05-04-2011, 10:04 AM | #121 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How about additional justification for the Republican strategy to stop Obama-care from being implemented. IBD reported today that in 20 years a 42-year-old at 300% of poverty would have to shell out about 19% of their total income to buy insurance through one of the exchanges created by Obama-care. Or, how about giving me some advise on how to play the college tuition game. It seems to me that people who plan win, those who don't lose, and that poor people who don't have help (namely first generation students) are at the mercy of chance. Does such a system make you proud to be a liberal? In my view there is a better way than just throwing more and more money into a broken system. But I guess any Republican who wants "change" doesn't really want "change" they just don't want poor people to be able to go to college - well that line is getting old. I am betting more and more people won't buy into it any longer. You will see more Republicans not caring about how liberals use labels!
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 05-04-2011 at 10:08 AM.. |
|||
05-05-2011, 07:04 PM | #123 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Dude, they're shifting strategy....
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
05-05-2011, 07:54 PM | #124 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Oh, could it be ratings? |
|
05-05-2011, 11:01 PM | #125 (permalink) | |||||||
Tilted
Location: Iron Mountain
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Koch brothers have created a populist vehicle to fund and drive benefits for corporations and the super wealthy. More of the same. The philosophy they espouse is, in reality, set against the worker not for the worker. It punishes the worker for not being innovative enough to create his own empire of success in a system deadset to make sure he cant and despises him for "stealing" if he tries to change his position through the use of teamwork (unions). The workers biggest enemy isnt the US government but the one taking actual advantage of the workers lack of a useful position with which to fight from, the employer. God forbid he should try to be competitive in such a market, hence the ever coming death of small business in this country. I think in reality the differences between Obama and whoever ends up running against him look really important from an ideology standpoint but matter very little in relation to the real drivng forces behind all of this. Like the banking industry, the bubble, etc. In reality they are more similar than different, this is by design, and its maybe not accepted but certainly not unknown. Nothing serious has chnaged now nor would it have under McCain, nor will it under the next administration. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The wealthy should pay more because they consume more, pollute more, use more, and create more mess. Quote:
|
|||||||
05-06-2011, 04:12 AM | #126 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
This is a reminder of what ace continues to forget about how "real wealth" is generated. It's not generated in a vacuum. Wealth doesn't come from the ether when some guy gets a great idea and starts a company. This doesn't formulate atoms miraculously into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise.
The generation of "real wealth" requires labour and spending. It's as though Fordism never happened. It's as though Post-Fordism isn't happening. It's not just ace who should realize this; it's the GOP too. This is why "cuttin' spendin' and taxes" isn't a panacea towards economic bliss, and it's why the GOP should consider returning to the centre a bit if they want to get anywhere.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 05-06-2011 at 04:15 AM.. |
05-06-2011, 04:22 AM | #127 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
ace is just another tiresome free markety metaphysician. the posts are interesting only to the extent that they perform something of the ideological paralysis that's abroad in the land. folk who's frame is entirely neo-liberal and context-independent find themselves in a something like a spiritual problem that they cannot resolve so they revert to repeating axioms. that it's unhinged from any reality beyond that of a collective cognitive problem is erased by the fact of repeating axioms. other folk are in a position to talk variously about context and in many cases move past the twitching corpse of neo-liberalism, but in an ad-hoc manner, first because there's no agreed-upon alternative framework---or even analytic basis for making such a framework as the transforms that neoliberal regimes pulled off while doping up its population with neo-liberal bromides amount to a basic reorganization of the geography of capitalism itself and so there's an extent to which a project like the marxian one has to start over again except that the dead weight of marxism itself is in the way. and people are taking that on, i think, in their ways---but there's no linkage between that and the ideological production machinery.
