You can't blame the free market for half the nations wealth coming into the hands of 10% of the population. Such a statement shows signs of both ignorance and naivete.
What's the evidence that a capitalist society is dog-eat-dog, and it makes everyone better for it? Little and uncommon.
I think Rand is a whacko. She was never any good at libertarianism or economics, and always kind of imposed a sort of cult-like following in her supporters. Heinlein and the Austrian economists did it better.
What a free market society does do is reward empathy and service. In a free market society, only the businesses that serve the costumer, honestly and efficiently, succeed. In a mixed market society, those who start accumulating wealth can influence politics to protect them.
I would prefer a separation of the term "free market" from "capitalism". Capitalism, as defined by Karl Marx, is really "Market Socialism". That is to say, he took a free market system without any government regulation or intervention, labelled it capitalism, and then put a spin on the definition of it -- essentially saying that in a free market, businessmen exploit everyone -- ignoring the links between businessmen in politicians. Modern America isn't about free markets, it is about "capitalism" as defined by Marx. It is, in essence, Market Socialism, with the modern corporation being the greatest utility in nationalizing industry, and maximizing profits at the expense of everything.
Who, pray tell, has debunked the free market?
And as far as hard times causing the loss of jobs... You can't use localized problems to demonstrate a national crises.
As population rises, the number of jobs increase. The more of a welfare state you have, the larger the unemployment.
as Thomas Sowell said, "One of the most dangerous things about the welfare state is that it breaks the connection between what people have produced and what they consume, at least in many people's minds. The welfare state makes it possible for individuals to think about money or goods as just arbitrary dispensations."
"The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites."
Now, even being a free market libertarian, I would not object to a minimal welfare state in which a widower ended up with the children after her husband left her, or died in some accident or defending the country. However, I think it is complete bullshit to suggest that I would be of dubious character if I did not want to take care of some lucentious bink who has like nine kids from thirteen fathers (I know the math doesn't work out...) and demands to be taken care of. I think anyone who does, is either incredibly twisted, or inclined to use such a position to acquire influence within politics.
I think what you're missing is that without government regulation and interference, the wealthy elite DO NOT get to say in control, and they do not get to ward off would-be competitors as they are no longer protected. They are forced to play on a level field. For most of them, this would be their undoing. For some of them, they might make an honest business and prove to be ok people. Could you honestly argue against that?
Oh, hell. Let's be bold and add more fuel to the fire...
You know all the help that the people from the Netherlands [and other Social-Democracies] are sending to the impoverished countries in the world? It's actually hurting those countries.
The money is going from the Danish people directly into the hands of the social and wealthy elite in impoverished nations -- thus securing their future dominance over their underlings.
Anyone who thinks that creating a dependency in the form of "Economic" or "Food" aid is foolish.
Very little of the aid is reaching the people who need it, and even if it was, they wouldn't have any aspirations for getting off the free food. Socialist-dependency. Nothing has increased standards of living in impoverished nations more than free trade.
An argument you are likely to make is that free trade is ruining farmers in impoverished areas of the world. I call bullshit.
As mentioned by Stephen Pollard on his website [www.stephenpollard.net], a common argument is that Free trade forced upon farmers is killing them, because they're unable to sell their produce on their local markets because their markets are overflowing with European goods [in this case? Unions].
Free trade or protectionism? Europeans natural say free trade. Far from the truth.
EU foodstuffs are subsidized. They're selling produce that would not be grown if not subsidized. This produce is being forced on foreign markets at reduced costs, whilst high tariffs exist on imports into the EU (sugar imports is mentioned).
Since the produce being exported from the EU is subsidized, the prices are unnaturally low and this results in undercutting the competition in developing economies.
Lifting trade barriers would result in increased economic gains throughout Africa, particularly benefitting those in the worst of circumstances.
Dare I say it! European Union protectionism and economic-interventionism is increasing poverty in developing nations, and quite possibly killing a whole lot of Africans by way of starvation.
Protectionism and economic-interventionism are so beautiful like that... except when they're causing the deaths or continued poverty of people... *sigh*
Wow, European Union. Good for you!
Re:I think Marx would shit a brick if he could see
on
What The Bubble Got Right
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Interesting... on your webpage you proclaim the social-democracies of Europe to be superior to American free market society
[America is more socialist than free market, by the way. America is capitalist, by Karl Marx definition, but Marx has played quite the trick on us, taking the free market, calling it capitalism, and then changing the definition from unregulated market to Market Socialism. You probably won't be able to understand this, though.]
I have to ask... do you realize the continuously increasing amount of welfare accounts and welfare infrascture of these social-democracies that is being outsourced? The Netherlands... Germany... France... They're all slowly growing broke.
It's very funny that you talk of, and post quotes of others referring to, America preaching the evils of socialism and proclaiming that free markets rule, when a public education in America is anything but about a free market society.
Let's discuss your webpage:
Link: "Welfare State and Vacation"
The biggest error here is that American's are without health care. No, there is a large number of America's without health insurance, but not without health care. If you have an emergency, by law, you cannot be turned away from GOOD medical care. In return, you negotiate a payment plan at a later date, and if you could only afford to pay one dollar per week for the next twenty five years, the hospital agrees to it. What they do not do is let people get cosmetic surgery "for free", or let people get free massages or facial creme.
Did you know that when people perceive things as "free", they tend to use more of it? That's why the costs of those socialized health care systems in your touted social-democracies are becoming very heavy, and they cannot hold up over a longer period of time. Outsourcing accounts and infrastructure, as well as harnessing the Trade Bloc that is the E.U., are what is keeping these socialized systems afloat... unfortunately for them, it is only temporary.
Did you know that an ever increasing number of Canadians are coming into the United States for health care? Why? Because when you live in a socialized health care system, you have to get the bureaucracies consent in order to get care. This leads to several weeks, up to several months, of waiting for care -- including such things as serious hip surgeries. Yes, socialized health care is grand.
Link: "The American Prosperity Myth"
I'm assuming your understanding of economics is so limited that you fail to realize how fallacious the "trade deficit is". If you think about it, we all have trade deficits with stores like WalMart or a mom'n'pop store down the street. We buy from them all the time, but they don't buy from us [unless you also own a business]. Trade deficit? Nope. They buy elsewhere.
We might buy more from China than China does from us, but so what? We sell more to other countries wherein the other countries do not sell as much to us.
It's laughable to associate the welfare state with the success of European Union countries. The success of European Union countries is due to opening up of markets. You might try arguing that Ireland, the "European Tiger" or "Celtic Tiger" or whatever the hell you like to call it, only succeeded because of European Union investment, but that's complete bullshit. Ireland's economy has been surging on forward because of the liberalization of the market. It opened up its markets, pulled back layers of bureaucracy and unnecessary regulation, and started becoming an economic contender in Europe. This despite having very little natural resources, relatively speaking.
Link: "SocialDemocracy"
It is unfair to compare America with Scandinavian countries when you talk about standard of living, when you compare the diversity and immigration policies of the United States. to those Scandinavian countries. The Scandinavian countries know, that if they let more than a relatively small amount of people into the country, they'll fall flat on their f
I've already come to the assupmtion that you do not know too much about economics, particularly about supply and demand, labor, or about downward pressure on wages in relationship to prices and cost of living.
It seems that every time there is an economic slump, or some industry faces lay-offs or outsourcing, a "the capitalists are destroying us" mindset emerges, and we're yet again faced with Marxian doomsayers who don't know their ass from a whole in the ground.
Your immaturity permeates throught the entire post, and yet I'm not surprised that you were rated informative considering the large number of ignorant crypto-marxists here at slashdot these days [my how trendy it is].
If you would have just stated "The rich and our own govt collude to rob us." then I might have just gave you a nod and chose not to respond.
Unfortunately, you seem either too ignorant or unintelligent enough to realize that the rich using the government to keep in power is not a problem of free market "capitalism", but rather a failure of having too loose of a democracy.
By "loose", I mean making it too easy for laws and regulation to be put into place to protect certain groups.
What makes your rhetoric pathetic is that while you acknowledge the problems caused by government and accumulation of wealth into the hands of the few, you associate this with free markets, despite it actually being a case of National Socialism.... you know, the modern corporation, nationalizing industry, maximizing profits at the expense of all else...
Free markets? No. Capitalism as defined by Karl Marx? Yes. However, capitalism as defined by Karl Marx is a slight-of-hand trick. His definition of capitalism is "National Socialism".
I'm not sure if you're intelligent enough to realize this though. Hmmm.
I have to admit, I actually enjoyed discussing things with you. Mostly because you weren't so caustic or acrimoniouis, but because you were generally honest and open. To state it simply, you're not an arrogant prick.
Where we seem to differ is that I see the worst of humanity taking advantage of the power of government, you see the worst of humanity taking advantage of a weaker government. We both want the same things, but we see the government differently.
Now... hmmm. In a free market nation, what would happen after a few generations? I would say that as long as immigration did not overrun things [think "robber barons" vs "too many immigrants" in the late 1800s], that things would actually run fairly well. I could never bring myself to claim that a free market nation would lead to utopia, but as someone who firmly believes that "authority corrupts, and absolute authority corrupts absolutely", government should be limited and always kept in check.
