Why? This statement doesn't make sense. There is nothing in what I or you or anyone has written that would make this statement true.
> I really don't understand the need many people on this list to represent
> capitalism as an arena of mere criminality and chicanary. I don't expect
> more from the aanarchsits, but the Marxists or those in their
> neighborhood should understand that in the real of exchnage, all is
> freedom, equality, proprty and Bentham. Equivalent is exchanged for
> equivalent. The normal case is not where the capitalist steals, but where
> he keeps his promises. Marx;s great discovery was tro show that
> capitalist ptofit was nonetheless possible because of exploitation.
>
>jks
You're putting words in my mouth if you claim I made any statement concerning criminality or chicanery. I made no such claim. I did however notice you declined my offer to speculate on the outcome of the business transaction I posed. Why? What do you think happened in the case I posed? Does it defend or undermine your argument or mine? People generally sign contracts with the intention of following through on them. You make the claim it is because they trust each other I claim they do not or they wouldn't have the contracts. They want to make money, they want to do business, the terms of the contract generally allow both parties to profit so both parties follow through. It is mutually beneficial but that has nothing to do with ethics, trust or the decency of the people involved contrary to what you claim. You again default to the binary it is all about trust or it is all an unsustainable cheat. By the way, when the capitalist keeps his promises, he steals. It is not an either or proposition. Why is that so hard to understand? Exploitation is theft.You know this. What exactly is it you're trying to say?
John Thornton
>John Thornton <jthorn65 at mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >Actually, this is cheap cynicism that shows a mistaken grasp of the nature
> >of markets and business activities. Business runs mainly on trust ...
>
>Untrue. If this were true contracts would not be necessary. Contracts are
>insisted on because of lack of trust. There is no way to finesse this
>point. Trust exists at some level but it is not the main level of operation
>and it is subservient to distrust. You trust the other party will do what
>they agree to because they have agreed to in writing and will in all
>probability face a financial penalty for violating it. You don't trust them
>to do the right thing but rather the contractually agreed upon thing.
>I lent my brother $9000 and he signs nothing because I trust him.
>If I borrow $9000 from the bank to buy a used car I sign a contract because
>the bank does not trust me, pure and simple.
>
> >and requires an fairly robust ethical standard. If it's all a cheat and
> >and sham, then any market system would collapse in very short order. The
> >law and threat of legal sanction, civil and criminal, is incapable of
> >keeping people in line if they are not generally pretty decent to start
> with.
>
>That depends on what behaviors you are discussing. If you are talking
>murder then yes the threat of legal action has almost nothing to do with
>whether people murder each other or not. That is not true for business
>transactions. If a company ordered fixtures for their location and never
>received a bill due to a clerical error and the billing company said they
>had no record of the transaction so they did not know how to charge do you
>believe that the company on the receiving end would voluntarily step up and
>pay the full amount or would they would tell the fixture company when they
>sorted out their billing p! roblems to send them a complete bill and they
>would pay the amount due then? No properly itemized bill, no payment
>forthcoming. I picked this problem for the reason that I have been in the
>position of one of the companies suggested above. Guess what happened. Did
>contracts or trust rule the day? Feel free to post your guess here for all
>to see. The "decency" of the parties in question may have had less to do
>with this than you would like to believe. The odds are neither party
>involved was a rapist or murderer and was considered by their peers to be a
>"decent" person.
>Why does it have to be "mainly trust" or else "all cheat and sham"? It
>doesn't of course as most things don't exist in such unnuanced black and
>white. It is mainly distrust, with contractual obligations enforced by law.
>There is some trust involved but the trust is that both parties operate in
>the same manner for the same reasons, not that either of them behaves
>"e! thically" however that is defined. The trust is in consistency, not
>"decency".
>
> >You know this, too. You act on it even if you don't officially believe
> >it. jks
>
>I don't know this and you may or may not believe it that is beside the point.
>I operate on trust where friends and family are concerned. Everyone else
>gets to sign a contract. When lending institutions dismiss with contracts
>and simply lend money mostly on trust you will be correct, until then you
>are mistaken.
>
>John Thornton
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free.
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/msgr/evt=26089/*http://messenger.yahoo.com>Download
>now.
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk