That was not the argument presented.

I can see the major trends. If you take the position that Canadian debt is not on track to consume GDP without some major change in policy, I suggest you do not know what is going on. In addition, like I presented, Canada has a solution in Oil and minerals if the market holds. That is my primary point, is that what you dispute?

O.k., you don't see what I see.

Labor has a profit motive. If labor is 1/3 of the equation why do you insist it is less important? Why do you not realize that labor can exploit those who hold capital? Again, rhetorical. Perhaps like those Rorschach tests, what I see clearly is not clear to you. I don't know what to add.

Then the argument failed on the grounds of coherence.

Canada has been running a deficit throughout the recession. The minority Conservative government has been using stimulus spending to weather the storm and arguably they've been doing a good job (some would argue we would have been okay either way).

Now I want you to watch Canadian economic policy and watch closely. Canadians have just elected a majority Conservative government, which means that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is easily the most powerful politician domestically than anybody in North America. This guy is Chicago School. You'd like him. But let's rewind: since the '90s, we've reduced our debt by nearly 1/6th. We even legislated rules regarding balanced budgets. This recent deficit spending will not be nearly as bad over the next few years because we're heading out of the recession. We're likely to move back to a surplus if the majority Conservatives don't fuck it up. Balanced budgets aren't serendipity in Canada; they're expected.

This will happen despite oil prices. It has happened in the past, before the oil boom. The boom is less than 10 years in the making.

And I'm right here.

You aren't listening. I'm not devaluing labour; I'm suggesting a free market would actively do that. Just as capital would be used to exploit land and ideas, it would exploit labour: maximum output, minimum cost. It would strip balanced approaches to how labour would be treated, just as it would strip balanced approaches to using land and ideas (wanton environmental degradation and no such thing as "stealing" ideas, i.e. no copyright, no patents, etc.).

My position is that I value labour and think it deserves rights, power, and privileges that a free market wouldn't necessarily afford it unless it would be more profitable to do so. If government is required to ensure that, then so be it. It's not my desire per se; it's the fault of free-market principles. Again, a society should be governed primarily by people, not supply and demand.

Call me a hopeless social democrat if you will, but at least my ideals are feasible and are currently being applied in the real world. Despite what you may think, social democrats are capable of balancing budgets just as much if not more than conservatives.

Then why do you have so much faith in the market? It is every greedy person's dream to be able to control and restrict the freedoms of others. Free markets excel at giving power to greedy people.

I think that the market is good for a lot of things. Looking out for the powerless isn't one of them.

I don't think your point of view is as mysterious as you do. And thievery isn't always illegal.

An argument against free markets is that a free markets lack regulatory control and oversight from a centralized source. However, when we look at what you called "mixed" markets as in the case of the US oil industry which is heavily regulated and controlled an event like the BP oil spill occurs. Centralized regulation and control can not prevent disasters from occurring. What then follows are the consequences or how a free market would respond compared to a "mixed" market. In the case of BP and the US government a settlement was arrived at that was politically based rather than a settlement based on real costs and real consequences. In the end the settlement with the government benefited government and BP, in my view disproportionately, at the expense of tax payers and those most damaged.

The reason I included a reference to the Canadian birth rate is because over time it will be increasingly difficult for fewer and fewer people to sustain the weight of social spending. Something is going to have to change. Either spending cuts, or significant gains in wealth creation. Canada is fortunate as it currently sits on a vast amount of untapped wealth. The thought that Canada could simply tax more to address social spending is not realistic. You must have wealth creation or spending cuts. The same condition is true in the US. The US can not tax its way out of the train wreck that is going to occur unless we act. Conservatives in Canada and in the US are prepared to do what needs to be done. The real extreme position is held by those who think we can tax our way into solving problems with spending.

Hence the value of Canada's untapped resources. Social programs will be cut unless Canada monetizes the value of those resource at a pace that exceeds increasing costs in social programs.

