What is economics? [Archive]

Bankotsu

16th March 2010, 07:30

Western Civilization is the richest and most powerful social organization ever made by man. One reason for this success has been its economic organization. This, as we have said, has passed through six successive stages, of which at least four are called "capitalism." Three features are notable about this development as a whole.

In the first place, each stage crated the conditions which tended to bring about the next stage; therefore we could say, in a sense, that each stage committed suicide. The original economic organization of self-sufficient agrarian units (manors) was in a society organized so that its upper ranks—the lords, lay and ecclesiastical—found their desires for necessities so well met that they sought to exchange their surpluses of necessities for luxuries of remote origin.

This gave rise to a trade in foreign luxuries (spices, fine textiles, fine metals) which was the first evidence of the stage of commercial capitalism. In this second stage, mercantile profits and widening markets created a demand for textiles and other goods which could be met only by application of power to production. This gave the third stage: industrial capitalism.

The stage of industrial capitalism soon gave rise to such an insatiable demand for heavy fixed capital, like railroad lines, steel mills, shipyards, and so on, that these investments could not be financed from the profits and private fortunes of individual proprietors. New instruments for financing industry came into existence in the form of limited-liability corporations and investment banks. These were soon in a position to control the chief parts of the industrial system, since they provided capital to it. This gave rise to financial capitalism. The control of financial capitalism was used to integrate the industrial system into ever-larger units with interlinking financial controls. This made possible a reduction of competition with a resulting increase in profits.

As a result, the industrial system soon found that it was again able to finance its own expansion from its own profits, and, with this achievement, financial controls were weakened, and the stage of monopoly capitalism arrived. In this fifth stage, great industrial units, working together either directly or through cartels and trade associations, were in a position to exploit the majority of the people.

The result was a great economic crisis which soon developed into a struggle for control of the state—the minority hoping to use political power to defend their privileged position, the majority hoping to use the state to curtail the power and privileges of the minority. Both hoped to use the power of the state to find some solution to the economic aspects of the crisis. This dualist struggle dwindled with the rise of economic and social pluralism after 1945.

The second notable feature of this whole development is that the transition of each stage to the next was associated with a period of depression or low economic activity.

This was because each stage, after an earlier progressive phase, became later, in its final phase, an organization of vested interests more concerned with protecting its established modes of action than in continuing progressive changes by the application of resources to new, improved methods. This is inevitable in any social organization, but is peculiarly so in regard to capitalism.

The third notable feature of the whole development is closely related to this special nature of capitalism.

Capitalism provides very powerful motivations for economic activity because it associates economic motivations so closely with self-interest. But this same feature, which is a source of strength in providing economic motivation through the pursuit of profits, is also a source of weakness owing to the fact that so self-centered a motivation contributes very readily to a loss of economic coordination.

Each individual, just because he is so powerfully motivated by self-interest, easily loses sight of the role which his own activities play in the economic system as a whole, and tends to act as if his activities were the whole, with inevitable injury to that whole. We could indicate this by pointing out that capitalism, because it seeks profits as its primary goal, is never primarily seeking to achieve prosperity, high production, high consumption, political power, patriotic improvement, or moral uplift.

Any of these may be achieved under capitalism, and any (or all) of them may he sacrificed and lost under capitalism, depending on this relationship to the primary goal of capitalist activity—the pursuit of profits. During the nine-hundred-year history of capitalism, it has, at various times, contributed both to the achievement and to the destruction of these other social goals.

The different stages of capitalism have sought to win profits by different kinds of economic activities. The original stage, which we call commercial capitalism, sought profits by moving goods from one place to another. In this effort, goods went from places where they were less valuable to places where they were more valuable, while money, doing the same thing, moved in the opposite direction.

This valuation, which determined the movement both of goods and of money and which made them move in opposite directions, was measured by the relationship between these two things. Thus the value of goods was expressed in money. and the value of money was expressed in goods. Goods moved from low-price areas to high-price areas, and money moved from high-price areas to low-price areas, because goods were more valuable where prices were high and money was more valuable where prices were low.

Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary, exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from failure to recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion. The value of goods, expressed in money, is called "prices," while the value of money, expressed in goods, is called "value."

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/02.html#5

Drace

16th March 2010, 07:49

The same forces that have contributed to the superpower status power of the Western nations have caused the decline of the Third World.
Its called imperialism.

The same countries have also had dominance much before capitalism's presence.

Your analysis is neither logically nor historically correct.

Zanthorus

16th March 2010, 21:17

What is economics from a leftist and rightist perspective. I've always viewed economics as a disicpline that constructs models for how people trade in the real world or that uses mathematics to analyze earnings etc. For example, revenue and cost is important in economics. Revenue = company's income from selling units; cost = amount required to manufacture units. The break even point is when Cost = revenue. This is important so that companies can know how much they have to sell. This example also really is more basic common sense than economics (economics equations = far more difficult and involve calculus).

I also view economics as versatile, like arithmetic. You could use it to analyze the government as well as analyze business. There is a point at which you ask yourself whether economics is really just mathematics and statistics being used to analyze the economy.

Your stuck in the thought of bourgeois political economists like Jevons and Walras:

The following paper briefly describes the nature of a Theory of Economy which will reduce the main problem of this science to a mathematical form. Economy, indeed, being concerned with quantities, has always of necessity been mathematical in its subject, but the strict and general statement, and the easy comprehension of its quantitative laws has been prevented by a neglect of those powerful methods of expression which have been applied to most other sciences with so much success. It is not to be supposed, however, that because economy becomes mathematical in form, it will, therefore, become a matter of rigorous calculation. Its mathematical principles may become formal and certain, while its individual data remain as inexact as ever.

Surely when Mr Jevons whose thought is regularly used to discredit the ideas of the classical economists and Karl Marx agrees with you alarm bells should start to ring.

Economics is in some sense a quantitative science yes however the other side of economics which is equally important is the qualitative side. The descriptive side which tells us what processes are going on in the economy and reveals to us the social relationships of the current society.

IcarusAngel

16th March 2010, 22:57

Marx was a political philosopher as well. At that time economics was and political science weren't distinct disciplines as they are today, nor had economics found its advanced "specialized" areas yet. Marx's work, such as the communist manifesto, where he is talking about the role of the state, is basically a political science text for the public. He may have used economics to support his view.

Das Kapital is an abstract analysis of capitalism. Economists claim it has been disproven because they believe other factors than what Marx realized are in play. Maybe they are right for today's society, but were wrong then.

In fact, the place you will likely encounter Marx in a positive view is in political ideologies or philosophy courses.

And Jevons quote makes a lot of sense. He's admitting the mathematics is accurate, the analysis of human behavior not so much. A leftists could agree with this, but not agree with his conclusions about capitalism. If we want to use economics to understand the mind to see humans' actions, we would use it under the domain of philosophy.

Economics is a "science" that likes to be subordinated by other disciplines.

Drace

16th March 2010, 23:40

Then you are denying that humans have will.

Why? And in what sense?

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 00:30

The human mind and anything material in this world is completely systematic.
The same initial conditions are required by scientific law to produce the same reactions.

While the human actions are very complex, a general conclusion can be drawn with the use of statistics.

Why? And in what sense?

Saying the human mind is systematic infers that you can predict human action. Humans are not like rocks or cattle. We use means to achieve ends.

Â¿Que?

17th March 2010, 02:07

Saying the human mind is systematic infers that you can predict human action. Humans are not like rocks or cattle. We use means to achieve ends.
Sorry to but in...

I say we CAN predict human action. EDIT: Particularly, if we have some sense of the ends being sought, we could predict the means.

In fact I predict LeftSideDown will respond to this comment ;)

Left-Reasoning

17th March 2010, 02:31

Economics, or catallactics, is the theory of how exchange ratios and prices form in a market.

Drace

17th March 2010, 02:52

Saying the human mind is systematic infers that you can predict human action. Humans are not like rocks or cattle. We use means to achieve ends.Essentially all activity is based on the laws of cause and affect. You know "every action has a reaction". To say otherwise, is unscientific.

Human action is actually very predictable, however complex it may be. If I say hi for example, I expect you to respond something along the lines of "hello". If I hit you, based on the existing material conditions of your brain, I expect you to hit me back or say "Why did you hit me?".

If the complexity of the brain could be calculated for, it would even be possible theoretically to predict any specific human's action from the moment the universe was born by tracing every action and reaction!
Thus, from the very beginning all our "fates" have been decided by the pre-existing conditions of the universe.

Left-Reasoning

17th March 2010, 04:17

Essentially all activity is based on the laws of cause and affect. You know "every action has a reaction". To say otherwise, is unscientific.

Mises would agree with you. He was a determinist.

Klaatu

17th March 2010, 05:35

I recall this from Econ 101: "Economics is the efficient usage of natural resources."

It is said that the capitalistic system is the most efficient, in the production of wealth, that is,
the exploitation of these natural resources. It is said that the profit motive is superior, in terms
of garnering this efficiency, and that lack of the profit motive is purely detrimental to efficiency,
even the very survival, of a system which lacks this profit motive.

I am no expert, but I think this is for the most part, nonsense. That is, I know of non-
profit organizations that are very successful, if you are not measuring "success" in terms
of money. For example, the American Lung Association, a non profit, has done more to
enhance the human condition than a typical capitalist profit-oriented tobacco company has.

Even if we measure success in terms of money itself, it is true that, for example, the giant auto
manufacturers can build a car more cheaply than a non-profit, government-run company can
(although this might be debatable), It is certainly true that a state-run banking system can be
run at a small fraction of the cost of a privately-run banking system. This is because the publicly-
run bank pays no taxes, nor pays any employee more than the US president (who presently
makes a small fraction of the stratospheric salaries paid to the modern private bankster). While
a large car manufacturer has to build a complicated machine, a banker essentially does nothing
more than shuffle money around. What sort of expertise does that require? And how much time
does that take? Not much. No wonder the hucksters had plenty of time to figure out devious ways
to cheat the public out of their wealth.The idle mind is the devil's workshop, as they say.

As the top-level American capitalist continues to suck the wealth out of (and the life out of) the
American people, we will see that this capitalist system will become more and more unstable
and inefficient insofar as raising the common man's living standard.

Marx was correct. There will come a time when capitalism will have outlived it's welcome (some
of us have already "seen the light" on this fact) and naturally evolve into a purely Socialistic system,
because the frightened, frustrated masses will not only want this change, they will demand it.
They will demand it because they will finally see that the capitalist has been stealing from them
all along. I believe that we are now at that time.

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 07:18

I recall this from Econ 101: "Economics is the efficient usage of natural resources."

A 'fair' definition, however "efficient" is subjective and can mean different things to different people. Would you agree with me if I say that "economy is the study of human action/choices/decisions under conditions of scarcity"? Because it really doesn't apply to animals or their various interactions, that is described by biology.

It is said that the capitalistic system is the most efficient, in the production of wealth, that is,
the exploitation of these natural resources. It is said that the profit motive is superior, in terms
of garnering this efficiency, and that lack of the profit motive is purely detrimental to efficiency,
even the very survival, of a system which lacks this profit motive.

The profit motive is the best in terms of meeting consumer demand; of that there is (or at least should be) no debate. Profit is merely an indices of an area in which consumer demand isn't be sufficiently met. If someone is making a kill selling shoe laces, thats going to encourage more people to get into the shoe-lace selling business so they can make a "killing". While "greed" may be a primary motive, the effect is to satisfy consumers.

I am no expert, but I think this is for the most part, nonsense. That is, I know of non-
profit organizations that are very successful, if you are not measuring "success" in terms
of money. For example, the American Lung Association, a non profit, has done more to
enhance the human condition than a typical capitalist profit-oriented tobacco company has.

On non-profits I'll quote a friend of mine: "There's no objective quantifiable measure of any success, for profit or not. The profits of a business are only a measure of success in as much as they satisfy the desires of those making those profits, and not all profit is monetary. Saying monetary profits are the measure of a business' success assumes interpersonal comparrisons of value are possbile which they aren't. The same amount of monetary profit could satisfy one person and leave another wanting. Netting ten million bucks might attract one person to a field and make another leave it for a field where he can potentially get more. And as pointed out above, the satisfaction of doing something you love as opposed to the monetary profit made while doing something you hate... which is a true measure of success? Operating at a profit is a measure of 'success' in the aggregate only in as much as it indicates the creation of wealth via the business' operations; ie. everyone has been voluntarily satisfied along the way so there's a net gain for everyone, and these days with the mixed economy we live in even that can't really be guaranteed based on monetary profits anymore. And how satisfied they were, judged by who, and relative to or in lieu of whatever other opportunities for profit there were, monetary or otherwise, are things you can't really know."

As for saying the American Lung Association has contributed more to humanity than tobacco... I mean, I might agree with you, but that judgement is entirely subjective and inappropriate in a discussion of the definition of economics. If someone gained more happiness smoking and dieing unhealthy than they would've if they had abstained and lived healthy, can you really say that tobacco had a negative effect on that person? You might not approve, and it might not give you happiness, but you can make the argument that "X is bad because it causes Y illness" for nearly everything. I'm sorry the reductio ad absurdum of your argument is humans chained to chairs and fed through an IV for their whole life to ensure "peak health".

Even if we measure success in terms of money itself, it is true that, for example, the giant auto
manufacturers can build a car more cheaply than a non-profit, government-run company can
(although this might be debatable), It is certainly true that a state-run banking system can be
run at a small fraction of the cost of a privately-run banking system. This is because the publicly-
run bank pays no taxes, nor pays any employee more than the US president (who presently
makes a small fraction of the stratospheric salaries paid to the modern private bankster). While
a large car manufacturer has to build a complicated machine, a banker essentially does nothing
more than shuffle money around. What sort of expertise does that require? And how much time
does that take? Not much. No wonder the hucksters had plenty of time to figure out devious ways
to cheat the public out of their wealth.The idle mind is the devil's workshop, as they say.

Seems to me what you're advocating either the the dissolution of all taxes or an increase in the salary of the President. Could the company afford to pay the banker "exorbitant" salaries if they were not meeting consumer in such a way as to allow them to reward a successful manager with the just desserts of his leadership?
A CENTRAL banker merely shuffles money around (aside from creating it from thin air and distorting the economy), but a real banker has the job of finding investments that will yield a return. If its so easy to be a banker, go to them and saying you want to head their investment department, and that its so easy you'll be an ace. You'll be laughed at, ridiculed. Honestly, why don't you get these jobs, make a lot of profit and dedicate it to bringing down the capitalist system? And where exactly do they cheat you out of wealth? If you put your money in a bank that invests wisely you MAKE money; the bank pays you for the privilege of investing it.

As the top-level American capitalist continues to suck the wealth out of (and the life out of) the
American people, we will see that this capitalist system will become more and more unstable
and inefficient insofar as raising the common man's living standard.

The only time a top-level American capitalist is sucking the wealth out of people is when he receives government subsidies, special privileges through interest groups, or flat out bailouts (Not a feature of capitalism, mind you). In a free market all exchanges are between consenting adults, all consenting adults want to achieve maximum satisfaction, and trade (if it is uncoerced) leaves both parties better off than it found them. (which it does, division of labor makes production more efficient). If I exchange my tie for your ball-point pen and you accept the trade that means you value my tie more than your pen and since I initiated the transaction I obviously value your pen more than my tie. Both parties come out better from the exchange, and this in and of itself proves capitalism isn't a "zero-sum" game.

Marx was correct. There will come a time when capitalism will have outlived it's welcome (some
of us have already "seen the light" on this fact) and naturally evolve into a purely Socialistic system,
because the frightened, frustrated masses will not only want this change, they will demand it.
They will demand it because they will finally see that the capitalist has been stealing from them
all along. I believe that we are now at that time.

Capitalism (and I mean free-market capitalism) would never have worn out its welcome, and the only reason it is because of government distortions in the market cause depressions and recessions which the government than blames on the market that it tinkered with in the first place. Its like me throwing a wrench in your engine and when it breaks telling you that the engine sucks. Its just ludicrous.

A capitalist does not steal from anyone, in a free-market all exchanges made are voluntary and benefits both parties (perhaps not equally, but then again, what is equality?). It's sad that if someone wakes up with the realization in a socialist/communist society that things aren't as good as they could be hes called a traitor to the state and shot.

Klaatu

17th March 2010, 19:03

LeftSideDown wrote (bold)
EnviroWhacko's rebuttal (standard)
_________________________________
A 'fair' definition, however "efficient" is subjective and can mean different things to different people.

The given definition was taught by my economics professor. I will take it as "THE" definition, thank you.

___________________________________
The profit motive is the best in terms of meeting consumer demand

So why are wall street-banking-health insurance profits UP, when consumer demand is DOWN?

___________________________________
The only time a top-level American capitalist is sucking the wealth out of people is when he receives
government subsidies, special privileges through interest groups, or flat out bailouts (Not a feature of
capitalism, mind you).

