Capitalism works, but does it works too well?

[Hayabusa Rider]

When the Vanderbilts and Carnegies were in power, it was a different world. Back in those days, the money was concentrated in the hands of the few indeed. Now there are wealthy people, but most of the money is in the hands of corporations. Vanderbilt had the means and motivation for aesthetics or opulence if you prefer. Corporations aren't people in a real sense. They are more like animals, but instead of food, they hunt profits for profit and not with any care about the things that mattered to the wealthy of the past. It's still capitalism though.

Also, it was a sport to outdo other moguls with estates and giving. Corporations don't have egos like that. They hunt and eat.

Back then the billionaires looked at something and said "If I spend a lot of money I can make something outstanding". Corporations effectively say "If something outstanding is made it will cost a lot of money". It's a reversal.

With that in mind, as our culture became more utilitarian the craftsmen died off with no one to pass their trades to. In some cases we have no idea how some things were done. The techniques weren't documented because they were passed from master to apprentice. That is gone forever.

So even if one wanted to emulate the works of the past, it would be exceedingly difficult to do so. The Art is lost.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Having lived my life next to St. John's, the oldest city in North America at little over 500 years old and with homes ranging from 205 years old and up I have to say they can be damn ugly.

The biggest attraction to them is the fact you are looking into the past, you see the style of buildings that no longer exist today, and each one is different as there where no copy & paste houses. Cost would have also been a HUGE factor, when you walk through the house you see how corners where cut everywhere, lack of expertise causing problems and cheap material that was used. By no means are these homes superior in look or design to modern houses, they are strikingly different from modern styles that many have grown tired of. If we had those styles today we'd be stick of them too.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Also, it was a sport to outdo other moguls with estates and giving. Corporations don't have egos like that. They hunt and eat.

And defecate.
Mostly on us.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
When the Vanderbilts and Carnegies were in power, it was a different world. Back in those days, the money was concentrated in the hands of the few indeed. Now there are wealthy people, but most of the money is in the hands of corporations. Vanderbilt had the means and motivation for aesthetics or opulence if you prefer. Corporations aren't people in a real sense. They are more like animals, but instead of food, they hunt profits for profit and not with any care about the things that mattered to the wealthy of the past. It's still capitalism though.

Also, it was a sport to outdo other moguls with estates and giving. Corporations don't have egos like that. They hunt and eat.

Back then the billionaires looked at something and said "If I spend a lot of money I can make something outstanding". Corporations effectively say "If something outstanding is made it will cost a lot of money". It's a reversal.

With that in mind, as our culture became more utilitarian the craftsmen died off with no one to pass their trades to. In some cases we have no idea how some things were done. The techniques weren't documented because they were passed from master to apprentice. That is gone forever.

So even if one wanted to emulate the works of the past, it would be exceedingly difficult to do so. The Art is lost.

Huh? That is all ridiculous. Where are you getting this information? Have you never looked at decent houses build even recently? Where do you think the elaborate works that go into these mansions come from? Hell, even on my house we had carpenters that did all the molding, etc. in our theater area from scratch as well as our closets. Local temples, churches, etc. all hire craftsman to work on everything from marble to sandstone, crafting everything from statues to pillars.

The craftsmen are still alive and very well. You all are acting like just because there is some low-income tract-housing that it represents the entire country.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
When the Vanderbilts and Carnegies were in power, it was a different world. Back in those days, the money was concentrated in the hands of the few indeed. Now there are wealthy people, but most of the money is in the hands of corporations. Vanderbilt had the means and motivation for aesthetics or opulence if you prefer. Corporations aren't people in a real sense. They are more like animals, but instead of food, they hunt profits for profit and not with any care about the things that mattered to the wealthy of the past. It's still capitalism though.

Also, it was a sport to outdo other moguls with estates and giving. Corporations don't have egos like that. They hunt and eat.

Back then the billionaires looked at something and said "If I spend a lot of money I can make something outstanding". Corporations effectively say "If something outstanding is made it will cost a lot of money". It's a reversal.

With that in mind, as our culture became more utilitarian the craftsmen died off with no one to pass their trades to. In some cases we have no idea how some things were done. The techniques weren't documented because they were passed from master to apprentice. That is gone forever.