In the US we have to deal with silliness from environmentalist. We have resources that can be monetized, but they fight it. i doubt they realize what is at risk.

No it wont. There is a price where developing oil sands is worth while or profitable and there is a price where that is not true. Over time with improvements in technology that price has come down, but there is still the magic price point. If supplier A has a cost of production of $10 per barrel, supplier B $20, and oil sand is $40. If A and B can satisfy demand, oil sands won't be developed-unless tax payers are willing to subsidize the difference - but there are consequences to that.

That is only half of the view. When supply of labor exceeds demand, the price or wage drops. But when demand exceeds supply the price goes up. Labor has to be active in the market and adjust to changes. If the demand for auto workers drops, but the demand for computer programmers is increasing labor has to respond. However, when the market is controlled by government you end up with high numbers of unemployed and unemployable auto workers waiting for jobs that will never return - encouraged by government policy. Labor would respond faster to changing market conditions if not for government. Government policy is often the root of the problem.

Your view seems to assume that certain parties would be uninformed. If market participants are passive and unwilling to do their homework, so to speak, they will be exploited. But even that condition is self correcting in a free market. Different employers would compete for labor at below market costs and in time bid up the price of labor.

Okay, ace, don't listen to what I say, or simply disagree with very little (if any) basis, including disagreeing with facts.

I think we're done here. For now.

My view is not based on faith. My view is based on my experience, observations, study and at times some tests I have conducted.

Actually, the opposite is true. It is the few who seek political power that most aggressively try to control the behaviors of others. It is through centralized command and control systems that are most exploitative. Free people with choice can respond. Controlled people can not.

I support social safety nets for children, elderly and the disabled. I think we have a moral obligation to protect the powerless. I am guessing we fundamentally disagree on what we consider as "powerless". For example to me a 20 year-old who failed to take advantage of a free education and lives in his mother's basement, playing video games and eating Doritos all day and night is not "powerless". I have no sympathy for people like that. However, as soon as he is willing to go to work, i would be the first in line to want to help him - just don't tell me I gotta pay him $15 per hour to get trained or more than he is worth after he gets trained.

But it is always wrong.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------

Nothing I have written here is incorrect (not including typos), in my opinion. and most of my last post was really just further clarification on points I had been making all along and in response to your critique. But it is true, I have nothing new to say that will influence anyone here on this topic. But, it is clear that there are shifting views as evidenced by the Tea Party and perhaps by conservatives in Canada.

Given our exchange, if it is representative of what the political discourse will be over the next two years, I fully expect a massive sweep by the Tea Party or those who advocate for Tea Party principles, in the 2012 elections in the US

More of that reality-optional thing that I've heard is going around.

Given our exchange, if it's representative, and the Tea Party does sweep some kind of victory in 2012, it will be based on propaganda and fear-mongering.

That's the only way it could happen.

...

I shop at Marxist co-op workers' markets. The food is really good. It's pesticide- and exploitation-free. You can taste it.

I'm not trying to step on Baraka's dick here, but...

This is hardly a reasonable example of regulation being worse than no regulation. In fact, it's an example of what happens when regulatory agencies are stocked with industry friendly people, and as such, is actually an example of what happens when regulations aren't adequate or adequately enforced (ie, what happens in free-er markets).

It's a common source of confusion amongst certain folks: that poorly run government programs are an example of why the government sucks. These people then vote for people who have a record of running the government poorly and the cycle continues. The real problem is that regulation (and government in general) doesn't work well when you stock it with people who are more concerned with catering to whichever industry they're looking to get a job in after they step down from their public sector job. Unfortunately, the folks who complain about ineffective government programs are often the same folks who pewl up a storm whenever anyone in the government attempts to hinder the purposefully stupefying effects of outside influence.

The idea that the government is standing in the way of displaced autoworkers who want to learn to write fluent computer has nothing to do with reality. How long does it take to learn to write professional level code? And how should these folks feed their families in the year or two it will take them to get up to speed in the programming language du jour?

Do you know what price inelasticity is? It's when prices don't respond to changes in supply and/or demand.


When has this ever happened without the aid of organized labor? Please, give me one example (no golf professionals, please).

"I want to let the market handle this whole labor cost and allocation thing without any government intervention at all." is code for "I want a sweatshop based economy."

Okay, well, I generally don't find your view or your ability to support it with the written word all that compelling.

That isn't what opposite means. Opposite of what? That free markets excel at giving greedy people power or that greedy people know that controlling others can be extremely profitable?

Who is telling you that you must pay 20 year old college drop outs $15/hour? I can't talk you out of your fantasies, Ace.


Your opinion or stealing? ;)

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

---------- Post added at 11:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------

I wrote a whole slew of responses and quotes and then figured whats the point... its useless. Especially the minute he mentioned Friedman.

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------

Now see.... this is why the forum could use a like button lol :thumbsup:

How do you explain the conservatives gaining political control in Canada? Rhetorical, I can guess your answer or i will read it in the thread on the subject. My explanation, and it applies in the US also, is that people can see the the problems coming and want to do something about it.

It only takes moments of looking at some basic data to understand that debt is going to consume national income or GDP. Taxing national income absolutely can not solve spending problems.

The importance of the above is easily overlooked by those seeking overly complex answers to simple problems. However, this message is easily communicated to typical voters.

If you call the above message propaganda or fear mongering, you and those who share your viewpoint have opportunity to do something about it, by sending your message - whatever it is, I am not clear on what you want to do (I suspect most others don't either). The conservative message is clear and easy to understand - so we will sweep in 2012. We will control Congress and the WH. I even expect a super majority - and if that happens, hold on to your hat!

My comment about our exchange was not personal, but in my view reflects core differences in how people like me with my views communicate with people like you with your views. I see simplicity, you see complexity.

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------

I do not advocate for no regulation. I advocate for fair or neutral rules and regulation. Government should not play favorites in the market.

That is the key point, if you want to respond to it.

This is what I mean by responding to trivial matters relative to an example. Perhaps, it is not about all auto workers learning to be be computer programmers, but auto workers not sitting around collecting unemployment, going to rallies and fighting for bailouts but adapting to changing market conditions.

A short-term issue. And it works both ways, potentially in favor of labor and potentially against labor. For example, as a business owner, if there are short-terms swings in business activity, the last thing I want to do is let go a fully trained employee. So if business slows and demand for labor declines, my response is not to immediately cut labor cost.

Look at both sides of issues. Labor has power in free markets. I don't understand why you folks assume labor will always be a victim. Honestly, can you share some insight on this?

Conservatives in Canada are basically the same as Democrats here in the United States (center right). Imagine a US which has a far left party, center left party and a center right party and add a bit of delicious maple syrup and you've got Canada.

We agree. In street lingo, we would call this getting "pimped". A person who controls street prostitutes mentally (and sometime physically but my focus is on the mental aspect here) breaks the person down to the point where they do not know or understand their true worth - and in a weird way that become their choice not to understand. I say to labor, stop being "pimped" by government. Government is not your "daddy", not your protector, not you provider, not you lover, not your advocate. Each individual has to be their own "man".

Oh, and just like in the "game" as with government - labor pays the "pimp" first.

criminy. talk about ludicrous analogies.

this is kinda interesting on the influence that that staggeringly idiotic pseudo-philosophy "objectivism" in conservativeland:

| The Randian Fault That Could Shake Conservatism

sounds a bit like the underlying logic of a lot of ace's bad examples/analogies/simplification-falsification exercises.

I meant you.

A persons ignorance should not be a license to act unethically.

The laws of capitalism, blind and invisible to the majority, act upon the individual without his thinking about it. He sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon before him. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists, who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller—whether or not it is true—about the possibilities of success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for the emergence of a Rockefeller, and the amount of depravity that the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude entails, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible to make the people in general see this.

Perhaps that will explain better what I meant.