You missed something: When the CEO of such-and-such bank receives a $50 million bonus, gleaned
(stolen is a better word) from little schmucks like me, I am handed the shit-end of the stick.
Another example of capitalist criminality: Charles Conaway siphoned millions out of K-mart, then ran with
the loot. Thomas Eaton walked away with tens of millions, upon the sale of Chrysler (my sister, a long-time
secretary, lost her job permanently, in the downsizing process) There is an endless list of such stories.
From Enron to Lehman Brothers, it is now apparent that organized crime has infiltrated the capitalist system.
(not that capitalism was ever a good system to begin with; it was always chock-full of crooks, but there's
more now than ever) This was allowed to happen under so-called "deregulation" which had started under
Reagan, and brought to fruition under the Bushes.

Let us look at deregulation here. Why deregulate? Is it supposed to make the economy run better?
Why not scrap all of these nasty, money-robbing regulations?

Some people feel that all rules and regulations are wrong. Ever been to a football game? What if there were
no rules? What sort of a game would that be? What if we eliminated traffic lights and speed limits on
the road? Why not go under one's car hood and start pulling out wires and hoses? Surely the car would
run much better, because it would become "deregulated," as opposed to a finely-tuned, "regulated"
engine. The human body is itself highly regulated. What happens when a human body part functions
erratically, or not at all, that is, when precise biological "regulation" fails?

The point is, the more things are regulated, the more efficiently, fairly, safely, and logistically they work.
This premise includes the national economy and international trade. Consider the current banking and
financial crisis as evidence of what "anything goes" deregulation can bring: destabilization and chaos!

__________________________

As for saying the American Lung Association has contributed more to humanity than tobacco...
I mean, I might agree with you, but that judgment is entirely subjective and inappropriate
in a discussion of the definition of economics.

No it isn't inappropriate to a discussion of economics, because non-profits handle money also,
hence are part of "the economy." Profit-making enterprises are not the only valid participants, you know.

_______________________________
Seems to me what you're advocating either the the dissolution of all taxes or an increase in the salary of the President.

The reason you cannot get my meaning is that you are reading my post through a sinister capitalist's eyes.
(Has everything under the sun got to generate a profit?)
__________________________________
reward a successful manager with the just desserts of his leadership?

That's rich. Who rewards success anymore? The capitalist rewards failure too. (see a previous paragraph here)

_____________________________________

And where exactly do they cheat you out of wealth?

For starters, my credit card rate was raised from 12% up to 15%, and I have PERFECT credit.
(on-time payments, large balance, long-time customer, etc) If they want to punish late-payers,
fine. Leave me alone - I am a good customer - you don't screw your best customers!

Most of banksters' problems stem from their reckless lending practices. It's all over the news
these days. Case in point: I used to rent a post office box, and in addition to my own name,
I posted a dummy name, in order to avoid getting junk mail at home. Anyway, within a short
while I (that is, the "dummy" non-existent person) received a "pre-approved" credit card offer
letter. Now tell me this: How does a bank pre-approve a person that does not exist???
(I am not making this up)

So much for your rosy theory of "wise investments"
____________________________________________
the bank pays you for the privilege of investing it.

Answer this: Up until ten years ago, I was getting 5% interest on my savings account. Then, some
clever marketers working for the banks figured out a way to increase profit margin: Simply lower
the rate of return. Now, I'm lucky to get 0.5% This is 1/10 [one tenth] of the former rate. WHY?
I teach algebra - and I have to laugh when I read an old interest-in-bank problem: "If we invest
in a savings account at 5% interest..."

The bank is acting as if I have a privilege of getting anything at all
___________________________________________

Capitalism (and I mean free-market capitalism) would never have worn out its welcome, and the only
reason it is because of government distortions in the market cause depressions and recessions which
the government than blames on the market that it tinkered with in the first place.

NO NO NO!!! You are flat out wrong here.

Haven't you ever studied 19th-century history? "Free-market capitalism" was a disaster. There was only
weak control of the nation's money supply (hence inflations and corresponding depressions) There were
no regulations on health and safety. There was union-busting. There were trusts. There were sweatshops.
There was slavery. It was, in effect, "anything goes." Laws and regulations became necessary to tame
the beast, to even out the playing field, so to speak.

So your engine analogy is backwards: The people (via their government) had to step in (only modestly,
I might add) to rebuild a broken engine. Think of the improvements made on modern engines: electronic
fuel injection, anti-lock brakes, etc. In other words, regulations have improved the economy by thwarting
crooks, thus making it fairer (although crooks will find a way around regulations). Deregulation just makes
crooks' job easier. That job is ripping off the consumer. For evidence, consider current events on wall street,
banks, health insurance, etc.

Your rosy Misean theory of capitalism is washed up. It is now in the process of failing. Look around you.
The government is trying to save it, but people like you bite the hand that is trying to help. So I say let this
system completely fail. Let a fairer Social-Justice system arise from the ashes of a corrupt system.

Klaatu

17th March 2010, 19:48

It's sad that if someone wakes up with the realization in a socialist/communist society that things aren't as good
as they could be hes called a traitor to the state and shot.

You make the same mistake that many others make: that the USSR and China are/were socialist/communist societies.
They were not. These and other states were NOT answerable to the people. These states were authoritarian or
totalitarian in constitution. In fact they are the exact opposite of socialist-communist. (Let us say "anti-socialist"
and "anti-communist.") "Communism" is actually free-choice, an example would be Buddhist monks in a monastery.
The USSR was a collective, which required force, which is a complete antithesis of both socialism and communism.

By stark contrast, a truly socialist system is owned and operated by the people (at times via their governing body)
Your local public school system is a good example of this. This brings up a good question: Has the fact that a
public school system exists (a socialistic enterprise) caused private schools (a capitalistic enterprise) to fold and
collapse, even become illegal? I think not, nor would this ever happen under a Social economic system.

Who in their right mind wishes to return to a purely-capitalistic system, where public schools did not even exist,
and only wealthy, privileged kids could get an education, the poorer ones condemned to work in 16-hour workday
sweatshops - as was done in the 19th century capitalist system? Let's see here, the capitalist wants to overthrow
socialism. How then will your kids get schooling? How will you drive to that school; there would be no public roads -
nor police to catch the weirdos lurking in the shadows, ready to grab the kids on their way to school.

Yeah capitalism is a great system all right - it even embraced sweatshops and slavery in it's dark past.

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 22:10

The given definition was taught by my economics professor. I will take it as "THE" definition, thank you.

My definition was taught to me by my economics professor... so I don't think either of us think the other's econ professor is necessarily the expert on Economics definitions.

So why are wall street-banking-health insurance profits UP, when consumer demand is DOWN?

1) You provided no proof that demand (or lets call it consumer demand) is down. Obviously you'd think people wouldn't trust the talking-heads on wall street anymore, but now people know that, no matter what, the government will bail out financial companies that take risky investments that don't pay off.

2) Government spending and bailouts is stimulating demand where there exists none/less. The reason why is obvious.

You missed something: When the CEO of such-and-such bank receives a $50 million bonus, gleaned
(stolen is a better word) from little schmucks like me, I am handed the shit-end of the stick.
Another example of capitalist criminality: Charles Conaway siphoned millions out of K-mart, then ran with
the loot. Thomas Eaton walked away with tens of millions, upon the sale of Chrysler (my sister, a long-time
secretary, lost her job permanently, in the downsizing process) There is an endless list of such stories.
From Enron to Lehman Brothers, it is now apparent that organized crime has infiltrated the capitalist system.
(not that capitalism was ever a good system to begin with; it was always chock-full of crooks, but there's
more now than ever) This was allowed to happen under so-called "deregulation" which had started under
Reagan, and brought to fruition under the Bushes.

If the bank can afford to give someone who managed the bank well 50 Million dollars, where is the problem? Its not like they paid that person out of your savings account (although with fractal reserve banking it is possible, but this wouldn't be a prominent feature in free market capitalism anyway). They pay him out of returns on investments (or the banks profit).

So, you're either saying that communism/socialism will eliminate crime or just making general statements about human nature. Yes, people steal. This is wrong. Its not stealing to sell your company and walk away. Is it stealing if you sell your house and walk away? No. People who steal are not capitalists, they are thieves. Pretending that somehow fraud and the like would go away in socialism is naiive.

Let us look at deregulation here. Why deregulate? Is it supposed to make the economy run better?
Why not scrap all of these nasty, money-robbing regulations?

Some people feel that all rules and regulations are wrong. Ever been to a football game? What if there were
no rules? What sort of a game would that be? What if we eliminated traffic lights and speed limits on
the road? Why not go under one's car hood and start pulling out wires and hoses? Surely the car would
run much better, because it would become "deregulated," as opposed to a finely-tuned, "regulated"
engine. The human body is itself highly regulated. What happens when a human body part functions
erratically, or not at all, that is, when precise biological "regulation" fails?

Deregulation? Why are we looking at that? Of course deregulations is going to cause temporary upsets, just like regulation caused temporary upsets. The problem with regulations is that they create more problems than they solve which then need to be solved by more regulation. "Government is great at breaking your leg, handing you crutches, and then saying "Without me you wouldn't be able to walk"." This essentially is what they do to capitalism.

You act as if there aren't inherent market regulations. I'll name a few, or at least a few that would exist in a just society protecting property rights (the only society that a true freemarket could arise in): do not commit theft, fraud, murder, aggression, threat, or force against others.

As to your analogy of football... how did these rules and regulations come about? Football wasn't created with any set rules or regulations in mind, they sprang up as a result of trial and error and many times football is not played while completely observing the rules (see junior leagues or pick up games) and it is still a fun/enjoyable game to play and watch.

After football your analogies are so dumb its almost hard to refute them without laughing. How "regulated" is your day? Do you need someone to tell you how to do every little thing you do throughout the day? Now, granted, you have places to be (doubtless) and obligations to fulfill, but do you need a government agency in place to ensure that you do these things? For the most part, no, neither does the free-market.

Roads: If there had been private roads from the beginning they would compete for safety. While the stoplight and various signs seem to work well, do you not think through competition better and more safe ways of ensuring safety on the roads wouldn't have been invented? This in and of itself isn't very solid, but would YOU choose to drive on a road that had no signs, stop lights, delineated "sides", or speed limits? No, so if a entrepreneur tried to start a business up with this in mind it would fail. OR if this was the only road then:
1) A new road would be built nearby with better safety
2) People would begin to regulate themselves because it is in no ones benefit to die.

You seem to confuse destruction and deregulation up a lot. Its not "deregulating" to rip wires out of your car, its destruction. It is deregulating to say that "You don't need to place a green wire next to a red wire anymore, we only passed that law because it reminds us of Christmas". Honestly, that really was a silly argument.

Let me reiterate: I'm not against internal, voluntary, or market regulations. Your bodies regulation didn't arrive because some outside power said they should, they arrived through evolution. If you can't see that evolution happens in a market than I don't know what I can tell you.

The point is, the more things are regulated, the more efficiently, fairly, safely, and logistically they work.
This premise includes the national economy and international trade. Consider the current banking and
financial crisis as evidence of what "anything goes" deregulation can bring: destabilization and chaos!

The only real deregulation I know of that occurred before the latest crisis was the partial repeal of Glass-Steagall, and this was really unrelated to the crisis, the only real correlation that can be drawn was that it happened around the same time that the Housing bubble again... but by that logic you could say that anything caused the housing crisis. For proof about this see: http://www.networksfinancialinstitute.org/Lists/Publication%20Library/Attachments/150/2009-PB-09_Wallison.pdf

and

http://monetaryfreedom-billwoolsey.blogspot.com/2009/10/crisis-and-glass-steagall.html

Anyway, the more regulation you have the larger barriers you have to market-entry and the less you have new companies competing with old and the more stagnation you have... its just fact. There are diseconomies of scale for paperwork (what most regulation comes down to).

No it isn't inappropriate to a discussion of economics, because non-profits handle money also,
hence are part of "the economy." Profit-making enterprises are not the only valid participants, you know.

I said in a discussion of the "definition" of economics. I never disagreed with you about there is more than one type of enterprise in the freemarket, as profit is not just monetary by any shot.

[QUOTE=EnviroWhacko;1695702]The reason you cannot get my meaning is that you are reading my post through a sinister capitalist's eyes.
(Has everything under the sun got to generate a profit?)

You're saying that government has the upperhand in banking because it receives a government subsidy. And from that you're concluding that the free-market is ineffective. Even if you're a faster runner than me, if I throw a 30 pound bag on your shoulders that you have to hold, who is going to win the race? Is this any reason to conclude I'm a faster runner? Taxes = the 30lb bag if it wasn't clear enough.

That's rich. Who rewards success anymore? The capitalist rewards failure too. (see a previous paragraph here)

A good capitalist wouldn't... why should he? Failure decreases his profit. The reasons capitalists are "allowed" to make so much money is they take on risk (that needs to be taken on by somebody or some group). The only "thing" that rewards failure is the government (see bailouts).

For starters, my credit card rate was raised from 12% up to 15%, and I have PERFECT credit.
(on-time payments, large balance, long-time customer, etc) If they want to punish late-payers,
fine. Leave me alone - I am a good customer - you don't screw your best customers!

Seems to me you should switch to debit. Credit card companies are naturally predatory (they make most of their money from consumers buying things they can't afford) but they are convenient. The only thing I would say that is this economic decline has affected lots of people, and even people who were previously good costumers have lost their jobs and have began to miss payments and that the bank must make up for this lost revenue. By continuing to use this credit card you are in essence saying that you value the use of credit cards more than you value a 3% change in your credit rate. If you did not, you would stop consuming (using) credit cards.

Most of banksters' problems stem from their reckless lending practices. It's all over the news
these days. Case in point: I used to rent a post office box, and in addition to my own name,
I posted a dummy name, in order to avoid getting junk mail at home. Anyway, within a short
while I (that is, the "dummy" non-existent person) received a "pre-approved" credit card offer
letter. Now tell me this: How does a bank pre-approve a person that does not exist???
(I am not making this up)

So much for your rosy theory of "wise investments"

This is not a feature of the free-market, but of government intervention. Throughout the whole banking crisis there was an implicit agreement by the Fed to bail out any financial institutions that went under because of risky investments. Fannie and Freddie are both GSE's and would not exist in a free-market. Honestly, since you tell me to not confuse the USSR and China for actual communist societies please stop confusing America for a free-market one.

Answer this: Up until ten years ago, I was getting 5% interest on my savings account. Then, some
clever marketers working for the banks figured out a way to increase profit margin: Simply lower
the rate of return. Now, I'm lucky to get 0.5% This is 1/10 [one tenth] of the former rate. WHY?
I teach algebra - and I have to laugh when I read an old interest-in-bank problem: "If we invest
in a savings account at 5% interest..."

The bank is acting as if I have a privilege of getting anything at all

The central bank lowered their interest "A contributing factor to the rise in house prices was the Federal Reserve's lowering of interest rates early in the decade. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%"

Now banks could borrow from the central bank for virtually nothing and no longer needed you to save in them to have money to invest. Again, not a free market phenomena.

NO NO NO!!! You are flat out wrong here.

Haven't you ever studied 19th-century history? "Free-market capitalism" was a disaster. There was only
weak control of the nation's money supply (hence inflations and corresponding depressions) There were
no regulations on health and safety. There was union-busting. There were trusts. There were sweatshops.
There was slavery. It was, in effect, "anything goes." These and other laws and regulations became
necessary to tame the beast, to even out the playing field, so to speak.

So your engine analogy is backwards: The people (via their government) had to step in (only modestly,
I might add) to rebuild a broken engine. Think of the improvements made on modern engines: electronic
fuel injection, anti-lock brakes, etc. In other words, regulations have improved the economy by thwarting
crooks, thus making it fairer (although crooks will find a way around regulations). Deregulation just makes
crooks' job easier. That job is ripping off the consumer. For evidence, consider current events on wall street,
banks, health insurance, etc.

Only when there is a central bank and unsound money can there be inflations and corresponding depressions.
There was internal regulation of health and worker conditions (i.e. no one is going to work in a place where they have to immerse themselves in fire).
Its not slavery if its voluntary.
Sweatshops only exist if the society isn't capital intensive enough to make men's labor more productive and less laborsome.

Regulation makes it harder for new businesses to start up.
Could the people have stepped in to make the engines of have brakes if the resources weren't there to make the brakes? No, the brakes were already there in most places, and if they weren't there people understood the risk of using that engine. I"m sorry I"m being terse I'm exhausted at the moment.

Your rosy Misean theory of capitalism is washed up. It is now in the process of failing. Look around you.
The government is trying to save it, but people like you bite the hand that is trying to help. So I say let this
system completely fail. Let a fairer Social-Justice system arise from the ashes of a corrupt system.

You can't claim the Misean theory of capitalism has washed up when we're now, and have been for the past 80+ years been experiencing the Keynesian theory.

Klaatu

18th March 2010, 01:42

1) You provided no proof that demand (or lets call it consumer demand) is down. Obviously you'd think
people wouldn't trust the talking-heads on wall street anymore, but now people know that, no matter what,
the government will bail out financial companies that take risky investments that don't pay off.
2) Government spending and bailouts is stimulating demand where there exists none/less.
The reason why is obvious.

