Critisism Of Capitalism

[Solaris]

Pretend the square represents All of society:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v105/solaris152000/OmgSocilism.jpg

Now, the Black area represents all the people who 'create things' I use this term loosesly as around half the people arn't really needed. Half the workers make and produce wealth for the society, from mining the raw resources, to manufacuturing a bar of soap, to selling the soap in a shop. The other half still produce things, but alot of things they do arn't nessacary. Advertising for instrance, think about how much resources are wasted on that, they have to advertise to get people to go to there shop, becuase there are so many shops doing the same thing (which isn't very logical). It would be better if there was one shop, it would have to be bigger though. If you doubled the size of ASDA it could serve all of Burnley, and the people working in Tesco and Sainsburies, who arn't emploied at the new store, could spen there time producing more goods.

And if there was only Asda, it wouldn't have to advertise either as theres no competition. So we can see how by removing the competition, you can free alot of jobs, so these people could be put to making more things, which would mean we as consumers could get more things for our 'money'.

Anyway, so the people in the black rectangle all work and make things, and we have examined breifly how we could put them to more efficent use.

Lets look at the Dark Grey box, this represents people who do nothing, but get things. These include theifs, tramps people who inherit large somes of money ect. Even landowners, who do nothing but earn money becuase its 'there' land. These people contribute nothing to society.

Now if we look at the light grey box we can see all the top buissness men ect. These people do to some extent 'run' the manufacturing process, they don't actually make anything, and don't do very tiring work. However they run the companies for profit, but they are not all that essentcial.

Now underneath the rectangles are some red rectangles. These represent the wealth these people own. We can see how the majority of the wealth, which is all made by the workers belong to the people who make nothing.
The workers on the other hand, who make all the wealth in society get only a small percentage of what they make, the rest going to there 'bosses'.

The workers are robbed of what they make by the money system.
The workers produce say £200 pounds worth of items for there master in a day, but are payed only £70, so they are not payed enough to buy back what they have made. They have to work for these companies however, becuase some where along the time line there bosses came into possesion of tool, which the workers work with. The workers need these tools to work, but cannot afford to buy some, so they must work with there masters tools, who then gets possesion of what the workers make, and pays them only a fraction of the worth of what the workers have made.


Would you agree?

[ComradeBadger]

No.

I'll write a proper reply later, but I've got an essay to write.

[15357]

"I'd say that you were a little red, and by that I mean that you would prefer a sickle and hammer over a hamburger." :p j/k



Anyway, you are forgetting that the methods and tools and the resources are provided by the Corporation/Factory/Whatever. Also, they oversee the work process, making production faster.

[Solaris]

"I'd say that you were a little red, and by that I mean that you would prefer a sickle and hammer over a hamburger." :p j/k



Anyway, you are forgetting that the methods and tools and the resources are provided by the Corporation/Factory/Whatever. Also, they oversee the work process, making production faster.
No, I clearly said
they have to work for these companies however, becuase some where along the time line there bosses came into possesion of tool, which the workers work with.
They speed up production by abusing the workforce, sometimes they speed it up nicely, but that doesnt mean they should get most of the money.

[el Chi]

No.

I'll write a proper reply later, but I've got an essay to write.
/me holds ComradeBadger back
Leave it Comrade! He's not worth it...

[15357]

Oh I missed that part.

Well, then, I would argue that the employees don't have the capacity or the will to create their own buissness. (sp?)

[Solaris]

Oh I missed that part.

Well, then, I would argue that the employees don't have the capacity or the will to create their own buissness. (sp?)
So becuase there less bright than there masters they must live in poverty?

[15357]

In this horrible world of productivity, yes.

[Solaris]

In this horrible world of productivity, yes.
But under socalism...........


* reveals evil motive*

[15357]

:O

Just don't come near South Korea, they'll beat you to a pulp before you can say 'socialism'. :p

[The Monkey]

I have this conversation every damn week in school.


Now, the Black area represents all the people who 'create things' I use this term loosesly as around half the people arn't really needed. Half the workers make and produce wealth for the society, from mining the raw resources, to manufacuturing a bar of soap, to selling the soap in a shop. The other half still produce things, but alot of things they do arn't nessacary. Advertising for instrance, think about how much resources are wasted on that, they have to advertise to get people to go to there shop, becuase there are so many shops doing the same thing (which isn't very logical). It would be better if there was one shop, it would have to be bigger though. If you doubled the size of ASDA it could serve all of Burnley, and the people working in Tesco and Sainsburies, who arn't emploied at the new store, could spen there time producing more goods.
Advertising is essential. How else will you get the people to start using newer, better products. If you just had one shop, state- or private owned, it would be allowed to set the prices as high as they wished, seeing as the consumers have no other alternitive than to buy their stuff there there. Of course, you can do as they did in Soviet, let the government set a top price on things, making sure that nobody pays too much. But you also saw how that worked out. Hours of queuing every day, hoping that that there would be something left when it was their turn. There's a sacret balance between customers, prices and enployment, something that can only be held up using the free market. If you remove the that you get what they had in Soviet and eastern Europe; chaos.

Lets look at the Dark Grey box, this represents people who do nothing, but get things. These include theifs, tramps people who inherit large somes of money ect. Even landowners, who do nothing but earn money becuase its 'there' land. These people contribute nothing to society.

So what would you do, shoot them?

Now if we look at the light grey box we can see all the top buissness men ect. These people do to some extent 'run' the manufacturing process, they don't actually make anything, and don't do very tiring work. However they run the companies for profit, but they are not all that essentcial.

How do you suppose work can be done without anyone organizing it? The bosses are most often the ones doing the hardest work.


The workers are robbed of what they make by the money system.
The workers produce say £200 pounds worth of items for there master in a day, but are payed only £70, so they are not payed enough to buy back what they have made. They have to work for these companies however, becuase some where along the time line there bosses came into possesion of tool, which the workers work with. The workers need these tools to work, but cannot afford to buy some, so they must work with there masters tools, who then gets possesion of what the workers make, and pays them only a fraction of the worth of what the workers have made.


In the end, it pays up. If the count all the wages for production, manufacturing and selling it, it's almost always the correct prize. The man/woman producing the product isn't everything that makes it from an idea to a finished product in the stores...

[Polaris]

Red craps....

[Solaris]

I have this conversation every damn week in school.