So even if one wanted to emulate the works of the past, it would be exceedingly difficult to do so. The Art is lost.

Huh? That is all ridiculous. Where are you getting this information? Have you never looked at decent houses build even recently? Where do you think the elaborate works that go into these mansions come from? Hell, even on my house we had carpenters that did all the molding, etc. in our theater area from scratch as well as our closets. Local temples, churches, etc. all hire craftsman to work on everything from marble to sandstone, crafting everything from statues to pillars.

The craftsmen are still alive and very well. You all are acting like just because there is some low-income tract-housing that it represents the entire country.

You have low standards. I have seen very few places that compare to what was done a century ago. Is there SOMEONE who can do good work? Sure, but that number is vanishingly small compared to what was available then. Those who do woodworking are astonished by what was done in elder days especially considering what they had to work with. I guess we know a hawk from a handsaw.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
I'm looking at this from a somewhat abstracted cultural perspective, and I'd really like to avoid getting into a debate on actual political issues (rich vs. poor, etc).

So, the idea is that 100 years ago, when there was less stringent regulation of monopolies and uncompetitive business practices, society had more cultural depth. With wealth concentrated in the hands of fewer people, and profits more easily made, we saw these moneymakers pour a lot of their money back into the area in which they lived. Architecture, for example, was much grander. Compare the "McMansions" of today with Victorian's of 100 years ago -- the craftsmanship and attention to detail in those early houses was lightyears beyond the stuff built today. Even your average "suburban" house of 1900 was a much more unique, interesting, appealing structure than the mass-produced houses we use today. Philanthropy, too, seemed to be much more common -- think of all the colleges, universities, hospitals, and libraries which were founded by a "robber barron".

Because money was controlled by fewer members of society, and the smaller amount of competition, more money could be spent on things which did not have a direct relation to profit-making. More money could be spent by the wealthy on "prideful" items, such as local parks or grand architecture.

Today, however, the global nature of the economy combined with companies who are competitive down with every cent, has reduced the amount of "discretionary" money available to these companies and wealthy individuals. If you spend money on anything which doesn't directly improve a companys bottom line, your competitors will capitalize on that misstep, and your company will be no more. I think the easiest way to see the truth in this is to look at modern architecture. There is barely any creativity or purely artistic design -- it's function over form. No elaborate facades, no rich materials, just a utilitarian design which maximizes the use of the space. I mean, look at the skyline of NYC today -- it's all big glass towers. But you can still pick out the old, iconic skyscrapers of decades ago -- the empire state building, the GE building, etc. Those buildings have a cultural value which modern equivalents do not.

Again, if you want to reply, please stick to this narrow topic I'm trying to explore. Replying with "but now we have a more equal distribution of wealth" isn't relevant, because I'm really just trying to look at this from a cultural point of view. I mean, what we remember about Rome isn't how equal or inequal her citizens were, but her legacy of grand architecture, art, and literature.

makes no sense. shaving pennies was an idea created long ago, and eeking out extra efficiencies was totally part of the industrialists playbook from the beginning. discretionary income is same as ever. as a portion of total countries wealth the rich of the past might have been richer. iconic buildings were built by men with incredible personal wealth from pinching pennies. bill gates could build something awesome, but he spends it in africa instead apparently. course this is getting slightly less impressive as more and more people here need help.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Too much competition can be bad- it turns the product into a commodity, which means you have to sell in great volumes in order to make any profit.

That's really only true if a business is trying to be the lowest price provider in the market. There are plenty of other business plans that aren't centered solely on price, and as a result, don't result in price wars. Apple is an excellent example, as are many other niche market companies.

Apple has a product that is viewed superior in the consumer's eyes. If you are on par with your competitors, the only thing you have to give an advantage is price.

That's my point. Apple has figured out a way to sell something that is, in reality, no different than it's competitor's products at a price that is often above competing prices. While all companies have to consider the optimal price to charge for a product, Apple is not competing on price. They are catering to a market that places a high value on image, and that is what differentiates them.

 

[13Gigatons]

Today sadly people still waste $200,000,000 to build a church when a small gather place would be more economical.