- it's not a market based problem, but it is a free market based solution. The problem is that she is part of the protected class by the government, that has the ability to bring up lawsuits based on government laws, and the lawsuits will be against the company as well, so the correct solution is to do everything to mitigate the damage that is caused by the government and in this case it means not to hire her.
It also means that the team needs to be restructured, people need to be removed in order to change this culture they have, because gov't protected classes are not only employees.
By the way, whoever is moderating you is just as much an idiot as you are. Definition of a fascist is somebody who wants to see the private people fight government power that consists of politicians and preferred monopolies?
Fuck you, gov't is the fascist system in power, that merges the political system with the preferred corporations. The other businesses end up paying for all of this.
The people who are paying for the nonsense of gov't stealing and spending on itself and on its preferred corporations, these people should be tired of this huge wealth transfer.
The politicians are buying the votes of the majority of the population via huge wealth transfers, and the companies that are paying for all of this are demonised.
The power is in the hands of fascists, and you are a fucking supporter of that system. Who are you supporting, is it Lockheed Martin and Boeing or is it Bank of America, City, JPMorgan and Goldman?
it would be basically one set of corporations fighting another set. Of-course it's very hard to beat Lockheed Martin and Boeing, no question about it.
As Romney said: corporations are people, my friend.
Of-course corporations are the people who run them, the entity is a fiction, there are always people behind the corporate fiction.
There is one set of people, who are on the dole, this includes the likes of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, but this also includes all the other welfare recipients (from SS to Medicare, business regulations for monopolies to banks).
OTOH there are the people who are paying for all this nonsense and they can either fight it or leave.
But you think that the system that is in place, with all the gov't power and all the other interests has conscience?
Google and the rest need to PROTECT themselves against the evil power of government threat of violence. They have to protect themselves, they are not attacking government, they are trying to protect themselves against the government attack.
I would be so happy to see a huge number of corporations in USA to form one coalition and build an army and send it to take down the fucking government, that would be a good start.
The solution is not to have a 'team of Neanderthals', because it doesn't even have to be another employee that files a lawsuit, it can be a client or ANYBODY actually, and it can come back to bite ME.
Of-course I wouldn't hire a bunch of Neanderthals, but if they are already there and I have to be responsible for this, I wouldn't create a situation that would result in a lawsuit, of-course not. ALL other considerations become second rate, irrelevant to me.
The gov't creates a situation, where hiring and firing people is very tricky and very expensive, I would do as little hiring as possible, I wouldn't hire people from protected classes, so I would not have raised chances of lawsuits. Then again, that's why my business is not in a place that has those types of laws, I moved partly because I don't want anything to do with gov't giving classes of people ability to destroy me financially based on gov't privilege.
The problem is gov't that puts me in a position where I have to think FIRST about all the ways that I can get screwed by gov't power because I hire or fire somebody.
The problem is also with that team, apparently it's full of idiots, but then again, if it was my team, it would not be made up of people like that, and my advice is: NOT TO HIRE THE WOMAN and then START DEALING WITH THE TEAM MEMBERS, replace some of the worst offenders, change the culture inside the team.
Until he does that, until his team has no culture of such behaviour in it, he shouldn't even be interviewing women.
In the situation described in this story? Of-course I would!
I wouldn't tell her that, but hiring her is opening myself up to an ENORMOUS potential to litigation. This has nothing to do with the woman, it has everything to do with the gov't law, that allows the woman to SUE ME!
I wouldn't hire people who have much higher chance of suing me for something that has nothing even to do with my business.
If you are a member of a class that has special protections by gov't, I don't want to deal with you, and it doesn't matter to me what kind of a person you are, this is purely statistics, I am going to get sued because of gov't!
That's a huge part of the reason why jobs are moving where they are moving - less gov't intervention. I don't have a problem hiring women, I have a problem with GOVERNMENT that forces me to hire or fire or handle people in a way that is specific and if I don't do what they tell me, I will be sued.
It's my money, it's my time, it's my business.
Now, as I said, the guy should not hire her, but he should look at his team and start diluting it with people who will not behave in such a way, because they give the potential to other lawsuits. A person doesn't even have to work for me to sue me, if one of my employees does something or says something that can cause the lawsuit... forget about it, he is gone.
It's all bullshit, none of this is going to prevent the problem given what is described in the summary of this 'story', the only correct solution is NOT to hire this woman at this point if the project that these people are working on is at all important to anybody.
Eventually some of the worst offenders need to be switched to other people, who just don't behave this way.
In the 1960's and 1970's, through the concerted efforts of well meaning organizations like Greenpeace, the nuclear power industry was destroyed.
- you are absolutely right, any type of non-economic based intervention in the economy causes the exact opposite consequences to what they are supposedly stand for.
Of-course I don't actually believe that any government regulation is based on good intentions, they are all based on political calculations for a politicians to get ahead, to stay in power, to get more for himself. But even if EVERY regulation was 'well meaning' from the very beginning and had 'well meaning' people regulating, etc., ALL of those regulations would still backfire eventually and cause the exact problem that they are supposedly there to prevent.