"I'm angry at the corporations that have no loyalty to the workers who make them successful. I'm angry when someone who is performing up to expectations in a profitable company being told to train his foreign replacement. I'm angry when a profitable company lays of tens, hundreds, or thousands of U.S. workers because they found someone overseas who's more desperate for money."
To be completely honets with you, I'd rather see corporations be more loyal to workers. But let us face unbiasedly, a whole lot of workers in America simply aren't working as hard as they used to [unemployment and welfare benefits.]. The people who are losing their jobs aren't exactly top performers, or the most efficient employees.
When Americans are losing their jobs, instead of saying "oh well let's punish the business owners" (uht! "Damn those vile corporations!"), how about you try making it a little bit easier to make a profitable business? Low taxes. Weaken unnecessary regulations. The list is quite substantial already.
"Right. Progressive taxing at work. It's fine to talk about how "proud" she should be if she's above the poverty line, but how proud is she when she can't afford to buy her son a football uniform for an after-school league? How proud will she be when she can't afford braces for her daughter? There's more to life than having enough to avoid death."
Hmmm. I played football when I was younger, and I did not have to pay for a single thing. There is always a whole lot of money donated voluntarily, and not to mention the amount of money concession and admissions make. Enlighten yourself a little bit more.
You know that health plans are fairly easy to come by. Not onlt do prices decrease all the time, along with quality of service and product increase, but health plans are easy to come by. The mother does not necessarily have to show up with whatever amount of money in cash. Payment plans exist. There is nothing wrong with them, except for what people who are trying to come off as righteous imagine.
"Ebeneezer Scrooge would love that system." Awww, how clever!
"No, I don't think she "deserves" it, but neither do I think that her children should be punished because of her lack of morals, ethics, and initiative. My solution to this has been an easy one: A long-term welfare recipient gets pregnant? Take the child away immediately after birth, put it up for adoption, and try her for child endangerment (if she can't afford to feed herself, she had no reason to believe that she could feed the child). I'd go even further: A 10% increase in welfare benefits for any man or woman who voluntarily undergoes sterilization."
Wow... that's just incredibly... wow. You wouldn't happen to be Chinese, would you?
"So you're claiming that the needs of the poor have always been met in this country and that government social programs sprang up with no one needing assistance? I find that hard to believe."
Have the needs of the poor always been met? I would say for the most part, but the definition of needs is almost as difficult as defining when a fetus becomes a child.
I claim that honest, hardworking people almost always succeed, as long as someone does not commit a crime against them.
Government social programs began when unnatural numbers of immigrants overloaded our infrastructure. You know, particularly after all that nastiness of the "robber barons" and all. Nevermind all of the evidence to suggest that those corporations and companies did more to further workers' conditions and lessen the work week, they were still evil. Nevermind all the evidence to suggest that those "robber barons" really did no worse than what the government could have done at the time. Immigration laws have to be strict, unless you know you have the infrastructure in place to handle them.
[The book mentioned is called "The Myth of the Robber Barons". I recommend it.]
Government, naturally, took it upon themselves to "fix" the problem. What has occurred is temporary benefits that are backed up by ever increasing costs, as well as hidden costs and layered bureaucracy. Almost all of which is involuntary.
I."But those jobs are being filled with overseas workers in many instances."
I think that one went over your head.
II. "Yes, but the rate, volatility, and downwards pressure on wages that is an issue." I'm going to charge you with doing a little bit more research on your own here. But if wages go down, there should be no complaints if prices on goods and services go down as well.
Wages fall with a surplus of unemployed workers. Prices fall because of previous surplus and due to consumer demand being reduced during these economic slumps, especially in the natural correction of said slumps. If the nominal wages of workers is reduced, and the prices of goods is reduced, then they're no better and no worse off.
When politicians interfere in the labor market, they slow down the natural correction 'mechanisms' of the market.
III. "I know. Just call tech support for your computer and the person in Bangalore, India will tell you that challenging, high-paying (for India) jobs are definitely more plentiful in recent years. You might get a different answer if you asked the American that they replaced."
Yes, if you asked the disgruntled American that was replaced you're going to hear alot of complains, but not if you ask the still much more numerous Americans who still have a job, including more high-tech and high-skilled jobs, or have recently had their jobs imported back due to the money saved on lower foreign wages not being worth the weaker results. Software and IT jobs are slowly coming back into this country, no thanks to government intervention.
High-tech and high-skilled jobs go beyond tech support... just so you know.
IV. "Vague and non-specific."
Vague and non-specific, or you're either biased or too uninformed to know what I am referring to? Hmmm.
V. "Unsubstantiated assertion."
Hah. I suppose you did not look up that article. That's fine. I looked it up for you. http://www.reason.com/0407/fe.bl.truths.shtm l
VII."Yes, corporate officers and stockholders are seeing ever increasing monetary rewards while workers are seeing reduced benefits, lower wages, longer hours, and tougher competition for fewer jobs."
All workers? Certainly not. Most workers? Certainly not. Increased welfare and unemployment benefits correlates to the increase in the number of unemployed. When there is a whole lot of people unemployed, wages go down - longer hours are not often the norm. As said before, jobs are not just disappearing with no substitutions or reemergence in sight.
VIII. "I know people who are/were supplying contract tech workers. They don't even want resumes at this point because they are buried in them. They can't find enough customers to pay the costs of leasing their offices. It's not an imagined problem."
I never said it was an imagined problem, I just think you don't fully understand the sources/causes, or solutions to the problem.
IX. "In India, China, Vietnam, Malaysia,..."
Awww, how cute.
X. "U.S. tech worker earns $85K/year. How much of that will make it back into the U.S. economy? Indian tech worker earns $6K year. How much of that will make it back into the U.S. economy. The jobs aren't going overseas to boost foreign economies. They are going overseas so that corporate officers and stockholders can take a bigger slice of the pie (relative to the tech workers)."
That $85,000 a year seems a little high. Even ignoring that, nobody is making the claim that we have to get most of the Indian tech worker's salary back. In your head, presuming you have the ability, scale the wages and costs of living between the countries you mentioned earlier in relation to the United States. Compare this to the overall number of employees in the broadly defined "IT" field in said countries. Very few jobs are being outsourced to India or Malaysia, or whereve
You think if public schools were abolished, that all of the public school children would have to choose between Catholic and Jewish? Please. Private schools, or home schooling operations would pop up left and right. They exist now, there's no reason to suggest they wouldn't become more numerous should laws and regulations not be so hindering.
Have you ever attended a Catholic or Jewish institution? I never attended a Jewish institution, but I was hardly indoctrinated into the Catholic faith. They accepted my protestantism, and left it at that. If you were the one I replied to about prejudice, it was largely from others outside the school. It's a very small town. Irish Catholics still look down upon Irish protestants.
Do you live in Salt Lake City? A quick google search showed a whole lot of schools, both public, private, and religious. I did not even go into how many homeschool their children. The numbers would increase should public schools be done away with. Too expensive to go to a Catholic school? No. Too expensive to go to unreligious Catholic schools? No. Too expensive to home school your children, or to have someone else home school them? No.
You want to talk about indoctrination, you want to be looking at public schools. Even far left-wingers and right-wingers agree with people like me, that public schools are becoming more and more about indoctrination.
"You've got a self-selecting sample in private schools. The kids who are only staying in school because the law requires it, and whose parents don't give a rat's ass about education, are in public schools."
Did you just say it is ok to force students into school? What happened to freedom? The fact that you have to complete the curriculum that whatever state/school district you reside under issues to you shows how much public schooling is about indoctrination.
Do you know how many laws and regulations private schools, no matter how religious or unreligious, have to go through to keep in operation?
"So anything goes? No OSHA standards. No standards about sexual harassment? No Department of Labor standards? Are they forced at gunpoint? No. Are they forced by economic circumstances? Maybe."
Anything goes? Of course not ANYTHING goes. You can't have some wealthy businessman forcing people to work for pennies at gunpoint, but if people are willing to work in poor conditions, that is their choice - or it's the fault of whatever government/society they're escaping from that "forced them".
"But the economy has been growing at the same time, so it seems that social welfare isn't causing the downfall of society that you predicted."
I don't believe I stated that social welfare is causing the downfall of the society, but it is certainly increasing the costs. Socialized programs increase the likelihood of societies to go bankrupt. What prevents this? Continous outsourcing [France, Germany, Netherlands] of infrastructure and accounts.
The economy is not growing because of social welfare, the economy is growing due to relative peace and relatively free markets. [Relatively speaking when you compare the U.S. to other industrialized nations in the world.]
"Of course I can. You're making the assumption that there is a scientifically valid means of determining when a fetus becomes a child and I am confident that there is not. Therefore, in my opinion, it's only right to respect the views of the pregnant woman."
I'm making the assumption that there is no scientifically valid means of determining when a fetus becomes a child, and since there is no defining line, how can we honestly say that it is ok to destroy the fetus if we cannot define that line?