---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually, one grows out of it. Libertarians and Objectivists are moved by the mania of a single idea — a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness.

The Conservatives in Canada won mainly because of their obvious shift towards the centre and the disastrous implosion of the Liberal party from the leadership down. (More or less the opposite of what happened in the U.S.)

If the GOP wants to "sweep" or to make any significant headway into restoring what's left of their power, then maybe they should consider a similar move. I've said this before: maybe it's time to return to the Third Way in America.

Let's play a game. We can call it who is getting F*cked! I'll start it off.

Working middle class homeowners, billions in tax dollars go to bailout banks for making bad home loans. The bad loans lead to lowered home values. Thousands and thousands have loans with a greater value than their homes. Banks won't refinance, but they will foreclose. Choice; your "pimp" (government), your trick (banks), or you the middle class homeowner - who is getting F*cked? :rolleyes:

So how do I get citizenship and wheres a good place to move?

I know when I am getting f*cked, do you?

Shouda, woulda, couda - I don't trust anyone until they earn it. Your statement suggests that you depend on the good will of others - good luck with that.

This is almost correct. There are three left-wing parties. One is only in Quebec representing Quebecois interests, the Bloc Quebecois. One is the Green Party of Canada, a minority party representing green politics, though they've just won their first seat in the House of Commons. One is a national social democratic party—the New Democratic Party (NDP)—that has had some minority influence in the House of Commons for a while but have just won for the first time in history the status of the Official Opposition, and they did this by more or less doubling their seats in the House. None of these parties are "far left."

The Liberal Party of Canada, though considered centre-left does veer close to the centre quite often. Until recently, they were considered the "ruling party" of Canada, and much of that has to do with this centrism.

The Conservative party is an amalgamation of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party, which makes them a mixed-bag of small "c" conservative issues, including both fiscal and social platforms. They are both centre-right and right-wing depending on the issue, the politician, and the political environment. Comparatively, however, they are probably like the rightest of Democrats and the leftest of Republicans.

If you consider the recent platform they ran on, the Conservatives clearly went for centre-right over right-wing. Social conservative values were notably absent for the most part, while still maintaining the conservative brand otherwise.

It should be a lesson to the GOP. If they want to be a ruling party, perhaps try to encompass more voters, which tend to gravitate nearest to the centre.

Experience, inevitability of markets and their forces, knowledge of my fellow man, knowledge of history and current events.

There is a great difference between free-enterprise development and revolutionary development. In one of them, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a fortunate few, the friends of the government, the best wheeler-dealers. In the other, wealth is the people’s patrimony.

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx - Free eBook

and on and on...

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Oh yes. I question that statement. I wonder if you really do...

---------- Post added at 02:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

Whata re you talking about? No it doesnt. This is a question of ethics, your trying justify yourself in taking advantage of others unethically. I have no idea what you mean that I rely on the goodness of others, i think your talking about yourself. Or maybe you meant the goodness of market forces. Either way, utopian nonsense.

Just forget about all that stuff, why not let me be your "Daddy". Choose me! I will protect you from all the bad people in the world. I will pay for your medicine when you get sick. I'll buy you nice cloths, jewelry, make sure you got a nice place to live in, I'll even get you a little rag top car - hybrid of course (don't want you to go to far). You can cry on my shoulder when you get sad. I will take you out and show you a good time every once in a while, and when you get old - I'll be there for you then too. In exchange for all of this, all you gotta do is go out there and get me my money!

Almost sounds like the relationship liberals have with government doesn't it?:eek: The irony is liberals are getting screwed by big business, but are being "pimped" by government. I raise the alarm because I don't want to be screwed or "pimped" - yet I am the extreme one???

traditionally, the whiny petit bourgeois victim is the basis of all fascist constituencies.
traditionally, the whiny petit bourgeois victim likes to fantasize about manly man competition as an entryway into some curious "moral economy" be it processed through martial virtues or through some pseudo-neutral language like market "fitness".

always the same thing.
and fascism/neo-fascism has an appeal to whiny petit bourgeois victims during period of economic crisis.