WHAT? do you know there is a recession going on ("consumer demand is down.") and you require "proof" of this?
Have you heard of the "Cash-for-clunkers" program? (hint: it is a resounding success)

They pay him out of returns on investments (or the banks profit).

Profit from (a) raising my credit card rate and (b) lowering my saving interest rate... I've already shown that.

Pretending that somehow fraud and the like would go away in socialism is naiive.

I never said that it would. Show me where I said it would. But under Socialism, business might be more accountable.

After football your analogies are so dumb its almost hard to refute them without laughing.

They are intended to be tongue-in-cheek. But true, none the less.

Now, granted, you have places to be (doubtless) and obligations to fulfill, but do you need a government agency
in place to ensure that you do these things? For the most part, no, neither does the free-market.

Who is talking about "the government" regulating what I do all day??? Talk about slippery-slopes...

If you can't see that evolution happens in a market than I don't know what I can tell you.

Here is one for you Mr evolution-in-the-market: Since the 1960s, cars have been regulated for air
pollution. Yet diesels have NEVER been regulated; only now are they starting to regulate them.
If your theory were true, diesels would have already been engineered to be clean-burn. But no,
nothing was ever done in the "free-market." This is proof that your theory of evolution of
what benefits the consumer (health and safety) are ignored by private industry, only PROFIT
drove the greedy bastards. Such is the free market: free to pollute, free to maim and kill
(example the tobacco industry.)

Taxes = the 30lb bag if it wasn't clear enough

Yes I got it, you didn't have to explain it. Regulations "level the playing field." This way, the larger
banks cannot out-maneuver the smaller banks. And SMALL business is the backbone of the economy,
not LARGE business, which routinely ships jobs out of the country. Call tech-support for a computer
problem, and you'll get a guy from India that can barely understand English. Why isn't this an American job?

A good capitalist wouldn't... why should he?

Tell me, what exactly is a "good" capitalist? Is this a theoretical entity - like the good fairy?

If you did not, you would stop consuming (using) credit cards.

Well you haven't tried to justify the theft here... There might be hope for you after all?

This is not a feature of the free-market, but of government intervention.

Explain. The bank is not free market? The government told them to send out bogus credit cards???

Now banks could borrow from the central bank for virtually nothing and no longer needed
you to save in them to have money to invest. Again, not a free market phenomena.

Phenomena is right. I guess that is like these endless store sales: No one buys consumer products
until they "go on sale." No wonder there is a recession. (and that IS a free market thing)
I disagree how that is different. Money itself is a saleable commodity too.

Only when there is a central bank and unsound money can there be inflations and corresponding depressions.

Please don't tell me you advocate a return to the gold standard.

Sweatshops only exist
Where they have not been OUTLAWED

and have been for the past 80+ years been experiencing the Keynesian theory.

Not quite. Governments practice the exact opposite of Keynes.

They are supposed to increase spending during recession (to stimulate demand)
and then decrease spending during good economic times (to save money)
That is how Keynesian economics is supposed to work. Obama's "stimulus"
can be considered to be limited Keynesian intervention.

But they do exactly the opposite. They CUT spending during recession. This makes
recessions even worse, because state workers' salary is money too; they too must cut
their personal spending then too. The only thing that saves us from a complete collapse
is that people need to eat, drive, pay rents, etc. And why can't they reduce spending
during good times? Because they have ALL THAT JUICY TAX MONEY TO SPEND that's why.

What a pity.

IcarusAngel

19th March 2010, 02:19

Congratulations EnviroWhacko, you made Mises' forums "hit list" for committing the cardinal sin of quoting an economics textbook rather than some PDF file written by a deluded idiot:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/15087.aspx

20,000 brownie points for you.

Is there ANY discussion on Mises forum that isn't just a circle jerk of idiots linking one another to subfolders of the Mises website or talking about how the common man just doesn't understand the "sound reasoning" of pseudo-intellectuals like Hoppe?

Mises forums advocates "preemptive" government crackdown on Revleft:

Just make sure the state crushes them before they get violent.

And this gem:

But, the Gulag is so nice this time of year.

By the way... anyone know what ever happened to [our] forum member Leviathan?

He got permanently banned.

Yep, that's our Mises forums all right. :laugh:

Skooma Addict

19th March 2010, 02:39

Congratulations EnviroWhacko, you made Mises' forums "hit list" for committing the cardinal sin of quoting an economics textbook rather than some PDF file written by a deluded idiot:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/15087.aspx

20,000 brownie points for you.

Well to be fair, you guys have your own "hit list" as well.

Is there ANY discussion on Mises forum that isn't just a circle jerk of idiots linking one another to subfolders of the Mises website or talking about how the common man just doesn't understand the "sound reasoning" of pseudo-intellectuals like Hoppe?

Yes, although I don't expect you to ever think otherwise.

Mises forums advocates "preemptive" government crackdown on Revleft:

That was 1 member. We don't know what everyone else thinks. So saying "Mises forums" advocates preemptive crackdown on Revleft is misleading.

Dean

19th March 2010, 03:32

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/15087.aspx

I love how one idiot there has a Greg Graffin avater, who said the following in a song:

You want prosperity
For yourself, but not for me
Somehow you just can't see
We're in this collectively
You think that freedom is
A drastic severance
From your past relations
Just a quest for new bargains
...
We watch the days go by
Compete and then we die
So few ever ask why
But so many just abuse the design

Along with a myriad of other lyrics fundamentally damning the capitalist system for its evident failures.

Really, libertarians by and large obsess over their dream society from the context of privileged liberal dissatisfaction with the "dummies" the see all around them. They have nothing but contempt for those who experiences the real, systemic flaws in our society and that is why their milieu is nothing more than a symptom of selfish western liberalism.

Klaatu

19th March 2010, 06:04

Congratulations EnviroWhacko, you made Mises' forums "hit list" for committing the cardinal sin of quoting an economics textbook rather than some PDF file written by a deluded idiot:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/15087.aspx

20,000 brownie points for you.

Is there ANY discussion on Mises forum that isn't just a circle jerk of idiots linking one another to subfolders of the Mises website or talking about how the common man just doesn't understand the "sound reasoning" of pseudo-intellectuals like Hoppe?
Mises was just another frat boy with an opinion. Libertarians worship this guy like he is freakin' Jesus or something.
He caught my ire when I read a paper of his, claiming that people have NO RIGHT to be free of pollution; industry
trumps any claim to clean air, etc. I wish this crackpot were still alive, because I would love to debate his capitalist crap.

IcarusAngel

19th March 2010, 20:38

I love how one idiot there has a Greg Graffin avater, who said the following in a song:

You want prosperity
For yourself, but not for me
Somehow you just can't see
We're in this collectively
You think that freedom is
A drastic severance
From your past relations
Just a quest for new bargains
...
We watch the days go by
Compete and then we die
So few ever ask why
But so many just abuse the design

Along with a myriad of other lyrics fundamentally damning the capitalist system for its evident failures.

Really, libertarians by and large obsess over their dream society from the context of privileged liberal dissatisfaction with the "dummies" the see all around them. They have nothing but contempt for those who experiences the real, systemic flaws in our society and that is why their milieu is nothing more than a symptom of selfish western liberalism.

Yes. Punk generally has been left-wing.

I'm wondering if members at that forum such as conza88 and bloomj31 are just there to make Mises forum look stupid. The less time spent reading the forum though, the better.

IcarusAngel

19th March 2010, 20:40

I wish this crackpot were still alive, because I would love to debate his capitalist crap.

I'm actually glad he's dead. Mises was the last semi-sane advocate of Misean economics, and even he was a dogmatic and unreasonable kook. Now the whole institute is a joke that appeals to morons.

Skooma Addict

19th March 2010, 20:48

I wish this crackpot were still alive, because I would love to debate his capitalist crap.

In a 1v1 debate Mises would absolutely annihilate you.

I'm actually glad he's dead. Mises was the last semi-sane advocate of Misean economics, and even he was a dogmatic and unreasonable kook. Now the whole institute is a joke that appeals to morons.

You mean Austrian Economics? And you do know there are Austrian economists who are not members of the LvMI, right? Take Leeson and Boettke for example. Even in the LvMI there are good scholars. Take Murphy or Raico for example.

Klaatu

20th March 2010, 04:01

In a 1v1 debate Mises would absolutely annihilate you.

Yeah you wish. I always know my enemy. Or else I stay out of the debate. I've read Mises' books. He knows nothing about me. I would have the advantage, having studied him in advance. I have the advantage because I can form contingency rebuttals in advance. Rules of war: Be careful not to let your enemy know you too well, before the battle.

You like to use fighting words. Care to debate, sir? ;)

LeftSideDown

20th March 2010, 04:22

I'm just curious: what books have you read?

Klaatu

20th March 2010, 04:27

InuyashaKnight

20th March 2010, 04:29

"Economics is the social science that studies the production , distribution, and consumption of goods and services." I believe in a Economy but others might think different.

LeftSideDown

20th March 2010, 05:02

The "capitalist economist" has this bull-headed feeling that he knows everything about how the economy works, how it can be fine-tuned, how it can be controlled. As if it were some predictable chemical reaction or something. Mix vinegar and baking soda and you get a fizzy drink. Predictable.
Control a nation's economy: not so predictable. The fact is that we are still learning about how the economy works. There are theories and there are other theories. Mises and Keynes are but two. If "economists" were so able to predict and control the economy, there would be no recessions, no inflations, no unemployment, no ups-and-downs. The problem is that there is an almost-complete lack of planning. Planned economies (such as the former USSR) did NOT even experience a depression during the 1930s. Why? Because there was no "wild river" of hands-off non-intervention. Lack of planning has led to more unemployment, more misery, more broken homes, broken marriages - wait a minute here, I said "broken marriage." Did you know that more marriages fail due to poor financial planning, than any other reason? (cheating spouses run a distant second place). What about whole countries? Is it possible that lack of planning might just be responsible for the violent up-and-down ride of a typical, unplanned capitalist economy?

Laissez-Faire capitalism, as far as planning is concerned, might be somewhere between weather forecasting and religious theology, in it's unpredictable, bogus, speculative rationale. Kind of like gambling. I do think that capitalist economists at the Federal Reserve throw darts at a dartboard, in order to predict the economic climate for the following fiscal year. And what sort of whacked-out theories do they come up with: "tax-cuts-for-the-rich-increase-government-revenue." I think I will let them in on a little secret: I have a money tree in my yard, and I've figured out a way to turn base metal into gold. But then, no.

Do you realize that your first paragraph alone is almost completely contradictory? "The "capitalist economist" has this bull-headed feeling that he knows everything about how the economy works". This is almost exactly counter to what Austrian Economics says. I don't think you've read any Mises. The fact is we do NOT know all the effects on the economy an action will have. We do NOT know what will happen if the government, say, takes over a shoe making factory. You can see the results, but you cannot see what results may have been, or the "opportunity cost". Austrians don't pretend to understand the economy, thats why they don't try to plan it.

So, on one hand, you say we don't know all about how the economy works, but then you say its better if you try and plan it? Lets say you don't know how chemicals will react when you shake them together. You advocate shaking them, I advocate letting them sit as they were because you do NOT know what will happen if you shake them.

Oh please, use the USSR. Do you really want me to talk about the USSR's flaws? You can retract your statement and I won't address, but I let me ask you this: do you think booms/busts with a consistent upward trend is better than no booms/busts with a consistent downward trend?

WHERE IS THE FORECASTING IN LAISSEZ FAIRE? The only forecasting is by capitalists trying to invest in products that will meet consumer demand. There is no forecasting done by the government otherwise it is NOT laissez faire. FEDERAL RESERVE! That means government banking. That means intervention in the market. THAT MEANS NO LAISSEZ FAIRE. There is something called a Laffer Curve that says that there is a tax rate (that isn't 100%) that is the ideal tax rate for revenue. I don't think its correct, but that is there reasoning for tax-breaks for the rich

http://politicalbooks.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/laffer-curve1.jpg

LeftSideDown

20th March 2010, 05:05

Since you don't seem to know what Laissez Faire means I've looked up the term and now you can read the definition and know NOT to apply it to the American Economy, especially not in the same sentence as the Federal Reserve.

Laissez Faire: means allowing industry to be free of state intervention, especially restrictions in the form of tariffs and government monopolies. The phrase is French and literally means "let do", though it broadly implies "let it be" or "leave it alone."

Klaatu

20th March 2010, 05:06

What books did you read?
Just about anything published back in the early 80s, pertaining to our subject of interest,
when I first became interested in economics. To dig up all of these books would be a task, but off the
top of my head: (sans most authors, unfortunately)

Money
Scarcity
Monetary Policy
Economic Policy (Mises?)
The Bankers
Wealth and Poverty, Gilder
Restoring the American Dream, Ringer
The Alpha Strategy
The Coming Currency Collapse
How to prosper during the coming bad years
various history, economics textbooks

Can't think of the entire list right now, of what I've read over the past 30 years! I will have to dig
deep into boxes in storage. Sorry if my memory of titles is not as good as my memory of being
"jacked around" is.

I actually used to be Libertarian believe it or not! I was a believer in Reagan's policies (although
I was not absolutely convinced they would work in the real world) My interest in econ 101 had actually
lay dormant for many years until the recent economic upheaval. I came to the conclusion that something
is seriously wrong. This health care issue may have been the turning point.

I admitted to myself that Socialism is the answer, because there is actually planning, and therefore a
greater degree of certainty of the future (not that we can accurately predict it, but a higher certainty
is better than a guess, which is what is the best effort a capitalist can offer) A guess is just not good
enough for me. Nor for anyone with common sense. Of course, I do not claim to be an expert. But lack
of planning is just stupid.

Socialists plan for the future of the country. Capitalists plan for the future of their own bottom line,
and could give a shit about the country. So who is the patriot here???

Klaatu

20th March 2010, 05:12

There is something called a Laffer Curve that says that there is a tax rate (that isn't 100%) that is the ideal tax rate for revenue. I don't think its correct, but that is there reasoning for tax-breaks for the rich

Oh please. the "Laffer Curve" is ENTIRELY theoretical. It is not, and never was, proven to work in the real world.

IT IS A FANTASY OF CONSERVATIVES, NOTHING MORE.

Klaatu

20th March 2010, 05:14

Klaatu

20th March 2010, 05:25

Oh please. the "Laffer Curve" is ENTIRELY theoretical. It is not, and never was, proven to work in the real world.

IT IS A FANTASY OF CONSERVATIVES, NOTHING MORE.

It is a fantasy of conservatives, pushed by that notorious criminal Reagan, and sold to the clueless public, to get Richie-Rich's tax rates down. Not that the greedy class needed the money. You know how much I got out of that on my 1981 tax return? About $5 - That's it. Five dollars. I would rather a homeless man got the funding. How much did Ritchie get? Perhaps $5 billion. Let's start spreading the wealth a bit here. Ritchie can still be well-to-do, But I vow to eliminate homelessness in the USA, the richest country in the world.

Qwerty Dvorak

20th March 2010, 05:40

I would consider economics as being, essentially, a branch of statistics.

LeftSideDown

20th March 2010, 05:51

Oh please. the "Laffer Curve" is ENTIRELY theoretical. It is not, and never was, proven to work in the real world.

IT IS A FANTASY OF CONSERVATIVES, NOTHING MORE.

I don't think its correct, but that is there reasoning for tax-breaks for the rich.

I don't think its correct, but that is there reasoning for tax-breaks for the rich.

I don't think its correct, but that is there reasoning for tax-breaks for the rich.

Thats a direct quote... from me.

LeftSideDown

20th March 2010, 05:56

I actually used to be Libertarian believe it or not! I was a believer in Reagan's policies (although
I was not absolutely convinced they would work in the real world) My interest in econ 101 had actually
lay dormant for many years until the recent economic upheaval. I came to the conclusion that something
is seriously wrong. This health care issue may have been the turning point.

I admitted to myself that Socialism is the answer, because there is actually planning, and therefore a
greater degree of certainty of the future (not that we can accurately predict it, but a higher certainty
is better than a guess, which is what is the best effort a capitalist can offer) A guess is just not good
enough for me. Nor for anyone with common sense. Of course, I do not claim to be an expert. But lack
of planning is just stupid.

Socialists plan for the future of the country. Capitalists plan for the future of their own bottom line,
and could give a shit about the country. So who is the patriot here???

The "capitalist economist" has this bull-headed feeling that he knows everything about how the economy works, how it can be fine-tuned, how it can be controlled. As if it were some predictable chemical reaction or something. Mix vinegar and baking soda and you get a fizzy drink. Predictable.
Control a nation's economy: not so predictable. The fact is that we are still learning about how the economy works. There are theories and there are other theories. Mises and Keynes are but two. If "economists" were so able to predict and control the economy, there would be no recessions, no inflations, no unemployment, no ups-and-downs.

I'm just quoting you. How can there be planning, when, and I quote, "if "economists" were so able to predict and control the economy, there would be no recessions, no inflations, no unemployment, no ups-and-downs".

Also "Control a nation's economy: not so predictable. The fact is that we are still learning about how the economy works."

And yet you think Socialism, the plan where the entire economy is planned is the answer? Do you see why I see hypocrisy and contradictions in just two paragraphs of yours? SO which is, do we or do we not know how to control the economy?

The bottom line of the Capitalist in a laissez-faire capitalist economy is the best interest of society, because it means they are meeting consumer demand, something you could never successfully measure in Socialism.

LeftSideDown

20th March 2010, 05:57

I would consider economics as being, essentially, a branch of statistics.

Then, essentially, you're wrong.

Qwerty Dvorak

20th March 2010, 06:07

Then, essentially, you're wrong.
This place has gotten a whole lot less pleasant than when I last visited.

LeftSideDown

20th March 2010, 06:11

I know what it means. I don't need you to post the definition.

And the entire concept is a fairy tale.

Just like true Communism, eh?

LeftSideDown

20th March 2010, 06:30

I admitted to myself that Socialism is the answer, because there is actually planning, and therefore a
greater degree of certainty of the future (not that we can accurately predict it, but a higher certainty
is better than a guess, which is what is the best effort a capitalist can offer) A guess is just not good
enough for me. Nor for anyone with common sense. Of course, I do not claim to be an expert. But lack
of planning is just stupid.

Socialists plan for the future of the country. Capitalists plan for the future of their own bottom line,
and could give a shit about the country. So who is the patriot here???

"Without calculation, economic activity is impossible. Since under Socialism economic calculation is impossible, under Socialism there can be no economic activity in our sense of the word ... All economic change, therefore, would involve operations the value of which could neither be predicted beforehand nor ascertained after they had taken place. Everything would be a leap in the dark. Socialism is the renunciation of rational economy." -- Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, 1981, pp. 103-105.

Von Mises Socialism

First published in 1922 (under the title Die Gemeinwirtschaft), Mises' masterpiece Socialism was the lone dissenting voice to challenge the prevailing intellectual orthodoxy of his time.

In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, an entire army of "useful idiots" (as Lenin contemptuously called Western intellectuals) were proclaiming the superiority of socialism. Blind to the massive evidence of socialism's failure that started accumulating as soon as the Bolsheviks came to power, collectivists throughout the world were singing paeans to the wave of the future that would allegedly sweep the outmoded capitalist methods of production into oblivion.

An essential aspect of Mises' exposition of the irrationality inherent in socialism is his concept of "economic activity." Mises does not use this notion to describe any processes entailed in producing goods. Arbitrary production plans set by the caprice of some commissar or planning board do not constitute economic activity. To qualify as economic activity in Mises' use of the term, production must be guided by rational principles.

The context in which Mises establishes the irrationality of socialism rests on the fundamental economic difference between capitalism and socialism, which economically consists of the private vs. communal ownership of the means of production.

Economic calculation in a capitalist economy

Under capitalism every individual plays a dual role in the determination of economic values. First as a consumer, secondly as a producer. As a consumer, he establishes the valuation of goods and services ready for consumption. As a producer, he allocates productive resources to the uses that yield the highest product. This is the very essence of the free market mechanism, which ensures rationality in production and consumption alike.

As a consumer, each individual spends his money on the goods and services that best satisfy his needs. The pattern of consumer preferences is conveyed to producers in the form of prices. This is the crucial function performed by market prices under capitalism.

Prices of consumer goods and services are the signals producers use to determine what goods and services are to be produced. Let's look at how this works.

Let's say that shampoo has a high price on it. This means that consumers value shampoo a lot, which is why they are willing to pay such a high price for it. The high price acts as a signal to producers. It tells them that they can make a large profit by producing and selling shampoo. As a result, they will shift resources to the production of shampoo. The end result is that more resources will be used to produce shampoo because this good is highly valued by consumers.

A high price indicates to producers that consumers place a high value on a certain good or service. From the producers' perspective, the high price means that they can realize a large profit by producing and selling this good or service. Thus the pursuit of profit induces producers to direct more resources to the good or service in question.

In contrast, a low price signals that consumers do not particularly value a good or service. The low price shrinks the producers' profit margin, so they will naturally shift resources away from this good or service. As a result, rationality is achieved by producing more of the goods and services that are highly valued by consumers and less of those that are not preferred by consumers.

The market mechanism also achieves rationality in production. Again, the role of prices is essential. In this case the signals guiding the actions of producers are the prices of productive resources (land, labor, capital, technology). A high price for a certain factor of production indicates that this resource will raise the cost of production and thus lower the producers' profit margin. Therefore producers will end up using less of this particular resource.

In contrast, a low price for a resource signals that producers can lower the cost of production and thus increase their profit margin by using this factor of production. The end result is rationality in production by lowering costs through the increased use of less costly resources and the corresponding reduced use of costlier ones.

This is the very essence of the price system that ensures rationality in consumption and production alike. This is because prices are formed as the result of the actions of consumers who spend their own money on the goods and services they desire and resource owners who sell the resources they own in the market.

Economic calculation under socialism: "a leap in the dark"

Since under socialism there is no private ownership, those actions are rendered impossible. In the most consistent versions of socialism (such as the War Communism implemented right after the Russian Revolution), money is abolished and goods and services are distributed by governmental decree. This is a bona fide recipe for total irrationality.

More "moderate" versions of socialism do not eliminate money. They allow individuals to have some income which they can spend as they see fit. This enables the establishment of prices for consumer goods and services, which give socialist planners (who play the role of "producers" under socialism) some signals as to the goods and services that need to be produced.

However, this signal is distorted, as consumers do not earn their income in a free market. Instead, their income is determined by socialist planners, who arbitrarily set the prices of resources (rents, wages, interest rates). Resource prices set in this manner are totally disconnected from the facts of reality, as there are no price signals conveying to planners information about those facts."

Since, by definition, productive resources are not privately owned under socialism, there can be no market where the prices of those resources are formed by the interaction by demand and supply.

Even if socialist planners have some knowledge of the goods and services that need to be produced, the obstacles they face in selecting the proper methods of production are impossible to overcome. In the absence of private ownership of the factors of production, there be no market where the prices of those resources are established.

In producing any good or service, socialist planners are confronted with a vast array of resource combinations. Some processes are more land-intensive, others more labor-intensive, still others more capital-intensive. Furthermore, there is an enormous variety of different types of land, labor, and capital. Similarly, there is a multitude of technologies to choose from.

Without the guidance of price signals, there is only one way of selecting among those alternatives: The planners' whim. This exposes the utter irrationality of socialism, eloquently expressed in Mises' statement that "Everything would be a leap in the dark."

The problems of socialism are not based on the irrationality or dishonesty of public planners

Mises' critique does not even address the critical issue of incentives. He did not claim that, since the profit motive is absent under socialism, bureaucrats have no incentive to try to follow the guidance of reason in their production decisions. To the contrary, Mises readily accepted that government officials are totally dedicated to the efficient production of goods and services.

The problem he identified was not lack of motivation on the part of planners. Instead, the cause of socialism's irrationality is that those highly motivated and competent civil servants have no rational mechanism to guide their productive efforts and thus any decisions they make are necessarily arbitrary. Their position is akin to that of the captain of a ship in the midst of the ocean without a compass. No matter how able he is, any efforts he makes to set the course of his ship are doomed from the outset.

Although Mises' analysis is purely economic, it illustrates the effects of an abstract philosophic principle in an economic practical context. That principle is that capitalism is the only economic system based on reason, while socialism rests on arbitrary whim. While capitalism cannot be effectively defended solely on economic grounds, Mises' exposition is of tremendous value to philosophical defenders of capitalism.

The truth of Mises' analysis was confirmed by historical experience. The irrationality of socialism was revealed in the fate of all socialist experiments conducted throughout the twentieth century. Stalin's Ukraine famine, the widespread starvation brought about by Mao's "Great Leap Forward," the decadent misery that is a daily fact of life in North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and all other socialist utopias is writ large for the full slate of the practical manifestations of Mises' conclusion that "Socialism is the renunciation of rational economy."

Now if only the economic professors at Yale and Harvard could grasp this fact.

Klaatu

20th March 2010, 18:03

I don't think its correct, but that is there reasoning for tax-breaks for the rich.

I don't think its correct, but that is there reasoning for tax-breaks for the rich.

I don't think its correct, but that is there reasoning for tax-breaks for the rich.

Thats a direct quote... from me.
You are either wealthy yourself, (or have wealthy relatives) or have been completely brainwashed by this inane, imbecilic Libertarian cult.

The reasoning for tax breaks for the rich is so that they can invest in FOREIGN COUNTRIES, in order to purposefully put the American worker out on the street, so that he can beg for lower wages. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this. Too bad this fact is lost on you.

Thats a direct quote... from me.
I suppose you laugh at your own jokes too?

LeftSideDown

20th March 2010, 18:16

You are either wealthy yourself, (or have wealthy relatives) or have been completely brainwashed by this inane, imbecilic Libertarian cult.

I'm not wealthy, I'm at most middle class.
My mother works from home and my father is unemployed.

The reasoning for tax breaks for the rich is so that they can invest in FOREIGN COUNTRIES, in order to purposefully put the American worker out on the street, so that he can beg for lower wages. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this. Too bad this fact is lost on you.

I was merely stating the government's/Reagan's reasoning for tax breaks. If you are unable to recognize that this is the reason that the government gave you have missed a few press statements, my friend. The only reason they would invest in foreign countries is if they were more profitable due to a lower level of government interference. And it is impossible for workers to beg for a lower wage because of the minimum wage, so I guess your solution is to repeal the minimum wage?

I suppose you laugh at your own jokes too?[/QUOTE]

Klaatu

21st March 2010, 05:11

I'm not wealthy, I'm at most middle class.
My mother works from home and my father is unemployed.

So why in the hell do you root for the rich? They don't give a rat's ass about you. They would spit on you. They don't need your support. Because they own you, and they control you (through the media). Too bad you don't see this.

I was merely stating the government's/Reagan's reasoning for tax breaks. If you are unable to recognize that this is the reason that the government gave you have missed a few press statements, my friend.
Reagan was an asshole. He started the upward spiral of federal deficits in 1981, and now look where we are at. He tried to bust unions, our only hope for reasonable equality. He tried to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing extremists. Reagan did so much damage to the USA, and the Bushes afterwards, I doubt we will ever recover.

The only reason they would invest in foreign countries is if they were more profitable due to a lower level of government interference. And it is impossible for workers to beg for a lower wage because of the minimum wage, so I guess your solution is to repeal the minimum wage?
Count on Republicans and Libertarians to fight for this. In fact Libertarians are for abolishing the minimum wage altogether.

Wolf Larson

21st March 2010, 05:46

Adam Smith was a white supremacist. Bourgeois economics is organized plunder legitimized by all manner of euphemism and fraud. Marx was simply an interpreter showing us the invisible hand of the market place.

David Ricardo was a vampire.Bourgeois economics is social Darwinism which has perpetuated false scarcity in order to sustain hierarchy/privilege/power/control.

Thomas Malthus was a child molester. Egalitarian societies were stabbed, beaten and burned out of western civilization at the end of an unsheathed sword, clinched fist and blazing fire.

Marx was a genius. The slave making ants took control. It's that simple. Here we have the egalitarian/socialist ants: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnltUzQLqgw

Here we have the capitalist slave making ants: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent525/close/SlaveAnt.html

Bourgeois economics is the tool for slave making ants to subjugate us all. Bourgeois economics is helotism in practice.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 09:43

So why in the hell do you root for the rich? They don't give a rat's ass about you. They would spit on you. They don't need your support. Because they own you, and they control you (through the media). Too bad you don't see this.

Because I don't think someone has to care about you/me in order to help us out. I believe there is such a thing as "implicit" help and that the reason these people are rich (except for those who used government money/subsidies/special privileges) is because of how they helped society.

Reagan was an asshole. He started the upward spiral of federal deficits in 1981, and now look where we are at. He tried to bust unions, our only hope for reasonable equality. He tried to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing extremists. Reagan did so much damage to the USA, and the Bushes afterwards, I doubt we will ever recover.

I'm not going to get into a debate about presidents... they are all pretty bad. I was not throwing my support behind Reagan at all, if you would please just read what I said, I stated that the Laffer Curve was the reason the government gave for tax-cuts to the rich. Thats all I'm saying. Thats it.

Count on Republicans and Libertarians to fight for this. In fact Libertarians are for abolishing the minimum wage altogether.

You're right, because the minimum wage is a neat little tool that labor unions use to make low-skilled laborers go unemployed and keep the wages of themselves up. Example:

I can summon a master fence-builder for 12 dollars an hour, and he can build the fence I want in two hours.

Now, competing with him is two low skilled laborers (call them immigrants, or just people with a not-broad skill base) for 5 dollars an hour, and these two guys can build the fence I want in two hours.

Now, before minimum wage (for the sake of this example, the minimum wage is 8 dollars) I would hire the low skilled labor (thus employing two people) and the high skilled labor would have to go elsewhere for employment. But, suddenly it is illegal for these people to sell their labor at the rate they want, and suddenly it costs 32 dollars to hire them to build my fence. Now, who am I going to hire? It should be pretty simple: I'm going to hire the master fence-builder.

Minimum wage isn't a floor under wages, its a hurdle for the lowest skilled of our society. And don't give that malarky about "evil capitalists would be paying everyone 2 dollars an hour!" because, no, um, they wouldn't. By your reasoning evil capitalists would only be paying everyone minimum wage, which, by looking around you, is pretty much not true at all.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 09:57

Adam Smith was a white supremacist. Bourgeois economics is organized plunder legitimized by all manner of euphemism and fraud. Marx was simply an interpreter showing us the invisible hand of the market place.

Marx didn't discover the invisible hand, I don't know what you're talking about. And its widely held belief that Marx was an anti-semite; however I don't count this against him because personal beliefs should have no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of a theory.

David Ricardo was a vampire.Bourgeois economics is social Darwinism which has perpetuated false scarcity in order to sustain hierarchy/privilege/power/control.

I'm actually glad you brought up Darwin. He believed the white race was superior/most evolved (The title of his book, if my memory serves was On the Origin of Species and the Superiority of Races). I guess by your logic evolution is wrong and we must start looking towards intelligent design. Also, the whole idea of three distinct classes (laborer, capitalist, and landowner) was Ricardo's idea that Marx used pretty liberally. If you look at Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy and Taxation the division of classes was only important for the theory of catallactics.

Thomas Malthus was a child molester. Egalitarian societies were stabbed, beaten and burned out of western civilization at the end of an unsheathed sword, clinched fist and blazing fire.

Again, if you're going to attack something, why don't you attack someone's theories rather than their "vices". I don't know where you got that he was a child molester, and honestly I don't care whether its true or not, because intellectual contributions should be examined by themselves, not with someones flaws in mind. Besides Malthus was important, besides, for his contribution to exponential growth in populations

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/c/2/fc22c8070ebdc1859c763b693fb5cc43.png

Bourgeois economics is the tool for slave making ants to subjugate us all. Bourgeois economics is helotism in practice.

Marx never worked a day in his goddamn life and lived almost entirely off his father and Engels. He lived almost entirely in extravagance off of OTHER peoples labor, so maybe he thought thats what communism would be like... everyone living high on the hog off of everybody else. The point is, I would put Marx's theory in the order of bourgeois economics, so it must be wrong. (Interesting note, the tuition for the university that Marx attended for, I think, 6 years was more than the living wage of most people in England at that time).

Klaatu

21st March 2010, 18:19

Marx never worked a day in his goddamn life and lived almost entirely off his father and Engels. He lived almost entirely in extravagance off of OTHER peoples labor, so maybe he thought thats what communism would be like... everyone living high on the hog off of everybody else.

Again, if you're going to attack something, why don't you attack someone's theories rather than their "vices".

Do you realize that you have rebutted your own statement?

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 18:49

Do you realize that you have rebutted your own statement?

Take out "goddamn" and I'm just making statements of fact that reveal to you that Marx himself was bourgeois, thus, according to your philosophy, his contributions are meaningless.

Klaatu

21st March 2010, 19:08

Because I don't think someone has to care about you/me in order to help us out. I believe there is such a thing as "implicit" help and that the reason these people are rich (except for those who used government money/subsidies/special privileges) is because of how they helped society.

How are they "helping us out?" By shipping good-paying jobs out of the country? Be fixing prices? By endorsing the printing of valueless money?

I'm not going to get into a debate about presidents... they are all pretty bad. I was not throwing my support behind Reagan at all, if you would please just read what I said, I stated that the Laffer Curve was the reason the government gave for tax-cuts to the rich. Thats all I'm saying. Thats it.

We should be chastising Arthur Laffer. I recall the day his stupid theory hit the news, back in 1981. I was skeptical of it then, even more so now. Reagan was a fool to go along with this deficit-generating, unproven hyperbole.

You're right, because the minimum wage is a neat little tool that labor unions use to make low-skilled laborers go unemployed and keep the wages of themselves up.

You are not telling me a thing I haven't heard before. The Libertarian anti-union argument is that it is unions that push for minimum-wage laws, ONLY for the purpose of narrowing the gap between their own wages and those of (what you call) "low-skill" workers.