so you get results like ace's posts that perform the twitching of the corpse of an outmoded ideology without the slightest idea that is what it is. the respite from reality comes in trying to shift every debate to the metaphysical register. this is duplicated by appeals to intuition, to the gut. the moves are obvious and do not change. the results are predicable and are, to my mind, without interest except in some anthropological way. one either plays along or one doesn't
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
05-06-2011, 07:59 AM | #128 (permalink) | ||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
2) Small states wants to be perceived as having a big impact or think there is value in being first. Quote:
Palin is not going to run. Huckabee is already well known, no upside. Newt wants to be persuaded to run, but it is not happening. Pawlenty was there. Hermon Cain needed to be there, won, and is now going to be a serious contender. Paul was there, he is going to be considered much more seriously than he was in 2008. ---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ---------- Quote:
Make no mistake about "trickle down" economics, it works. We want people who know how to create wealth focused on creating wealth. Poor people can hardly help themselves, we need some wealth creators in our society for the benefit of everyone. ---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ---------- Quote:
I would suggest that people who were born in a socioeconomic class and never moved up or down don't understand - or those who have never taken a risk to create wealth don't understand, i.e. - academics who after an extensive education go on to be professors or work in government. ---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ---------- I know what I believe and it appears that you know what I believe. My question is what do you believe? If the fundamentals of free market concepts are incorrect, what is correct? It is clear, in my interactions here is that when it comes to economics and government policy discussions, they will all end at some core fundamental point that does not allow for an irrational response. Hence, there are questions that you will forever absolutely refuse to answer directly.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
||||
05-06-2011, 08:15 AM | #129 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
I have had a hand in creating wealth too, ace. Most of us have. It's not a foreign concept. However, what tends to be the case is that the lower and middle classes have little recourse when a large proportion of this wealth flows up the chain into the minority upper class.
Call it trickle-up economics, if you will. It works. As for whether free-market concepts are incorrect, I suppose we'll never know, but that's probably a good thing.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
05-06-2011, 08:43 AM | #130 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
If the issue has more to do with how much the most wealthy has compared to the most poor, to me that is a different issue than wealth creators benefiting others through their efforts of creating wealth. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|||
05-06-2011, 08:57 AM | #131 (permalink) | ||||
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
The wealthy could not exist if it weren't for the lower classes. Have you ever seen a society that consisted purely of wealthy citizens that wasn't some oil-rich anomaly? Quote:
Labour is used by holders of capital as leverage to turn a profit. When this system operates in such a way where a majority of the wealth that is generated flows up to the top 1% of citizens, and especially to the detriment of the lower classes, then there is a problem with the system. If some—despite playing an integral role in the generation of wealth—lack any basic and essential needs such as food, shelter, health care, security, etc., based on their inability to afford it, something has gone wrong on a moral level: because way more than enough wealth for these things is there. This is the danger of a free market. This is why we don't let a free market exist. A free market is amoral and we, as a society, are moral. Quote:
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 05-06-2011 at 09:05 AM.. |
||||
05-06-2011, 11:15 AM | #132 (permalink) | ||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
For example one situation I am most proud of involves a young woman we (my wife and I) hired shortly after she got out of HS. She lived in a mobile home with her mother who was receiving disability payments, barely enough for their expenses. The young lady had no business experience, but was willing to work and learn and we were willing to hire her. The young lady had no plans on attending college, but we convinced her to do it. while she worked for us we offered flexibility in her schedule as to not conflict with school. She became very productive for us, she was able to financially help her household and she graduated. While she worked with us she got the entrepreneurial bug and started using her artistic abilities in design of websites, fashion and jewelry. When she left us, she left and started making her living from her own business. My wife and I recently received an invitation to her wedding this summer, she is getting married to her female partner in California. She is in her twenties and the bread-winner and has an excellent future. So, while I was making money, I was helping her and others. As a conservative, I did not care about her sexuality or any other "social" issue, she was willing to work, learn, be productive and we wanted to see her fly. One day she will probably be making more money than I have ever dreamed about, she has that kind of drive. And along the way, she is going to help thousands along the way. But, if I am not making money, if I am not in a position to take a chance on an inexperienced recent HS grad, if I don't have the ability to flex her schedule, if I don't mentor her, perhaps none of this happens. At the risk of sounding arrogant, if the government gets out of my way, I can do more with my money to make the world better than the government can. I bet you could too. Quote:
Quote:
Take the "society" of golf professionals. Along come Tiger Woods and (no disputes) because of his talent, everyone involved in professional golf gets richer. Woods make a ton of money, but the guy ranked at the bottom makes more money than ever before. Woods creates wealth that benefit everyone. Every pro golfer in the "society" does well. However, there is a big gap between Woods and the guy at the bottom, if your argument is the gap is too wide - that is one argument but not the argument against "trickle-down". And to your argument, if I got it right, I say that if you risk forcing Woods out, you risk harming everyone. If Woods is motivated by money and you reduce his prizes to redistribute to others, what if he plays less? What happens? Everyone starts making less. Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 05-06-2011 at 11:20 AM.. |
||||
05-06-2011, 11:25 AM | #133 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
ace, I guess my basic point is that the free-market experiment had been going awry, which is why we are where we are today with more stable mixed-market economies. If it hopes to be taken seriously, the GOP had better put forth a presidential candidate who understands the need for a balanced economy rather than one that favours the rich via cutting taxes (which are already competitive) and cutting spending (where it will hurt the poor).
