Quote:
Originally Posted by urville
How does it promote fairness?
|
Our current system has favorites. For example I suggested that people here look into the sugar subsidies and the impact it has on the poor. I don't support such subsidies.
Quote:
|
Since 1980, the sugar program has cost consumers and taxpayers the equivalent of more than $3 million for each American sugar grower. Some people win the lottery; other people grow sugar. Congressmen justify the sugar program as protecting Americans from the "roller-coaster of international sugar prices," as Rep. Byron Dorgan (D.-N.D.) declared. Unfortunately, Congress protects consumers from the roller-coaster by pegging American sugar prices on a level with the Goodyear blimp floating far above the amusement park. U.S. sugar prices have been as high as or higher than world prices for 44 of the last 45 years.
|
The Great Sugar Shaft
Quote:
|
What I see is certainly openness, with no way to stop more of exactly what your complaining about. This system is pretty open as it is, enough to allow them to nearly destroy us and get away nearly scott free. Yeah, give me more of THAT!
|
Rich and powerful people have devised a system so complex that average people don't know the many ways they get the shaft. In a simplified system based on market forces we would not have these hidden forms of exploitation.
Quote:
|
I agree that the current system does the same thing.
|
Then we support the same cause, even if I am more extreme.
Quote:
|
You think I dont understand you because its the only way you can solve for the fact that I'm not buying it. Not that i simply dont agree because we are philosophically and fundamentally apart. but your wrong, and theres just about all of history to prove it.
|
Time and time I give specifics in history and in current times, you have not given specifics.
Quote:
|
I apologize, I was assuming you didnt do it on purpose which frankly in my mind was more in your favor. So,You left them out to simplify?
|
We can focus on the big picture or we can discuss the trivial - I prefer the big picture. It is clear that Woods benefited everyone in the sport, and he did not do it at their expense.
Quote:
|
Thats MY point. Of course there is a trickle down happening, but its always there, they have to give them something in that system. it isnt a model for an entire economic philosophy because it ignores completely that they arent going to give any more, and citing Ford does nothing for your argument. It simply isnt true. There no basis for it in a free system. If they dont have to, no one is going to.
|
Is it your fundamental belief that people have to be forced to do good?
Quote:
|
It's true now. When the American labor force either enchroaches on, or more likely when these executives decide they need to free up money for more profit.
|
What you describe is natural and predictable. It it rational and logical behavior even when profit is not the key consideration. A charity would respond the same way under the circumstances you describe. If the labor force encroaches on the good works of the charity, leaders would decide to free up money by reducing labor costs. However, labor does not have to be passive. Labor can respond in ways to minimize its exposure to risks. Do you want a system where some have responsibilities and others don't?
Quote:
|
Yeah, lol, I know labor is exploited. You actually believe by opening up and deregulating, and I guess just trusting in the good nature and progress based instincts of companies and thier owners (their intellignece to know its ion thier best interest?), to actually improve that system.
|
I would suggest you or anyone "trust" anybody or anything. I suggest people be active participants in the market. Individuals force others to treat them fairly by commanding it. If a person enters the market in ignorance or being naive, you will be treated as such. Labor needs to know what its value is.
Quote:
|
I dont know the value of labor in my market, only because I have no reason to.
|
If you fall into the foolish belief that government will take care of you, you have my sympathy. I think you have every reason to know the value of your labor. Who is looking out for your best interests in the labor market?
---------- Post added at 07:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Ace, can you at least acknowledge that free-ish markets tend to produce situations where participants have substantial motivation to work counter to the best interests of society?
|
No.
What I will acknowledge, and it has nothing to do with market type (it is universal) is that there are thieves, criminals and some evil people in the world.
Also, as I tried to explain there is a difference between wealth creators and those who generate personal wealth from more or less taking from others. People who generate wealth, by definition, benefit society.
Quote:
|
I can acknowledge that government intrusion is frequently heavy-handed and counter-productive. This seems to be inherent and why industry should do its best to self-regulate. Many industries do self regulate. Many don't. And when necessary, government intrusion exists to intentionally restrict certain kinds of growth.
|
I am not an advocate of anarchy and I do believe there is a role for government or governance in a free market.
Quote:
|
For example, government regulation right now is limiting the growth of the market for cigarettes and alcohol among minors. I'm fine with this. The government is also limiting the toy market by placing rules on what sort of chemicals can be used in toy production. I'm fine with this.
|
but, where do you draw the line? At what point do you expect the consumer to be active in the decision making process? Why not ban salt, sugar, meat sunshine...exhaling CO2????
Quote:
|
I don't buy into the idea that the wisdom of the market is always sound when it comes to the well being of humanity. Regulations frequently arise when industries so egregiously fuck up that even the largely corrupt class of politicians who run the country have to get off their worthless asses and pretend to care about their constituents.
|
A common theme is the difference in what I consider active participation and what I see you as saying is that when others don't protect me that they are at fault. I suggest full disclosure to address politicians who are unduly influenced by special interests. Our current system is one based on misdirection and deception in order to hide the influence of special interests.
Quote:
|
Where there aren't compelling reasons to inhibit market growth, I can't imagine you'd find any large group of people willing to regulate capriciously (though I recognize that the folks who stand to gain from the exploitation of certain markets might differ in opinion on the need for regulation from the people in these markets who stand to be exploited).
|
There are thousands of capricious regulations and laws. For example it is o.k. to get drunk drinking beer, but illegal to get high smoking marijuana - why? It is legal to spend money to take a person to dinner, get them flowers, etc., in exchange for...oh never mind - I am sure you get the point.
---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by urville
That is the only portion of that statement I agree with.
Its useless to teach wealth creation when only a very small percentage have an actual chance to make it despite that knowledge.
|
We can look at black communities in urban centers 50 years ago as compared to today. With the boom in welafare black communities where ruined. When home-ownership, business-ownership and families ties peaked so did the quality of life peaked in these communities.
Not everyone is going to be Bill Gates, but people can own land. People can save money. People can own small businesses. People can own other assets. The mentality of "ownership" compared to "renting" is a small shift in thinking that everyone (don't split hairs with the small percent of exceptions) can make. This shift in thinking forms the basis of wealth creation. it forms the basis of creating generational wealth or having something to pass on to your children as opposed to a legacy of debt and dependence on others.
Quote:
|
Again, if it were true and possible it would have or be happening, and the argument that less rules/regs will somehow make it happen is just denying reality.
|
My grandparents owned land in the south when my father was a child. when my grand-father died my dad worked the land until he went into the army. Based on "rules/regs" the land was in my view stolen from my grandmother. If you think "rules/reg" are to benefit average/poor people, I simply suggest re-thinking this. No doubt, some "rules/regs" are needed and do good, but currently our system of "rules/reg" generally are more harmful than they are good.
---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
"A market that is free to operate under the true forces of supply and demand." Whose mythology is this?
|
The economist I have studied the most is Milton Friedman, Nobel prize winner. I have not written anything here that he would not agree with.
Quote:
|
I suppose in your farm example I can agree on at least one thing. I agree that wealth can be generated by land and labour. ace, you're hit and miss at best.
|
If you don't like my examples that is one thing - and I give examples because I suspect that some will resonate and some won't. Isn't that the point of giving examples?
Again, if you focus on trivial matters involving an example we get no where. In context, wealth can be created or wealth can be gained through the expense of others. There is a difference. I understood your post explaining why you did not want to address the difference and i wanted to clarify the difference by using an example. Perhaps it is not perfect, but the point is there if you want to see it.
Quote:
|
And the solution to America, by default, is the "true force of supply and demand"? That's a fix for uncontrollable spending and debt? I don't get it. Maybe it's because I live in a country with more widespread social policies and more sensible fiscal conservatism than yours.
|
As I understand it the Canadian economy moves in sync with the US economy about 75% of the time. The income gap between Canadians and Americans is getting bigger in favor of America. In addition the Canadian birth rate is low putting more and more pressure on the country's ability to maintain social programs. If not for the booming oil and minerals industries Canada would not be in a strong position at all. The boom is very real and very beneficial, and it can easily mask underlying problems.
Quote:
|
I'm not concerned about whether those that hurt people are rescinded. I'm concerned about those that prevent people from exploitation and injury. Though your definition of "hurt" I imagine is different from mine. Either way, a truly free market would put society at the mercy of the wealthy, at the mercy of profit. I prefer society to be governed by elected representatives that are accountable to the people.
|
"...at the mercy of the wealthy..."
That is at the core of our different points of view. If people can exercise free choice they would never be at anyone's "mercy". In the US big banks get billions of tax payer money in bailouts...and it is then the tax payers who are at the "mercy" of big banks...this is your preferred mixed system at work. Believe me, I can present such examples all day long - will you ever see the problems that are systemic in this "mixed" up system?