Question for you: Would you hire a "low-skill" worker to build a house for you, or would you rather employ an AMERICAN CITIZEN, a highly-skilled union man to build it? If the latter, good for you. If the former, good luck during the next wind storm. Or when the place burns to the ground due to faulty wiring...

A low-skill worker can mow my lawn (pretty hard to goof that up!) but he is not going to build my house.

Minimum wage isn't a floor under wages, its a hurdle for the lowest skilled of our society. And don't give that malarky about "evil capitalists would be paying everyone 2 dollars an hour!" because, no, um, they wouldn't. By your reasoning evil capitalists would only be paying everyone minimum wage, which, by looking around you, is pretty much not true at all.

I never said that "evil capitalists would be paying everyone 2 dollars an hour!" did I? In fact a lot of businesses pay actually higher than that. The minimum wage is not a "hurdle" it is a safety net. And it has nothing to do with unemployment. For example, suppose you own a burger joint. You must make and sell X number of sliders per day, in order to profit. You will hire whatever help is needed, minimum wage or not. Why - because you need the help, that's why. You're NOT going to say "Gee, I'll have to pay this guy one more dollar per hour, so if I don't hire him, I can save money - BUT, if I can't keep up with the long line of hungry customers, I will lose even more by not hiring the extra help, because customers will turn away.

In short, the argument that the existence of a minimum wage causing unemployment is a bogus one at best. It is just more neocon-libertarian hogwash propaganda perpetuated by hucksters and con-men.

Klaatu

21st March 2010, 19:11

Take out "goddamn" and I'm just making statements of fact that reveal to you that Marx himself was bourgeois, thus, according to your philosophy, his contributions are meaningless.

My point is that you should practice what you preach.

And I don't give a rat's ass what YOU think of Marx.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 19:21

My point is that you should practice what you preach.

And I don't give a rat's ass what YOU think of Marx.

I do practice what I preach, if I want to go into semantics all I said "goddamn" of was the day. Perhaps I think days are damned by God, and I alway use this adjective in conjunction with the noun "day".

Shouldn't you practice what YOU preach though? You disregard all those people, seemingly, for their character flaws and the fact that they were "bourgeois". My point is (which isn't a thought, its a fact) if you follow that logic than Marx's economy/political thought is "bourgeois" and you should disregard it.

So, what you really mean to say is you don't give a "rat's ass" what the facts of Marx are, you'll follow him blindly anyway.

Zanthorus

21st March 2010, 19:30

And its widely held belief that Marx was an anti-semite;

A widely held belief which is completely and utterly false (http://marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article.htm).

Marx never worked a day in his goddamn life and lived almost entirely off his father and Engels. He lived almost entirely in extravagance off of OTHER peoples labor, so maybe he thought thats what communism would be like... everyone living high on the hog off of everybody else. The point is, I would put Marx's theory in the order of bourgeois economics, so it must be wrong. (Interesting note, the tuition for the university that Marx attended for, I think, 6 years was more than the living wage of most people in England at that time).

Take out "goddamn" and I'm just making statements of fact that reveal to you that Marx himself was bourgeois, thus, according to your philosophy, his contributions are meaningless.

Living off of other people's labour is not what makes you "bourgeois", owning means of production, hiring wage-labour and extracting surplus-value is what makes you bourgeois. Marx's objective class would probably be Lumpen.

Wolf Larson

21st March 2010, 19:31

Marx didn't discover the invisible hand, I don't know what you're talking about. And its widely held belief that Marx was an anti-semite; however I don't count this against him because personal beliefs should have no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of a theory.

I'm actually glad you brought up Darwin. He believed the white race was superior/most evolved (The title of his book, if my memory serves was On the Origin of Species and the Superiority of Races). I guess by your logic evolution is wrong and we must start looking towards intelligent design. Also, the whole idea of three distinct classes (laborer, capitalist, and landowner) was Ricardo's idea that Marx used pretty liberally. If you look at Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy and Taxation the division of classes was only important for the theory of catallactics.

Again, if you're going to attack something, why don't you attack someone's theories rather than their "vices". I don't know where you got that he was a child molester, and honestly I don't care whether its true or not, because intellectual contributions should be examined by themselves, not with someones flaws in mind. Besides Malthus was important, besides, for his contribution to exponential growth in populations

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/c/2/fc22c8070ebdc1859c763b693fb5cc43.png

Marx never worked a day in his goddamn life and lived almost entirely off his father and Engels. He lived almost entirely in extravagance off of OTHER peoples labor, so maybe he thought thats what communism would be like... everyone living high on the hog off of everybody else. The point is, I would put Marx's theory in the order of bourgeois economics, so it must be wrong. (Interesting note, the tuition for the university that Marx attended for, I think, 6 years was more than the living wage of most people in England at that time).

You don't have a sense of humor egh? Also, Marx contributed more to society than some kid living at his parents house looming on the internet praising ludwig von mises 24/7. Also, the post of mine you quoted was me fooling around. If you think that was me initiating serious discussion think again my capitalist friend. I think it was Rev. Malthus who was the child molester. Obviously. :)
I hardly have the time anymore to have serious debates with capitalists. After ten years of it it's become redundant. Also, regarding capitalism being a warped form of social Darwinism [in the capitalists mind]- I don't know how you think I'm advocating creationism? My point is capitalists think they're the so called strong but in reality they are the parasite. Also, refuting Darwin's position that nature is a universal system of entity against entity in competition for survival is more in line with Kropotkin's analysis not some quacked out christian. Have you even read Kropotkin? No. And you call yourself an anarchist. LOL You don't even have the ability to understand my points unless I explain everything in great detail. This is another reason I don't debate capitalists anymore. It ends up either in a history lesson or threats of violence being lobbed my way. In your case I don't have time for lessons.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 20:20

How are they "helping us out?" By shipping good-paying jobs out of the country? Be fixing prices? By endorsing the printing of valueless money?

Well, since you're a communist, you should be glad that those companies aren't over here exploiting us. In fact, by even complaining about companies going over seas you recognize that these companies help you... and they help you significantly enough to complain about their leaving. Fixing prices? That can only happen with a monopoly and even then they still obey laws of supply and demand. The government is what endorses fiat currency, not private enterprise. But nothing has intrinsic value. And any amount of money is ideal.

You are not telling me a thing I haven't heard before. The Libertarian anti-union argument is that it is unions that push for minimum-wage laws, ONLY for the purpose of narrowing the gap between their own wages and those of (what you call) "low-skill" workers.

The skills required to organize an effective labor union and carryout plans in order to force an employer to raise wage rates/working conditions is indicative of a skill set not commonly found in lowskilled workers. So the very fact that they form unions implies that they are high-skilled. And laborers are just as selfish as everyone else; joining a union doesn't suddenly mean that you care about every other laborer, and especially not to your disadvantage. Its advertised that way, of course, you can't show that all you want is wage raises and damn the consequences. Why should high-skilled labor care about a minimum wage that is necessarily going to be way less than their wage? To outsource their competition. If people can get out of a way of competing, they will. Much to people's surprise businesses don't like to compete and if they can get government to intervene and stop competition, they will.

Question for you: Would you hire a "low-skill" worker to build a house for you, or would you rather employ an AMERICAN CITIZEN, a highly-skilled union man to build it? If the latter, good for you. If the former, good luck during the next wind storm. Or when the place burns to the ground due to faulty wiring...

I don't care how low-skill the worker is as long as he is working under the supervision of a good manager. The fact is there is such a thing as job training, and house building is necessarily a high-skill job, or at least a job that requires a wide range of high skilled labor. I don't think your example is a good one, a better one would be this:

Would you rather, if your income is limited, rather hire a low-skilled laborer to keep your floors clean or a "high-skilled" union worker who will charge you double for a service that isn't much better at all. Economically the low skilled worker. I also don't care if someone is an American citizen or not, if I'm trying to hire labor. I don't care so long as it doesn't affect the end product.

A low-skill worker can mow my lawn (pretty hard to goof that up!) but he is not going to build my house.

You, right here, destroy your own example. Its essentially meaningless. "Do you hire someone who doesn't have the skills or someone that does have the skills" and you act as if this is the refutation to my statement that minimum wage is still used to outsource low skilled labor in areas that it competes with high-skilled labor.

I never said that "evil capitalists would be paying everyone 2 dollars an hour!" did I? In fact a lot of businesses pay actually higher than that. The minimum wage is not a "hurdle" it is a safety net. And it has nothing to do with unemployment. For example, suppose you own a burger joint. You must make and sell X number of sliders per day, in order to profit. You will hire whatever help is needed, minimum wage or not. Why - because you need the help, that's why. You're NOT going to say "Gee, I'll have to pay this guy one more dollar per hour, so if I don't hire him, I can save money - BUT, if I can't keep up with the long line of hungry customers, I will lose even more by not hiring the extra help, because customers will turn away.

Uh oh, don't let your communist friends see this, they'll think I'm starting to get to you. Implicit in the communist thinking is that employers have ALL the power and workers have none unless they unionize/revolt/kill the owners. That example up there shows the fact that it doesn't, and it is, in fact, in support of my side not yours. Employers CANNOT charge however low they want because they need labor just like labor needs jobs/to be productive/to earn a living (if that is their desire). And it really isn't a safety net for the reasons you listed: employers need to hire people and people will not work for less than they can subside off of. So, instead of a safety net, think of it as a safety net thats over a safety net and anyone whose productivity is below minimum wage (mostly its teens looking for their first job, and a lot of the time minorities for reasons I won't get into) get trapped and remain jobless/non-productive members of society.

In short, the argument that the existence of a minimum wage causing unemployment is a bogus one at best. It is just more neocon-libertarian hogwash propaganda perpetuated by hucksters and con-men.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/05/the_minimum_wage_and_its_emplo.html

In case you don't have the time to read the whole thing:
"Chicken of the Sea, the tuna company, has just announced the closing of its canning plant in American Samoa in September. The chief culprit is 2007 legislation in Washington that gradually increased the islands' minimum wage until it reaches $7.25 an hour, effective July 2009, almost double the 2007 levels....

So, this summer, some of the 68,000 residents of this United States territory will celebrate the higher minimum wage. Their ranks are unlikely to include people who now hold the 2,041 jobs—12 percent of total employment, almost half of all cannery workers—to be lost when the cannery closes. And the 2,700 employees of Star Kist, the other American Samoa tuna canning company, will be hoping that they keep their jobs....

And they were right. American Samoa will lose not only the 2,041 jobs at the Chicken of the Sea canning plant, but also secondary jobs from the ripple effect of loss of income—stores and eateries that cater to cannery workers, shops that mend fishing nets, shipyards, and buses that transport workers.

In addition, the cost of goods sold on the island will rise, because the ships that exported the cans of tuna came back with products to sell to the American Samoans. Now ships with imports to American Samoa will have to return empty or stop at other destinations."

You're so wrong. IF minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment, why are we being so stingy with it? Why don't we raise it to 1000 dollars an hour? 1 million! It doesn't cause unemployment, everyone gets rich that way.

Think about it.

Klaatu

21st March 2010, 20:55

I do practice what I preach, if I want to go into semantics all I said "goddamn" of was the day. Perhaps I think days are damned by God, and I alway use this adjective in conjunction with the noun "day".
You're nuts.

Shouldn't you practice what YOU preach though? You disregard all those people, seemingly, for their character flaws and the fact that they were "bourgeois". My point is (which isn't a thought, its a fact) if you follow that logic than Marx's economy/political thought is "bourgeois" and you should disregard it.

So, what you really mean to say is you don't give a "rat's ass" what the facts of Marx are, you'll follow him blindly anyway.
I follow myself, my own rational thinking, based on what I have learned. And that is from all sides of the political spectrum. I don't "blindly follow" anyone, not even religion. That is what makes me an open-minded thinker.

As for your accusation of my beliefs being somehow "wrong," why don't you go masturbate to a nude picture of Ludwig von Mises. :tt2:

Klaatu

21st March 2010, 21:17

"...since you're a communist..."

I do not live in a monastery. I do not live in a commune. Therefore I am not a "Communist."

(commune-ist) get it?

I am a "Socialist." I believe that the worker should own the means of production. That's it.
Everything else stays as it is now (democracy, freedom, constitutional rights, and so forth.)

You are obviously a "Libertarian." I have shown again and again that such a system is folly.
One of many examples: In a Libertarian world, everything is all peachy and rosy, everyone
trades with one another, no one gets exploited, everyone is honest, no one cheats, no one
is immoral, on and on...

Well get back to reality, you dreamers. There is a REAL WORLD out there, and not everyone is
going to participate honestly. In fact there is a lot of organized crime, ready to crush opposition.
(case in point: When the USSR dissolved, organized crime became pervasive and rampant -
so much for an honest "free market.")

If you love an unfettered free-market so much, where no governmental regulations exist,
where everyone has a gun (even kids) why don't you move to Somalia. There, you will
find your fantasy world of Laissez-Faire economics, free of "government interference."

Libertarians are either extremely naïve, or are criminals themselves (which are you?)

Klaatu

21st March 2010, 21:31

Uh oh, don't let your communist friends see this, they'll think I'm starting to get to you.

hahahahaha You "get to" me? You are so full of yourself, you overconfident capitalist (that's meant to be an insult, BTW)
You are SO STUPID. I am demonstrating how the small-business owner reacts to a given situation.

And that might be a worker-owned (socialist) business - how do you know? Do you think only a
wealthy, cigar-smoking, Cadillac-driving, $5,000-suit can own/run a business? Or are "ordinary folks"
too dumb or somehow "unclean?"

In case you don't have the time to read the whole thing:
"Chicken of the Sea, the tuna company, has just announced the closing of its canning plant in American Samoa in September. The chief culprit is 2007 legislation in Washington that gradually increased the islands' minimum wage until it reaches $7.25 an hour, effective July 2009, almost double the 2007 levels....

So, this summer, some of the 68,000 residents of this United States territory will celebrate the higher minimum wage. Their ranks are unlikely to include people who now hold the 2,041 jobs—12 percent of total employment, almost half of all cannery workers—to be lost when the cannery closes. And the 2,700 employees of Star Kist, the other American Samoa tuna canning company, will be hoping that they keep their jobs....

And they were right. American Samoa will lose not only the 2,041 jobs at the Chicken of the Sea canning plant, but also secondary jobs from the ripple effect of loss of income—stores and eateries that cater to cannery workers, shops that mend fishing nets, shipyards, and buses that transport workers.

In addition, the cost of goods sold on the island will rise, because the ships that exported the cans of tuna came back with products to sell to the American Samoans. Now ships with imports to American Samoa will have to return empty or stop at other destinations."

You're so wrong. IF minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment, why are we being so stingy with it? Why don't we raise it to 1000 dollars an hour? 1 million! It doesn't cause unemployment, everyone gets rich that way.

Think about it.

Do you realize that you have just bolstered MY case for workers' ownership? Keep it coming. And Thanks! :rolleyes:

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 03:47

I do not live in a monastery. I do not live in a commune. Therefore I am not a "Communist."

(commune-ist) get it?

commune:a body of people or families living together and sharing everything
communism: Communism is a social structure and political ideology in which property is commonly controlled.

You don't have to be living in a "commune" to advocate its existence. That is the worst use of semantics I've ever used.

I am a "Socialist." I believe that the worker should own the means of production. That's it.
Everything else stays as it is now (democracy, freedom, constitutional rights, and so forth.)

Your tag says "Marxist" something or other.

You are obviously a "Libertarian." I have shown again and again that such a system is folly.
One of many examples: In a Libertarian world, everything is all peachy and rosy, everyone
trades with one another, no one gets exploited, everyone is honest, no one cheats, no one
is immoral, on and on...

You have shown no such thing, especially from the posts you've made so far. The "libertarian" world doesn't imagine that, but it seems, at least to me, that the communist one does.

Well get back to reality, you dreamers. There is a REAL WORLD out there, and not everyone is
going to participate honestly. In fact there is a lot of organized crime, ready to crush opposition.
(case in point: When the USSR dissolved, organized crime became pervasive and rampant -
so much for an honest "free market.")

Please, the USSR's government was nothing but organized crime.

If you love an unfettered free-market so much, where no governmental regulations exist,
where everyone has a gun (even kids) why don't you move to Somalia. There, you will
find your fantasy world of Laissez-Faire economics, free of "government interference."

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Now, before you jump to the wrong conclusions that you always inevitability do, I do not think Somalia is the ideal of statelessness or even close. There exists governments in the forms of warlords. However, even though there are pirates/inter-tribal wars/terrible things going on there have been improvements over there old government... a lot of them. This at least proves, in my mind, that statelessness or at least no central government is, in some cases, superior to a state thats oppressive as Somalia's was before its collapse.

Provided, for your convenience, is a chart listing 18 Key Development indicators, that, if memory serves, shows that Somalia has improved in 15, stagnated in 1, and declined in 2.

http://www.evernote.com/shard/s22/res/a42c2b62-ec8d-49ce-b4ec-de39c2dece15/screen.png

Libertarians are either extremely naïve, or are criminals themselves (which are you?)

I don't think its naive or criminal to say that individuals know their circumstances best and should be able to make decisions that they think will most positively improve them.