A return to the principles of the last era of Republican rule will only serve to continue the damage it wrought. Going even further will make it even worse. It's entirely possible to reduce the deficit and return to a surplus without going all Tea Party–like. Google can show you. Take a look at the most stable economies in the world. What are their characteristics? How many of them are low-tax free-market utopias?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
05-06-2011, 11:37 AM | #134 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
ace's views of economics are reality-optional. and the statements are set up so that there's no possibility of moving outside his frame of reference---you can say things directly about where you're coming from for example and they won't register. the only statements that register are symmetrical with the markety-market metaphysics that is the one trick this pony runs. it doesn't matter the thread, either. this one, for example, started out being about the republican's tactical problems, most of which are generated by people who buy the same markety-market metaphysics that ace goes on about at some length. the result? long strings of posts in which ace talks about himself and his quaint beliefs.
there's no discussion really because ace writes as though he's incapable to stepping outside his hyper-orthodox friedmanite framework. and if it is the case, then its a pretty sad testimony about the sort of intellectual capabilities conservatives bring to the table. markety-market metaphysics aren't upheld because their coherent and still less because they're correct either descriptively or normatively. they're upheld because these people can't do anything else. they haven't the skills to be flexible, seemingly. that's a problem. fortunately, it's not so big a problem here as it is in the world because ace can be allowed to write endlessly about the religious geography inside his skull and no-one gets hurt because he isn't in a position to fashion policy.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
05-06-2011, 11:44 AM | #135 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
The irony of it all is that communism has a much more successful track record than laissez-faire.
As an aside: The Atlantic recently ranked Toronto the #2 city in the world regarding characteristics of business, life, and innovation—second only to New York City. This included receiving the #2 spot for "entrepreneurial environment." Not bad for a city that lives—as some would say—"under the yoke of socialist policies." The worst aspect of Toronto? It's ranked third last in the cost of public transportation, which is sad because the system kind of sucks. This is because the federal (and provincial, arguably) government hasn't done enough to step up its funding of the system...you know, socialist style.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 05-06-2011 at 12:46 PM.. |
05-06-2011, 12:42 PM | #136 (permalink) | |
Tilted
Location: Iron Mountain
|
Quote:
Furthermore, if your going to claim an economic model works it is perhaps to your benefit to not have gobs of free information just laying about the internet that shows that over a sustained time, or really any amount of time, it in fact does not work. What I see is this: Your claiming you alone are right, by the worth of your experience, which is unprovable and subjective. So your not really arguing at all. I have no ill will towards you, i just dont understand how this is supposed to go given that. I've said what i have to say and it stands in this case. |
|
05-06-2011, 12:49 PM | #137 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
urville, he gave you proof. Just look at the society of golf professionals.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
05-06-2011, 01:01 PM | #138 (permalink) |
Tilted
Location: Iron Mountain
|
Communism and socialism. To me is a great idea in theory and for its time. I think it needs a serious update and I dont mean this social democracy stuff either, though i definitely live in that realm and at this time I am rooted there. I'm actually writing a thing on this right now. I'm no genius, but I have my ideas. A new socialism. Eh, this isnt the place and this isnt my thread, but I am excited inside, hah.
---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ---------- Yeah I saw that, the problem is he forgot all the laborers that without whom, there would be no golf, certainly not playable, who do not get paid zillions of dollars. I know a guy who at this very moment is cooking hamburgers for wealthy golfers under the table to the tune of $8.00 an hour. I guess they forgot to trickle it down that far. |
05-06-2011, 01:02 PM | #139 (permalink) | ||
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
||
05-06-2011, 02:42 PM | #141 (permalink) | |||||||||||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also I don't speak for the GOP on this issue, I think both parties are at fault with the difference being Democrats are less honest in their advocating for big moneyed interests. Quote:
Again, in this thread the importance of the last paragraph will mostly go unnoticed. But, to anyone really wanting to understand the nature of economic oppression really needs to take some time and think it through. Quote:
When we look at resource rich nations with relatively small populations, if those nations maintain control of those resources it is very easy for those controlling the wealth to give the illusion of wealth redistribution. ---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ---------- I give specific support for my views, you do not. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ---------- Quote:
Try to understand my point. Labor is exploited to the degree that choice is restricted, to the degree of ignorance of true market value. Labor has allowed big money interests, with the help of government, to develop and design systems that restricts choice and promotes ignorance. Do you know the market value of your labor in the market place? Most people don't and would not even know how to begin to figure it out. If I am an employer, that is not my fault. Government should know better or does government have an interest in labor ignorance? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Is government more or less efficient at creating wealth than individuals acting collectively? The problem with indulging me in answering my questions, is that other questions will follow that will lead you to the correct conclusion. Why do people here fear that? ---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ---------- Quote:
I simplified the example as to make it readable. If we extend the analogy to caddies, grounds keepers, bar tenders, guys who hand out towels, etc., everyone in the industry benefited from the Woods phenomenon. Again if your point is that some benefited more than others, I already said I agreed to that. But, do you agree that as a wealth creator there is in fact a real "trickle down" effect in play. Do you agree that there is no possibility in the golf "society" that 'trickle up" is realistic. It is a simple matter of "rich" people consuming more golf as a result of tiger Woods and has nothing to do with poor people. Also, keep in mind the context. I was asked a question and I gave an answer to the question. ---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ---------- Quote:
Feel free to ignore the above poignant point and give more and more of your wealth to government. It is sad that you abdicate personal responsibility to help others - is leave it up to government really your point of view?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|||||||||||||
05-06-2011, 02:54 PM | #142 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
My point of view, ace, is that advanced developed economies are mixed economies and rightly so. They proved the most stable environment than do purely communist or laissez-faire (would in theory*).
*This is mainly because both of these in their pure forms are highly volatile in attempts to implement and/or maintain them, or, perhaps, purely theoretical. Is your position, ace, that mixed economies are a bad idea and we should rid economics of government intervention of all kinds? ace, you know my position: I support mixed economies. I'm not abdicating anything. What's yours? Are you for or against mixed economies?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
05-06-2011, 03:22 PM | #143 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|||
05-06-2011, 03:33 PM | #144 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Can you name some historical free market economies (free market by your own definition) that were highly successful; that is, more successful than mixed systems with similar circumstances? What were the largest or most significant contributing factors in these systems that you believe lead to the success?
|
05-06-2011, 03:42 PM | #145 (permalink) | |||
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I cannot see how a society can be governed by capitalism on its own. I don't see how a society would deem this to be the fairest model. I don't see how this could be implemented by anything other than an authoritarian plutocracy. It would require the rescinding of many laws that are considered fundamental. It would require further exposing the American economy to the likes of China and India, who won't share the same economic policies. I sincerely doubt there will be all that many companies interested in dismantling the aspects of nanny statism that benefit them. I could go on but I won't.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
|||
05-06-2011, 03:46 PM | #146 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
We evidently have to accept ideological theoretical models that never worked anywhere at anytime in order to discuss it further.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
|
05-06-2011, 03:50 PM | #147 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
What ace would prefer to see in the U.S. is nothing short of economic extremism. To even attempt to implement it would shake the very foundations of American society.
This is what makes the Tea Party a fringe party.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
05-06-2011, 03:56 PM | #149 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Nah, they'd criticize them for their support of the nanny state. The robber barons were close, but they weren't free-market enough.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
05-06-2011, 07:14 PM | #150 (permalink) | ||||||
Tilted
Location: Iron Mountain
|
What the hell everyone in here seems to love bitter sourness.