When gov't creates yet another law with the word 'right' in it, all it means that rights will be diminished.
When gov't creates yet another law with the word 'equality' in it, it means there will be more inequality.
If a law is created with the word 'health care', there will be no health care eventually, as this law will become part of the reason the economy will get destroyed and there will be no health care.
If a law is created with the words 'affordable', it means that nobody will be able to afford it.
It's like that new law that wants every swimming pool and every miniature golf course to be completely accessible by the disabled people, it means that huge numbers of swimming pools and miniature golf courses will be shut down, the prices for those that stay operational will go way up.
If a law is created that say: 'protect environment', the environment will get destroyed.
'Clean air' will eventually cause massive loss of productivity and of all innovation in manufacturing and then there will be no clean air, because everybody will be back to burning wood and coal to provide themselves with the energy needed to survive.
etc.etc.etc.
Greenpeace is not government itself, but its power is political, all of its accomplishments are political, they are all in the same realm - meddling with the free market economy via threat of violence.
In reality of-course, most if not all of these types of movements are Marxist in nature, looking to destroy capitalism and free market, oh well, they'll get their wish, but it means that the pollution levels will go up.
Only the economy that is growing based on real economic fundamentals and not on threat of violence and gov't intervention produces innovation that eventually solves the problems that become apparent in the beginning.
Child labour, racial discrimination, disabled people, etc.etc., all of this is taken care of by the free market capitalism, which works to produce more and reduce prices, because of growth of competition and search of profit.
Gov't can only reverse these trends - make the economy weaker, take from it, redistribute the means of production in an unproductive manner, at some point stop the production, destroy the money and shut down the economy and then there will be millions of people without any way to support themselves in such an environment, and they'll end up polluting much more, burning things, they will be killing each other, etc.etc.
All of the things the governments and the do-gooders of the world are supposedly against, they are brining back by fighting against profitability and private ownership of means of production.
Yeah, it's amazing how ridiculous the OP comment is and how ridiculous its moderation is.
He is stating obvious lies, there is no free market capitalism in action, he is blaming capitalism explicitly and the Pavlovian response in 99% of the readers implicitly adds the notion of 'free market' to it, when of-course the reality is that the combination of State + Corporate management is actually fascism and has nothing to do with free market capitalism.
There are NO free market capitalist nuclear power plants, they are made impossible by the government, which regulates that industry, provides the moral hazards, sells licenses, prevents prices from falling by destroying competition that would have existed in the actual free market in that industry, prevents any innovation.
All nuclear power plants are either completely state ran or are a conglomeration between State and some enterprise that has access to the power of the State, and the safety record shows neither is good for the market or actually safe, from Chernobyl to this Japanese plants, there is no free market capitalism, and it's blamed by the socialists and Marxists as always!
It is the government that should be kicked out of nuclear, not the other way around. Capitalism in a free market (without gov't intervention) will deliver the highest possible quality products and services at best possible prices.
Over 40 years of operations Standard Oil was constantly lowering prices, from 30 cents per gallon of refined oil in 1969 down to 5.9 cents per gallon and so on, until it was broken up by the corrupt government that should have never touched the company that had 150 competitors at the time and was providing the market with the best quality, lowest price service.
Why was it done, was it done to help the consumers, clients of Standard Oil? No. It was done to help some other companies, who could not otherwise compete with Standard Oil. Prices never came down again since then, they always went up since that time.
The last thing a company wants to do is to destroy itself, to have a nuclear disaster on its hands and to kill its own people and destroy its own capital asset that makes money.
The problem is not capitalism, capitalism in a free market is the solution. The problem is the government meddling with the free market, setting up moral hazards, creating monopolies, causing prices to rise via money printing (inflation) and all the regulations and laws that destroy productivity.
Combining a company with government produces terrible results, allowing government to run something produces terrible results.
The best results are produced via competition among many people trying hard to make profit.
Yet another reason why the corporate infection of our democracy basically means our doom.
- yeah yeah yeah, democracy is the gateway to tyranny, USA is supposed to be a democratic representative republic, not a democracy, where every moron on welfare (and every government job is also a form of welfare) gets to vote.
Science and education are a consequence of a healthy free market capitalist economy, they don't appear out of vacuum.
First come the businesses, then comes science and education.
USA lost its manufacturing because of the growing government that took over every function of society, that destroyed every individual liberty, destroyed money.
Once manufacturing is gone you cannot have science and education because there is no business reason to have it, and thus eventually all money for it stops, and all money is created by business, not by your lovely government.
- irrelevant, doesn't matter where everybody starts from, the only question is this: is the gov't prevented from stealing individual freedom, so that it is prevented from selling it to those first in line?
B: all parties are rational actors
- completely irrelevant.
C: all parties are fully informed and knowledgeable.
- completely irrelevant.
D: and that monopolies never form.
- monopolies are only created by government force, businesses without gov't power do not form monopolies, they can become large economies of scale and hold that position as long as they provide the best product at the best price.