"I oppose, on moral grounds, letting someone reap all of the rewards of our society and then choose to give nothing back. Social programs are like insurance. Most of us hope that we never have to "make a claim." But voluntary welfare contributions would be as likely to succeed as making a system of car insurance where everyone w
"The battle cry of the right: prayer belongs in private schools and all schools should be private. Oh, and to hell with any kid who was born into poverty. No school for them."
The battle cry of the right? Please. I'm not from the right.
Actually private schools are very easy to get into and pay for unless you have a pisspoor attitude, and do not listen to anyone.
Catholic schools, for instance, run voluntary programs to help those who cannot afford to go to the school. The ones that actually do their homework and pass classes get practically a full ride, but no less they a considerable portion to help them pay for it.
The idea that all private schools can only be attended by the rich is both foolish and ignorant, and I laugh at anyone who honestly believes that. Beverly Hills 90210 schools only exist in Beverly Hills. Here, in Pennsylvania, they are much cheaper and I did not know one single kid at the private school that I attended that was even upper middle class. Wait, scratch that, we had one kid whose father was a CPA.
Private schools from K-University are less expensive and provide a better education. Statistical facts done by government, independent, and private studies. Look them up.
"So I guess that you'll be voting against "No Child Left Behind" Bush, right?"
I vote against pretty much anything Bush does. The "No Child Left Behind" policy ignores so much on how children learn, so why should I support it?
"What right does that evil government have to say you can't expose your illegal immigrant workers to carcinogens during their 12 hour, no-restroom-break shifts?"
Are those workers being forced into those conditions [which aren't exactly universal, no matter how hard you try to demonize business owners]? Nope. They're not.
"In your world, perhaps. But in the U.S., we have over two centuries of legislative and judicial activity that defines government as being there to help people, not just defend their property. As to defending individual rights, does Bush's support of the Patriot Act count as another reason he should be ousted?"
Please. The Nanny State existed in minimal form for most of our history, and has only been growing over the past century, and especially so with FDR, Wilson, and the other "New Deal" jerkoffs.
But as far as Bush's support for the Patriot count being grounds for him to be ousted? Absolutely! But that's not the only reason he should be ousted. There are plenty of other reasons why, as well.
"Yes. I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with my sperm ending up in the end of a condom -- even though one of them could have resulted in a child."
Nope. Sperm don't result in children no matter how much you take care of them. It's not the same argument. See any online argument over when cells become humans.
"Logical leap: First it was a fetus that could become a child and now it's a "child."
Again, when does a fetus become a human being?
"I don't play those games."
You play even more dubious games.
"I doubt that you "could care less" about your fellow man than you do now."
I could care less about a whole lot of people...
"Sorry, bud, but you are part of a society and a society takes care of its weak."
The value of a society is in the difference between being forced, or coerced, into providing for others, or by voluntarily doing so for others.
If socialized programs were voluntary, I would probably participate in a few of them until the private sector provided better, more efficient programs of that type.
"I don't recall stating that women should be allowed to abandon babies."
Accepted. I made the jump there from fetus to infant. When does a fetus become a child? If you cannot define that, you cannot say abortions are ok. I do not claim to. I'm only asking questions.
"It was simply a means of buying votes from people too stupid to recognize that they were just taking money from th
Actually private schools are very easy to get into and pay for unless you have a pisspoor attitude, and do not listen to anyone.
Catholic schools, for instance, run voluntary programs to help those who cannot afford to go to the school. The ones that actually do their homework and pass classes get practically a full ride, but no less they a considerable portion to help them pay for it.
The idea that all private schools can only be attended by the rich is both foolish and ignorant, and I laugh at anyone who honestly believes that. Beverly Hills 90210 schools only exist in Beverly Hills. Here, in Pennsylvania, they are much cheaper and I did not know one single kid at the private school that I attended that was even upper middle class. Wait, scratch that, we had one kid whose father was a CPA.
[And just so you know, I went to private school for one few year. I went to a Catholic School, but I did not stay because I was not Catholic and there was alot of religious segregation.
My father is working class [railroad] and my mother worked night shifts at a nursing home so we could afford the house we live in. Rich? Bullshit. Hardworking? Yes.
Private schools from K-University are less expensive and provide a better education. Statistical facts done by government, independent, and private studies. Look them up.
You make a very good point on the frontier making it very easy for the reclaiming or original claiming of whatever ideals you and your particular group of would-be exodites hold dear.
I tend to agree that space is the likely next frontier [ocean colonies might not be as permanent of a solution].
However, I disagree on their being too little resources and not enough land for a freer society to exist here on Earth. The biggest problem would be fighting powerful governments should they come to impose their will against us 'for our own good' of course. The Free State Project is an interesting venture, and I'm partially involved, though I'm unsure of how successful it will be. I would not discredit it though if it failed in achieving its ultimate goal, as long as it made a few big steps in the right direction.
To make my final arguments on how I perceive the welfare state or socialized anything, I think the only way you can make a socialized industry become remotely efficient is having it unprotected against the private sector. In other words, do not subvert the private sector through laws and regulation. The best way to understand what I am talking about is to look at the health care industry, which is heavily (3/4) socialized, or at the educational system. The private side of both instances if incredibly hindered by government rules and regulations, but yet they continue to do the job more efficiently, less costly, and unbiasedly.
That last paragraph of yours enlightened me on what you were really trying to close with in your previous post. I understand you a little bit better, and feel for where you're coming from. However, the same systems that you feel must be provided by government could be provided by the private sector. To be quite sincere about it, when the private sector is not being hindered, they are!
Depends on your definition of conservative. If by "conservative", you mean socially/religiously conservative, then that certainly works.
If you define "conservative" as limited government and minimal or no interference in the market, then your claim does not hold up. For example, the millions of self proclaimed libertarians and Libertarians in the United States tend to be very economically conservative, but don't give a rats ass what you do socially, as long as you do not hinder on the Natural Rights of others.
If all conservatives = narrow-minded, then all Liberals (as opposed to classic liberals) = those who fail miserable, with dire consequences, at trying to prove they are smart enough to manage the lives of millions of people.
"That I am liberal proves that I am your intellectual and moral superior."
Spare us.
"Just what is someone who thinks there should be prayer in school, that abortions should be illegal, that the wealthy should get huge tax breaks? Just because you are even more nutty than he is doesn't make him into someone who's not right wing."
I think prayer should be in schools that are private religious institutions, but in public schools? Of course not. However, I am against public schools for various reasons. Inefficiency and ever increasing costs, being primary factors.
It is not the proper role of government to say what can and cannot go on in schools, business, or in my household. The role of government is to defend property rights, and to defend the rights of the individual.
I am sure you realize it is difficult to determine when a fetus becomes 'human', and I am not versed enough on biology to argue over that point. However, we can discuss the morality of abortions.
Could you claim a woman has the right to kill what would become a child [with the logic that with proper care a fetus would become a child, just like with proper care a child would become an adult] even if she did not want the child? If you can claim that the woman has no responsibility for the child that she did not want, could you then honestly say that it is my responsibility to take care of my fellow man, most of which I could care less about... and perhaps should [care less about]?
In simpler words, if a woman does not have to take care of something forced upon her in the case of an infant, why should I?
Huge tax breaks for the wealthy... Oh, do you mean the corporate welfare that our NonConservative Liberal (in terms of large government, heavy spending, support of business-government relations/corporations, tariffs/trade-taxes, etc) President Bush has vanguarded? These tax breaks are not just for the wealthy, or for the corporate elite, they're for everybody. Unfortunately, they're not tax breaks as they are a form of welfare. Call it corporate welfare if you'd like, but don't fail to point out that it is fabricated as an illusion to assist all of us.
Bush has proven himself to not very Conservative [in terms of limited government, and limited mettling in the market]. It is unfortunate that so many Liberals refused to acknowledge this because Bush tends to lead more towards militant nationalistic socialism, as opposed to the welfare state or stateless-socialism ("worker's of the world, unite!" blah.)
"Actually, the redistribution of wealth through taxes works incredibly well and has been all hallmark of the greatest nations on Earth: U.S., England, France, Germany, etc."
Actually, the redistribution of wealth does not work. It is the artificial reduction of poverty. It begins to fail when the funds reducing poverty are cut off. As Germany, France, the Netherlands, and all those touted welfare states in Europe are finding out, this sort of practice is economically exhausting. They continue to outsource more accounts and infrastructure to support their growing welfare states. One might argue that we are doing the same thing, for very similar reasons.
Since you claim to be a moral superior, then tell me, what is redistribution of wealth but stealing through taxes? Oh, my mistake. It is not stealing if done by government. "But the people voluntarily accept it?" Oh they do? Only if you ignore misinformation our blatant lies to take said money.
There are two ways that can allegedly reduce poverty. "Durable opportunities" as they are called by some, are opportunities that last a considerable amount of time (jobs and careers). Wealth distribution fails in creating durable opportunities. In the short term, it appears to succeed, but there are hidden costs that accumulate over time. It never lasts too long. The free market shows the folly of such a system every time.
The second way to permanently reduce poverty is to increase productivity/efficiency of
I still don't think you get what a free market is. By very definition of a free market, the turf/is/ the free market -- not the home stadium of corporations protected by government and expensive lawyers, and not the home stadium of the masses.