Advertising is essential. How else will you get the people to start using newer, better products. If you just had one shop, state- or private owned, it would be allowed to set the prices as high as they wished, seeing as the consumers have no other alternitive than to buy their stuff there there. Of course, you can do as they did in Soviet, let the government set a top price on things, making sure that nobody pays too much. But you also saw how that worked out. Hours of queuing every day, hoping that that there would be something left when it was their turn. There's a sacret balance between customers, prices and enployment, something that can only be held up using the free market. If you remove the that you get what they had in Soviet and eastern Europe; chaos.

I guess it would be a good idea to advertise new products, but all you need is like a sign, and you wouldn't need to spend millions on TV adverts when you run the TV station.
The idea of socilist buissnesses is for use not profit. Things would be 'sold' for as less as possible and there would be no reason for Boss X to raise the prices in the store he has been assigned to as he wouldnt get any of the profits, he would get as much as anyone and everyone else who works for the state. Obviously you would need enough shops, but that wouldnt be too much of a problem. Soviet russia was neither socialist nor communist, it was state capitalist, everything was owned by the state, but run for profit which went to party members, we can explore how ther system was flawed and built upound chaos, but that won't get us anywhere.

So what would you do, shoot them?
No we'd render there money worthless. State stores would be set up and people who work for the state would be paid in vouchers wich are redeamable at state stores, people could pay there with money but things would be more expensive thus diminsihing peoples wealth, as money on its on is useless., the state would buy out more and more buissness and expand. But thats a different essay alltogether.

How do you suppose work can be done without anyone organizing it? The bosses are most often the ones doing the hardest work.
Theres a difference between organising and 'Feeding of the people there supposed to lead'(faithless <3).They dont have to be paid as much as they currently are


In the end, it pays up. If the count all the wages for production, manufacturing and selling it, it's almost always the correct prize. The man/woman producing the product isn't everything that makes it from an idea to a finished product in the stores...
Its not at all, the people at the top take a very large share which diminishes as it goes down.

[ComradeBadger]

I refer you to:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691019681/ref=nosim/002-8882719-0196857?n=283155

Read that and come back :)

[SIGbastard]

What I see is a society that has a lack of choice. Furthermore there would be nothing to really motivate anyone as you obviously cannot be allowed to excel and be deservingly rewarded in such a society.

Sure there are workers that don't make much. It is ultimately a result of their decisions and how you carry your self through life. There are countless ways to get funding for education and training. People in higher positions get there from hard work and dedication.

I am in Dental School currently. The average semester is 26hrs of college credit. I don't know if you have any college experience but 12hrs is considered full time. Having to deal with that much school for 4 years is a huge commitment on top of the BS I already earned. Now my choice of Dentistry was not solely based on salary, but it certainly is a part of the decision. If I was to make as much as say a factory worker there would be no way I would waste all the time with school with countless days of spending no time with my loved ones as I do now. Hence I would no longer be motivated to persue my career of choice. Hell by the time I am done I will owe over $200k in loans for tuition and cost of living. I can't work anymore because I am at school 8-5 and then study for hours every night.

I will be in a position that I have a very specialized skill that not a large percentage of the population has because of the dedication it takes, but there is a great demand for my work. Due to the demand and level of skill my job will take I expect to be paid well and deserve it. I will give back to my community when I can by volunteering at clinics etc. At the same time I fully expect to make a 6 figure salary easy even if I work part time.

Socialism is nothing but a redistribution of wealth. It is completely unfair to those who achieve success. It is not my responsibility to pay the way for the less successful. I will give back when I can out of principle. If such a system were to ever be inforced in the US there would be another civil war. The funny thing is the people who want socialism aren't armed so they can never win.

[Mr Stabby]

Solaris, you have a very niave view of society

[Kangy]

I'll start by just saying yes, Solaris, before you ask, I do hate you.



And if there was only Asda, it wouldn't have to advertise either as theres no competition. So we can see how by removing the competition, you can free alot of jobs, so these people could be put to making more things, which would mean we as consumers could get more things for our 'money'.


Wait, you know what a 'monopoly' is, right? Right?



Lets look at the Dark Grey box, this represents people who do nothing, but get things. These include theifs, tramps people who inherit large somes of money ect. Even landowners, who do nothing but earn money becuase its 'there' land. These people contribute nothing to society.

Now if we look at the light grey box we can see all the top buissness men ect. These people do to some extent 'run' the manufacturing process, they don't actually make anything, and don't do very tiring work. However they run the companies for profit, but they are not all that essentcial.


Idiocy! Inheritance is part of WHY people work. To give their children a better life. I hope you never get rich and have kids. I can't imagine the rawness they'll feel when they inherit a carrot and some sticks. Secondly, it is tiring work. You might be largely ignorant of it, but I don't quite think you understand the mental effort involved in making things work as efficently as possible. They are the most essential part of the company. Any idiot with two hands can fit some things together, but it takes skill to make the company work to the best of its ability.


Now underneath the rectangles are some red rectangles.


Pop Art to go!


These represent the wealth these people own. We can see how the majority of the wealth, which is all made by the workers belong to the people who make nothing.
The workers on the other hand, who make all the wealth in society get only a small percentage of what they make, the rest going to there 'bosses'.

They 'make' society work. They make sure the oil is available for the mechanic to fix the machine so things can be made. They make sure nobody is being overpaid, underpaid or being employed unfairly. It takes much more skill to do this, so they are entitled to more compensation for doing this job.


The workers are robbed of what they make by the money system.
The workers produce say £200 pounds worth of items for there master in a day, but are payed only £70, so they are not payed enough to buy back what they have made. They have to work for these companies however, becuase some where along the time line there bosses came into possesion of tool, which the workers work with. The workers need these tools to work, but cannot afford to buy some, so they must work with there masters tools, who then gets possesion of what the workers make, and pays them only a fraction of the worth of what the workers have made.


Guess what? It's the ****ing 21st century, man! Of course the workers can't afford a factory! Because that's what it takes to actually make the goods. The workers are completely unskilled, generic and replaceable. The key is that the less replaceable and generic you are, the more you are paid! And for a start, there is no evil "zombie master" at the top of the chain, greedily taking all their money. There's a smaller number of people, doing more skilled jobs.

Oh, another fun fact! There was no "revolution" that made this happen. It arose out of experience and common sense. You need to see the real world, Solaris.