A moderately (and properly) regulated market
- an oxymoron. There cannot be regulation that stays moderate and proper.
All it will take is the rest of the world to stop giving you charity, all this debt, that you are able to accumulate right now, you can't repay it.
So here is the path you are on: eventually the charity stops and you can't buy things that other people make with dollars anymore, you have to start producing something again. USA will be a net energy and raw material and food exporter at that point, but exporting raw materials, energy and food doesn't take 300,000,000 people, it takes a fraction, maybe under 10% of all people, maybe under 5%.
So there will be a huge number of people looking to do something on their own, but they won't be able to buy new stuff. Instead USA will also be selling its used to stuff to other people, who can afford it at that point, so USA will become a huge garage sale.
However this also means that there will be some revitalisation of "Toolbox" skills, you won't throw out that pair of shoes or pants, you'll fix it or you'll ask somebody to fix it. You won't throw away that TV, you'll be looking for ways to fix it, etc.etc.
It'll come back, of-course the standard of living will be much lower, but what are you going to do?
When I first saw Germany a few years back, I was struck at how poor the people are, much poorer than in USA and Canada it seemed. Well the reason for it is that they never actually lived on credit, instead they were the ones producing, and since the Euro steals their purchasing power, they were producing and then selling to all those who DID BORROW, like Greece, Spain, Italy, France, etc.
So borrowing and buying other people's productivity IS GREAT! It gives you a huge advantage, incredible quality of life, plenty of leisure and products that you didn't work for.
But the problem is, once the Germans stop subsidising the Europe (they'll stop eventually), once China and Japan stop subsidising USA.... what are the debtors going to do?
No real money, no productivity. What to do? They'll find ways to export what they can - give back their consumer goods at garage sales, to the people who produce and who will have higher purchasing power once their gov't stops stealing it from them, sell their raw materials and energy and food they produce.
Become tourist destinations that are only affordable to the productive, while the rest the people in the country can't afford to stay in those hotels, resorts, etc.
The toolbox will be rebuilt, it's not a great thing by the way, it means there will be no choice.
- it's this type of mentality. You son of a bitch, you are supposed to live forever, your country depends on your ability to pay taxes, taxes is where all the action is at, how dare you?
the 'rich' didn't need those goods to become extremely cheap, they could buy the mobile phones at 2.5K per unit, they could afford 25K plasma screens.
The rich are the people who don't need to work and they work anyway, in your world Jobs should have quit back in 1985, maybe he would have still been alive now. But he didn't quit, spent under 4% of his entire wealth on himself, the rest is always invested in productivity, which you are saying shouldn't even occur, because why should he do it? He already had more than he spent in his life by 1985.
The people must be free to innovate and create new ideas to satisfy market demand, and market demand is infinite. People's desires are infinite, and the 'rich' continue working because their work allows them to see things that could never be otherwise, they do the work to own more because they can, not because they must.
The rest must take this opportunity that they are providing and come up with the new ways of satisfying the infinite market demand, thus creating new ways to exchange for the things that we all need.
At some point nearly ALL people were busy making food.
The rich sell to people who have something of greater value to give back.
- greater value?
Not greater value, otherwise those people would NOT buy. It's up to the buyer, not the seller, to determine whether the purchase will happen. Obviously you don't understand that the people who shell out their money for whatever, a phone, a piece of clothing, whatever, they believe they are getting a good deal.
You think they are not getting a good deal?
from 1999 to 2006 I purchased some properties, renovated and rented them out, sold some later, I did plenty of renovation after my normal work hours, I learned to do woodwork, plumbing, electrical wiring, framing, worked with concrete and with drywall, did all sorts of things. I am telling you, I did those things for some time and later on I decided to stop doing it and just pay others to do it. Did I believe I paid them something of 'greater value' than the work was they have done for me?
I believe it was a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange of money and product or service, and nobody forced me to buy it, nobody forced me to pay, nobody forced the people I paid to do it for my money either.
People pay money not when they believe they are getting ripped off (unless it's taxes or other gov't fees, so there they are getting ripped off), people pay money when they believe they are getting good value.
As for all those evil programs... don't worry, you're about to get your way.
- you think you are telling me something that I don't know? Something that I didn't say dozens of times here? Eventually these programs will all go away, and it's a great thing, people will have to work again and will be free of gov't again.
You aren't getting the picture... wages will drop to "0"
- let's hope so. You see, the more work that can be done at 0 or near 0, the better it is for the overall economy.
Do you think we want JOBS? NO!
We want productivity, we want THINGS. We want LEISURE.
But we can't have leisure by legislating it. SOME work will be done at 0 or near 0, we know it, because that's what we do - hardware and software destroys manual work all the time, I am personally responsible for something like 12,000 jobs that disappeared over the past 20 years for sure, but it is a GOOD THING.
The problem is that some of the people that are losing those specific jobs are not allowed to find new jobs in the market, where gov't is constantly regulating, stealing and transferring wealth either by direct taxes or by the tax of inflation.
