I find that the sort of work one does is more important than whether one works. The Bushmen are likely satisfied because they don't perceive their work to be drudgery. It's probably harder to be clinically depressed living in their society than for drones ensconced in cubicles in New York or Tokyo.

Fifteen hours of work a week has its advantages, but then there's this:

"The bushmen’s diet and relaxed lifestyle have prevented most of the stress-related diseases of the western world. Bushmen health, in general, is not good though: 50% of children die before the age of 15; 20% die within their first year (mostly of gastrointestinal infections). Average life expectancy is about 45-50 years; respiratory infections and malaria are the major reasons for death in adults. Only 10% become older than 60 years."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjS4L6KpaLVAhUCPiYKHQefD3QQFggoMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kalahari-meerkats.com%2Ffileadmin%2Ffiles%2Fguides%2FBushmen_light.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGFCacDB8KshdirNU6bSduQDJ_k5Q

I find that the sort of work one does is more important than whether one works. The Bushmen are likely satisfied because they don't perceive their work to be drudgery. It's probably harder to be clinically depressed living in their society than for drones ensconced in cubicles in New York or Tokyo. — Thorongil

Word.

The challenge though is to escape the drudgery of capitalism, and you cannot do that by working for the behemoths of the economy (corporations). If someone were to call me and appoint me CEO of Microsoft, I would probably refuse for the simple reason that the work would be too much hassle, and I'd be forced to interact with some people in ways and manners that I wouldn't approve of, not to mention that the board of directors would rule over me with an iron fist, pretty much dictating what I do with my time.

But unfortunately, people do a lot of BS for social status. They are willing to undertake so much labour, and so much struggle, they will even sacrifice their own families, their own health, their own peace of mind, their own sleep - all for a little bit of ribbon, which will be forgotten as fast as it was given. At least if at the end of their struggle they attained the greatness that they hoped for! At least if someone who acted in this manner finished by becoming a colossus to be remembered for all of history - to have all men sing their praises! But this is not how they finish - they finish forgotten by all, for who remembers the bravest soldier who fought in Napoleon's army? :s

A life of leisure and little work is to be preferred over being a drone and a slave. Freedom is more important than mere money.

It's probably harder to be clinically depressed living in their society than for drones ensconced in cubicles in New York or Tokyo. — Thorongil

I think the concept of clinical depression is foreign to those whose focus is on survival. There are better ways to avoid first world problems than by moving to the third world where they have real problems.

There are better ways to avoid first world problems than by moving to the third world where they have real problems. — Hanover

Let me clarify that I would never suggest such a thing nor deny the negative aspects of primitive life. I prefer civilization and capitalism over and against their opposites.

The challenge though is to escape the drudgery of capitalism — Agustino

You seem to describe corporatism, not capitalism.

You seem to describe corporatism, not capitalism. — Thorongil

Hmmm I will agree, because I think you're using capitalism to mean what capitalism used to be.

because I think you're using capitalism to mean what capitalism used to be — Agustino

Which is what it is. Monopolistic corporate behemoths are antithetical to capitalism. Don't fall for the leftist equivocation on this word.

Which is what it is. — Thorongil

Maybe, although corporate behemoths identify themselves as capitalists ;)

And North Korea calls itself a Democratic People's Republic. :-}

And North Korea calls itself a Democratic People's Republic. :-} — Thorongil

>:O Certainly, but I don't quite believe it's the same thing. Corporate behemoths do actually control the allocation and distribution of large amounts of capital in order to generate new production, so they are capitalists in that sense, they're certainly not communists.

Corporate behemoths do actually control the allocation and distribution of large amounts of capital in order to generate new production — Agustino

But they often do so through monopoly and government subsidy. No one is saying they're communists, but they're certainly not capitalists.

Which is what it is. Monopolistic corporate behemoths are antithetical to capitalism. Don't fall for the leftist equivocation on this word. — Thorongil

Your use of the word "corporate" is hopelessly vague, equivocal, and ambiguous. It's not all corporations that you don't like, just big ones, and it's not just big corporations you don't like, but just big businesses regardless of corporate status, and it's not all big business you don't like, just certain ones, namely the ones you don't like. It's also irrelevant to you whether the business is a monopoly. You don't like some even where there's competition.

That is, you doubtfully have any problem with the mom and pop restaurant down the street, despite that it's incorporated, although you might have a problem with the Dyson vacuum company and its $4.4 billion value, despite it being owned by single person, and you might dislike Wal-Mart, despite it not being a monopoly and having many competitors, and you might like your local power company, despite it being a monopoly and not having any competitors.

In short, what you don't like are those companies who do distasteful things, which has nothing to do with their corporate status and nothing to do with how many competitors it might have.

It's not all corporations that you don't like, just big ones, and it's not just big corporations you don't like, but just big businesses regardless of corporate status, and it's not all big business you don't like, just certain ones, namely the ones you don't like. It's also irrelevant to you whether the business is a monopoly. You don't like some even where there's competition. — Hanover

Boy, you sure claim to know an awful lot about me based on a few relatively casual comments I made on this topic above. This reads as a series of straw men, so let me disabuse you of your ignorance. There are plenty of large corporations I like and plenty of small ones I don't like, and vice-versa. Corporatism, in the sense I am using the term, can include entities that are not technically corporations, but the same logic applies to them: I have no personal preference for the size of a business or organization. I care about whether it conforms to what I take to be basic principles of capitalism, which I am generally in favor of.

you doubtfully have any problem with the mom and pop restaurant down the street — Hanover

That depends on the restaurant.

you might have a problem with the Dyson vacuum company — Hanover

I have no opinion on it because I don't know anything about it.

you might dislike Wal-Mart — Hanover

I like Wal-Mart and even shop there.

you might like your local power company, despite it being a monopoly and not having any competitors — Hanover

My local power company is a cooperative owned by farmers, so this isn't really relevant.

what you don't like are those companies who do distasteful things, which has nothing to do with their corporate status and nothing to do with how many competitors it might have — Hanover

No one likes companies that do disgraceful things, myself included. It seems you're trying to be overly technical when reading the terms I have employed in order to accuse me of being "hopelessly vague, equivocal, and ambiguous," when I think it was obvious the sense in which I used them.