It's been a long time since I've heard anyone advocating a 'citizen-oriented government'. To me, that sounds like the perfect scenario for tyrrany of the majority, instead of tyrrany of the minority. Both are horrible. I advocate nobody having more power than the rest, and I advocate everyone having the equal right to earn whatever they can earn in the market.
An almost completely free market has worked in the past. Look at the first 1/3 of the history of the United States. Now you can try to argue about the "Robber Barons" of the later 1800s all you'd like. The bottom line is that there was a whole lot of government-business intervention there [showing failures of having too much democracy, or having it too easy to make new laws]. It should also be noted that those corporations, even with their corruption [kind of inherent where big money and politics intermingle], did more to advance workers rights, as well as the safety and sanitation of the workplace, more so than any union has ever. Unions didn't give us a shorter work week, the prosperity of freer trade did.
Oh yeah, and any system that faces such an onslaught of new immigrants without having the infrastructure in place to deal with them is going to have people living in crowded conditions, and working in poor jobs. You don't see those Scandinavian countries allowing a whole lot of immigration into their country, no matter how prosperous they are currently doing.
If you'll allow it to me, look at Midieval Iceland (fishing villages, the Althing, relative stability and steady progress), or Ancient Ireland (complete decentralization, minimal governing powers, stability, prosperity, little violence, and it took hundreds of years for the Britons and feudalism to conquer Ancient Eire). To say that it has worked in the past, but can't today is rediculous. Life is easier today, and technology permits us proliferation of information on an vast scale.
I'll ask you not to use "profit" as the final definition of free markets. Corporations were created with the distinct goal of maximizing profits at the cost of whatever stood in the way. Consumerism is the public face of all of this. Free markets are not about maximizing profits, but rather about businesses servicing the wants and needs of customers.
I'll admit, it's very hard to bite into the above at first, but if you try looking at modern business with that in mind, it really starts to make some sense.
The way I understand it, unions in France are not doing so well. Sabine Herold of "Liberté j'écris ton nom" tells us that Unions and French socialism are doing France a disfavor. One instance put forward, is that Unions believe that any government worker, no matter how lazy or unproductive, should be paid as much as the most productive. Sabine also speaks on union transportation strikes crippling the country for an entire month. Who am I to believe? It's very hard to discredit her, and everything I've learned about economics and politics over the past two or so years favors her, but yet -- I've never been to France so I can't explicitly denounce your claims that unions weren't "really all that bad".
There's an interesting interview with Sabine Herold here: http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/040112_schwar tz_herold.php
Ignoring Madeline Albright not being a libertarian and not exactly being a good example of free markets, Sabine makes some good points. I do not even necessarily agree with Sabine on all points, but even I would not attack government as much as I do now if we opened up our markets completely, and had only the tiniest of welfare organization for people who physically or mentally cannot perform.
The argument that welfare should exist for the unempl
Re:inevitable (capitalism or consumerism?)
on
Less Might Be More
·
· Score: 1
wattersa,
I think you might be confusing consumerism with capitalism [assuming by capitalism you mean "free markets", not Marx's definition of capitalism which is essentially Market Socialism -- monopolies or at least megacorps created and protected by government.].
Consumerism, on the other hand, is the promotion of buying as many goods as possible with the argument that this is always good for the economy. Even if you disclude the broken window fallacy, consumerism still does not always stand up.
However, it's hardly an ill of capitalism (again, as in "free markets", not capitalism as defined by Marx).
"What made Enron possible on the scale it occurred was pooling a massive amount of wealth into the control of a heirarchical organisation. There are extremely wealthy individuals who are not coporations."
You make a very good point. I have no trouble accepting that...
However, I stand firm to the belief that government-business partnerships are prone to corruption, and corporations often signify that very point dramatically.
The government mandated audits of Enron certainly didn't do their job [when does government do its job?:-p]. I think this lead to alot of security issues, or rather, lulling intvestors into a false-sense of security.
I think that's kind of what I had in mind when I was originally trying to argue. Unfortunately for me, I tend to rush to post, and don't really think all that much about what I'm writing.
I don't think the MPAA statement really fits into the discussion... the MPAA is bad for other reasons, and so are many of the corporations it represents.
"Are you saying that we simply will not have any large companies if we eliminate the abilities for companies to incorporate?"
Yes, to a very limited degree, but overall, of course not.
"I hold rather complex views,... Does that help?"
In satisfying my curiosity? Yes. [It's very much aligned with my views.]
"A large company, not incorporated, a cooperative, or any other similar means or organising a group to collective directed action (preferably with some heirarchical structure - that lets the top defraud the bottom) is all that would be required for an Enron style fraud scheme."
Agreed. I was talking about scale, and relative ease in the case of corporations.
"There is, I repeat, no requirement to have government support for corporations involved - all that is required is an ability to collect and manage a large pool of money."
Again, I agree. Again, I was talking about scale, and relative ease in the case of corporations.
"It is not corporations that make this possible, rather coroporations simply provide an extra layer of very handy legal protections for large companies."
Right. Corporations, government created [now "permitted"] constructs, allow for handy legal protections on a larger scale.
""Yeah, but it was a corporation and we won't have corporations" is not an excuse, its a half assed cop-out. removing coprorate protections would, indeed, be a good thing, but the lack of them would not have stopped Enron doing what they did."
No, the lack of them would not have stopped Enron from doing what it did. However, those protections help. I believe you even admitted that yourself.
I'm not claiming that removing those protections would have helped, but something on the scale that the corruption of Enron was on would not have been as easy or entirely possible [on scale] had it not been because of Enron being a corporation.
"Or perhaps you could explain, quite specifically, how government support was a requirement for Enron. That is, pretend Enron was a non incoroporated company - now explain why they couldn't do the same thing."
To explain the history of corporations would take quite awhile, but very briefly [and of course, simplified]. They were intentional government constructs, initially created from the Crown in England, and later in the United States. Now, they're officially "permitted" by law, but the very permission of them stems from the practice of creating them.
Now, if Enron was a not a corporation, and if Enron did not have all of the protection it had, would it still have been able to pool in so much money? Of course people could do it anytime, but I'm talking about scale, here. I've stated that several times.
Are you just trying to complicate things for the sake of it, playing the Devil's Advocate, or do we hold such greatly varied views on corporations, mixed markets, and free markets?
"...so what the heck is your solution? Magically dissolve the corporations? You really think that'd happen? Here's the rub: we've got a system of powerful corporations, and they're not going to go gently into that dark night... "
Magically dissolve? Of course not. I'll ask you not to mock me. For starters, I think we have to first educate one another on what the real problem is. Do you think the government is going to do it? Of course not. They'd prefer us asking the wrong questions, that way, they won't ever have to explain why they should be kept around to clean up the same messes they create....
The problem is democracy, by the very definition of a democracy versus a [Limited] Republic with the laws clearly illustrated in a written constitution. Please do not mistake my use of the term democracy.
The key is education.
"What better way to wrest control of the government from these corporations than by working to use that government to enable the poor and undereducated? Even if we do wrest that control back from the wealthy elite, what's to stop them from simply using the marketplace in its stead?"
If anyone can provide a good service, honestly, for less money in a free marketplace, then by very definition, how can you complain? Even if they're making more money than you? Economic equality is a myth. As citizens, we deserve the equal right to earn our way, not to be economic equals.
To paraphrase a famous economists, "No person is equal to himself on different days."
"Au contraire.....[all the way to]..... we probably would have stayed longer."
I'm actually disgusted at the maze of what American tax forms have become. Talking about that , though, is getting away from the subject at hand. [By the way, Bush -- undeniably a man against free markets didn't cut taxes, he implemented what is essentially welfare, all the while altering tax codes to make them appear shorter, but cost more money to maintain.].
I stand corrected on the situation you were in while you were in France. I admit my mistakes. However, it's straying away from one of the main points that I was making... over time, the costs of socialized systems begins to outpace both the quality and the people's ability to pay for it.
Not to mock you or anything, but did you just brag about French freeloaders having it better off than American freeloaders?
The whole striking business is an ill of unions, or one of the ills of unions. Italy is absolutely horrible with unions as well.
Of course I'm not saying let's abolish all but the tiniest bit of government over night. Education, and cultural attitudes need to be changed [but that's a bit intertwined right there]. As long as no explicit, aggressive coercion is used, we will be much better off if we slowly peel government back. History, economics, and [perhaps] human nature show us this.
[If you don't mind me asking... Why wouldn't your wife be able to legally work in France for three years?]
You're absolutely correct on it being a well executed fraud, but the fact that it was done by a corporation [or the heads of the corporation], is what allows it to be done on such a wide scale.
Corporations have alot of power and influence, and are usually well protected by the laws that put them into place [or by the politicians that kept them there].
Lack of government granted rights and protections of corporations is what put Enron in the situation to do that to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't blame the free market for half the nations wealth coming into the hands of 10% of the population. Such a statement shows signs of both ignorance and naivete.
What's the evidence that a capitalist society is dog-eat-dog, and it makes everyone better for it? Little and uncommon.
I think Rand is a whacko. She was never any good at libertarianism or economics, and always kind of imposed a sort of cult-like following in her supporters. Heinlein and the Austrian economists did it better.