At some point in history almost all people (over 90% for sure) were constantly busy looking for food, subsistence farming, hunting, fishing, gathering. Only a very small number of people could do something else, eventually we replaced almost all of the farmers, gatherers, hunters, fishers with machines and other types of capital (like animal farms, fish farms, etc.etc.) and it will continue, at some point even fewer people will be needed to make all the food.
It's a great thing, hopefully we keep on doing this exact same thing with all other types of jobs.
The problem is not the loss of the old jobs, the problem is that the gov't is standing in the way of free market capitalism, it's trying to prevent progress from happening.
All the regulations, labour laws, pension laws, every new program and every new dollar printed, all of this prevents real investment from taking place, it prevents people from becoming useful business owners, employees and contractors in other areas of life.
The human desire for new things is insatiable, it's infinite. We still do not have underground cities, flying cities, underwater cities, we do not have real 3d manufacturing that could actually truly build everything we want, we do not have every form of entertainment, we do not have casual space travel or even space mining yet.
We don't have 1000 year life spans, we have almost nothing compared to what we could have if gov't would just not be what it is - destroyer of our freedoms.
See there was this magical time about 60 years ago, when businesses actually provided these crazy things call PENSIONS.
- it's a wrong way to go, the people shouldn't be relying on one employer or any gov't for this. People's savings are nothing, thank GOVERNMENT, they can't retire ever.
Inflation and destruction of the economy, and thus constantly rising prices prevents retirement.
The free market economy that USA USED TO HAVE allowed people to retire at some point, but eventually the free market was destroyed and the gov't took over, and everything that gov't promises to make 'free and available' becomes completely unaffordable.
It's true in retirement, in health care, in education, then it became true in housing, it's becoming true in everything.
The TAX rate back then, was over 95% for those making millions, and they still got rich, lived great lives and the average Joe owned a house, sent his kids to college, and the wife stayed at home raising the kids. Debt was unheard of.
- yeah, tax rate used to be 0.
0. 0% $0.
That was when the USA became the manufacturing and exporting powerhouse and thus the biggest creditor in the world.
With taxes at 95% obviously NOBODY PAID THEM, people look fo
Or, governmet is a process which stops people without wealth from taking it (by force) from those who make it.
- this is only a concern for the type of gov't that is not set up to protect people's freedoms, this is a concern for a gov't that is a totalitarian, a dictatorial gov't, a monarchy.
In a free society the people must protect themselves, the free market will provide the necessary solutions for this, including private security forces. What do you think businesses hire private security for? Why do you think people install security systems in their homes? Cars? Why do some people buy guns?
The private property must be protected by the private property owner from other individuals and businesses. The gov't isn't even supposed to get in the way.
The market is concerned with nothing. It has not brain, no leader nothing. Everything is an emergent property.
- sure, but the market IS concerned with getting the most products that it wants at lowest prices and highest quality. It's not like the market is in VACUUM, the market is people and people want low prices, high quality and plenty of choice. Not to understand such simple things can be considered stupid.
Government is about the rule of law without which the market as you know it would not exist.
- aah, wrong. The law that the Constitutional gov't should be concerned with, is the law that prevents the GOVERNMENT from abusing its power over the individuals.
The criminal law, that you are talking about, does not require any gov't at all.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what free market capitalism is.
- you are not reading me then.
Capitalism is private ownership of factors of production, using savings to invest to achieve profit.
Free market is absence of gov't meddling with business and individuals, and the type of law that prevents the gov't from stealing private property, life and liberty of individuals.
WITHOUT free market the way to achieve profits is not by giving the market what it wants but by buying the power that the gov't steals from the individuals.
A company that is first in line to buy the stolen individual freedoms from gov't is the company that will crash its competitors, create huge barriers to entry and would become the monopolist to charge whatever and will legislate that everybody must buy its products too.
This is simply impossible without gov't stealing those freedoms that then can be sold to the businesses.
Of-course, the bail-outs are never supposed to be possible, but the gov't stole the power from the people.
Gov't is not authorised to print money, it's not authorised to give bailouts, but it's not authorised to command business, it's not authorised to command individuals, it's not authorised to offer to steal from some to redistribute to others.
None of this is authorised, but it is what is done.
Once the gov't is big enough to do that, there will be a queue of people trying to buy that power, and they will buy it, and it is what is known as corruption - stealing freedoms from people by government, because once the freedoms are stolen, it's only a short matter of time before somebody buys the power to abuse the people who no longer have those freedoms.
The gov't is supposed to protect people's freedoms, not to steal them, but people voted themselves into this by looking for a short term benefit of the promised free stuff. Democracy in action - always leads to tyranny.
Slashdot Mirror
absolutely.
Here is what happens to individuals when they try to appeal to the law to fight the government.
That doesn't sound like a market-based solution,
- it's not a market based problem, but it is a free market based solution. The problem is that she is part of the protected class by the government, that has the ability to bring up lawsuits based on government laws, and the lawsuits will be against the company as well, so the correct solution is to do everything to mitigate the damage that is caused by the government and in this case it means not to hire her.