Power to the government...or is that people...? Please clarify where you want power to go?:orly:

I agree with you. However, your words don't convey the nature of your advocacy very well. When you make ridiculous claims about how regulation could not have prevented the BP oil spill it makes it seem like you're a little overeager to discredit the very notion that regulation can be useful.

Perhaps if you didn't litter your examples with inexcusable jumps in logic we wouldn't be so easily distracted by the inexcusable jumps in the logic of your examples. What do you expect? You should spend more time explaining your position and less time clouding the waters with haphazardly constructed anecdotes, especially when they rarely support your position convincingly.

How many auto workers were sitting around collecting unemployment? If you don't know the answer to this question then you're assumption that it was problematic is nothing but hot air.

Yes? And? My point was that you should be overly simplistic with your casual predictions about the all-powerful corrective powers of supply and demand.

I don't assume that labor will always be a victim. I do know that without unions, laborers typically have significantly less power than employers do, which frequently leads directly to the victimization of laborers.

Which is ironic considering that America was founded on nanny-statist protectionist measures overseeing precious business interests. Corporate America has no idea what a free market looks like. It has no idea what its true market fitness is. But the likes of China and India are dying to know. But, alas, I don't even think Tea Partiers are interested in dismantling the nanny state. Too much risk involved. The world is a scary place across those oceans, you know.

I've aways loved Toronto. There's something about Toronto girls-they're down to earth but they still have that lovely Canadian dignity (it's like regular dignity, but with better pot).
Ah. Being a typical American, I always forget about the existence of Quebec. Having watched the recent election with popcorn and Mike & Ikes, I don't see too many big differences between American Democrats and Canadian conservatives.

The American right goes far right when there's a Democratic president in order to prevent the center from moving left. Normally, they're able to balance it well enough that they can put forward a moderate conservative to sweep the middle, but the GOP went too far this time and a centrist Republican runs the risk of alienating the right wing by saying things like "The President was born in America" and "perhaps a few less wars, but still lotsa wars".

A component of the GOP shifting strategy...sharia law is a threat to the American way of life.
Freedom of religion? Bah, humbug.

Better to acknowledge the irrational fear and bigotry of the base.

I'm still afraid of gypsies. Will somebody please do something about the gypsies!

the people. state controlled is not the only socialist model

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

lol i never claimed i wasnt extreme... or that i was a liberal. I'm more extreme than you in a different direction.

I have stated many times that I am not an anarchist and that there is a role for government, rules/regs, in free markets. I agree that my tone is not sugar-coated

I can't afford focus groups, so feed back is very valuable in my preparation for a run for congress.

Note to self:

Let me be your "daddy" - don't use as a campaign slogan.
Promises to protect, shelter, cloth, and of riches, etc. - O.k.
Ask in turn for voters to go out and get me my money - don't do.

Note to self completed.

I agree that I need to sharpen my focus and avoid distracting jumps in logic and examples. I will work on that. Thanks for the tip.

My father was a union factory worker for over 30 years. I know how it works. Men wait and wait hoping and praying they get called back after a layoff. I know of men who basically waited 5 in some cases 10 years waiting for a call that never came. They would go to union meetings, to political rally's or to speeches by politicians getting false hope, false encouragement and false promises of a fading industrial base rebuilding when the actual and real trends were clear.

What is your experience with blue collar factor unions?

---------- Post added at 11:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 PM ----------

My political advisers (my wife and barber so far) tell me that running for US Congress is a mistake, that I should run for a state office first. I am actually thinking of running for national office to lose, and then send a audition clip to Fox News and make a ton of money. You have to admit, I have some pretty edgy yet funny stuff, what do you think?:thumbsup:

It's coated in something. Definitely not sugar.