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 03:50

hahahahaha You "get to" me? You are so full of yourself, you overconfident capitalist (that's meant to be an insult, BTW)
You are SO STUPID. I am demonstrating how the small-business owner reacts to a given situation.

It doesn't matter, the fact that there is a mutually dependent situation is shown, and Communists/Socialists for the most part reject this.

And that might be a worker-owned (socialist) business - how do you know? Do you think only a
wealthy, cigar-smoking, Cadillac-driving, $5,000-suit can own/run a business? Or are "ordinary folks"
too dumb or somehow "unclean?"

IF its worker owned why is he looking for labor? He obviously is the labor and must have other laborers since in order for it to be "worker-owned" there must be workers.

I said nothing like "wealthy, cigar-smoking, Cadillac-driving" entrepreneurs although there is nothing wrong with any of these things. IF you would stop putting words in my mouth perhaps you could think up some original words to say in defense of your ideology.

Do you realize that you have just bolstered MY case for workers' ownership? Keep it coming. And Thanks! :rolleyes:

I'm unable to see how. If you could please inform me that would be great. All (I think) I showed is that minimum wage can/does cause unemployment.

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 03:52

You're nuts.

I don't think its nuts to play semantics.

I follow myself, my own rational thinking, based on what I have learned. And that is from all sides of the political spectrum. I don't "blindly follow" anyone, not even religion. That is what makes me an open-minded thinker.

As for your accusation of my beliefs being somehow "wrong," why don't you go masturbate to a nude picture of Ludwig von Mises. :tt2:

So if your rational system of thought tells you to reject "bourgeois" science/economics than should it not be telling you to reject Marx?

Because I abhor ad hominem attacks and view them as nothing more than a distraction to real intellectual debate I will ignore your last statement and pretend that your position isn't so untenable that you must resort to the most petty of name-calling.

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 03:59

You don't have a sense of humor egh? Also, Marx contributed more to society than some kid living at his parents house looming on the internet praising ludwig von mises 24/7. Also, the post of mine you quoted was me fooling around. If you think that was me initiating serious discussion think again my capitalist friend. I think it was Rev. Malthus who was the child molester. Obviously. :)

Your post didn't seem to be in the nature of humor and if it was I apologize for misinterpreting it otherwise. Perhaps in the future when you make bold assertions that are meant to be taken as humorous you could at least provide a smiley face in order to at least insinuate a level of comedy? :thumbup1:

I'm not living in my parents house and I'm a legal adult and have been for awhile now. Did I claim that I have contributed more to society than Marx? I don't see why you're making this counter claim that you provide no evidence for whatsoever.

I hardly have the time anymore to have serious debates with capitalists. After ten years of it it's become redundant. Also, regarding capitalism being a warped form of social Darwinism [in the capitalists mind]- I don't know how you think I'm advocating creationism? My point is capitalists think they're the so called strong but in reality they are the parasite. Also, refuting Darwin's position that nature is a universal system of entity against entity in competition for survival is more in line with Kropotkin's analysis not some quacked out christian. Have you even read Kropotkin? No. And you call yourself an anarchist. LOL You don't even have the ability to understand my points unless I explain everything in great detail. This is another reason I don't debate capitalists anymore. It ends up either in a history lesson or threats of violence being lobbed my way. In your case I don't have time for lessons.

Fair enough, its your choice whether to engage in debate or not and I'm not going to deride you for choosing not to.

Did I ever say capitalism was a "warped form of social darwinism" I merely stated that, in the context of your quote, anyone who had a personal flaw cannot contribute to science or if they did than the science is not "good" or "sound" somehow. Since Darwin was a racist, by your logic, his contributions are null and void. DO I call myself an anarchist? I haven't yet, but I'm leaning towards that. I've not read Kropotkin, but there is a lot of stuff I've not read and that you've not read and the absence of perfect knowledge is no excuse for not forming opinions.

I promise I won't threaten to kill you (although I'm sure you can't promise the same when the great revolution comes... gotta purge the evil capitalist mindset afterall). :)

Klaatu

23rd March 2010, 04:40

Because I abhor ad hominem attacks and view them as nothing more than a distraction to real intellectual debate I will ignore your last statement and pretend that your position isn't so untenable that you must resort to the most petty of name-calling.

Man 'o man. LeftSide Down has NO sense of humor. Too bad. Right-wingers usually don't have a funny bone
(that's why they are always whining).

Question for you, Mr Down: If capitalism is such a great system, why the need to defend it so? It should stand on it's own.

And why attack Socialism? What are you afraid of, anyway?

LeftSideDown

23rd March 2010, 07:03

Man 'o man. LeftSide Down has NO sense of humor. Too bad. Right-wingers usually don't have a funny bone
(that's why they are always whining).

Question for you, Mr Down: If capitalism is such a great system, why the need to defend it so? It should stand on it's own.

And why attack Socialism? What are you afraid of, anyway?

The same reason that evolutionists (Such as Richard Dawkins) need to defend evolution against the attacks of generally uninformed religious evangelicals. Why is Richard Dawkins defending evolution if it is so obviously the system that most readily explains our planet? Because there are people out there who do not/can not/deny this and he thinks the world would be a better place without discourse regarding this. Kind of like how the world is a better place because no one is debating that the sun is the center of our solar system.

I attack socialism because, I think, that it is an irrational economic system (kind of how creationism is, in my mind, an irrational belief) that leads to the degradation of the means of production, standard of living, and even morality. I'm afraid of the consequences any steps towards socialism incur, and I believe rightfully so.

Just like if the government in America started taking steps towards a theocracy you would be scared. OR at least I would be.

Klaatu

24th March 2010, 02:28

Just like if the government in America started taking steps towards a theocracy you would be scared. OR at least I would be.

Then you should be fighting theocracy, because that is the FAR FAR biger danger.

Klaatu

24th March 2010, 02:39

Originally Posted by EnviroWhacko
You are obviously a "Libertarian." I have shown again and again that such a system is folly.
One of many examples: In a Libertarian world, everything is all peachy and rosy, everyone
trades with one another, no one gets exploited, everyone is honest, no one cheats, no one
is immoral, on and on...

Originally Posted by LeftSideDown
You have shown no such thing, especially from the posts you've made so far. The "libertarian" world doesn't imagine that, but it seems, at least to me, that the communist one does.

I have shown that in older posts, and not all of those posts were here on this site.
__________________________________________________ ________
Originally Posted by LeftSideDown
Please, the USSR's government was nothing but organized crime.

"Laissez Faire Capitalism" is a euphemism for "organized crime."

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 06:21

Seems to be evidence supporting my claim about the USSR being nothing but an organized crime racket, and no evidence to support your claim.

Klaatu

24th March 2010, 06:52

Seems to be evidence supporting my claim about the USSR being nothing but an organized crime racket, and no evidence to support your claim.

Don't think so, huh? I've given a few examples of my own experiences. Another case in point: What about Toyota's cover-up of it's (literally) deadly mechanical problems (sticking gas petals)???

Do you actually think that there is no crime here?

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 08:02

Don't think so, huh? I've given a few examples of my own experiences. Another case in point: What about Toyota's cover-up of it's (literally) deadly mechanical problems (sticking gas petals)???

Do you actually think that there is no crime here?

Of course there is a crime: fraud is and should be illegal. However, if I knock a vase over in a store, and try to cover it up by sweeping it under a rug or something, does that prove I'm part of an organized crime racket? Or that I'm just trying to look after my ass.

(Seems to me that the 851 Million dollar budget of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration didn't do much to prevent this... wheres the outcry of injustice at this?)

Klaatu

25th March 2010, 02:27

Of course there is a crime: fraud is and should be illegal. However, if I knock a vase over in a store, and try to cover it up by sweeping it under a rug or something, does that prove I'm part of an organized crime racket? Or that I'm just trying to look after my ass.

I'm not saying they are part of a racket. I am saying that they are criminals, and there
was collusion (an organized effort) to hide a seriously defective product. Capitalist tobacco
companies were another case in point of such criminality, before their lies were exposed.

We don't see government manufacturing deadly tobacco, do we?

(Seems to me that the 851 Million dollar budget of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration didn't do much to prevent this... wheres the outcry of injustice at this?)

It wasn't their fault if Toyota had covered up the evidence.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 00:21

I'm not saying they are part of a racket. I am saying that they are criminals, and there
was collusion (an organized effort) to hide a seriously defective product. Capitalist tobacco
companies were another case in point of such criminality, before their lies were exposed.

We don't see government manufacturing deadly tobacco, do we?

I'm not disagreeing that they took part in criminal activities. Most people were aware of the harmful effects of tobacco by the early 20th century.

Everything is deadly, every bit of food you digest, every breath you take, they all contribute to your ultimate death. Why should someone decide for anyone else what they can and cannot put in their body.

It wasn't their fault if Toyota had covered up the evidence.

According to you all capitalist car manufacturers would be hiding things like these in order to cut costs. So whats the point of this 851 million dollars if ultimately everything will be hidden anyway? Or is there perhaps something other than government regulation that is making companies make safer and safer cars (in general)...?

Klaatu

26th March 2010, 02:47

I'm not disagreeing that they took part in criminal activities. Most people were aware of the harmful effects of tobacco by the early 20th century.

So what if we "let the market run free?" That is, NO government regulation. What could we expect from our capitalist friends? Would they do the right thing, and regulate themselves? Would they stop selling us nefarious products?

According to you all capitalist car manufacturers would be hiding things like these in order to cut costs. So whats the point of this 851 million dollars if ultimately everything will be hidden anyway?
Well they can't hide from the long arm of the law forever, can they?

Or is there perhaps something other than government regulation that is making companies make safer and safer cars (in general)...?

And what might that be? Capitalist honesty? :lol: :rolleyes: :laugh:

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 02:58

So what if we "let the market run free?" That is, NO government regulation. What could we expect from our capitalist friends? Would they do the right thing, and regulate themselves? Would they stop selling us nefarious products?

Markets regulate themselves. IF theres an airline where every other plane crashes no one is going to ride that airline and it will go out of business. IF every other car Toyota manufactured had a brake failure people would stop buying that car pretty fast. If people want to smoke, let them smoke. Its their life, their choices NOT yours. Who decides what the right thing is? I hope you don't, you seem to be advocating totalitarianism every opportunity you get

Well they can't hide from the long arm of the law forever, can they?

You can't even hide from the long-arm of the market for even a short time.

And what might that be? Capitalist honesty? :lol: :rolleyes: :laugh:

No. Its called the market. Capitalists are people too. They aren't monsters. I know envy is, and that seems to manifest itself pretty blatantly in most people on these forums.

Klaatu

26th March 2010, 03:37

Markets regulate themselves. IF theres an airline where every other plane crashes no one is going to ride that airline and it will go out of business. IF every other car Toyota manufactured had a brake failure people would stop buying that car pretty fast.
That is not what happens. People continue to buy them because they
know that Toyota will be forced to fix the problem. If they weren't forced,
would they fix the problem??? Apparently not. (They covered it up!!!)

Who decides what the right thing is? I hope you don't, you seem to be advocating totalitarianism every opportunity you get
Wrong Again! You advocate capitalistic totalitarianism (For example
what are we discussing here about Toyota?)

You can't even hide from the long-arm of the market for even a short time.

What the hell does that mean - never mind (I am getting a headache here
having to explain the facts of life to an extremely naive libertarian)

No. Its called the market. Capitalists are people too. They aren't monsters. I know envy is, and that seems to manifest itself pretty blatantly in most people on these forums.
The present recession, and all of the bankruptcies, foreclosures, joblessness, etc: a gift-wrapped present from "the market."

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 04:28

That is not what happens. People continue to buy them because they
know that Toyota will be forced to fix the problem. If they weren't forced,
would they fix the problem??? Apparently not. (They covered it up!!!)

Not in a free-market. Goddamn. Not in a free fucking market. IF I know a vehicle has shitty brakes, I'm not going to buy that vehicle. Period

Wrong Again! You advocate capitalistic totalitarianism (For example
what are we discussing here about Toyota?)

Define taht term. If you mean capitalists speculate on consumer demand and invest in it, than I'm all for "capitalistic totalitarianism".

What the hell does that mean - never mind (I am getting a headache here
having to explain the facts of life to an extremely naive libertarian)

WHat it means is, if I'm Subaru and Toyota starts killing people I'm going to go, right away, buy Subaru, our brakes actually work. And people will do it and the management that allowed this problem in Toyota will be replaced or they will go out of business.

The present recession, and all of the bankruptcies, foreclosures, joblessness, etc: a gift-wrapped present from "the market."

No. Thats from your government.

Klaatu

26th March 2010, 06:52

Not in a free-market. Goddamn. Not in a free fucking market. IF I know a vehicle has shitty brakes, I'm not going to buy that vehicle. Period
Look at it this way: the government is actually SAVING Toyota from it's own folly, by forcing it to fix it's problems.
Or would you rather see a thriving capitalist company go out of business? If people won't buy the cars, the business
fails. Do you really think this is good for the economy? For your capitalism? You should be thanking the government
for saving Toyota, not to mention human lives!

Define taht term. If you mean capitalists speculate on consumer demand and invest in it, than I'm all for "capitalistic totalitarianism".
"Capitalistic totalitarianism" is where we are forced into dangerous cars and cajoled into unhealthy eating, drinking, and smoking habits.

WHat it means is, if I'm Subaru and Toyota starts killing people I'm going to go, right away, buy Subaru, our brakes actually work. And people will do it and the management that allowed this problem in Toyota will be replaced or they will go out of business.
Again, isn't Toyota "too big to fail?" What happens to national employment when a huge corporation fails? Did you ever think of that?

No. Thats from your government.
That's right! Bush deregulated the banks and stock markets, and they promply made bad investments and speculated
the price of gasoline up to $4.50/gallon in summer 2008. A present from the government to the capitalist, who wasted
no time ripping off the common man. Do you enjoy being stolen from, Mr Down? (unless of course, it is YOU doing the stealing)

Bob George

26th March 2010, 07:54

I think economics is the study of human behaviour more than anything. Some economic system try to influence human behaviour through economics (e.g. equal distribution of wealth to restrain human's hierarchal and competitive nature). Other economic systems aim rather to take advantage of human behaviour (e.g. if greed is in the nature of human behaviour, then the best economic practice to take advantage of that is a system where one must pay others to produce the goods and/or services that satisfy their greed).

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 17:07

Look at it this way: the government is actually SAVING Toyota from it's own folly, by forcing it to fix it's problems.
Or would you rather see a thriving capitalist company go out of business? If people won't buy the cars, the business
fails. Do you really think this is good for the economy? For your capitalism? You should be thanking the government
for saving Toyota, not to mention human lives!

Okay, so you're hampering the market process. Now these shitty managers that made this huge mistake are awarded instead of punished. I would see this company go out of business if this mistake is large enough to merit it. Even with these brake failures though, people aren't gonna stop buying Toyota, just that car. This will lower their profits and they will learn. I'm not going to thank the government for stagnating the economy. In fact, by your logic, the government should've helped out the horse-and-buggy industry through any means necessary so that they wouldn't go out of business trying to compete with cars. Would you please think for once?

"Capitalistic totalitarianism" is where we are forced into dangerous cars and cajoled into unhealthy eating, drinking, and smoking habits.

No one forces you to buy cars, especially not dangerous ones, and if you're dumb enough to go to McDonalds and think you're eating a salad then maybe its better if you're not on Earth long enough to make more harmful mistakes?

Again, isn't Toyota "too big to fail?" What happens to national employment when a huge corporation fails? Did you ever think of that?

There is no such thing as too big to fail, and the fact that you bring that term up only proves my point that this is not a free-market.

Its not like suddenly all that capital is unusable, in the process of going out of business Toyota will sell their factories and the most that would happen is a few workers getting laid off. Companies going out of business and successful companies taking them over is part of the market. I don't want to live in a world where everything we have today is what we're going to have tomorrow just because a few people get unemployed in the natural process of progress. Again, follow your own logic: the horse-and-buggy industry was huge, cars were out competing it, we have to save those employees from losing their job so we bail out the horse-and-buggy industry even though it is no longer meeting consumer demand. Does that seem smart to you?

That's right! Bush deregulated the banks and stock markets, and they promply made bad investments and speculated
the price of gasoline up to $4.50/gallon in summer 2008. A present from the government to the capitalist, who wasted
no time ripping off the common man. Do you enjoy being stolen from, Mr Down? (unless of course, it is YOU doing the stealing)

What did Bush de-regulate? Name it.

Klaatu

27th March 2010, 06:40

This will lower their profits and they will learn. I'm not going to thank the government for stagnating the economy.

Saving lives stagnates the economy. Rich.

In fact, by your logic, the government should've helped out the horse-and-buggy industry through any means necessary so that they wouldn't go out of business trying to compete with cars.
Non-Sequitur

Klaatu

27th March 2010, 06:55

What did Bush de-regulate? Name it.