[Llama]

Life is a bitch. Deal with it people, it's better than communism :p

[Sulkdodds]

As far as I'm concerned, capitalism isn't great but it's better than communism (a lesser of two evils kinda thing, except I'm not sure if 'evils' is too strong a word).

[ComradeBadger]

You know what's hilarious?

Marx's ideal system actually PROMOTES capitalism :D

See the Proto-factory it's effects on the economy :E

[Solaris]

Oh, another fun fact! There was no "revolution" that made this happen. It arose out of experience and common sense. You need to see the real world, Solaris.
The industrial revolution, illl do the rest later, the bills on.

[Flyingdebris]

you "could" say the industrial revolution was the start of capitalism. But the concept of people having others work for them and exchanging money for goods and services goes ALOT farther back in history.

[Solaris]

you "could" say the industrial revolution was the start of capitalism. But the concept of people having others work for them and exchanging money for goods and services goes ALOT farther back in history.
Well if you look at the feudal system, peasants were alot better off than say after the IR.

[ComradeBadger]

Well if you look at the feudal system, peasants were alot better off than say after the IR.
Well if you look at co-operatives, proto-industry and the verlagsystem, peasants were a lot better off POST feudalism. In fact, it's largely DUE to these systems that the industrial revolution happened.

In fact feudalism was horrendus, most peasants were paid in kind, and on essentially the subsistance level.

[Solaris]

Okay.

What I see is a society that has a lack of choice. Furthermore there would be nothing to really motivate anyone as you obviously cannot be allowed to excel and be deservingly rewarded in such a society. Why do you think Columbus explored, why did einstein think, why did galelao study the stars? Not for money but becuase the enjoyed it.
The best thinkers and genius's in history were motivated by enjoyment and desire to learn and understand.

Sure there are workers that don't make much. It is ultimately a result of their decisions and how you carry your self through life. There are countless ways to get funding for education and training. People in higher positions get there from hard work and dedication.
Oh and the people working 12 hour days in sweatshops just arn't working hard enough then? That is how Tesco are so rich, they exploit there work force, and hire people in countries with little to none worker laws, so they can exploit desperate people at will.


I am in Dental School currently. The average semester is 26hrs of college credit. I don't know if you have any college experience but 12hrs is considered full time. Having to deal with that much school for 4 years is a huge commitment on top of the BS I already earned. Now my choice of Dentistry was not solely based on salary, but it certainly is a part of the decision. If I was to make as much as say a factory worker there would be no way I would waste all the time with school with countless days of spending no time with my loved ones as I do now. Hence I would no longer be motivated to persue my career of choice. Hell by the time I am done I will owe over $200k in loans for tuition and cost of living. I can't work anymore because I am at school 8-5 and then study for hours every night. Thats really quite amazing and sad at the same time, its amazing what youre doing and the time youre putting in, and for such a challenging subject, it must get really hard. Now the money isn't soley driving you is it? But I bet youre happy that when youre done you'll have a good income. I here alot from people who are in college that if they were going to get paid the same as a factory worker, they would become a factory worker, but I don't think this is at all true. Working in a factory must be the most boring job ever. My freind worked on a production line for two weeks during the holidays, on minimun wage, he explained his role two me which took about a minute, I couldn't imagine ever wanting to do that all day everyday, I'd much rather do something I enjoy, maybe maths or IT or even psychology. I mean, if youre going to get paid the same anyway you might as well do something you want to do, and I like learning.


Socialism is nothing but a redistribution of wealth. It is completely unfair to those who achieve success. It is not my responsibility to pay the way for the less successful. I will give back when I can out of principle. If such a system were to ever be inforced in the US there would be another civil war. The funny thing is the people who want socialism aren't armed so they can never win. It is initcially a planned redistribution, but its not at all unfair. To people who work in crapper jobs ie: Sewer Cleaner, or in other places where not enough workers are signing on, the hours can be reduced. Its not at all unfair, to someone whos gone thorugh college to get the same as someone who hasn't. For you to get more wealth, someone else has to get less and thats not fair. Some people are incabable of going to university, they just arn't clever enough, does that make it right to exploit them in a factory, and take there money? I don't think it does, any decent person deserves the same benifits from society as everyone else.

The funny thing is the people who want socialism aren't armed so they can never win So the peasentry just tickled the Tsarist regime to death?


Wait, you know what a 'monopoly' is, right? Right? Unessaccary.


Idiocy! Inheritance is part of WHY people work. To give their children a better life. I hope you never get rich and have kids. I can't imagine the rawness they'll feel when they inherit a carrot and some sticks. Secondly, it is tiring work. You might be largely ignorant of it, but I don't quite think you understand the mental effort involved in making things work as efficently as possible. They are the most essential part of the company. Any idiot with two hands can fit some things together, but it takes skill to make the company work to the best of its ability. But under socialism, you wouldnt have to worry about giving youre children a better life, they will be guaranteed it as long as there willing to work. They won't be abused by the rich, and will live long sucessful lives.
Running Tesco might be stressful, but at least you get a couple million, unlike the sweatshop people who work alot harder for alot less money. It does take skill to be the leader of a company, and I think if there was a worker in the factory with the nessacary skills, I don't think they would object to helping to run the factory, that doesn't mean they should get more than the oridnary workers, in fact to ensure that the workers are treated properlly they should get the same.

They 'make' society work. They make sure the oil is available for the mechanic to fix the machine so things can be made. They make sure nobody is being overpaid, underpaid or being employed unfairly. It takes much more skill to do this, so they are entitled to more compensation for doing this job. It takes more skill? So what, the workers are still the majority and the biggest nessaccarity, without them theres nothing. If the workers work, and the foreman makes sure everyones safe, and things are getting done both are essecentcial, and require the same amount of effort, so why pay one differently than the other?


Guess what? It's the ****ing 21st century, man! Of course the workers can't afford a factory! Because that's what it takes to actually make the goods. The workers are completely unskilled, generic and replaceable. The key is that the less replaceable and generic you are, the more you are paid! And for a start, there is no evil "zombie master" at the top of the chain, greedily taking all their money. There's a smaller number of people, doing more skilled jobs.
I'm not saying they should be able to buy a factory, I'm making a comparision in between what they make for the comapny and what they get in return. More skilled jobs you say, thats justifacation for paying some people unbleiveable amounts of money, while payign other barely enough to live on? What about nessacarity? Shouldn't it be judged on that?