Quote:
I agree that the current system does the same thing. Thats my point. Dont mistake me for a common liberal, no offesnse to anyone but my admitted choice of Obama was nothing more than the less of two evils. Every time a con calls him a socialist I can only think of how that entire wing of philosophy is ignorant of fact in favor of ideology. This man went to this one area in Iran and couldnt prove facts you and i know because their ideology said otherwise. they believed without question so deeply that they were sure he was using trickery. Thats the right, and it fits perfectly into their whole leaning toward fascism, theocracies, and fundamentalism. It's centered in that exact thinking you espouse. That you believe it so it is true. Which it isnt. 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. 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. 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. This is Randian heroism at its most ridiculous whether you intended it that way or not. It would never happen. I dont disgaree that govenrment makes it worse right now, and will do so if you get a con in or even a tea candidate. This is where your blind belief will fail you. Mark my words. I have issue witht he entire philosophy. I dont know the value of labor in my market, only because I have no reason to. Its immaterial to me if most could figure it out, I can and they could learn. I can predict now with absolute confidence what is paid is out of scale with what it should be and certainly out of scale with the cost of products and property. None of this is amazing nor should be, its designed this way on purpose and your proposed system and philosophy will only worsen it not improve it. No its not your fault, but you should be kept from capitalizing on it because its unethical. Oh please, youd just love even less government and yet you make the argument that the gov should know better, thats laughable. listen to yourself. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Government shoudlt create wealth, thats not its job and so it cannot be efficient at it in comparison to individuals acting collectively. Are you excitied? so what? It's you that doesnt understand. Without regulation you cannot control wealth creation no matter where it comes from. Wealth is like anything, abusable, and done so without regard the very minute there is no rule or law to keep such from happening. This makes it a failed system as a whole. It cant self regulate, and any attempt to regulate it just degrades into beauacracy so deep and expansive it becomes impossible to operate. Leaving it alone and/or opening it up creates choas and allows only those willing to do anything to succeed and it quickly degrades into that. because it relies on a negative and primal human urge called greed to operate and somehow benefit everyone only it has no way other than "optional" to enforce that. We already had that, its called monarchies. The supposed cream rising to the top. More like the most ruthless, uncouth, and low rising to the top. Thats the genius of the modern society, fiscal monarchies and the middle class. You do understand that the whole philosophy was invented by the European nobility to suppress that middle class, don't you? It allows the ruling class to amass the money they need to have power over our society while doing no actual work. It doesnt work on any level, because instead of progressing us it keeps us base. We dont progress in any matter socially, or otherwise. It's antiquated system for humans of an atiquated time that like any system must acknowledge and take caution of, but in this case relies on, mans selfishness. They all must at least take it into account, one of socialisms biggest shortcomings is that it didnt do this effectively. Instead of harnessing it for the species moving us up and forward it serves only the individual and thus holds us back. Here we are at some form of Rand, of the right, and thus We are at a philosophical impasse. Having said that, I am afraid of nothing you have to say. Been there, considered it, been it, not impressed. Its nothing more than an excuse for greed and power, essentially adolescence. Luckily I had the will and conscience to think better. We should be moving beyond this because its usless to us a species as a people and will most obviously and ultimately destroy us. What more proof do you need than the very whole of human history? just my nickel hah ---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ---------- I disagree, and I think that assumption is dangerous. I think we're just under halfway there, and if nothing changes especially the education system, it will move that way exponentially. Talk about "Slow change you can believe in"... Last edited by urville; 05-06-2011 at 07:01 PM.. |
||||||
05-09-2011, 08:29 AM | #151 (permalink) | |||||||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
The question then becomes what if you introduce taxation in to the system? It is clear that if the taxation is used as efficiently as those that are taxed, the system is not harmed. I argue that taxation is less efficient, and harms the system and harms the creation of wealth. On another note - I know a person who has spent years in the Peace Corp., in under-developed nations. His experience is that public farms are always less productive than private farms. Why? to me it is obvious. Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
I suggest that you and others spend some time with people who actually have to live only on aid or support from the government. It is not a good situation. It is not a situation you would wish on anyone. The movement towards more and more of a welfare state is moving towards failure and misery. Another suggestion is to try to live the life-style of those having to live off of government. You would not do it. Why would you want more of what does not work?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|||||||||
05-09-2011, 08:34 AM | #152 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
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?
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. 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. 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. 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). |
05-09-2011, 08:35 AM | #153 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
I know how I help people and I know what it takes. I have been on the front lines, so to speak. Teach a man or woman to generate wealth and you change their lives - gifts, loans, welfare, etc., do not work. Again, I see an abdication of responsibility in your way of thinking - let government handle it? Do you fear getting your hands dirty? End poverty by directly helping people learn how to create wealth rather than stealing self-respect, dignity and the motivation to do better.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
05-09-2011, 09:58 AM | #154 (permalink) | |
Tilted
Location: Iron Mountain
|
Quote:
Its useless to teach wealth creation when only a very small percentage have an actual chance to make it despite that knowledge. 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. |
|
05-09-2011, 10:10 AM | #155 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
"A market that is free to operate under the true forces of supply and demand." Whose mythology is this?