What a free market society does do is reward empathy and service. In a free market society, only the businesses that serve the costumer, honestly and efficiently, succeed. In a mixed market society, those who start accumulating wealth can influence politics to protect them.
I would prefer a separation of the term "free market" from "capitalism". Capitalism, as defined by Karl Marx, is really "Market Socialism". That is to say, he took a free market system without any government regulation or intervention, labelled it capitalism, and then put a spin on the definition of it -- essentially saying that in a free market, businessmen exploit everyone -- ignoring the links between businessmen in politicians. Modern America isn't about free markets, it is about "capitalism" as defined by Marx. It is, in essence, Market Socialism, with the modern corporation being the greatest utility in nationalizing industry, and maximizing profits at the expense of everything.
Who, pray tell, has debunked the free market?
And as far as hard times causing the loss of jobs... You can't use localized problems to demonstrate a national crises.
As population rises, the number of jobs increase. The more of a welfare state you have, the larger the unemployment.
as Thomas Sowell said,
"One of the most dangerous things about the welfare state is that it breaks the connection between what people have produced and what they consume, at least in many people's minds. The welfare state makes it possible for individuals to think about money or goods as just arbitrary dispensations."
"The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites."
Now, even being a free market libertarian, I would not object to a minimal welfare state in which a widower ended up with the children after her husband left her, or died in some accident or defending the country. However, I think it is complete bullshit to suggest that I would be of dubious character if I did not want to take care of some lucentious bink who has like nine kids from thirteen fathers (I know the math doesn't work out...) and demands to be taken care of. I think anyone who does, is either incredibly twisted, or inclined to use such a position to acquire influence within politics.
I think what you're missing is that without government regulation and interference, the wealthy elite DO NOT get to say in control, and they do not get to ward off would-be competitors as they are no longer protected. They are forced to play on a level field. For most of them, this would be their undoing. For some of them, they might make an honest business and prove to be ok people. Could you honestly argue against that?
I don't think so.
Wouldn't it be, "God wirring, we're arr meet again in Spacebarrs III: The Search for Spacebarrs II:?
Minor mistake...
I said [in this case? Unions]...
Of course I meant... [in this case? Onions]...
Though Unions are certainly not helping Europe too much... but that's been addresses elsewhere... or will be...
Oh, hell. Let's be bold and add more fuel to the fire...
You know all the help that the people from the Netherlands [and other Social-Democracies] are sending to the impoverished countries in the world? It's actually hurting those countries.
The money is going from the Danish people directly into the hands of the social and wealthy elite in impoverished nations -- thus securing their future dominance over their underlings.
Anyone who thinks that creating a dependency in the form of "Economic" or "Food" aid is foolish.
Very little of the aid is reaching the people who need it, and even if it was, they wouldn't have any aspirations for getting off the free food. Socialist-dependency. Nothing has increased standards of living in impoverished nations more than free trade.
An argument you are likely to make is that free trade is ruining farmers in impoverished areas of the world. I call bullshit.
As mentioned by Stephen Pollard on his website [www.stephenpollard.net], a common argument is that Free trade forced upon farmers is killing them, because they're unable to sell their produce on their local markets because their markets are overflowing with European goods [in this case? Unions].
Free trade or protectionism? Europeans natural say free trade. Far from the truth.
EU foodstuffs are subsidized. They're selling produce that would not be grown if not subsidized.
This produce is being forced on foreign markets at reduced costs, whilst high tariffs exist on imports into the EU (sugar imports is mentioned).
Since the produce being exported from the EU is subsidized, the prices are unnaturally low and this results in undercutting the competition in developing economies.
Lifting trade barriers would result in increased economic gains throughout Africa, particularly benefitting those in the worst of circumstances.
Dare I say it! European Union protectionism and economic-interventionism is increasing poverty in developing nations, and quite possibly killing a whole lot of Africans by way of starvation.
Protectionism and economic-interventionism are so beautiful like that... except when they're causing the deaths or continued poverty of people... *sigh*
Wow, European Union. Good for you!
Interesting... on your webpage you proclaim the social-democracies of Europe to be superior to American free market society
[America is more socialist than free market, by the way. America is capitalist, by Karl Marx definition, but Marx has played quite the trick on us, taking the free market, calling it capitalism, and then changing the definition from unregulated market to Market Socialism. You probably won't be able to understand this, though.]
I have to ask... do you realize the continuously increasing amount of welfare accounts and welfare infrascture of these social-democracies that is being outsourced? The Netherlands... Germany... France... They're all slowly growing broke.
It's very funny that you talk of, and post quotes of others referring to, America preaching the evils of socialism and proclaiming that free markets rule, when a public education in America is anything but about a free market society.
Let's discuss your webpage:
Link: "Welfare State and Vacation"
The biggest error here is that American's are without health care. No, there is a large number of America's without health insurance, but not without health care. If you have an emergency, by law, you cannot be turned away from GOOD medical care. In return, you negotiate a payment plan at a later date, and if you could only afford to pay one dollar per week for the next twenty five years, the hospital agrees to it. What they do not do is let people get cosmetic surgery "for free", or let people get free massages or facial creme.
Did you know that when people perceive things as "free", they tend to use more of it? That's why the costs of those socialized health care systems in your touted social-democracies are becoming very heavy, and they cannot hold up over a longer period of time. Outsourcing accounts and infrastructure, as well as harnessing the Trade Bloc that is the E.U., are what is keeping these socialized systems afloat... unfortunately for them, it is only temporary.
Did you know that an ever increasing number of Canadians are coming into the United States for health care? Why? Because when you live in a socialized health care system, you have to get the bureaucracies consent in order to get care. This leads to several weeks, up to several months, of waiting for care -- including such things as serious hip surgeries. Yes, socialized health care is grand.
Link: "The American Prosperity Myth"
I'm assuming your understanding of economics is so limited that you fail to realize how fallacious the "trade deficit is". If you think about it, we all have trade deficits with stores like WalMart or a mom'n'pop store down the street. We buy from them all the time, but they don't buy from us [unless you also own a business]. Trade deficit? Nope. They buy elsewhere.
We might buy more from China than China does from us, but so what? We sell more to other countries wherein the other countries do not sell as much to us.
It's laughable to associate the welfare state with the success of European Union countries. The success of European Union countries is due to opening up of markets. You might try arguing that Ireland, the "European Tiger" or "Celtic Tiger" or whatever the hell you like to call it, only succeeded because of European Union investment, but that's complete bullshit. Ireland's economy has been surging on forward because of the liberalization of the market. It opened up its markets, pulled back layers of bureaucracy and unnecessary regulation, and started becoming an economic contender in Europe. This despite having very little natural resources, relatively speaking.
Link: "SocialDemocracy"
It is unfair to compare America with Scandinavian countries when you talk about standard of living, when you compare the diversity and immigration policies of the United States. to those Scandinavian countries. The Scandinavian countries know, that if they let more than a relatively small amount of people into the country, they'll fall flat on their f
I've already come to the assupmtion that you do not know too much about economics, particularly about supply and demand, labor, or about downward pressure on wages in relationship to prices and cost of living.
It seems that every time there is an economic slump, or some industry faces lay-offs or outsourcing, a "the capitalists are destroying us" mindset emerges, and we're yet again faced with Marxian doomsayers who don't know their ass from a whole in the ground.
Your immaturity permeates throught the entire post, and yet I'm not surprised that you were rated informative considering the large number of ignorant crypto-marxists here at slashdot these days [my how trendy it is].
If you would have just stated "The rich and our own govt collude to rob us." then I might have just gave you a nod and chose not to respond.
Unfortunately, you seem either too ignorant or unintelligent enough to realize that the rich using the government to keep in power is not a problem of free market "capitalism", but rather a failure of having too loose of a democracy.
By "loose", I mean making it too easy for laws and regulation to be put into place to protect certain groups.
What makes your rhetoric pathetic is that while you acknowledge the problems caused by government and accumulation of wealth into the hands of the few, you associate this with free markets, despite it actually being a case of National Socialism.... you know, the modern corporation, nationalizing industry, maximizing profits at the expense of all else...
Free markets? No.
Capitalism as defined by Karl Marx? Yes.
However, capitalism as defined by Karl Marx is a slight-of-hand trick. His definition of capitalism is "National Socialism".
I'm not sure if you're intelligent enough to realize this though. Hmmm.
Wearing on me? Please. You're but a footnote of a footnote.
Personal attacks? You were the one who first claimed moral and intellectual superiority for simply being a Liberal.
Don't lecture me on the fine art of ad hominem.
Arrivederci.
I have to admit, I actually enjoyed discussing things with you. Mostly because you weren't so caustic or acrimoniouis, but because you were generally honest and open. To state it simply, you're not an arrogant prick.
Where we seem to differ is that I see the worst of humanity taking advantage of the power of government, you see the worst of humanity taking advantage of a weaker government. We both want the same things, but we see the government differently.
Now... hmmm. In a free market nation, what would happen after a few generations? I would say that as long as immigration did not overrun things [think "robber barons" vs "too many immigrants" in the late 1800s], that things would actually run fairly well. I could never bring myself to claim that a free market nation would lead to utopia, but as someone who firmly believes that "authority corrupts, and absolute authority corrupts absolutely", government should be limited and always kept in check.