In short, what you don't like are those companies who do distasteful things, which has nothing to do with their corporate status and nothing to do with how many competitors it might have. — Hanover

No, actually that's not true. I despise large corporations (>$10 billion revenue) because of the unfair financial strength that they wield. The rest of us cannot compete with them, because we don't have the financial strength to bully people, the way they do. And no law can prevent brute strength, we already know that.

No one likes companies that do disgraceful things, myself included. It seems you're trying to be overly technical when reading the terms I have employed in order to accuse me of being "hopelessly vague, equivocal, and ambiguous," when I think it was obvious the sense in which I used them. — Thorongil

Your objection was over the "leftist equivocation of the word," and it's clear that your use of the word includes even companies that aren't corporations and it doesn't exclude some companies that are corporations. My objection was over your equivocation, which it is. It's as I said it was: you don't like unscrupulous companies, large or small and regardless of corporate status. How is that at all an important claim? I don't like bad people either.

No, actually that's not true. I despise large corporations (>$10 billion revenue) because of the unfair financial strength that they wield. The rest of us cannot compete with them, because we don't have the financial strength to bully people, the way they do. And no law can prevent brute strength, we already know that. — Agustino

As a competitor you're unhappy, but since we're a consumer driven society, we care only about cheaper products, which is exactly what we get. It's not that Wal-Mart has bullied me into buying their products. I buy them because they are cheaper.

As a competitor you're unhappy, but since we're a consumer driven society, we care only about cheaper products, which is exactly what we get — Hanover

Yes exactly, I think that's a problem that we're a consumer driven society. It encourages desires to grow, expand and multiply among the people, which only leads to more unhappiness.

Think about it. If some crazy guy wants X, then I'd be a fool not to provide it, because I'd be dropping the opportunity to make money. That's why consumerism naturally and inevitably leads to leftism (transexual bathrooms, transexual surgeries, etc. etc.).

And for what it's worth, I absolutely don't see myself as a consumer.

you don't like unscrupulous companies, large or small and regardless of corporate status — Hanover

You still miss the mark. My opposition to them rests not on my mere dislike of them but on account of their opposition to capitalist principles, which I already accept.

But they often do so through monopoly and government subsidy. No one is saying they're communists, but they're certainly not capitalists. — Thorongil

Why is monopoly anti-capitalist? Every business seeks a monopoly of one kind or another.

Also, the leftist equivocates on the word capitalism, in that he will use this word to describe what is in fact corporatism, corporatocracy, or crony capitalism (I prefer the first of these terms). Your attempt to assert that I am equivocal on the use of terms like "monopoly," "corporation," and so on isn't warranted because these terms can be used in a non-legal sense.

Why is monopoly anti-capitalist? Every business seeks a monopoly of one kind or another. — Agustino

Because capitalism supports free markets and to have a monopoly is to prohibit others from entering the market.

Because capitalism supports free markets and to have a monopoly is to prohibit others from entering the market. — Thorongil

Is the goal of the capitalist to maximise profits?

In part, yes.

In part, yes. — Thorongil

Right, so let's do some economics then.

What is this? This is the long-term graph illustrating the average total cost (ATC), average revenue (AR), marginal cost (MC), and marginal revenue (MR) for a firm operating in a PERFECTLY COMPETITIVE (FREE) MARKET.

Do you see how at the point of equilibrium profit (AR-ATC) is 0? (and not only that but if he's not operating at Pareto Optimality he will actually be LOSING money - ATC > AR)

This is the same graph for a MONOPOLY:

Seems like a capitalist will hate the free market, and love the monopoly. Thank God that the perfectly competitive market doesn't actually exist.

If you want an interesting read on this (and quite philosophical too), Peter Thiel's book, Zero To One is good. He is a philosophy graduate actually ;)

Seems like a capitalist will hate the free market, and love the monopoly. — Agustino

Sure. In a sense, some capitalists, as owners and investors of capital, are monopolists, but capitalism would prevent them from being so.

but capitalism would prevent them from being so. — Thorongil

Absolutely not. It's like at a Poker table. When I end up holding, say 70% of the entire tables wealth, then the others cannot compete anymore, even if they're much better players than I am (I can bully them). Profits in the short-term (in a perfectly competitive market) will always tend to be transformed into a monopolistic advantage - thus perfectly competitive markets naturally decay.

thus perfectly competitive markets naturally decay — Agustino

Then I return to my original point! They decay into something other than capitalism.

Then I return to my original point! They decay into something other than capitalism. — Thorongil

How do you define capitalism? If you define capitalism as free trade, then free trade is an advantage to those who are already powerful, so long as they know how to play their cards right. They will set the terms of how things will be done. Markets don't exist, people do.

A large supermarket doesn't want to accept my product (the small producer). I have no access to distribution, whereas my competitors do. Through their power, they set the terms, and some people cannot meet those terms anymore.

The only way to overthrow a monopoly is by creating another monopoly in a smaller pond this time :P Or the old-fashioned legal way.