It also means that the team needs to be restructured, people need to be removed in order to change this culture they have, because gov't protected classes are not only employees.
By the way, whoever is moderating you is just as much an idiot as you are. Definition of a fascist is somebody who wants to see the private people fight government power that consists of politicians and preferred monopolies?
You are all a joke.
Fuck you, gov't is the fascist system in power, that merges the political system with the preferred corporations. The other businesses end up paying for all of this.
The people who are paying for the nonsense of gov't stealing and spending on itself and on its preferred corporations, these people should be tired of this huge wealth transfer.
The politicians are buying the votes of the majority of the population via huge wealth transfers, and the companies that are paying for all of this are demonised.
The power is in the hands of fascists, and you are a fucking supporter of that system. Who are you supporting, is it Lockheed Martin and Boeing or is it Bank of America, City, JPMorgan and Goldman?
it would be basically one set of corporations fighting another set. Of-course it's very hard to beat Lockheed Martin and Boeing, no question about it.
As Romney said: corporations are people, my friend.
Of-course corporations are the people who run them, the entity is a fiction, there are always people behind the corporate fiction.
There is one set of people, who are on the dole, this includes the likes of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, but this also includes all the other welfare recipients (from SS to Medicare, business regulations for monopolies to banks).
OTOH there are the people who are paying for all this nonsense and they can either fight it or leave.
But you think that the system that is in place, with all the gov't power and all the other interests has conscience?
Google and the rest need to PROTECT themselves against the evil power of government threat of violence. They have to protect themselves, they are not attacking government, they are trying to protect themselves against the government attack.
I would be so happy to see a huge number of corporations in USA to form one coalition and build an army and send it to take down the fucking government, that would be a good start.
Yes of-course, it's absolutely about lawsuits.
The solution is not to have a 'team of Neanderthals', because it doesn't even have to be another employee that files a lawsuit, it can be a client or ANYBODY actually, and it can come back to bite ME.
Of-course I wouldn't hire a bunch of Neanderthals, but if they are already there and I have to be responsible for this, I wouldn't create a situation that would result in a lawsuit, of-course not. ALL other considerations become second rate, irrelevant to me.
The gov't creates a situation, where hiring and firing people is very tricky and very expensive, I would do as little hiring as possible, I wouldn't hire people from protected classes, so I would not have raised chances of lawsuits. Then again, that's why my business is not in a place that has those types of laws, I moved partly because I don't want anything to do with gov't giving classes of people ability to destroy me financially based on gov't privilege.
The problem is gov't that puts me in a position where I have to think FIRST about all the ways that I can get screwed by gov't power because I hire or fire somebody.
The problem is also with that team, apparently it's full of idiots, but then again, if it was my team, it would not be made up of people like that, and my advice is: NOT TO HIRE THE WOMAN and then START DEALING WITH THE TEAM MEMBERS, replace some of the worst offenders, change the culture inside the team.
Until he does that, until his team has no culture of such behaviour in it, he shouldn't even be interviewing women.
In the situation described in this story? Of-course I would!
I wouldn't tell her that, but hiring her is opening myself up to an ENORMOUS potential to litigation. This has nothing to do with the woman, it has everything to do with the gov't law, that allows the woman to SUE ME!
I wouldn't hire people who have much higher chance of suing me for something that has nothing even to do with my business.
If you are a member of a class that has special protections by gov't, I don't want to deal with you, and it doesn't matter to me what kind of a person you are, this is purely statistics, I am going to get sued because of gov't!
That's a huge part of the reason why jobs are moving where they are moving - less gov't intervention. I don't have a problem hiring women, I have a problem with GOVERNMENT that forces me to hire or fire or handle people in a way that is specific and if I don't do what they tell me, I will be sued.
It's my money, it's my time, it's my business.
Now, as I said, the guy should not hire her, but he should look at his team and start diluting it with people who will not behave in such a way, because they give the potential to other lawsuits. A person doesn't even have to work for me to sue me, if one of my employees does something or says something that can cause the lawsuit... forget about it, he is gone.
I sure hope I didn't! I said prostitutes, didn't I?
the meetings are with the expensive prostitutes, which part of that is not productive?
It's all bullshit, none of this is going to prevent the problem given what is described in the summary of this 'story', the only correct solution is NOT to hire this woman at this point if the project that these people are working on is at all important to anybody.
Eventually some of the worst offenders need to be switched to other people, who just don't behave this way.
Given what you have described about your workplace, the best advice right now is NOT to hire her.
In the 1960's and 1970's, through the concerted efforts of well meaning organizations like Greenpeace, the nuclear power industry was destroyed.
- you are absolutely right, any type of non-economic based intervention in the economy causes the exact opposite consequences to what they are supposedly stand for.