"I'm angry at the corporations that have no loyalty to the workers who make them successful. I'm angry when someone who is performing up to expectations in a profitable company being told to train his foreign replacement. I'm angry when a profitable company lays of tens, hundreds, or thousands of U.S. workers because they found someone overseas who's more desperate for money."
To be completely honets with you, I'd rather see corporations be more loyal to workers. But let us face unbiasedly, a whole lot of workers in America simply aren't working as hard as they used to [unemployment and welfare benefits.]. The people who are losing their jobs aren't exactly top performers, or the most efficient employees.
When Americans are losing their jobs, instead of saying "oh well let's punish the business owners" (uht! "Damn those vile corporations!"), how about you try making it a little bit easier to make a profitable business? Low taxes. Weaken unnecessary regulations. The list is quite substantial already.
"Right. Progressive taxing at work. It's fine to talk about how "proud" she should be if she's above the poverty line, but how proud is she when she can't afford to buy her son a football uniform for an after-school league? How proud will she be when she can't afford braces for her daughter? There's more to life than having enough to avoid death."
Hmmm. I played football when I was younger, and I did not have to pay for a single thing. There is always a whole lot of money donated voluntarily, and not to mention the amount of money concession and admissions make. Enlighten yourself a little bit more.
You know that health plans are fairly easy to come by. Not onlt do prices decrease all the time, along with quality of service and product increase, but health plans are easy to come by. The mother does not necessarily have to show up with whatever amount of money in cash. Payment plans exist. There is nothing wrong with them, except for what people who are trying to come off as righteous imagine.
"Ebeneezer Scrooge would love that system."
Awww, how clever!
"No, I don't think she "deserves" it, but neither do I think that her children should be punished because of her lack of morals, ethics, and initiative. My solution to this has been an easy one: A long-term welfare recipient gets pregnant? Take the child away immediately after birth, put it up for adoption, and try her for child endangerment (if she can't afford to feed herself, she had no reason to believe that she could feed the child). I'd go even further: A 10% increase in welfare benefits for any man or woman who voluntarily undergoes sterilization."
Wow... that's just incredibly... wow. You wouldn't happen to be Chinese, would you?
"So you're claiming that the needs of the poor have always been met in this country and that government social programs sprang up with no one needing assistance? I find that hard to believe."
Have the needs of the poor always been met? I would say for the most part, but the definition of needs is almost as difficult as defining when a fetus becomes a child.
I claim that honest, hardworking people almost always succeed, as long as someone does not commit a crime against them.
Government social programs began when unnatural numbers of immigrants overloaded our infrastructure. You know, particularly after all that nastiness of the "robber barons" and all. Nevermind all of the evidence to suggest that those corporations and companies did more to further workers' conditions and lessen the work week, they were still evil. Nevermind all the evidence to suggest that those "robber barons" really did no worse than what the government could have done at the time. Immigration laws have to be strict, unless you know you have the infrastructure in place to handle them.
[The book mentioned is called "The Myth of the Robber Barons". I recommend it.]
Government, naturally, took it upon themselves to "fix" the problem. What has occurred is temporary benefits that are backed up by ever increasing costs, as well as hidden costs and layered bureaucracy. Almost all of which is involuntary.
I."But those jobs are being filled with overseas workers in many instances."
I think that one went over your head.
II. "Yes, but the rate, volatility, and downwards pressure on wages that is an issue."
I'm going to charge you with doing a little bit more research on your own here.
But if wages go down, there should be no complaints if prices on goods and services go down as well.
Wages fall with a surplus of unemployed workers. Prices fall because of previous surplus and due to consumer demand being reduced during these economic slumps, especially in the natural correction of said slumps. If the nominal wages of workers is reduced, and the prices of goods is reduced, then they're no better and no worse off.
When politicians interfere in the labor market, they slow down the natural correction 'mechanisms' of the market.
III. "I know. Just call tech support for your computer and the person in Bangalore, India will tell you that challenging, high-paying (for India) jobs are definitely more plentiful in recent years. You might get a different answer if you asked the American that they replaced."
Yes, if you asked the disgruntled American that was replaced you're going to hear alot of complains, but not if you ask the still much more numerous Americans who still have a job, including more high-tech and high-skilled jobs, or have recently had their jobs imported back due to the money saved on lower foreign wages not being worth the weaker results. Software and IT jobs are slowly coming back into this country, no thanks to government intervention.
High-tech and high-skilled jobs go beyond tech support... just so you know.
IV. "Vague and non-specific."
Vague and non-specific, or you're either biased or too uninformed to know what I am referring to? Hmmm.
V. "Unsubstantiated assertion."
Hah. I suppose you did not look up that article. That's fine. I looked it up for you.
http://www.reason.com/0407/fe.bl.truths.shtm l
VI."Again, an unsubstantiated assertion."
Again, http://www.reason.com/0407/fe.bl.truths.shtml
VII."Yes, corporate officers and stockholders are seeing ever increasing monetary rewards while workers are seeing reduced benefits, lower wages, longer hours, and tougher competition for fewer jobs."
All workers? Certainly not. Most workers? Certainly not. Increased welfare and unemployment benefits correlates to the increase in the number of unemployed. When there is a whole lot of people unemployed, wages go down - longer hours are not often the norm. As said before, jobs are not just disappearing with no substitutions or reemergence in sight.
VIII. "I know people who are/were supplying contract tech workers. They don't even want resumes at this point because they are buried in them. They can't find enough customers to pay the costs of leasing their offices. It's not an imagined problem."
I never said it was an imagined problem, I just think you don't fully understand the sources/causes, or solutions to the problem.
IX. "In India, China, Vietnam, Malaysia,..."
Awww, how cute.
X. "U.S. tech worker earns $85K/year. How much of that will make it back into the U.S. economy? Indian tech worker earns $6K year. How much of that will make it back into the U.S. economy. The jobs aren't going overseas to boost foreign economies. They are going overseas so that corporate officers and stockholders can take a bigger slice of the pie (relative to the tech workers)."
That $85,000 a year seems a little high. Even ignoring that, nobody is making the claim that we have to get most of the Indian tech worker's salary back. In your head, presuming you have the ability, scale the wages and costs of living between the countries you mentioned earlier in relation to the United States. Compare this to the overall number of employees in the broadly defined "IT" field in said countries. Very few jobs are being outsourced to India or Malaysia, or whereve
You think if public schools were abolished, that all of the public school children would have to choose between Catholic and Jewish? Please. Private schools, or home schooling operations would pop up left and right. They exist now, there's no reason to suggest they wouldn't become more numerous should laws and regulations not be so hindering.
Have you ever attended a Catholic or Jewish institution? I never attended a Jewish institution, but I was hardly indoctrinated into the Catholic faith. They accepted my protestantism, and left it at that. If you were the one I replied to about prejudice, it was largely from others outside the school. It's a very small town. Irish Catholics still look down upon Irish protestants.
Do you live in Salt Lake City? A quick google search showed a whole lot of schools, both public, private, and religious. I did not even go into how many homeschool their children. The numbers would increase should public schools be done away with. Too expensive to go to a Catholic school? No. Too expensive to go to unreligious Catholic schools? No. Too expensive to home school your children, or to have someone else home school them? No.
You want to talk about indoctrination, you want to be looking at public schools. Even far left-wingers and right-wingers agree with people like me, that public schools are becoming more and more about indoctrination.
"You've got a self-selecting sample in private schools. The kids who are only staying in school because the law requires it, and whose parents don't give a rat's ass about education, are in public schools."
Did you just say it is ok to force students into school? What happened to freedom? The fact that you have to complete the curriculum that whatever state/school district you reside under issues to you shows how much public schooling is about indoctrination.
Do you know how many laws and regulations private schools, no matter how religious or unreligious, have to go through to keep in operation?
"So anything goes? No OSHA standards. No standards about sexual harassment? No Department of Labor standards? Are they forced at gunpoint? No. Are they forced by economic circumstances? Maybe."
Anything goes? Of course not ANYTHING goes. You can't have some wealthy businessman forcing people to work for pennies at gunpoint, but if people are willing to work in poor conditions, that is their choice - or it's the fault of whatever government/society they're escaping from that "forced them".
"But the economy has been growing at the same time, so it seems that social welfare isn't causing the downfall of society that you predicted."
I don't believe I stated that social welfare is causing the downfall of the society, but it is certainly increasing the costs. Socialized programs increase the likelihood of societies to go bankrupt. What prevents this? Continous outsourcing [France, Germany, Netherlands] of infrastructure and accounts.
The economy is not growing because of social welfare, the economy is growing due to relative peace and relatively free markets. [Relatively speaking when you compare the U.S. to other industrialized nations in the world.]
"Of course I can. You're making the assumption that there is a scientifically valid means of determining when a fetus becomes a child and I am confident that there is not. Therefore, in my opinion, it's only right to respect the views of the pregnant woman."
I'm making the assumption that there is no scientifically valid means of determining when a fetus becomes a child, and since there is no defining line, how can we honestly say that it is ok to destroy the fetus if we cannot define that line?