As far as I'm concerned, capitalism isn't great but it's better than communism (a lesser of two evils kinda thing, except I'm not sure if 'evils' is too strong a word).
Yes, its not too bad for us, but think about exploited workers all over the world, without them are multi corps would collapse, look at the real working classes.

And socialism isnt at all an evil, its about treating people with dignity and respect and working together not against each other.
For use, not for profit.

Edit: Well if you look at co-operatives, proto-industry and the verlagsystem, peasants were a lot better off POST feudalism. In fact, it's largely DUE to these systems that the industrial revolution happened.

In fact feudalism was horrendus, most peasants were paid in kind, and on essentially the subsistance level. Well take alook at the petit bourgeis vacillations of Edwardian Britian and you'll see the comparrison.

[ComradeBadger]

I'm taking you to mean the period mentioned here: http://www.marxlibrary.net/lenin/lenin_5.htm

Heh.

I ask you to take a look at how higher wages (than feudalism :eek: ) stimulated the economy, leading to the working classes exercising their buying power, which in turn (NOT the expansion of market arguement, more like a change in demand) led to the industrial revolution.

Although whether or not we had an industrial revolution is in fact in question.

:laugh:

[Canadian Gunner]

Hey Solaris, have you read The Ragged Trousared Philanthropists by Robert Tressel, by any chance, because the concepts you outlined and even the basic chart you presented are like straight out of that book (well, close). Its quite a good look at society, as it realsiticly describves the life of a bunch of workers at the turn of the 20th century, though it does seem a bit "far out" (the whole extreme socialism thing) when it discusses the solutions to the problem of poverty and what not. Its rather intersting to note how much progress we've had and it is a solid book imo.

[Solaris]

Hey Solaris, have you read The Ragged Trousared Philanthropists by Robert Tressel, by any chance, because the concepts you outlined and even the basic chart you presented are like straight out of that book (well, close). Its quite a good look at society, as it realsiticly describves the life of a bunch of workers at the turn of the 20th century, though it does seem a bit "far out" (the whole extreme socialism thing) when it discusses the solutions to the problem of poverty and what not. Its rather intersting to note how much progress we've had and it is a solid book imo.
I just read it a couple of weeks ago :D

[Canadian Gunner]

I just read it a couple of weeks ago :D
Thought so. Its good eh?

[SIGbastard]

Oh and the people working 12 hour days in sweatshops just arn't working hard enough then? That is how Tesco are so rich, they exploit there work force, and hire people in countries with little to none worker laws, so they can exploit desperate people at will.


That is a horrible situation, BUT it just means some countries need more worker's rights laws.


It is initcially a planned redistribution, but its not at all unfair. To people who work in crapper jobs ie: Sewer Cleaner, or in other places where not enough workers are signing on, the hours can be reduced. Its not at all unfair, to someone whos gone thorugh college to get the same as someone who hasn't. For you to get more wealth, someone else has to get less and thats not fair. Some people are incabable of going to university, they just arn't clever enough, does that make it right to exploit them in a factory, and take there money? I don't think it does, any decent person deserves the same benifits from society as everyone else.


It's perfectly fair. Some people aren't smart. They can still acheive success without going to college. Why should they be paid the same amount for remedial tasks as someone who is extremely well skilled and trained? That would not be fair because you are expecting much more from a person and not rewarding them.


So the peasentry just tickled the Tsarist regime to death?


That was a completely different situation in a completely different age. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the socialists in the US are not the well armed population.


But under socialism, you wouldnt have to worry about giving youre children a better life.


Yea they are guaranteed a mediocre existence at best. No matter how talented they are they will be held back because it is not fair to the peons around them

People like Einstein, Galileo, etc are not the norm in society. That is why we call them geniuses. The average joe is not going to succeed if society is set up in such a way that drains away any motivating factors. Sure I would prefer to be a Dentist regardless, but I would not being willing to sacrifice at my expense and my families expense to get nothing in return. It is to much work.

Socialism as you describe creates a completely unmotivated society. There would be very little innovation.

I am all for workers making a wage that is sufficient to raise a family and keep food on the table. Socialism is not the answer. Back in the 50's in the states you could work an average job and make a decent living. At the same time you could also be a Doctor, Lawyer, etc and make serious amounts of money. If there was a clear cut way to get to that point I am sure we would see it alot today.

[Jandor]

They are the most essential part of the company.

While you are right that a business will not produce without management, it will also not get very far without workers.

Any idiot with two hands can fit some things together

I'll thank you not to accuse me and my colleagues of being idiots, not all manual jobs require no more intelligence than that of a chimp.

, but it takes skill to make the company work to the best of its ability.

It takes skill to make the products the company sells (depending on the product.)

[Kangy]

I wasn't talking about all manual jobs, just the sort of thing he seemed to be talking about (he seemed to be on the theme of supermarket workers) so I assumed he meant the people who pack the microwave-meal boxes and load the storage container, really. There's definitely a lot of industries where there's equally skilled workers on both 'sides' of the company, but this isn't really where Solaris is going with his whole redistribution of wealth thing, because they're going to be more balanced anyway.

[little.rebel]

Well if you look at the feudal system, peasants were alot better off than say after the IR.


Oh were they indeed????

The kings and sherrifs and lords used to "take" whichever peasents women they wanted at will. And just did what they wanted. They taxed peole as much as they wanted and broke the peasent down into absolute poverty.

Thats why we had the revolution which made parliament and the house of commons," commoners", and the french revolution there.

[Teh Pwned]

Plus, you only had to pay ten shillings to a peasent family if you ran over thier son or daughter, broke thier back, and killed them.

And if you couldn't pay the insanely high tax they put on you? You were just not allowed to leave the land until it was put off. That seems a little different than the "peasents" of today.

[Solaris]

The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist is excellant, we can see how the author is incrediblaly frustrated at the working class for allowing such a system to continue, it really changed my life that book.


That is a horrible situation, BUT it just means some countries need more worker's rights laws.
Yes but it also shows us how these people who have worked so hard (the bosses of Tesco) and apparently deserve so much money, really are complete filth who arn't fit to be called human.


It's perfectly fair. Some people aren't smart. They can still acheive success without going to college. Why should they be paid the same amount for remedial tasks as someone who is extremely well skilled and trained? That would not be fair because you are expecting much more from a person and not rewarding them.

No, no they can't. We need workers, we need people to work in facotorys and we need people to do these jobs. Say, hypnothetically, everyone in the world was clever, and everyone could become sucessful and go to college, tell me who would want to work in a factory? No-one, so it wouldnt be fair to pay the people who work there less, becuase there doing a service to socitey by doing a crap, but extremly essecital job. Just like the working class of today, who are doing a very important job. The only difference is that they can't really do much else. Does that mean we have to pay them less? Why do we currently judge skillfull jobs more worthy of more money than nessacarrity?


That was a completely different situation in a completely different age. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the socialists in the US are not the well armed population.
Yes, but we live in a democracy, where people run the country based on how the people vote, not on how many guns they have.


Yea they are guaranteed a mediocre existence at best. No matter how talented they are they will be held back because it is not fair to the peons around them
No. Not at all. They will live by "To each according to need, from each according to ability". This means people will contribute to the best of the ability. People with low mental ability will not be expected to have to go to college to make a decent ability, but people who are capable would be expected to do so. So if they are capable, they will be pushed to do so. So there will be no-one not going to college becuase they need to work to support there single mum, the state will support thoose who need it, and push people to contribue to the state the best they can, but without being overworked for profit.


People like Einstein, Galileo, etc are not the norm in society. That is why we call them geniuses. The average joe is not going to succeed if society is set up in such a way that drains away any motivating factors. Sure I would prefer to be a Dentist regardless, but I would not being willing to sacrifice at my expense and my families expense to get nothing in return. It is to much work.
It doesn't drain away motivating factors, it just doesnt punish people for not doing something they are unable to do. You wouldn't sacrifice anything for being a dentist, university would be free, and if not enough people were training to be dentists, then the hours you work would be reduced, so theres still a benifit.



Oh were they indeed????

The kings and sherrifs and lords used to "take" whichever peasents women they wanted at will. And just did what they wanted. They taxed peole as much as they wanted and broke the peasent down into absolute poverty.

Thats why we had the revolution which made parliament and the house of commons," commoners", and the french revolution there.
If we look at 1850s-1920s where capitalism was at its peak in Britian, there was massive poverty, the commons was full of land owners and arisocrats. Workers wern't payed enough to live on, the working class people lived in complete crap, this was capitalism at its worst, the fuedal system was alot better, but still crap.

[Mr Stabby]

pure capitalism isnt the answer, but pure socialism is a lot worse

[BirdMan]

Socialism is utopia,

I'll be a history teacher even If I dont get paid for it. For me, it is what I like to do, want to do and this is what's best for my personal improvement. I hate luxuary, and I hate money. I'm not a robot or a number, I'm a human being and I deserve to live for doing what I like AND helping the society. Money is useless, all I need is food and fresh air (Btw.. Kyoto FTW) and love. Capitalism will make me work with people far better off than me, creating new desires in my life, making me jealous of that new plasma TV and envy other people so I can realise how pittyfull my life is and how I would have been better off being a boss of a big cellphone company. If I had no-one to envy, I wouldn't be jealous, I would just live, do what I like, raise my family and most importanty, I would work to BE what I want not to HAVE what I want. We don't need no more technological improvement, we have everything we need, and now we live with tons of useless junk which get us "motivated" for our crappy job. I don't need this computer I'm writing this on, but my friends and my relatives all have one... "Darn it looks so fun! I want one too".. If my friends and relative never had a computer, i would not envy them and the desire of getting something new, bigger or better would have never come to my mind. I don't care if a new computer game comes out in the next few days, and I will live happily without it, but as soon as I hear it and see other people play it, i'll be tempted.... and i don't want to be tempted by some useless product.. because... it is useless. You don't need this to live.

/philosophy

[ComradeBadger]

You don't need much to live, you only need water to survive.


What you are describing isn't socialism, and it isn't a utopia - it's a closed society, and thus contains the seeds of it's own destruction.

You can't legislate human nature - that goes for BirdMan and Solaris. You cannot apply a all-pervasive law on action and reaction

[Raz]

Please, Solaris, gain some more insight on how the world really works. You are young and impressionable, it is truly a shame how left wing extremist propaganda has warped your view of the world. This isn't the goddamn 19th century anymore. Here in the West there is nothing like a dirt poor underclass as there perhaps used to be. In the countries that still have such a thing the solution is simply bringing them up to our level.

Another rather stupid comment in your previous post is Why do we currently judge skillfull jobs more worthy of more money than nessacarrity?
. Besides the fact that there are no A's and no R's in necessity, we judge skillful jobs worth more because because they require more skill there are fewer people that do them. The simple economic principle of supply and demand comes into play here. Factory workers are a dime a dozen so they get less, dentists are few and in demand so they make more money. From the rest of your posts I've already become certain of the fact that you lack even the most basic knowledge of economics. All that you know comes from that same extremist propaganda you get all your insights from. Please stop echoing what you've read in a few books and get some other perspectives on the workings of the world. I mean it, please.

You also seem to be under the horrible impression that top level management are a bunch of slacking slave-drivers, an image that has been stamped into your brain by the communist propagande you take for gospel truth. Calling them the filth of the earth is truly ignorant and hateful. The simple fact is that just as a factory can't work without workers, it cannot function without management. Please stop marginalising what these people do. The fact is that they deserve more money because what they do requires more skill, more effort, more brainpower, more time. They deserve more money than halfwits at the assembly line. People are not all equal. Some people deserve more because of what they contribute. Please get that through to you.

Also, the idea that people are somehow going to be just as motivated to work or attempt to get as good a job as possible without the benefits of extra pay is incredibly naive. In my country welfare is more lucrative than minimum wage, as is being on disability checks. Gee, I wonder why there are so many people living off the government's money here! People aren't all motivated by their desire to learn or to improve themselves, they're motivated by the money. That's simply how things work.

Furthermore, please check your damn spelling. I find it laughable how you are unable to even spell Leninist, Bureaucratic and fascist right when all you ever talk about are these things.

Before you even post a reply to this, or to any other political topic, take some time to get in touch with the real world. Get a job, get a proper education to learn about the things you think you know something about, specifically economy and history.