Of-course I don't actually believe that any government regulation is based on good intentions, they are all based on political calculations for a politicians to get ahead, to stay in power, to get more for himself. But even if EVERY regulation was 'well meaning' from the very beginning and had 'well meaning' people regulating, etc., ALL of those regulations would still backfire eventually and cause the exact problem that they are supposedly there to prevent.
When gov't creates yet another law with the word 'right' in it, all it means that rights will be diminished.
When gov't creates yet another law with the word 'equality' in it, it means there will be more inequality.
If a law is created with the word 'health care', there will be no health care eventually, as this law will become part of the reason the economy will get destroyed and there will be no health care.
If a law is created with the words 'affordable', it means that nobody will be able to afford it.
It's like that new law that wants every swimming pool and every miniature golf course to be completely accessible by the disabled people, it means that huge numbers of swimming pools and miniature golf courses will be shut down, the prices for those that stay operational will go way up.
If a law is created that say: 'protect environment', the environment will get destroyed.
'Clean air' will eventually cause massive loss of productivity and of all innovation in manufacturing and then there will be no clean air, because everybody will be back to burning wood and coal to provide themselves with the energy needed to survive.
etc.etc.etc.
Greenpeace is not government itself, but its power is political, all of its accomplishments are political, they are all in the same realm - meddling with the free market economy via threat of violence.
In reality of-course, most if not all of these types of movements are Marxist in nature, looking to destroy capitalism and free market, oh well, they'll get their wish, but it means that the pollution levels will go up.
Only the economy that is growing based on real economic fundamentals and not on threat of violence and gov't intervention produces innovation that eventually solves the problems that become apparent in the beginning.
Child labour, racial discrimination, disabled people, etc.etc., all of this is taken care of by the free market capitalism, which works to produce more and reduce prices, because of growth of competition and search of profit.
Gov't can only reverse these trends - make the economy weaker, take from it, redistribute the means of production in an unproductive manner, at some point stop the production, destroy the money and shut down the economy and then there will be millions of people without any way to support themselves in such an environment, and they'll end up polluting much more, burning things, they will be killing each other, etc.etc.
All of the things the governments and the do-gooders of the world are supposedly against, they are brining back by fighting against profitability and private ownership of means of production.
Yeah, it's amazing how ridiculous the OP comment is and how ridiculous its moderation is.
He is stating obvious lies, there is no free market capitalism in action, he is blaming capitalism explicitly and the Pavlovian response in 99% of the readers implicitly adds the notion of 'free market' to it, when of-course the reality is that the combination of State + Corporate management is actually fascism and has nothing to do with free market capitalism.
There are NO free market capitalist nuclear power plants, they are made impossible by the government, which regulates that industry, provides the moral hazards, sells licenses, prevents prices from falling by destroying competition that would have existed in the actual free market in that industry, prevents any innovation.
All nuclear power plants are either completely state ran or are a conglomeration between State and some enterprise that has access to the power of the State, and the safety record shows neither is good for the market or actually safe, from Chernobyl to this Japanese plants, there is no free market capitalism, and it's blamed by the socialists and Marxists as always!
Right, because socialist society with communist ideology does such a wonderful job running nuclear power plants.
It is the government that should be kicked out of nuclear, not the other way around. Capitalism in a free market (without gov't intervention) will deliver the highest possible quality products and services at best possible prices.
Over 40 years of operations Standard Oil was constantly lowering prices, from 30 cents per gallon of refined oil in 1969 down to 5.9 cents per gallon and so on, until it was broken up by the corrupt government that should have never touched the company that had 150 competitors at the time and was providing the market with the best quality, lowest price service.
Why was it done, was it done to help the consumers, clients of Standard Oil? No. It was done to help some other companies, who could not otherwise compete with Standard Oil. Prices never came down again since then, they always went up since that time.
The last thing a company wants to do is to destroy itself, to have a nuclear disaster on its hands and to kill its own people and destroy its own capital asset that makes money.
The problem is not capitalism, capitalism in a free market is the solution. The problem is the government meddling with the free market, setting up moral hazards, creating monopolies, causing prices to rise via money printing (inflation) and all the regulations and laws that destroy productivity.
Combining a company with government produces terrible results, allowing government to run something produces terrible results.
The best results are produced via competition among many people trying hard to make profit.
Yet another reason why the corporate infection of our democracy basically means our doom.
- yeah yeah yeah, democracy is the gateway to tyranny, USA is supposed to be a democratic representative republic, not a democracy, where every moron on welfare (and every government job is also a form of welfare) gets to vote.
Science and education are a consequence of a healthy free market capitalist economy, they don't appear out of vacuum.
First come the businesses, then comes science and education.
USA lost its manufacturing because of the growing government that took over every function of society, that destroyed every individual liberty, destroyed money.
Once manufacturing is gone you cannot have science and education because there is no business reason to have it, and thus eventually all money for it stops, and all money is created by business, not by your lovely government.
so did you fire him?
A: all parties start from a level playing field.
- irrelevant, doesn't matter where everybody starts from, the only question is this: is the gov't prevented from stealing individual freedom, so that it is prevented from selling it to those first in line?