"I oppose, on moral grounds, letting someone reap all of the rewards of our society and then choose to give nothing back. Social programs are like insurance. Most of us hope that we never have to "make a claim." But voluntary welfare contributions would be as likely to succeed as making a system of car insurance where everyone w
Errr. "not being taken" or "taken as a".
Preview, Josh, not Submit.
Just so I'm not taking as a plagiarist with the ten truths about trade...
I'd like to thank Brink Lindsey.
The link can be found at reason.com, and probably a few other places.
It was titled "10 Truths about Trade"
"The battle cry of the right: prayer belongs in private schools and all schools should be private. Oh, and to hell with any kid who was born into poverty. No school for them."
The battle cry of the right? Please. I'm not from the right.
Actually private schools are very easy to get into and pay for unless you have a pisspoor attitude, and do not listen to anyone.
Catholic schools, for instance, run voluntary programs to help those who cannot afford to go to the school. The ones that actually do their homework and pass classes get practically a full ride, but no less they a considerable portion to help them pay for it.
The idea that all private schools can only be attended by the rich is both foolish and ignorant, and I laugh at anyone who honestly believes that. Beverly Hills 90210 schools only exist in Beverly Hills. Here, in Pennsylvania, they are much cheaper and I did not know one single kid at the private school that I attended that was even upper middle class. Wait, scratch that, we had one kid whose father was a CPA.
Private schools from K-University are less expensive and provide a better education. Statistical facts done by government, independent, and private studies. Look them up.
"So I guess that you'll be voting against "No Child Left Behind" Bush, right?"
I vote against pretty much anything Bush does. The "No Child Left Behind" policy ignores so much on how children learn, so why should I support it?
"What right does that evil government have to say you can't expose your illegal immigrant workers to carcinogens during their 12 hour, no-restroom-break shifts?"
Are those workers being forced into those conditions [which aren't exactly universal, no matter how hard you try to demonize business owners]? Nope. They're not.
"In your world, perhaps. But in the U.S., we have over two centuries of legislative and judicial activity that defines government as being there to help people, not just defend their property. As to defending individual rights, does Bush's support of the Patriot Act count as another reason he should be ousted?"
Please. The Nanny State existed in minimal form for most of our history, and has only been growing over the past century, and especially so with FDR, Wilson, and the other "New Deal" jerkoffs.
But as far as Bush's support for the Patriot count being grounds for him to be ousted? Absolutely! But that's not the only reason he should be ousted. There are plenty of other reasons why, as well.
"Yes. I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with my sperm ending up in the end of a condom -- even though one of them could have resulted in a child."
Nope. Sperm don't result in children no matter how much you take care of them. It's not the same argument. See any online argument over when cells become humans.
"Logical leap: First it was a fetus that could become a child and now it's a "child."
Again, when does a fetus become a human being?
"I don't play those games."
You play even more dubious games.
"I doubt that you "could care less" about your fellow man than you do now."
I could care less about a whole lot of people...
"Sorry, bud, but you are part of a society and a society takes care of its weak."
The value of a society is in the difference between being forced, or coerced, into providing for others, or by voluntarily doing so for others.
If socialized programs were voluntary, I would probably participate in a few of them until the private sector provided better, more efficient programs of that type.
"I don't recall stating that women should be allowed to abandon babies."
Accepted. I made the jump there from fetus to infant. When does a fetus become a child? If you cannot define that, you cannot say abortions are ok. I do not claim to. I'm only asking questions.
"It was simply a means of buying votes from people too stupid to recognize that they were just taking money from th
Actually private schools are very easy to get into and pay for unless you have a pisspoor attitude, and do not listen to anyone.
Catholic schools, for instance, run voluntary programs to help those who cannot afford to go to the school. The ones that actually do their homework and pass classes get practically a full ride, but no less they a considerable portion to help them pay for it.
The idea that all private schools can only be attended by the rich is both foolish and ignorant, and I laugh at anyone who honestly believes that. Beverly Hills 90210 schools only exist in Beverly Hills. Here, in Pennsylvania, they are much cheaper and I did not know one single kid at the private school that I attended that was even upper middle class. Wait, scratch that, we had one kid whose father was a CPA.
[And just so you know, I went to private school for one few year. I went to a Catholic School, but I did not stay because I was not Catholic and there was alot of religious segregation.
My father is working class [railroad] and my mother worked night shifts at a nursing home so we could afford the house we live in. Rich? Bullshit. Hardworking? Yes.
Private schools from K-University are less expensive and provide a better education. Statistical facts done by government, independent, and private studies. Look them up.
You make a very good point on the frontier making it very easy for the reclaiming or original claiming of whatever ideals you and your particular group of would-be exodites hold dear.
I tend to agree that space is the likely next frontier [ocean colonies might not be as permanent of a solution].
However, I disagree on their being too little resources and not enough land for a freer society to exist here on Earth. The biggest problem would be fighting powerful governments should they come to impose their will against us 'for our own good' of course. The Free State Project is an interesting venture, and I'm partially involved, though I'm unsure of how successful it will be. I would not discredit it though if it failed in achieving its ultimate goal, as long as it made a few big steps in the right direction.
To make my final arguments on how I perceive the welfare state or socialized anything, I think the only way you can make a socialized industry become remotely efficient is having it unprotected against the private sector. In other words, do not subvert the private sector through laws and regulation. The best way to understand what I am talking about is to look at the health care industry, which is heavily (3/4) socialized, or at the educational system. The private side of both instances if incredibly hindered by government rules and regulations, but yet they continue to do the job more efficiently, less costly, and unbiasedly.
That last paragraph of yours enlightened me on what you were really trying to close with in your previous post. I understand you a little bit better, and feel for where you're coming from. However, the same systems that you feel must be provided by government could be provided by the private sector. To be quite sincere about it, when the private sector is not being hindered, they are!
"Narrow-minded = conservative."
Depends on your definition of conservative. If by "conservative", you mean socially/religiously conservative, then that certainly works.
If you define "conservative" as limited government and minimal or no interference in the market, then your claim does not hold up. For example, the millions of self proclaimed libertarians and Libertarians in the United States tend to be very economically conservative, but don't give a rats ass what you do socially, as long as you do not hinder on the Natural Rights of others.
If all conservatives = narrow-minded, then all Liberals (as opposed to classic liberals) = those who fail miserable, with dire consequences, at trying to prove they are smart enough to manage the lives of millions of people.
"That I am liberal proves that I am your intellectual and moral superior."
Spare us.
"Just what is someone who thinks there should be prayer in school, that abortions should be illegal, that the wealthy should get huge tax breaks? Just because you are even more nutty than he is doesn't make him into someone who's not right wing."
I think prayer should be in schools that are private religious institutions, but in public schools? Of course not. However, I am against public schools for various reasons. Inefficiency and ever increasing costs, being primary factors.
It is not the proper role of government to say what can and cannot go on in schools, business, or in my household. The role of government is to defend property rights, and to defend the rights of the individual.
I am sure you realize it is difficult to determine when a fetus becomes 'human', and I am not versed enough on biology to argue over that point. However, we can discuss the morality of abortions.
Could you claim a woman has the right to kill what would become a child [with the logic that with proper care a fetus would become a child, just like with proper care a child would become an adult] even if she did not want the child? If you can claim that the woman has no responsibility for the child that she did not want, could you then honestly say that it is my responsibility to take care of my fellow man, most of which I could care less about... and perhaps should [care less about]?
In simpler words, if a woman does not have to take care of something forced upon her in the case of an infant, why should I?
Huge tax breaks for the wealthy... Oh, do you mean the corporate welfare that our NonConservative Liberal (in terms of large government, heavy spending, support of business-government relations/corporations, tariffs/trade-taxes, etc) President Bush has vanguarded? These tax breaks are not just for the wealthy, or for the corporate elite, they're for everybody. Unfortunately, they're not tax breaks as they are a form of welfare. Call it corporate welfare if you'd like, but don't fail to point out that it is fabricated as an illusion to assist all of us.
Bush has proven himself to not very Conservative [in terms of limited government, and limited mettling in the market]. It is unfortunate that so many Liberals refused to acknowledge this because Bush tends to lead more towards militant nationalistic socialism, as opposed to the welfare state or stateless-socialism ("worker's of the world, unite!" blah.)
"Actually, the redistribution of wealth through taxes works incredibly well and has been all hallmark of the greatest nations on Earth: U.S., England, France, Germany, etc."
Actually, the redistribution of wealth does not work. It is the artificial reduction of poverty. It begins to fail when the funds reducing poverty are cut off. As Germany, France, the Netherlands, and all those touted welfare states in Europe are finding out, this sort of practice is economically exhausting. They continue to outsource more accounts and infrastructure to support their growing welfare states. One might argue that we are doing the same thing, for very similar reasons.
Since you claim to be a moral superior, then tell me, what is redistribution of wealth but stealing through taxes? Oh, my mistake. It is not stealing if done by government.
"But the people voluntarily accept it?" Oh they do? Only if you ignore misinformation our blatant lies to take said money.
There are two ways that can allegedly reduce poverty. "Durable opportunities" as they are called by some, are opportunities that last a considerable amount of time (jobs and careers). Wealth distribution fails in creating durable opportunities. In the short term, it appears to succeed, but there are hidden costs that accumulate over time. It never lasts too long.
