing to do with any of the intangable qualities I preiviously described. The new goal is maximizing profit.
The question of modern consumer goods is not "will you buy my product?" but "how cheep and how shitty can I make a product AND what is the maxim you will pay for it AND what is the best ratio of the two for the highest gain on my part?"
And then we touch onto marketing and how you perceive things. You may or may not be aware of this, but quality, as you see it, is a lie. Take clothes for example. Most clothes are made in china by the same couple of companies. Most clothes cost the same price to make. But do you pay the same price for everything. No. The $65 designer mall tshirt is the exact same product as the $5 tshirt at walmart. Both Tshirts cost $.75 to make. Or better yet, compare the $45 shirt at the mall with the $15 shirt in the same store. Both cost $.75 to make with very little difference in quality. But the $15 price justifies the price of the $45 shirt and visa versa. They will make most of their money on the $15 shirts because most people are cheep. But some people will buy the $45 shirt because they assume it is better because of the higher price. And at the end of the year they will mark both down and still make money because the price will never actually drop down past $.75, and if it did, it wouldn't matter because the profit on the first couple of shirts has covered such a small loss.
This happens for all consumer goods. From vcrs, to batteries, to cars.
Well, absolutely. But I see no real way you can argue that this way of thinking on the part of the 'capitalist' is anything other than inevitable. Capitalism ensures that the rich have the power, and in any system those with power make the decisions. The quite laudable ideals of competition, egalitarianism and meritocracy are undone by those who have made plenty of money and would like to make more by undertaking ever more morally dubious profit-orientated schemes. Modern capitalism, even at grassroots level (my brother who's 17 recently started selling soup on a market stall) involves working out the maximum people will pay and the least amount of effort you can put in.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
But I think we agree on this. I just think that if money and power are tied together, it's inevitable that legitimately charging for a service will turn into charging as much as the market can stand for not very much of a service at all. Therefore I see this is a part of capitalism that won't go away.
Aye. I do think that this will become more obvious over the coming decade; books like No Logo (much as I fucking hate that moral-high-ground bullshit) have brought more into the mainstream what a minority have known for years.Quote:
And then we touch onto marketing and how you perceive things. You may or may not be aware of this, but quality, as you see it, is a lie. Take clothes for example. Most clothes are made in china by the same couple of companies. Most clothes cost the same price to make. But do you pay the same price for everything. No. The $65 designer mall tshirt is the exact same product as the $5 tshirt at walmart. Both Tshirts cost $.75 to make. Or better yet, compare the $45 shirt at the mall with the $15 shirt in the same store. Both cost $.75 to make with very little difference in quality. But the $15 price justifies the price of the $45 shirt and visa versa. They will make most of their money on the $15 shirts because most people are cheep. But some people will buy the $45 shirt because they assume it is better because of the higher price. And at the end of the year they will mark both down and still make money because the price will never actually drop down past $.75, and if it did, it wouldn't matter because the profit on the first couple of shirts has covered such a small loss.
This happens for all consumer goods. From vcrs, to batteries, to cars.
As an aside, it will, of course, be obvious only to the consumerist middle-classes, which is another debate in itself. People who pay £4 for an organic chocolate bar and then decry profit-gouging corporations.
I think it is part of people that will not go away. It isn't capitalism that makes people desire maxium gain, it is human nature. capitalism is just trading your stuff for other stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by red_war_machine
See, the problem isn't capitalism, socialism, or hell, even horrid stuff like fascism or nationalism. It is human nature. People need to stop arguing the wonders/faults of ideologies and realize that the pain or joy of life pivots on people not being piles of crap.
It's the lenders job to make money. If they don't, especially if it's a public company they work for, they're negligent. Everyone has the information available to them to avoid risks like this. If they didn't read or check them out beforehand then they deserve what they got. Nobody likes to see families out on the street, but that's the individuals burden to avoid. Capitalism is predatory. It's not malicious like Ironplant seems to be implying but the point is to make money, not friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Kramer's awesome BTW.
I blame individuals for buying shit they can't afford. There will always be expensive houses for sale. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out and buy them when I can't afford them. That's what these people are doing, and while it does put more obstacles in my way, personally for purchases, I can't worry about it. I can't control it in a free market so I have to work with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
I'd rather these people get burned and learn their lesson then have them be coddled and learn nothing except the government will bail them out of their stupid decisions.
This is smart, regardless of the sarcasm. I've been noticing the advantages to foreclosures. Instead of buying things I can't currently afford in a high-priced market (such as 1 million dollar houses that clearly aren't worth 1 million dollars) I've just been saving diligently.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
But this is where we differ. I don't like seeing people on the street with children, it's terrible. But eventually things will start looking up and they'll be stronger for the lesson learned in the longterm -- especially the kids.Quote:
Now if you're a socialist like me, you seek to play responsible parent by having safeguards in place and social programs to cushion those who make those bad choices.
Old people are good with money. Ask them about living in the depression with a tub of butter having to last an entire month. They learned the hard way and it ingrained in to their minds from a young age.
Look there's always ways to profit from people's bad choices. Drug dealers, alcohol companies, weapons makers, financial institutions and fast food restaurants know this all too well. Taking advantage of this human weakness whether it be vice or merely poor business savvy. Offer someone a loan they're unlikely able to pay back, then they'll fail and set themselves up further failure with bad credit scores. Drug dealers slowly (or quickly) kill their customer bases, weapons makers accelerate the damage to civilization. Some of the damage is immediate some just damages family cohesion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Is this ethical? Oh hell no. Is it profitable? Absolutely. Sin funds (porn, smokes, limited pharma, cheap weapons, low end alcohol) as i remember are always a safe bet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
I think I have said this a thousand times already, but here we go. In ideal capitalism, the government places taxes or such to reduce thier levels to that which it is helpful to society.
The issue here is, profitable or not, these companies are expending a societal commodity (our health, or whatever else), that has little value to them, for something that does have value to them (profit). The government, which represents us as a whole, should level this negligence by taxing the company to a level which the taxes benefit us to the level the corporation takes from us, as a whole. It's actually still within supply and demand terms, it just demands putting a monetary value to some of the things we traditionally do not think of as supplies.
Edit: Still, how the hell are you rationalizing lending someone a loan they will default on is profitable. That's no good for anyone, if more of them are still paying thier high loans and a very small number are defaulting, then its good.
The profit can be derived from several sources. If you increase business your stock folder will go up, sell at higher price, when the loans default and the company takes a non-fatal but public hit, buy the stock back a panic stricken lower price (like oh say last week BSC). Or a smart bank would negotiate with their lendees who are in default to make arrangements of a lower minimum payment at the same variable interest rate. Just expand the repayment life time of the loan, thus earning more interest.
How can you not see this as a profitable moment in time? So long as the borrows are honest (and financially dumb) and the banks willing to negotiate longer repayment terms that are even MORE profitable. Even if they default, the bank has the previous repayments plus whatever collateral the loan was up for. LIKE THE HOUSE, hopefully the combination of which mean profit.
Basically if the banks are smart about this they can induce a working lifetime or longer debt from these people and have them paying back the principle plus interest many times over. If profit above all else is your motive, you're sacrificing these people's dreams and financial stability on schemes that ultimate put them in near permanent debt where their repayment options leave them earning more interest than their payments remove, thus creating a permanent cash flow from these poor people until their economic fortunes turn up or they're finally forced to sell and liquidate their assets to clear their debts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
Actually this was exactly what I was thinking should be done in this situation. Although this isn't really the default being profitable, so much as the longer term loan.
Honestly it doesn't seem like too bad a deal to take a long long term loan, then reverse moragage near the end after you retire. At least it keeps these people from being homeless, even though they made a bad decision.
What's really separating them from being indentured servants at this point. The debt is endless, and with bankruptcy laws the way they are now, it seems futile.