B: all parties are rational actors
- completely irrelevant.
C: all parties are fully informed and knowledgeable.
- completely irrelevant.
D: and that monopolies never form.
- monopolies are only created by government force, businesses without gov't power do not form monopolies, they can become large economies of scale and hold that position as long as they provide the best product at the best price.
A moderately (and properly) regulated market
- an oxymoron. There cannot be regulation that stays moderate and proper.
All it will take is the rest of the world to stop giving you charity, all this debt, that you are able to accumulate right now, you can't repay it.
So here is the path you are on: eventually the charity stops and you can't buy things that other people make with dollars anymore, you have to start producing something again. USA will be a net energy and raw material and food exporter at that point, but exporting raw materials, energy and food doesn't take 300,000,000 people, it takes a fraction, maybe under 10% of all people, maybe under 5%.
So there will be a huge number of people looking to do something on their own, but they won't be able to buy new stuff. Instead USA will also be selling its used to stuff to other people, who can afford it at that point, so USA will become a huge garage sale.
However this also means that there will be some revitalisation of "Toolbox" skills, you won't throw out that pair of shoes or pants, you'll fix it or you'll ask somebody to fix it. You won't throw away that TV, you'll be looking for ways to fix it, etc.etc.
It'll come back, of-course the standard of living will be much lower, but what are you going to do?
When I first saw Germany a few years back, I was struck at how poor the people are, much poorer than in USA and Canada it seemed. Well the reason for it is that they never actually lived on credit, instead they were the ones producing, and since the Euro steals their purchasing power, they were producing and then selling to all those who DID BORROW, like Greece, Spain, Italy, France, etc.
So borrowing and buying other people's productivity IS GREAT! It gives you a huge advantage, incredible quality of life, plenty of leisure and products that you didn't work for.
But the problem is, once the Germans stop subsidising the Europe (they'll stop eventually), once China and Japan stop subsidising USA.... what are the debtors going to do?
No real money, no productivity. What to do? They'll find ways to export what they can - give back their consumer goods at garage sales, to the people who produce and who will have higher purchasing power once their gov't stops stealing it from them, sell their raw materials and energy and food they produce.
Become tourist destinations that are only affordable to the productive, while the rest the people in the country can't afford to stay in those hotels, resorts, etc.
The toolbox will be rebuilt, it's not a great thing by the way, it means there will be no choice.
I'm glad that I'll be dead in 40 years
- it's this type of mentality. You son of a bitch, you are supposed to live forever, your country depends on your ability to pay taxes, taxes is where all the action is at, how dare you?
the 'rich' didn't need those goods to become extremely cheap, they could buy the mobile phones at 2.5K per unit, they could afford 25K plasma screens.
The rich are the people who don't need to work and they work anyway, in your world Jobs should have quit back in 1985, maybe he would have still been alive now. But he didn't quit, spent under 4% of his entire wealth on himself, the rest is always invested in productivity, which you are saying shouldn't even occur, because why should he do it? He already had more than he spent in his life by 1985.
The people must be free to innovate and create new ideas to satisfy market demand, and market demand is infinite. People's desires are infinite, and the 'rich' continue working because their work allows them to see things that could never be otherwise, they do the work to own more because they can, not because they must.
The rest must take this opportunity that they are providing and come up with the new ways of satisfying the infinite market demand, thus creating new ways to exchange for the things that we all need.
At some point nearly ALL people were busy making food.
The rich sell to people who have something of greater value to give back .
- greater value?
Not greater value, otherwise those people would NOT buy. It's up to the buyer, not the seller, to determine whether the purchase will happen. Obviously you don't understand that the people who shell out their money for whatever, a phone, a piece of clothing, whatever, they believe they are getting a good deal.
You think they are not getting a good deal?
from 1999 to 2006 I purchased some properties, renovated and rented them out, sold some later, I did plenty of renovation after my normal work hours, I learned to do woodwork, plumbing, electrical wiring, framing, worked with concrete and with drywall, did all sorts of things. I am telling you, I did those things for some time and later on I decided to stop doing it and just pay others to do it. Did I believe I paid them something of 'greater value' than the work was they have done for me?
I believe it was a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange of money and product or service, and nobody forced me to buy it, nobody forced me to pay, nobody forced the people I paid to do it for my money either.
People pay money not when they believe they are getting ripped off (unless it's taxes or other gov't fees, so there they are getting ripped off), people pay money when they believe they are getting good value.
As for all those evil programs... don't worry, you're about to get your way.
- you think you are telling me something that I don't know? Something that I didn't say dozens of times here? Eventually these programs will all go away, and it's a great thing, people will have to work again and will be free of gov't again.
You aren't getting the picture... wages will drop to "0"
- let's hope so. You see, the more work that can be done at 0 or near 0, the better it is for the overall economy.
Do you think we want JOBS? NO!
We want productivity, we want THINGS. We want LEISURE.