[Solaris]

Besides the fact that there are no A's and no R's in necessity, we judge skillful jobs worth more because because they require more skill there are fewer people that do them. The simple economic principle of supply and demand comes into play here. Factory workers are a dime a dozen so they get less, dentists are few and in demand so they make more money. From the rest of your posts I've already become certain of the fact that you lack even the most basic knowledge of economics. All that you know comes from that same extremist propaganda you get all your insights from. Please stop echoing what you've read in a few books and get some other perspectives on the workings of the world. I mean it, please.
Yes there are alot of factory workers, and there are few dentists, you know why? Becuase only a minority of people can be a dentist, not everyone is that clever. Is that fair? To force and eploit workers becuase of there intelligence, becuase that is whats happening to the workers in factory, there being robbed of there surplus value, and this is going to people who are intelligent enough to exploit them.


You also seem to be under the horrible impression that top level management are a bunch of slacking slave-drivers, an image that has been stamped into your brain by the communist propagande you take for gospel truth. Calling them the filth of the earth is truly ignorant and hateful. The simple fact is that just as a factory can't work without workers, it cannot function without management. Please stop marginalising what these people do. The fact is that they deserve more money because what they do requires more skill, more effort, more brainpower, more time. They deserve more money than halfwits at the assembly line. People are not all equal. Some people deserve more because of what they contribute. Please get that through to you.
I'm sorry, but seeing people make millions of the backs of people they force to work 12 hours a day, some of them children for barely enough to buy a loaf of bread.! Yes I am hateful towards them, they are complete b****ds, can you justify for a secound what there doing? No, no you can't there abusing these children in there f****g sweatshops for some more profit so they can build as secound mansion.

The bosses do not contribute more, not for one secound.
The people at the top are not better people, they just happen to be more clever. They deserve more money???? Why? Are they working on mininum wage, toiling day in day out, actually making the things? Saying that the boss makes more than the works is just complete crap, you've shown youreself up there. You say I don't know anything about economics and then say bosses contribute more than the workers, thats just rediculous, unless of course we can build houses buy bullying and underpaying the bricks?


Also, the idea that people are somehow going to be just as motivated to work or attempt to get as good a job as possible without the benefits of extra pay is incredibly naive. In my country welfare is more lucrative than minimum wage, as is being on disability checks. Gee, I wonder why there are so many people living off the government's money here! People aren't all motivated by their desire to learn or to improve themselves, they're motivated by the money. That's simply how things work.
There motivated by money becuase they grew up in poverty, I can see it out my window, and theres even more of it in the USA.



What you are describing isn't socialism, and it isn't a utopia - it's a closed society, and thus contains the seeds of it's own destruction.

You can't legislate human nature - that goes for BirdMan and Solaris. You cannot apply a all-pervasive law on action and reaction

Everything that has a beggining has an end.
What I am describing is socialism, and its not about restricting people, and controlling them. Its about giving people equal oppertunities and equal rights to enjoy life regardless of there ability, as long as they contribute as much as they can.

[Mr Stabby]

so socialism ie. the USSR, allows better personnel welfare, than Capitalism ie. UK.

:rolling:

[ComradeBadger]

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy"

I'm sorry what.. no control?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism

Oh, and why the hell should the government decide what's best for people.

I'm left by political nature, but I disagree with you vehemently

[Solaris]

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy"

I'm sorry what.. no control?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism

Oh, and why the hell should the government decide what's best for people.

I'm left by political nature, but I disagree with you vehemently

Okay when I said no control, I was comabtting a misbelief that I usually encounter: "Socilaism/communism means making everyone the same and making them live in the same houses and wear the same clothes ect.

Comrade the government would decide, becuase it completly elected by the people, democracy would be put everywhere possible it would be a completly new system, the workers would vote on the foreman who votes on his higher up ect. In short, the government would be more democratic than currently, and so would choose for the people, becuase it is the people.

so socialism ie. the USSR
The USSR wasn't socialist nor communist, it was state capitalist.
Just becuase it claimed to be doesnt make it so. Zimbabwe claims to be a democracy but we all know it isn't.

[Sulkdodds]

Now, I'm more left than right, both economically and authority/liberally (...yeah) and I believe there are a hell of a lot of problems with capitalism, and certainly with the way it is implemented in our society. But stop looking at the world in primary colours. Your view of capitalism is naively simplistic at best and ridiculous at worst.

Yes there are alot of factory workers, and there are few dentists, you know why? Becuase only a minority of people can be a dentist, not everyone is that clever. Is that fair? To force and eploit workers becuase of there intelligence, becuase that is whats happening to the workers in factory, there being robbed of there surplus value, and this is going to people who are intelligent enough to exploit them.

I hope you realise that intelligence, as you put it, is completely secondary in the modern world to dedication, drive and the willpower to put 120% into things -itself something that is aqquired through effort and not given at birth. I have met many truly stupid doctors and dentists. All they have to do is learn, which any human can do, and persevere, which any human can do (I'm not being against doctors and dentists here; I'm sure it's a very demanding job but you don't need to be born with hawking-like intellect to achieve it).

More people could become dentists if they wanted. But they don't want to, or they don't try to. Like Ren said, supply and demand. Dentists and lawyers earn lots because very few people take those career choices.

You need to rethink your black-and-white view of capitalism. Management is not all enslaving the poor and living fat off your ill-gotten gains. Niether does it require intelligence - again, it's drive and experience that matter. Your view of the 'working class', "working on mininum wage, toiling day in day out" is extremely simplistic and innacurate. The defining characterstic of low-paid jobs in our society is boredom and not hardship. Hell, in most cases, simply staying at the same job for 30 years will see you elevated and elevated until you're pretty high up the chain. The working class of our society are not getting their hands dirty in crampt, horrid cotton mills, losing arms to the clanking steam engines and whipped every day by a man in a top hat. In most cases, management is harder than low-paid work because there is more and not less to do. Like I said, boredom's the killer. Besides, without a manager, they'd not do anything in any useful fashion.

Your talk of 'people making millions of the backs of people they force to work 12 hours a day, some of them children for barely enough to buy a loaf of bread' is A. a generalisation and B. not a problem of capitalism per se. Rather, the things you describe are a problem of shit countries with shit labour laws - what you're talking about doesn't happen in this country, not legally. It happens because other countries in this world are not properly looking after their citizens and nobody is stopping human rights abuses or ensuring the corporations don't step out of line. It is not a problem of economic systems or of capitalism vs communism.