The free market shows the folly of such a system every time.
The second way to permanently reduce poverty is to increase productivity/efficiency of
I still don't think you get what a free market is. By very definition of a free market, the turf /is/ the free market -- not the home stadium of corporations protected by government and expensive lawyers, and not the home stadium of the masses.
It's been a long time since I've heard anyone advocating a 'citizen-oriented government'. To me, that sounds like the perfect scenario for tyrrany of the majority, instead of tyrrany of the minority. Both are horrible. I advocate nobody having more power than the rest, and I advocate everyone having the equal right to earn whatever they can earn in the market.
An almost completely free market has worked in the past. Look at the first 1/3 of the history of the United States. Now you can try to argue about the "Robber Barons" of the later 1800s all you'd like. The bottom line is that there was a whole lot of government-business intervention there [showing failures of having too much democracy, or having it too easy to make new laws]. It should also be noted that those corporations, even with their corruption [kind of inherent where big money and politics intermingle], did more to advance workers rights, as well as the safety and sanitation of the workplace, more so than any union has ever. Unions didn't give us a shorter work week, the prosperity of freer trade did.
Oh yeah, and any system that faces such an onslaught of new immigrants without having the infrastructure in place to deal with them is going to have people living in crowded conditions, and working in poor jobs. You don't see those Scandinavian countries allowing a whole lot of immigration into their country, no matter how prosperous they are currently doing.
If you'll allow it to me, look at Midieval Iceland (fishing villages, the Althing, relative stability and steady progress), or Ancient Ireland (complete decentralization, minimal governing powers, stability, prosperity, little violence, and it took hundreds of years for the Britons and feudalism to conquer Ancient Eire). To say that it has worked in the past, but can't today is rediculous. Life is easier today, and technology permits us proliferation of information on an vast scale.
I'll ask you not to use "profit" as the final definition of free markets. Corporations were created with the distinct goal of maximizing profits at the cost of whatever stood in the way. Consumerism is the public face of all of this. Free markets are not about maximizing profits, but rather about businesses servicing the wants and needs of customers.
I'll admit, it's very hard to bite into the above at first, but if you try looking at modern business with that in mind, it really starts to make some sense.
The way I understand it, unions in France are not doing so well. Sabine Herold of "Liberté j'écris ton nom" tells us that Unions and French socialism are doing France a disfavor. One instance put forward, is that Unions believe that any government worker, no matter how lazy or unproductive, should be paid as much as the most productive. Sabine also speaks on union transportation strikes crippling the country for an entire month. Who am I to believe? It's very hard to discredit her, and everything I've learned about economics and politics over the past two or so years favors her, but yet -- I've never been to France so I can't explicitly denounce your claims that unions weren't "really all that bad".
There's an interesting interview with Sabine Herold here: http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/040112_schwar tz_herold.php
Ignoring Madeline Albright not being a libertarian and not exactly being a good example of free markets, Sabine makes some good points. I do not even necessarily agree with Sabine on all points, but even I would not attack government as much as I do now if we opened up our markets completely, and had only the tiniest of welfare organization for people who physically or mentally cannot perform.
The argument that welfare should exist for the unempl
wattersa,
I think you might be confusing consumerism with capitalism [assuming by capitalism you mean "free markets", not Marx's definition of capitalism which is essentially Market Socialism -- monopolies or at least megacorps created and protected by government.].
Consumerism, on the other hand, is the promotion of buying as many goods as possible with the argument that this is always good for the economy. Even if you disclude the broken window fallacy, consumerism still does not always stand up.
However, it's hardly an ill of capitalism (again, as in "free markets", not capitalism as defined by Marx).
"What made Enron possible on the scale it occurred was pooling a massive amount of wealth into the control of a heirarchical organisation. There are extremely wealthy individuals who are not coporations."
:-p]. I think this lead to alot of security issues, or rather, lulling intvestors into a false-sense of security.
...
You make a very good point. I have no trouble accepting that...
However, I stand firm to the belief that government-business partnerships are prone to corruption, and corporations often signify that very point dramatically.
The government mandated audits of Enron certainly didn't do their job [when does government do its job?
I think that's kind of what I had in mind when I was originally trying to argue. Unfortunately for me, I tend to rush to post, and don't really think all that much about what I'm writing.
I don't think the MPAA statement really fits into the discussion... the MPAA is bad for other reasons, and so are many of the corporations it represents.
"Are you saying that we simply will not have any large companies if we eliminate the abilities for companies to incorporate?"
Yes, to a very limited degree, but overall, of course not.
"I hold rather complex views,
Does that help?"
In satisfying my curiosity? Yes. [It's very much aligned with my views.]
"A large company, not incorporated, a cooperative, or any other similar means or organising a group to collective directed action (preferably with some heirarchical structure - that lets the top defraud the bottom) is all that would be required for an Enron style fraud scheme."
Agreed. I was talking about scale, and relative ease in the case of corporations.
"There is, I repeat, no requirement to have government support for corporations involved - all that is required is an ability to collect and manage a large pool of money."
Again, I agree. Again, I was talking about scale, and relative ease in the case of corporations.
"It is not corporations that make this possible, rather coroporations simply provide an extra layer of very handy legal protections for large companies."
Right. Corporations, government created [now "permitted"] constructs, allow for handy legal protections on a larger scale.
""Yeah, but it was a corporation and we won't have corporations" is not an excuse, its a half assed cop-out. removing coprorate protections would, indeed, be a good thing, but the lack of them would not have stopped Enron doing what they did."
No, the lack of them would not have stopped Enron from doing what it did. However, those protections help. I believe you even admitted that yourself.
I'm not claiming that removing those protections would have helped, but something on the scale that the corruption of Enron was on would not have been as easy or entirely possible [on scale] had it not been because of Enron being a corporation.
"Or perhaps you could explain, quite specifically, how government support was a requirement for Enron. That is, pretend Enron was a non incoroporated company - now explain why they couldn't do the same thing."
To explain the history of corporations would take quite awhile, but very briefly [and of course, simplified]. They were intentional government constructs, initially created from the Crown in England, and later in the United States. Now, they're officially "permitted" by law, but the very permission of them stems from the practice of creating them.
Now, if Enron was a not a corporation, and if Enron did not have all of the protection it had, would it still have been able to pool in so much money? Of course people could do it anytime, but I'm talking about scale, here. I've stated that several times.
Are you just trying to complicate things for the sake of it, playing the Devil's Advocate, or do we hold such greatly varied views on corporations, mixed markets, and free markets?
"...so what the heck is your solution? Magically dissolve the corporations? You really think that'd happen?
...
Here's the rub: we've got a system of powerful corporations, and they're not going to go gently into that dark night... "
Magically dissolve? Of course not. I'll ask you not to mock me. For starters, I think we have to first educate one another on what the real problem is. Do you think the government is going to do it? Of course not. They'd prefer us asking the wrong questions, that way, they won't ever have to explain why they should be kept around to clean up the same messes they create.
The problem is democracy, by the very definition of a democracy versus a [Limited] Republic with the laws clearly illustrated in a written constitution. Please do not mistake my use of the term democracy.
The key is education.
"What better way to wrest control of the government from these corporations than by working to use that government to enable the poor and undereducated? Even if we do wrest that control back from the wealthy elite, what's to stop them from simply using the marketplace in its stead?"
If anyone can provide a good service, honestly, for less money in a free marketplace, then by very definition, how can you complain? Even if they're making more money than you? Economic equality is a myth. As citizens, we deserve the equal right to earn our way, not to be economic equals.
To paraphrase a famous economists, "No person is equal to himself on different days."
"Au contraire.....[all the way to]..... we probably would have stayed longer."
I'm actually disgusted at the maze of what American tax forms have become. Talking about that , though, is getting away from the subject at hand. [By the way, Bush -- undeniably a man against free markets didn't cut taxes, he implemented what is essentially welfare, all the while altering tax codes to make them appear shorter, but cost more money to maintain.].
I stand corrected on the situation you were in while you were in France. I admit my mistakes. However, it's straying away from one of the main points that I was making... over time, the costs of socialized systems begins to outpace both the quality and the people's ability to pay for it.
Not to mock you or anything, but did you just brag about French freeloaders having it better off than American freeloaders?
The whole striking business is an ill of unions, or one of the ills of unions. Italy is absolutely horrible with unions as well.
Of course I'm not saying let's abolish all but the tiniest bit of government over night. Education, and cultural attitudes need to be changed [but that's a bit intertwined right there]. As long as no explicit, aggressive coercion is used, we will be much better off if we slowly peel government back. History, economics, and [perhaps] human nature show us this.
[If you don't mind me asking... Why wouldn't your wife be able to legally work in France for three years?]
You're absolutely correct on it being a well executed fraud, but the fact that it was done by a corporation [or the heads of the corporation], is what allows it to be done on such a wide scale.
Corporations have alot of power and influence, and are usually well protected by the laws that put them into place [or by the politicians that kept them there].
Lack of government granted rights and protections of corporations is what put Enron in the situation to do that to begin with.