Funny thing, I just saw something on some news show with that mean old journalist who asked Sarah Palin that gotcha question about naming newspapers. Apparently, there is a government program to help displaced workers get training for new careers. The "Plain English" Version of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor
I haven't read the details. Maybe it's a scam. Probably some sort of liberal job training dependence for vote operation or something.

I don't have any experience with blue collar factory unions. I don't know that that makes me less credible than you.

I think maybe the real reason they are against it is because it interferes with their own version of sharia law. This is another of those weird conservative lies. We're for less control and letting you live how you want to... unless it isnt Christian or free market, or what we want, then oh man look out! :crazy:

I'll run against you. You can be open markets guy, I'll be money abolition guy.

Good. I wonder why Detroit is but a shell of what it used to be?

I bet it makes liberals feel all warm a fuzzy when they implement a government program to re-trained displaced workers. To bad they don't take the next step and see if the programs actually work.

I am almost out of business, think I can sign up for re-training? I want to try special high intensity training in feng shui or flower arranging - think I can get a job after 6 months of SHIT in those disciplines?

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Deal, can't wait for the debates. Do you think Obama is going to debate the Republican nominee? My guess is he is going to do everything possible to avoid direct debate or any setting where he risks the questions the media refuses to ask. Once Obama gets confronted with his many contradictions and false promises, it will be over for him. If anything that is going to be the winning strategy for Republicans to win the WH.

it's always the less worthy who are the beneficiaries of imaginary state "handouts" so far as the whiny petit bourgeois victims are concerned.

the evil bad state does not respect natural hierarchies the way "free markets" do. "free markets" allow for the true economic aristocracy to surface. that economic aristocracy is the result of being more naturally "fitted" to the justice-dispensing mechanisms that are the market.

anything that interferes with that process of allowing the true aristocracy to surface is an unnatural intrusion. they introduce distortions.

the natural aristocracy, made up largely of socially and economically marginal petit bourgeois victims see in the evil bad state allocations of resources away from themselves.

in a better, more natural world, petit bourgeois victims would be beneficiaries of righteous allocations.

those less fitted would perhaps die off. it's nature's way. read some herbert spenser. if they survive, it'll be as parasites. they shall be treated as such. degenerates. lesser than us. perhaps we will set up large camps to re-educate them. then things will get better.

o yeah, we need some military discipline around here too.

and more patriotism. people are climbing into rafts to float here to the best of all possible worlds.

blah blah blah.

Really? I think the reason is pretty obvious.

Do you really think this? I'm pretty sure that neither side has a monopoly on prioritizing plans over their outcomes. I would hope that the idea of keeping a family off the streets would make anyone feel warm and fuzzy, not just liberal folks.

And in any case, measurable outcomes can't be too important to someone whose economic philosophy eschews them altogether because the market knows best. Whole finance industry toxic and going to poison the world's economy? Let 'em die, the market knows best. Crushing economic depression? Who cares? It's the market at work. Crippling unemployment? Why does it matter? It's the market, just doing its thing. Just let the market be free, then we can all sit back and bask in the amoral glow of a dynamic system running its course.

Maybe you could pick up computer programming in a week or two and take one of the job opportunities currently being squandered by those uppity union workers in Detroit?

I don't get it. Why would government provided job retraining be bad? Why does it not make sense if we're going to encourage the kind of economy that treats people like cogs? Why does it not make sense for the government to help displaced workers become economically productive as soon as possible? Wouldn't this in principle also make the markets free-er?

In some urban centers in this country young black male unemployment is north of 50%. Liberals not only sit back and do nothing, but they enact policies to make things worse. In a free market economy this problem would be self correcting.

From your favorite bourgeois publication, IBD today.

Punished By Minimum Wage - Investors.com

and as usual, tell us about how you feel about IBD, me, Walter Williams, and not address your views on actually solving a problem - it never gets old (tongue firmly planted in cheek as I write your responses don't get old)

I asked people at the grocery store today, they told me I'd be better off....
http://eddiedeguzman.files.wordpress...if?w=200&h=200