They will live by "To each according to need, from each according to ability". This means people will contribute to the best of the ability. People with low mental ability will not be expected to have to go to college to make a decent ability, but people who are capable would be expected to do so. So if they are capable, they will be pushed to do so. So there will be no-one not going to college becuase they need to work to support there single mum, the state will support thoose who need it, and push people to contribue to the state the best they can, but without being overworked for profit.

How is that fair? Clever people have to do more, but do not recieve any extra benefits? Or they do recieve extra benefits, and it's not fair?

The people at the top are not better people, they just happen to be more clever.

DOES NOT COMPUTE
REDO FROM START

[Mr Stabby]

The USSR wasn't socialist nor communist, it was state capitalist.
Just becuase it claimed to be doesnt make it so. Zimbabwe claims to be a democracy but we all know it isn't.


the USSR was applied socialism, even under Lenin, unless people were forced through terror to accept socialism it would never have been used

[Raz]

I'm sorry, but seeing people make millions of the backs of people they force to work 12 hours a day, some of them children for barely enough to buy a loaf of bread.! Yes I am hateful towards them, they are complete b****ds, can you justify for a secound what there doing? No, no you can't there abusing these children in there f****g sweatshops for some more profit so they can build as secound mansion.

The bosses do not contribute more, not for one secound.
The people at the top are not better people, they just happen to be more clever. They deserve more money???? Why? Are they working on mininum wage, toiling day in day out, actually making the things? Saying that the boss makes more than the works is just complete crap, you've shown youreself up there. You say I don't know anything about economics and then say bosses contribute more than the workers, thats just rediculous, unless of course we can build houses buy bullying and underpaying the bricks?

There motivated by money becuase they grew up in poverty, I can see it out my window, and theres even more of it in the USA.


You're living in a fantasy world, Solaris. As I previously suggested, get a job in a factory and see how things really work. People making millions over the backs of others? Don't be ridiculous. The only places in the world where such things actually happen are non-western countries with poor labour laws and as such the problem is not capitalism, it's the government of those specific countries. I certainly hope you don't actually think that your hyperbolic statement is at all applicable to any western business. There is no such thing as the rich industrialist sitting in his office all day smoking cigars and counting money while watching his lackeys whip the poor labouring hordes into submission. This is nothing more than a stupid stereotype that holds absolutely no water.

And yes, bosses do contribute more. Again, what they do is more difficult work. The fact is that while the assembly line worker can sit there all day carrying out his task without a care in the world the boss has his fate, the company's fate and the fate of all it's employees in his hands. For being the ones working the longest hours and making the hard decisions and having all the responsibilities that an assembly line worker doesn't have he deserves more rewards. The cog in the machine is inferior to the man operating the machine.

[Solaris]

More people could become dentists if they wanted. But they don't want to, or they don't try to. Like Ren said, supply and demand. Dentists and lawyers earn lots because very few people take those career choices.
No they couldnt. Becuase who would work the machines?

How is that fair? Clever people have to do more, but do not recieve any extra benefits? Or they do recieve extra benefits, and it's not fair?

No they dont at all have to do more.

In my maths class theres both intermediate and higher.
I'm getting an A* easilly Im just really good at maths, there are people on intermediate(which I find really easy) who are working about 10x harder than me and still getting a c, becuase they find it challenging.

I do 'cleverer' work, but they still work harder.

[Mr Stabby]

so jobs should be given out based on how much they want to do it, not how qualified they are...

[Teh Pwned]

I think this all goes to show that in Mankinds infinate escapade to find the perfect life, Capitalism, though it isn't perfect, is just a stepping stone on the way to perfection, and one stepping stone above socialism.

[Solaris]

I think this all goes to show that in Mankinds infinate escapade to find the perfect life, Capitalism, though it isn't perfect, is just a stepping stone on the way to perfection, and one stepping stone above socialism.
Back that up or shut up.

so jobs should be given out based on how much they want to do it, not how qualified they are...
Where did I say qualifacations didn't matter?
I'm saying that society takes according to ability. So if short recoil worked in a factory he would work 4 machines at once.

[short recoil]

A perfect system can only be perfect for an individual.

For example my perfect system would be survival of the fittest/fascist system.
Whereas someone who works well with money would be capatilist etc.

Don't try and come up with a perfect system, there isn't one all you can do is come up with something that satisfies as many people as possible. (we are about there)

[DrDevin]

A perfect system can only be perfect for an individual.

For example my perfect system would be survival of the fittest/fascist system.
Whereas someone who works well with money would be capatilist etc.

Don't try and come up with a perfect system, there isn't one all you can do is come up with something that satisfies as many people as possible. (we are about there)

Agreed.

I completely understand your ideas solaris, however I am not content with having only so much. I enjoy having quality possesions which I acquire through hard work and study. I don't show off but I am not content with an average car if I know their is something much better.

Sure I know people who are happy to be middle/lower class all their lives but some people want more and the if you force everyone to be equal then there will be violence/rioting.

If you put a genious on the same level as a factory worker then there is destined to be trouble. Sure the world tells you everyone should be equal but they are not (everyone should have equal rights though).

Where is the drive for sucess if you gain nothing by overachieving?

Also many tradesmen (carpenters, welders, mechanics) make really good money here: $60-$80 thousand dollars a year. I dont consider those jobs requiring a lot of mental capacity (although they are hard). Everyone is good at something!

My usual argument is that anyone can make money/be sucessful in a democracy like ours. Anyone can get money for an education through grants, start their own company, be promoted or even become a national leader. All it takes is work. If you are lazy you deserve what you get.

[little.rebel]

Facissm in its extreme is just another form of socialism. Which also has failed, adn proved that it was no good. It was too strict and too over enphasised in areas of life.

[Teh Pwned]

Back that up or shut up

In theory socialism is the morally superior social system despite its dismal record of failure in the real world. Capitalism, by contrast, is a morally bankrupt system despite the extraordinary prosperity it has created. In other words, capitalism at best, can only be defended on pragmatic grounds. We tolerate it because it works.

Ha, just google, yahoo, or any search engine will do, just look up Socialism vs. Capitalism, alot better arguments than ours. :p

[SIGbastard]

Solaris it doesn't take being clever or smart to achieve much. All it takes is dedication. I didn't even have a 3.0 in High School because I didn't take it serious. Hell I was stoned half the time I was at school. I did well enough on the ACT to get into the university where I lived (I never took the SAT's or whatever it's called). If I had applied a year later I would not have gotten in because the standards were raised. My grammar is horrible alot of the time as well as many other things.