He allowed banks to charge up to 30% interest on late payments on credit cards, which applies until borrower can "prove" to the bank that he can make on-time payments (do you have a credit card?) plus $39 late fee if one hour late past due. (even loan sharks are not his demanding)

There were many regulations on stocks rescinded (I'm not a finance expert)
which allowed a lot of bad judgments to be made. (You will have to research
this yourself, as I am no expert - I've only heard the experts on the news)

Bottom line is that: Bush fucked up royal, letting the lion out of the cage, so to speak.

The so called "free-market" is kind to no one (except the smart sly ones) the rest of us be damned

Klaatu

27th March 2010, 07:05

No one forces you to buy cars, especially not dangerous ones, and if you're dumb enough to go to McDonalds and think you're eating a salad then maybe its better if you're not on Earth long enough to make more harmful mistakes?

Do you have kids? If so, what do you feed them? Sugar cereal?
Hot dogs? Greasy cheeseburgers - as advertized on TV? The point is, your
kids (although I don't think you are smart enough to attract a woman, in
order to reproduce, anyway) see this garbage on TV, and demand to eat
this "food" - or should we just turn off the TV itself? Try it. Won't work,
because they can see the same capitalist crap at their friends' house TV.

The point is that, your "free market" makes kids fat, sexy, and stupid.

Think about that, you UNAMERICAN capitalist.

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 01:02

Saving lives stagnates the economy. Rich.

Propping up inefficient companies or ones with bad practices stagnates the economy.

Non-Sequitur

It isn't non-sequitur at all. You think that its a good thing when the government steps in and prevents a company from going out of business because it prevents unemployment. What if the United States government had taken this stance when automobiles began taking the marketshare from the horse-and-buggy industry? Well, people would start losing their job as the horse-and-buggy industry had lower and lower profits. Since this is the worst of all evils for you, the government would be justified in taking tax dollars and using them to prop up companies (like the horse-and-buggy industry) so that people don't have to find employment that is actually meeting consumer demand.

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 01:07

He allowed banks to charge up to 30% interest on late payments on credit cards, which applies until borrower can "prove" to the bank that he can make on-time payments (do you have a credit card?) plus $39 late fee if one hour late past due. (even loan sharks are not his demanding)

So he de-regulated by not intervening. Or was this previously outlawed? What was repealed. Not intervening =\= deregulating.

There were many regulations on stocks rescinded (I'm not a finance expert)
which allowed a lot of bad judgments to be made. (You will have to research
this yourself, as I am no expert - I've only heard the experts on the news)

So, you're not a financial expert, you know none of the the things that were supposedly deregulated, you refuse to do research to back up your claims, and you still think you're right because some talking-head on CNN said the word de-regulation? Even if someone did say this, who says they were right? Do you just trust what this one anchor or guest says? I'm not going to deny bad judgements were made, but they are the result of government interferences not free market initiatives.

Bottom line is that: Bush fucked up royal, letting the lion out of the cage, so to speak.

The so called "free-market" is kind to no one (except the smart sly ones) the rest of us be damned

You say Bush fucked up, yet you can't name why other than vague terms that are essentially meaningless, you refuse to do research to actually find out what happened, and you just blame the free-market because thats what everybody does whenever the government fucks up? The freemarket is always blamed for government failures and it has led to some of the worst policies in history (See: The New Deal that prolonged the Great Depression for almost a decade).

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 01:10

Do you have kids? If so, what do you feed them? Sugar cereal?
Hot dogs? Greasy cheeseburgers - as advertized on TV? The point is, your
kids (although I don't think you are smart enough to attract a woman, in
order to reproduce, anyway) see this garbage on TV, and demand to eat
this "food" - or should we just turn off the TV itself? Try it. Won't work,
because they can see the same capitalist crap at their friends' house TV.

The point is that, your "free market" makes kids fat, sexy, and stupid.

Think about that, you UNAMERICAN capitalist.

I don't have kids, but I'm guessing either you do, or feel yourself informed enough to make up conclusions about what child rearing is like. Just a tip: kids don't run the show, parents do. Parents are supposed to tell kids what to do because kids aren't mature enough to make these decisions for themselves; if they were there would be no need for parents. Your job as a parent is to say "Yes I know you want to become obese, but no, sorry eat this baby-carrot" its not to appease your children at every possible turn.

The free market is not capable of such a thing, the free-market is merely individuals exchanging goods and services in the hopes of improving their own standing. The free-market has no will, it only has rules and laws that govern it. No one is being forced to do anything, and as soon as you understand this I think you'll start seeing the flaw in your reasoning.

Klaatu

1st April 2010, 23:47

So he de-regulated by not intervening. Or was this previously outlawed? What was repealed. Not intervening =\= deregulating.
Every state has usury laws limiting interest rates (look it up) Bush overruled these. Ask yourself: "Is this Constitutional?"

So, you're not a financial expert, you know none of the the things that were supposedly deregulated, you refuse to do research to back up your claims, and you still think you're right because some talking-head on CNN said the word de-regulation? Even if someone did say this, who says they were right? Do you just trust what this one anchor or guest says? I'm not going to deny bad judgements were made, but they are the result of government interferences not free market initiatives.
"some talking-head on CNN???" Tune in to ANY station (except Fox) ANY
news organization, ANY expert (except those on Fox) then watch-and-learn.

You say Bush fucked up, yet you can't name why other than vague terms that are essentially meaningless, you refuse to do research to actually find out what happened, and you just blame the free-market because thats what everybody does whenever the government fucks up? The freemarket is always blamed for government failures and it has led to some of the worst policies in history (See: The New Deal that prolonged the Great Depression for almost a decade).

"The freemarket is always blamed for government failures..." BLAH BLAH BLAH

I can state conversely and truthfully that the free market failures are blamed on government.

You do NOT seem to know very much about early-20th century economic history, do you.
The unbridled free market was a major factor in precipitating the depression. (Governments
played a part too, in their tariff wars, demanded by private industry!)

But the government policies DID NOT "prolong" the depression. What PROLONGED it was
conservatives' demand for a balanced federal budget (I think in 1937 or so) If Roosevelt had
been able to continue full-steam with his SOCIAL policies, the depression would have ended
sooner. And he wisely ended the gold standard (domestic) so that the currency could stabilize.

I really don't think you have a balanced view on this, nor have you much knowledge of history.
Why not put down your sacred Bible according to Mises and take some more classes.
Start with political science 101...

Klaatu

1st April 2010, 23:55

Propping up inefficient companies or ones with bad practices stagnates the economy.

So you agree with the current idea that some industries are too big to fail?
That is, we either (a) let them fail, whence the economy crashes, or (b)
prop them up with taxpayer funding, or (c) nationalize them outright

Oh, and doing nothing is not an option. That is unless you wish to see
your beloved capitalist ideals come crashing to the ground for good,
because when the financial system goes down, so does capitalism,
(but you already knew that, right?)

BTW I choose option "c"

Klaatu

2nd April 2010, 00:02

I don't have kids, but I'm guessing either you do, or feel yourself informed enough to make up conclusions about what child rearing is like. Just a tip: kids don't run the show, parents do. Parents are supposed to tell kids what to do because kids aren't mature enough to make these decisions for themselves; if they were there would be no need for parents. Your job as a parent is to say "Yes I know you want to become obese, but no, sorry eat this baby-carrot" its not to appease your children at every possible turn.

The free market is not capable of such a thing, the free-market is merely individuals exchanging goods and services in the hopes of improving their own standing. The free-market has no will, it only has rules and laws that govern it. No one is being forced to do anything, and as soon as you understand this I think you'll start seeing the flaw in your reasoning.
I will ask you a question here. Do you think tobacco should be advertized
on Saturday morning childrens' viewing times? How about alcohol? porn?

Even having no kids, you would find this to be a bad thing, yes?

But then, being a Libertarian Free-Market-Malefactor, you are OK with this, I would surmise.

Skooma Addict

2nd April 2010, 00:32

Klaatu

2nd April 2010, 00:40

Do you think people would ever have such advertisements on childrens shows? Would the network allow it?

I remember viewing cigarette ads on tv when I was a kid. I don't recall if
they were on Saturday morning, but they were on late weekday afternoons,
when kids watch most tv.

Incidentially, tv tobacco advertising was banned in the US in 1971.

LeftSideDown

4th April 2010, 04:23

Every state has usury laws limiting interest rates (look it up) Bush overruled these. Ask yourself: "Is this Constitutional?"

I don't remember anywhere in the Constitution where they talk about interest rate regulating, but if you can point me to the section you're referring to I'll gladly question its "constitutionality".

I guess point me to your source for your first statement, I don't know what you're talking about, its never something I've read but I'll be happy to learn about it.

"some talking-head on CNN???" Tune in to ANY station (except Fox) ANY
news organization, ANY expert (except those on Fox) then watch-and-learn.

If this is the case, find me a story or article or something. Surely, if its as widely proclaimed as you say, it should be pretty easy to find something that bush de-regulated.

"The freemarket is always blamed for government failures..." BLAH BLAH BLAH

I can state conversely and truthfully that the free market failures are blamed on government.

Where? I can't think of a single depression/recession in this century that hasn't been blamed as a "market failure". But please, any sources you have on this would be appreciated; say-so only goes so far.

You do NOT seem to know very much about early-20th century economic history, do you.
The unbridled free market was a major factor in precipitating the depression. (Governments
played a part too, in their tariff wars, demanded by private industry!)

Oh, I know quite a bit about it. Tell me, have you ever heard of the Great Depression of 1920-21? Government did nothing, absolutely nothing. Sorry! I'm wrong actually. Warren G. Harding shrunk the size of the government, lowered taxes, and payed back the deficit and the worst depression that the 19th century the nation had faced that far was basically gone in 6months. Although I don't think "tariff wars" really played all that big a part in the Great Depression (although a lot of it was supported by farmers), it is the Government that ultimately intervened. If a child is begging to eat only cake for dinner for a year, and the parent gives in and lets the child do it, who is to blame for the child obesity? Ultimately its the government is responsible, not the companies for trying to improve their competitiveness.

But the government policies DID NOT "prolong" the depression. What PROLONGED it was
conservatives' demand for a balanced federal budget (I think in 1937 or so) If Roosevelt had
been able to continue full-steam with his SOCIAL policies, the depression would have ended
sooner. And he wisely ended the gold standard (domestic) so that the currency could stabilize.

Japan hasn't had a balanced budget in over two decades and it is still suffering from the "lost decade". Japan pulled every Keynesian maneuver in the book, spent tons of money on public works projects, and its still technically in a recession. America did the same thing on a smaller scale, and the depression lasted until we could ship the unemployment problem over seas and more than likely to it's death.

How much do you know about history? The gold standard ended with Nixon.

I really don't think you have a balanced view on this, nor have you much knowledge of history.
Why not put down your sacred Bible according to Mises and take some more classes.
Start with political science 101...

I'm taking a 400 level Political theory class centering specifically around America... so yeah. Aren't we all biased anyway, because we view our bias as correct? Well, at least subjectively we're all biased. But please, if you think that the Gold Standard ended with Roosevelt perhaps you should read a history book?

LeftSideDown

4th April 2010, 04:29

So you agree with the current idea that some industries are too big to fail?
That is, we either (a) let them fail, whence the economy crashes, or (b)
prop them up with taxpayer funding, or (c) nationalize them outright

Oh, and doing nothing is not an option. That is unless you wish to see
your beloved capitalist ideals come crashing to the ground for good,
because when the financial system goes down, so does capitalism,
(but you already knew that, right?)

BTW I choose option "c"

How did I imply that? If you read any of my previous posts I said that the idea of "too big to fail" is ludicrous.
a) Let them fail and let the economy adjust so its actually meeting consumer demand? Thats whats preferable over any of these, I'd rather we'd not be in the situation where the government has interfered so much that the crash we'd face in this option is so terrible that even I would rather avoid it, but alas...

b) Why don't we prop up every company that could possibly fail? This whole idea of "propping up a company" is silly and tends us towards stagnation.

c) Yes, lets nationalize them and become like Russia and all the rest of Eastern Europe. Or maybe we could become like National Socialist Germany or Fascist italy. I guess you think those systems were pretty great, hunh?

LeftSideDown

4th April 2010, 04:35

I will ask you a question here. Do you think tobacco should be advertized
on Saturday morning childrens' viewing times? How about alcohol? porn?

Even having no kids, you would find this to be a bad thing, yes?

But then, being a Libertarian Free-Market-Malefactor, you are OK with this, I would surmise.

Do I think it should be? Not necessarily. Do I think it should be legally outlawed? Of course not. The thing is, a lot of parents aren't irresponsible numb-nuts (although there are quite a few) and would not let their children (at least under their supervision) watch these shows if they displayed things they saw as harmful. If they were advertised parents would either petition the company or stop supporting it. Anyway, children who watch cartoons generally don't have the funds to buy either cigarettes or porn, and they'd need an ID in both cases. Why would these companies waste advertising money on people that couldn't even buy the stuff? Its silly. By your same logic pornography, cigarettes, any tobacco, alcohol, should just be outlawed because you happen to consider them lewd. I mean, why should society have these things at all?. Perhaps we should outlaw the internet, because it propagates this material and children could conceivably watch it.

Libertarianism is NOT a moral philosophy, it is one that prescribes how law should be: it takes no moral stance on prostitution, drugs, alcohol, or religion or anything like these; it only says they should not be outlawed.

To clarify: I would not want my children watching this, and would not let them do it if the channel advertised them, but this situation is unlikely to occur, and if it did there would probably be companies that blocked these advertisements (think parental-control programs on the internet). But I would not want to see them outlawed because it makes my job as parent easier.

Klaatu

6th April 2010, 02:43

I don't remember anywhere in the Constitution where they talk about interest rate regulating...

Again, you miss the point. I meant that it was unconstitutional for Bush to overrule states' rights (violates 10th amendment)

There is nothing in the Constitution allowing traffic lights, speed limits, or drunk driving.
Does this make traffic laws unconstitutional?

Where? I can't think of a single depression/recession in this century that hasn't been blamed as a "market failure".
But please, any sources you have on this would be appreciated; say-so only goes so far.

Why do you suppose this is??? And you "need sources" to "prove" this??? You need sources to prove
that these were market failures? The onus is on you to prove otherwise, since it was you who made
the original claim of "government failure is blamed on the market").

See I don't have to disprove YOUR claim; you must prove your own claim. That is how it works, Einstein.
And your "say-so only goes so far."

Ultimately its the government is responsible, not the companies for trying to improve their competitiveness.

The government was responsible for the Great Depression only in their failure to regulate the wild stock market.
Or has this fact been omitted from your Mises Bible?

How much do you know about history? The gold standard ended with Nixon.

But please, if you think that the Gold Standard ended with Roosevelt perhaps you should read a history book?

Reread my post: I explicitly stated: "domestic" gold standard. (which ended under Roosevelt).
The "international" gold standard ended under Nixon. I knew of that fact in 1971, when it happened.
Where were you in 1971? Still in diapers?

How did I imply that? If you read any of my previous posts I said that the idea of "too big to fail" is ludicrous.

a) Let them fail and let the economy adjust so its actually meeting consumer demand? Thats whats preferable
over any of these, I'd rather we'd not be in the situation where the government has interfered so much that the
crash we'd face in this option is so terrible that even I would rather avoid it, but alas...

Explain just how "governmental interference" has caused these companies to grow so large. (I thought
such interference "stifled" growth? You seem to contradict yourself here.

b) Why don't we prop up every company that could possibly fail? This whole idea of "propping up a company"
is silly and tends us towards stagnation.

So if Bush had not "propped up" the banks and Wall Street? This would have NOT led to stagnation?
Sorry but 99.99% of "capitalistic" economists will disagree with you on this point.

c) Yes, lets nationalize them and become like Russia and all the rest of Eastern Europe. Or maybe we could become
like National Socialist Germany or Fascist italy. I guess you think those systems were pretty great, hunh?

(A) so how and why would a citizen-owned factory, bank, roads, etc lead the U.S to "become like Russia" etc...
That is 100% pure conjecture on your part.
(B) No I do not think the Soviet, Nazi nor Fascio di Combattimento, were "pretty great." These were not even
socialist. These were counterfeit socialist dictatorships. Stalin, Hitler, etc were out for one thing: power.
This is the antithesis of socialism ("for the people") If you are in political science, you should know this, faker.

Do I think it should be? Not necessarily. Do I think it should be legally outlawed? Of course not. The thing is, a
lot of parents aren't irresponsible numb-nuts (although there are quite a few) and would not let their children
(at least under their supervision) watch these shows if they displayed things they saw as harmful. If they were
advertised parents would either petition the company or stop supporting it.

Why would these companies waste advertising money on people that couldn't even buy the stuff? Its silly.

But they do show this stuff. My nieces get emails from these capitalist XXX sites. So you think a email spammer
is going to listen to a letter-to-the-editor, protesting porn ads sent to their kids. You live in a dream world.

Anyway, children who watch cartoons
generally don't have the funds to buy either cigarettes or porn, and they'd need an ID in both cases.

Oh please...

By your same logic pornography, cigarettes, any tobacco, alcohol, should just be outlawed because you
happen to consider them lewd. I mean, why should society have these things at all?.