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. 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. "Some of these laws actually hurt people." 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.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 05-09-2011 at 10:35 AM.. |
05-09-2011, 12:04 PM | #156 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 07:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ---------- Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 PM ---------- Quote:
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:
---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 05-09-2011 at 12:08 PM.. |
||||||||||||||||||||
05-09-2011, 12:37 PM | #157 (permalink) | ||||
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, despite a low birth rate, Canada's population growth rate is historically higher than the U.S. rate, possibly having to do with a more flexible immigration policy. Finally, the oil and mineral boom is confined for the most part to two provinces. Canada is comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories; our economy is more than about us being "hewers of wood and drawers of water," though that is our legacy. We're not all lumberjacks and curlers either. Have a look. The city I live in is considered the "economic engine" of Canada. Ontario is the most populous province. Toronto is over 1,600 miles away from Calgary, Alberta, the epicenter of the oil boom. Energy exports account for less than 3% of our GDP. Overall, a small minority of Canadians are employed in the primary industries (including oil and minerals), and these industries in total only account for about 6% of GDP. The service sector? It accounts for over two thirds. (And I haven't even touched manufacturing.) So your argument that if it weren't for oil and minerals that Canada wouldn't be in a good position at all is tenuous at best. You're going to have to explain it much better than that. Quote:
It's difficult to consider your free choice when you're being exploited by holders of capital when you have little to hold of your own. But you're right, I suppose this is where our opinions differ. I find it difficult to address your position, since it's so radical. I view free-marketers with a similar difficulty as I view adamant communists. Compared to communists and free-marketers, I view socialists and Third-Way corporatists as moderates. It would be easier to address your point of view if it were less extreme and more in line with, say, the corporatist position. But, alas, that's not the case. You want society to have next to no governance outside of the market, as though the market is the purest and truest means to build a society. Well, that's not going to work. Without reasonable regulation, the market does some pretty nasty things. Look at the history. It's not like Marx and Engels decided to do their thing because they were bored. If everything were so hunky-dory with capitalism running amok, they would have done something else probably—say, build a sewing thread empire or somesuch. But no. Marxism was a resistance to a phenomenon, and that phenomenon happened to be capitalism at work with little to get in its way. Do you truly wish to do away with decades of labour law? Safety regulations? Fair practice legislation? Obliterate it all? In the name of the market? I find it hard to take. I would find your position more feasible if you were more concerned with making the economic environment more open, perhaps simply moving away from socialism from a business perspective. I would find it easier to address you if you were mostly concerned with bailouts, corporate tax rates, and unfair or heavy-handed regulatory practices. But as far as I can see, you want to get rid of it all. That, ace, is a radical position, and it's why I find it difficult to address, just why I'd find it as difficult to address an adamant communist arguing that America must have a revolution to make things better for all Americans. I have little interest in radicalism.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 05-09-2011 at 12:47 PM.. |
||||
05-09-2011, 01:05 PM | #158 (permalink) | ||||||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
05-09-2011, 01:59 PM | #159 (permalink) | ||||||||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
When it comes to natural resources like oil and minerals, it is easy to and I support government's role in a distribution of a fair share of that wealth to all citizens. A private company should pay "the people" for the right to drill oil or extract minerals from the earth. Those private companies should have to compete for those rights in a free, open and competitive market as to give the biggest benefit to "the people". Is that the way it is done in Canada, consistent with free market principles? In the US I argue that our system is corrupt and is prone to favoritism from powerful politicians or based on political influence. You might argue for a "mixed" approach in this regard, I don't. The BP oil spill proved that there are weaknesses in a "mixed" approach. BP had to meet all the government "rules and regs" and there was still failure. Using free market principles, I say let those that fail, pay the real price for failure. BP was able to negotiate with the government to limit its liability (and I am betting BP got the best end of the deal), I would suggest we let the free market determine the true liability. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 05-09-2011 at 02:05 PM.. |
||||||||||
05-09-2011, 02:09 PM | #160 (permalink) | |||||||
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If the tar sands were to blow up right now and be consumed in flames, Canada would not be consumed by its debt. Look at the numbers. The tar sands produces about 2% of our overall GDP and consist of less than 1% of our jobs. Even if you look at our entire oil industry, of which the oil sands is the lion's share, we have other energy industries, including a powerful hydroelectric industry. Again, ace, you fail to understand the Canadian economy. The high oil price is icing on the cake for us. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 05-09-2011 at 02:12 PM.. |
|||||||
Tags |
gop, shifting, strategy |
|
|