While an undergrad I studied countless hours to get a competitive GPA. I have friends that are much smarter than me and I think could have done anything they want. They lacked motivation though and have basically done nothing with themselves.

The idea that people are unable to do this or that is utter bullshit. It's about committment and hard work. Unless you have some learning disability there is no excuse.

My parents started out with nothing. They are both from Arkansas. They lived in a trailer park and had one car that was 4 different colors with rust as one of the colors (they had that car for 12 years). My dad joined the Air Force and through their programs he has a BS in Electrical Engineering, a BS in something else, and a Master's in Computer Sciences. He is now a software engineer for Boeing. I know he used to write defense programs for B1 bombers but I have no idea now.

My point is this whole idea of yours that there are "clever" people and then everyone else is complete bull shit. People get where they are from hard work and dedication. Some people like me get an easier start because my parents made life easier for me than they had it. That is every parents goal and is completely achievable by anyone at least in the US. I don't know enough about other countries to include them but I am assuming that it is like that in alot of places.

[clarky003]

Lets face it socialisim , ie as in star trek socialisim, would be great if we had abundance of energy.. equaling abundance of food and anything that required energy to manufacture. It would all be as cheap as muck and we wouldnt have to worry about allocating cost's so much... so technology can defiantely help

Problem today is, we havnt been able to developed the right technologies or moral values (state of mind) to accomplish that.

Secondly socialisim under that context needs a unifying motive something that everyone can morally associate with no matter their religion or belief.. ie every decent person probably believes we should better ourselves for the whole, concentrate on the bigger picture, etc, ie a manhatten project for exploring our galaxy, ideas for converting all military's into one NASA like organisation.

That isnt emphasised in schools enough.. we are essentially brought up in constant aggressive competition (whos the bigger monkey shit) rather than taught howto appreciate each other and howto work together and be friendly at competing when we have to, we presently are all the things we cant be to move into a peaceful socialist society, majority wise we are irrationally emotional, possessive, egotisitcal, self perpetuated by personal aquisition of material wealth, alot of good people even lack motivation because we get depressed at the site of how much shittyness there is, and hardly being able to do a thing about it.

The one dreaded stink nugget with capitalist society is the attitude often needed to get to the top can easily corrupt, requiring the key things that make us ignorant, neglegent and overally bad, egotisim selfishness.. etc, so often enough it really is the shit's that end up controlling the planet, there are a majority of good people that could make something more of us if you gave them the chance who are left without a say, my pardon, a yes or no vote.

I dont really have anything honorable to say about capitalisim , it brings out the worst in us as a race, you cant have global standard of life equality with capitalisim it relies on the few, not the many, having heresay and resources. A form of socialism would make that possible in time, when we perhaps have learnt to not be such shits.

All I want to know is what are we all still doing roaming around squabling on this ball of rock under the lead of some egotisitical idiot's when we can make it possible to unify despite our fear's of a very small number of 'terrorist's opposed to western ideal's' or our irrational fears of other culture's, combining resources we can then try harder to allow us to have other places to go and other things to see, also so this place doesnt feel so cramped!.

[kirovman]

I think that nationalism brings out worse things than capitalism.

In European countries, I would say we have a healthy balance of capitalism/socialism.

We are not so polarised to an extreme, we have capitalist businesses here, free market, etc, but also we have a socialist style system to look after the less well off. No job? No problem, we'll give you some money and a place to live.
Need healthcare because you're sick, but you can't afford medical treatment? No problem, medical treatment is free for all.

I think we have one of the best ideas: allow people to work hard, progress up the career ladder and earn a better wage, while at the same time ensuring noone falls into poverty or unneccessary sickness.

Competativeness is motivational in itself, humans are competative by nature, it's how we have survived up until now. However, we are also cooperative, which is also a good survival skill in the right context.

If you remove competition from business, the business will become complacent, due to the fact that it dominates the market, will cut back on new products and research and development, everything will stagnate.

However I agree that businesses should be regulated sufficiently by the government, to avoid mal-practices and mistreatment of workers.

[ComradeBadger]

Agreed with Kirovman :)

[BirdMan]

Lets face it socialisim , ie as in star trek socialisim, would be great if we had abundance of energy.. equaling abundance of food and anything that required energy to manufacture. It would all be as cheap as muck and we wouldnt have to worry about allocating cost's so much... so technology can defiantely help

Problem today is, we havnt been able to developed the right technologies or moral values (state of mind) to accomplish that.

Secondly socialisim under that context needs a unifying motive something that everyone can morally associate with no matter their religion or belief.. ie every decent person probably believes we should better ourselves for the whole, concentrate on the bigger picture, etc, ie a manhatten project for exploring our galaxy, ideas for converting all military's into one NASA like organisation.

That isnt emphasised in schools enough.. we are essentially brought up in constant aggressive competition (whos the bigger monkey shit) rather than taught howto appreciate each other and howto work together and be friendly at competing when we have to, we presently are all the things we cant be to move into a peaceful socialist society, majority wise we are irrationally emotional, possessive, egotisitcal, self perpetuated by personal aquisition of material wealth, alot of good people even lack motivation because we get depressed at the site of how much shittyness there is, and hardly being able to do a thing about it.

The one dreaded stink nugget with capitalist society is the attitude often needed to get to the top can easily corrupt, requiring the key things that make us ignorant, neglegent and overally bad, egotisim selfishness.. etc, so often enough it really is the shit's that end up controlling the planet, there are a majority of good people that could make something more of us if you gave them the chance who are left without a say, my pardon, a yes or no vote.

I dont really have anything honorable to say about capitalisim , it brings out the worst in us as a race, you cant have global standard of life equality with capitalisim it relies on the few, not the many, having heresay and resources. A form of socialism would make that possible in time, when we perhaps have learnt to not be such shits.

All I want to know is what are we all still doing roaming around squabling on this ball of rock under the lead of some egotisitical idiot's when we can make it possible to unify despite our fear's of a very small number of 'terrorist's opposed to western ideal's' or our irrational fears of other culture's, combining resources we can then try harder to allow us to have other places to go and other things to see, also so this place doesnt feel so cramped!.

I want you for president of the world! Could not have said better, great post