But we can't have leisure by legislating it. SOME work will be done at 0 or near 0, we know it, because that's what we do - hardware and software destroys manual work all the time, I am personally responsible for something like 12,000 jobs that disappeared over the past 20 years for sure, but it is a GOOD THING.
The problem is that some of the people that are losing those specific jobs are not allowed to find new jobs in the market, where gov't is constantly regulating, stealing and transferring wealth either by direct taxes or by the tax of inflation.
At some point in history almost all people (over 90% for sure) were constantly busy looking for food, subsistence farming, hunting, fishing, gathering. Only a very small number of people could do something else, eventually we replaced almost all of the farmers, gatherers, hunters, fishers with machines and other types of capital (like animal farms, fish farms, etc.etc.) and it will continue, at some point even fewer people will be needed to make all the food.
It's a great thing, hopefully we keep on doing this exact same thing with all other types of jobs.
The problem is not the loss of the old jobs, the problem is that the gov't is standing in the way of free market capitalism, it's trying to prevent progress from happening.
All the regulations, labour laws, pension laws, every new program and every new dollar printed, all of this prevents real investment from taking place, it prevents people from becoming useful business owners, employees and contractors in other areas of life.
The human desire for new things is insatiable, it's infinite. We still do not have underground cities, flying cities, underwater cities, we do not have real 3d manufacturing that could actually truly build everything we want, we do not have every form of entertainment, we do not have casual space travel or even space mining yet.
We don't have 1000 year life spans, we have almost nothing compared to what we could have if gov't would just not be what it is - destroyer of our freedoms.
See there was this magical time about 60 years ago, when businesses actually provided these crazy things call PENSIONS.
- it's a wrong way to go, the people shouldn't be relying on one employer or any gov't for this. People's savings are nothing, thank GOVERNMENT, they can't retire ever.
Inflation and destruction of the economy, and thus constantly rising prices prevents retirement.
The free market economy that USA USED TO HAVE allowed people to retire at some point, but eventually the free market was destroyed and the gov't took over, and everything that gov't promises to make 'free and available' becomes completely unaffordable.
It's true in retirement, in health care, in education, then it became true in housing, it's becoming true in everything.
The TAX rate back then, was over 95% for those making millions, and they still got rich, lived great lives and the average Joe owned a house, sent his kids to college, and the wife stayed at home raising the kids. Debt was unheard of.
- yeah, tax rate used to be 0.
0.
0%
$0.
That was when the USA became the manufacturing and exporting powerhouse and thus the biggest creditor in the world.
With taxes at 95% obviously NOBODY PAID THEM, people look fo
Or, governmet is a process which stops people without wealth from taking it (by force) from those who make it.
- this is only a concern for the type of gov't that is not set up to protect people's freedoms, this is a concern for a gov't that is a totalitarian, a dictatorial gov't, a monarchy.
In a free society the people must protect themselves, the free market will provide the necessary solutions for this, including private security forces. What do you think businesses hire private security for? Why do you think people install security systems in their homes? Cars? Why do some people buy guns?
The private property must be protected by the private property owner from other individuals and businesses. The gov't isn't even supposed to get in the way.
The market is concerned with nothing. It has not brain, no leader nothing. Everything is an emergent property.
- sure, but the market IS concerned with getting the most products that it wants at lowest prices and highest quality. It's not like the market is in VACUUM, the market is people and people want low prices, high quality and plenty of choice. Not to understand such simple things can be considered stupid.
Government is about the rule of law without which the market as you know it would not exist.
- aah, wrong. The law that the Constitutional gov't should be concerned with, is the law that prevents the GOVERNMENT from abusing its power over the individuals.
The criminal law, that you are talking about, does not require any gov't at all.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what free market capitalism is.
- you are not reading me then.
Capitalism is private ownership of factors of production, using savings to invest to achieve profit.
Free market is absence of gov't meddling with business and individuals, and the type of law that prevents the gov't from stealing private property, life and liberty of individuals.
WITHOUT free market the way to achieve profits is not by giving the market what it wants but by buying the power that the gov't steals from the individuals.
A company that is first in line to buy the stolen individual freedoms from gov't is the company that will crash its competitors, create huge barriers to entry and would become the monopolist to charge whatever and will legislate that everybody must buy its products too.
This is simply impossible without gov't stealing those freedoms that then can be sold to the businesses.
Of-course, the bail-outs are never supposed to be possible, but the gov't stole the power from the people.
Gov't is not authorised to print money, it's not authorised to give bailouts, but it's not authorised to command business, it's not authorised to command individuals, it's not authorised to offer to steal from some to redistribute to others.
None of this is authorised, but it is what is done.
Once the gov't is big enough to do that, there will be a queue of people trying to buy that power, and they will buy it, and it is what is known as corruption - stealing freedoms from people by government, because once the freedoms are stolen, it's only a short matter of time before somebody buys the power to abuse the people who no longer have those freedoms.
The gov't is supposed to protect people's freedoms, not to steal them, but people voted themselves into this by looking for a short term benefit of the promised free stuff. Democracy in action - always leads to tyranny.