Show me where I have stated that these things, by themselves, should be outlawed. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Perhaps we should outlaw the internet, because it propagates this material and children could conceivably watch it.

It might be a good idea to outlaw YOU and your brain-dead ideas from being posted on public forums.

Libertarianism is NOT a moral philosophy, it is one that prescribes how law should be: it takes no moral stance
on prostitution, drugs, alcohol, or religion or anything like these; it only says they should not be outlawed.

ummm... Saying that "they should not be outlawed" IS taking a moral stance. Talk about circular reasoning...

To clarify: I would not want my children watching this, and would not let them do it if the channel advertised them,
but this situation is unlikely to occur, and if it did there would probably be companies that blocked these
advertisements (think parental-control programs on the internet). But I would not want to see them outlawed
because it makes my job as parent easier.

So... you like to make things hard for yourself.

You have an answer for everything, don't you. Too bad that you continue to trip over your own words.

LeftSideDown

6th April 2010, 06:10

Again, you miss the point. I meant that it was unconstitutional for Bush to overrule states' rights (violates 10th amendment)

Bush isn't the first president nor will he be the last to overrule the constitution. Is your point that the executive/legislative abuse their power even in spite of a system of checks and balances that was supposed to limit this? Yes, of course they do. All governments tend towards corruption, I don't think there is an example in history of a government that didn't or at least one that lasted longer than one ruler. I would love to have the 10th amendment and, in fact, the Constitution enforced in the way it was meant to, because if it was/had been the government never would've reached the size it had. Anyway, I'll extrapolate in the next statement.

There is nothing in the Constitution allowing traffic lights, speed limits, or drunk driving.
Does this make traffic laws unconstitutional?

That depends on how you interpret the Constitution. All of these things are justified under something called the "Interstate Commerce Clause". Most things the Federal government does is under the protection of this clause and it has basically given the federal government free reign over anything. There was a case where the interstate commerce clause was used to force a farmer to change the crops he was growing even though he did little to no trading and any trading he did was local. Their justification? By not trading across state boundaries he was affecting interstate commerce. Everything affects interstate commerce if you look at it that way, and I don't agree with that way. But if you'd like to see the government to go back to the limits bounded in the constitution I'm with you 100% of the way, brother.

Why do you suppose this is??? And you "need sources" to "prove" this??? You need sources to prove
that these were market failures? The onus is on you to prove otherwise, since it was you who made
the original claim of "government failure is blamed on the market").

It doesn't matter why I suppose it is. Your statement of asking why only proves that it is a wide spread belief that all recessions/depressions are market failures when very few of them are (the exception being great bounds in technology that advance faster than the market can correct, but that rate of progressive technology improvement only lasts so long and once it is over the market adjusts). I don't need sources on why its caused by the free-market (which they aren't), I need sources where people outside Ron Paul blame the government for any of the recessions in the past 100 years. My whole point is to prove it isn't a market failure, yours is to prove it is. I believe I've provided sources explaining why, but all you can say is that it was some magical regulation that was preventing all-hell-from-breaking-loose that Bush repealed. I can't attack this point until you at least provide this regulation, and if you can't, aren't you blindly listening to people who may know no more than you?

See I don't have to disprove YOUR claim; you must prove your own claim. That is how it works, Einstein.
And your "say-so only goes so far."

You said bush de-regulated, I asked what. You said "Experts said he did, so he did" it shouldn't be hard to find a source for this deregulation, so why can't you provide it? My whole point is to prove it wasn't the free-market but I can't change your mind unless I prove it wasn't de-regulation. I don't know what regulation you're talking about so I can't attack it. SO please, what was repealed? The whole "I'm not an expert, but I heard experts" isn't a valid argument. Find facts, or I'll just using that defense for everything and this will devolve quickly.

The government was responsible for the Great Depression only in their failure to regulate the wild stock market.
Or has this fact been omitted from your Mises Bible?

"The severity of the Wall Street crash, he argued, was not due to unrestrained license of a freebooting capitalist system, but to government insistence on keeping the boom going artificially by pumping in inflationary credit. The slide in stocks continued, and the real economy went into freefall, not because government interfered too little, but because it interfered too much. Rothbard was the first to make the point, in this context, that the spirit of the times in the 1920's, and still more so in the 1930's, was for government to plan, to meddle, to order, and to exhort. It was a hangover from the First World War, and President Hoover, who had risen to worldwide prominence in the war by managing relief schemes, and had then held high economic office throughout the twenties before moving into the White House itself in 1929, was a born planner, meddler, orderer, and exhorter."

If its a fact, it should be fairly easy to prove.

Reread my post: I explicitly stated: "domestic" gold standard. (which ended under Roosevelt).
The "international" gold standard ended under Nixon. I knew of that fact in 1971, when it happened.
Where were you in 1971? Still in diapers?

Oh, my mistake. I was not alive in 1971.

Explain just how "governmental interference" has caused these companies to grow so large. (I thought
such interference "stifled" growth? You seem to contradict yourself here.

You confuse growth of business size to growth of an economy, but I will explain anyway.
1) Taxation, especially progressive, is one way big businesses are protected. Newer businesses need more of their profits in order to reinvest in themselves and grow. If profits are taxed away new companies have a harder time growing while older companies that are already establish don't need to grow, they can pay the tax without virtually any cost to their competitiveness.
2) Taxes, paperwork, regulations, forcing companies to provide healthcare all dis-proportionally affect smaller businesses, inhibiting growth or even driving them out of business.

The contradiction is only seeming, and not actual.

So if Bush had not "propped up" the banks and Wall Street? This would have NOT led to stagnation?
Sorry but 99.99% of "capitalistic" economists will disagree with you on this point.

Definition of Stagnation: a state of inactivity (in business or art etc
or
cease to flow; stand without moving
or
idle: be idle; exist in a changeless situation

What changed when Bush propped up those banks? Its the very definition of stagnation.

(A) so how and why would a citizen-owned factory, bank, roads, etc lead the U.S to "become like Russia" etc...
That is 100% pure conjecture on your part.
(B) No I do not think the Soviet, Nazi nor Fascio di Combattimento, were "pretty great." These were not even
socialist. These were counterfeit socialist dictatorships. Stalin, Hitler, etc were out for one thing: power.
This is the antithesis of socialism ("for the people") If you are in political science, you should know this, faker.

A) How did a "great" idea like Communism get perverted by the Bolshevists and Lenin? Power corrupts and ideals are just that... ideals.
B) They were Socialist. There were no private means of production. Any seeming ones were just that, seeming, they were directed by the State. You don't think Bolshevists and Lenin thought they were acting in the interest of the people? Surely they're ideas were noble.

But they do show this stuff. My nieces get emails from these capitalist XXX sites. So you think a email spammer
is going to listen to a letter-to-the-editor, protesting porn ads sent to their kids. You live in a dream world.

So even with all these regulations costing billions of dollars to enforce somebody else's sense of morality these things still pop up? Thats not even my point. It is unenforceable, but its also wrong to force your morals down someone elses throat. And, I didn't say the internet, but, if you, as a parent, don't want them seeing this stuff ban them from the internet, make them use an email blocker, get a censor program for your kids. If a parent doesn't care about introducing their dependents to material that they'll have to deal with at some point in their life, why should some Christian tell them that is illegal because its a sin/vice?

Oh please...

Show me where I have stated that these things, by themselves, should be outlawed. Stop putting words in my mouth.

If you don't consider them lewd/inappropriate why are we having this discussion at all? If something is lewd/inappropriate why should it exist?

It might be a good idea to outlaw YOU and your brain-dead ideas from being posted on public forums.

I'm only taking your ideas to their logical extreme, reductio ad absurdum , and all that.

ummm... Saying that "they should not be outlawed" IS taking a moral stance. Talk about circular reasoning...

No, its taking a neutral stance. They shouldn't be outlawed or regulated. They should be left up to the individual. I know the "should" through you through a loop, but saying we "shouldn't" get involved in a war doesn't mean you're for or against either, you're neutral.

So... you like to make things hard for yourself.

If it means not having a paternalist government, of course I do. Do you want the government to make everything easy for you? I could take this argument to its logical extreme, but I think you see where it will go.

Klaatu

7th April 2010, 03:24

That depends on how you interpret the Constitution.

Yes it does. And it HAS been interpreted. Your problem is that you don't agree with it. Too bad. Can't please everyone, can we?

I don't need sources on why its caused by the free-market (which they aren't),

Oh and why not? Because you're right and the world is wrong?

My whole point is to prove it isn't a market failure, yours is to prove it is.

No it isn't. You made the claim, you provide the proof!!!

You said bush de-regulated, I asked what.

Bush AND Congress, excuse me...

Hey Congress: "Put a Cap on those Interest Rates, Now!"
by William Hughes
(Friday, April 22, 2005)
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/14409/

Rothbard was the first to make the point,

One man's opinion.

You confuse growth of business size to growth of an economy, but I will explain anyway.
1) Taxation, especially progressive, is one way big businesses are protected. Newer businesses need more of their profits in order to reinvest in themselves and grow. If profits are taxed away new companies have a harder time growing while older companies that are already establish don't need to grow, they can pay the tax without virtually any cost to their competitiveness.
2) Taxes, paperwork, regulations, forcing companies to provide healthcare all dis-proportionally affect smaller businesses, inhibiting growth or even driving them out of business.

The contradiction is only seeming, and not actual.

Part of the cost of doing business are regulations and taxes.
"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." (Benjamin Franklin)

Too bad. Capitalism is competitive, right? If you can't pay the tax, profits fall through the cracks.
Sucks, doesn't it. It's a jungle out there. But then you wanted capitalism, didn't you.

What changed when Bush propped up those banks? Its the very definition of stagnation.

The alternative?

A) How did a "great" idea like Communism get perverted by the Bolshevists and Lenin?
Power corrupts and ideals are just that... ideals.

Let me state the converse:
A) How did a "great" idea like Capitalism get perverted by the Banks and Wall Street?
Power corrupts and ideals are just that... ideals.

If a parent doesn't care about introducing their dependents to material that they'll have to deal with
at some point in their life, why should some Christian tell them that is illegal because its a sin/vice?

This is getting off topic. The point is not the porn itself. The point is the capitalist pig who peddles
this stuff to children. We never see the state doing this do we???

No, its taking a neutral stance. They shouldn't be outlawed or regulated. They should be left
up to the individual. I know the "should" through you through a loop, but saying we "shouldn't"
get involved in a war doesn't mean you're for or against either, you're neutral.

So then you are OK with a capitalist pedophile taking lewd pictures of your child and selling
the images online. And don't try to worm your way out of this one.

I see you fell into my trap. (Libertarians always do, because their reasoning is myopic and fatally flawed)

Do you want the government to make everything easy for you?

Actually yes. I like the fact that my government is catching terrorists, robbers, murders, rapists, etc.

But I suppose you would just "boycott" countries that sponsor terror? Or write a letter to the editor
condemning bank robbers? Or "form bands of like-minded people" to police the streets? Do you
even have time to do these things? Or would you rather pay a professional crime catcher (your
police department) to catch the kid who stole your car? sold your kids dope? Sold your kids?

That is the problem with libs: they have a fantasy view of "how the world ought to be."
I believe that all of them own at least one pair of rose-tinted glasses, which they wear while
pouring over the sacred works of their god, the Great Ludwig.

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 04:44

Yes it does. And it HAS been interpreted. Your problem is that you don't agree with it. Too bad. Can't please everyone, can we?

There isn't one official interpretation of the Constitution. To say it "has" been interpreted ignores all the interpretation going on everyday. There isn't one right answer, and to say there is infers a level of ignorance I find shocking

Oh and why not? Because you're right and the world is wrong?

I was referring to the sources I asked from you. I said I wasn't asking for sources regarding why the free-market "failed" (according to you), I was asking for sources (which you claim exist) where the government was blamed. I don't mean the sources I would read, but something mainstream that a lot of people (including you) would read that blames the government.

No it isn't. You made the claim, you provide the proof!!!

I have, in my mind, proven this. All I'm asking is for you to provide your proofs. You haven't provided any.

Bush AND Congress, excuse me...

Hey Congress: "Put a Cap on those Interest Rates, Now!"
by William Hughes
(Friday, April 22, 2005)
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/14409/

So, Bush/Congress passed a regulation on Consumer Bankruptcy. You love regulation. So whats the problem? He did not deregulate, he just regulated more, just not in the way you would want.

One man's opinion.

All you got out of that was a claim as to the originality of Rothbard's thought? Its almost irrelevant to the entire thing, and thats all you got out of it?

Part of the cost of doing business are regulations and taxes.
"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." (Benjamin Franklin)

So you concede that government regulations and taxes are interfering with the market process and making companies grow larger than they would? Honestly, your response is such an avoidance of my point it was almost effective. You asked how government made companies large, I explain, and then you blame capitalism for being too competitive? I don't mind capitalist competitiveness, I do mind government regulations and taxes favoring one group at the cost of another. You should be in favor of lowering taxes and removing regulation if you really aren't a fan of big business.

Too bad. Capitalism is competitive, right? If you can't pay the tax, profits fall through the cracks.
Sucks, doesn't it. It's a jungle out there. But then you wanted capitalism, didn't you.

Its not true Capitalism. Companies are getting favors from government so they don't have to compete. I would love a real competition, but companies don't actually want to compete; it is hard and a lot of the time companies that can't keep up go bankrupt. Their solution? They lobby for protections from new competitors. I want capitalism, but not what we have and they are not one in the same.

The alternative?

The inevitable pain that is the result of government interference, credit expansion, and harmfully low interest rates comes to fruition sooner and the United States starts down the long hard road of a real recovery based on a sound foundation and not a house of cards.

Let me state the converse:
A) How did a "great" idea like Capitalism get perverted by the Banks and Wall Street?
Power corrupts and ideals are just that... ideals.

Its not capitalism. You can't buy off a market system. You can buy off government. Thats how it got perverted; government interference, lobbied for or not.

This is getting off topic. The point is not the porn itself. The point is the capitalist pig who peddles
this stuff to children. We never see the state doing this do we???

Wait wait wait wait waiiiiit. If its not immoral or wrong, than why does it matter that anyone is peddling it to anyone. Why is it worse than a candy store selling candy (a potentially harmful substance if consumed in excess)? Anytime you try to regulate something like porn, prostitution, drug dealing, or anything like that you are essentially taking a moral stance against it. Why should one person's morals be forced upon anyone else? If your morality disagrees with these things, don't take part in them, watch your children and make sure they don't or persuade them to your morality. But why should someone who doesn't disagree with these things be forced underground? Why should viable sectors of the economy be cut off because of some pulpit?

So then you are OK with a capitalist pedophile taking lewd pictures of your child and selling
the images online. And don't try to worm your way out of this one.

I'm not going to worm myself out of this one. I am against it; I wouldn't allow it. But why should someone who doesn't find this immoral suddenly become an outlaw? This question is getting into a whole other issue of children's rights vs parent's ownership of so-called "rearing-rights", and I doubt we will agree on this. I'm even iffy on it, and might agree with banning such a thing, but let me ask you this: If a parent is too poor to feed his child, and some rich person comes up to him and says he'll give him one million dollars if he lets him take lewd pictures of his child, should it be illegal for the parent to take part in this transaction if the alternative IS that the child dies? I don't think so, and in general I wouldn't think it okay to sell picture's of your child's flesh in general, but it shouldn't be the duty of any coercive body to decide this for anyone.

I see you fell into my trap. (Libertarians always do, because their reasoning is myopic and fatally flawed)

Theres no trap. Being neutral doesn't mean endorsing one view or endorsing its opponent. There is no trap for people who actually understand what non-intervention is.

Actually yes. I like the fact that my government is catching terrorists, robbers, murders, rapists, etc.

Yes, I too enjoy security provided by the government, but I don't want it running any other facet of my life. It should only exist to protect the bodies and properties of individuals, and if restricted to this realm I would be perfectly okay with it.

Anyway, since obviously you didn't think through what having the government make "everything easy for you" leads to, let me illustrate. IF the government were to make everything easy you would make no decisions in your life, you would live on a strict schedule have all your meals (only things that are as healthy as possible) fed to you, be told when to exercise and for how long, be told where to work and for how long, and this would be your life. An even life is having someone else make decisions (especially moral ones) for you. Is that really what you want? Humans to be merely drones for some governing body to decide what is best for?

But I suppose you would just "boycott" countries that sponsor terror? Or write a letter to the editor
condemning bank robbers? Or "form bands of like-minded people" to police the streets? Do you
even have time to do these things? Or would you rather pay a professional crime catcher (your
police department) to catch the kid who stole your car? sold your kids dope? Sold your kids?

I do not mind retaliation in response to an attack. If you knew anything about libertarians they don't advocate just laying down when you get hit. They advocate hitting back. In fact the libertarian philosophy of punishment in law, as Walter Block puts it, is two teeth for a tooth + costs + scaring. Costs are legal fees and the like, scaring is the threat they may have done these things under. Do you agree that security is a marketable item (I.e. that it is desired and people would demand it)? If yes then there may be such a thing as a private defense agency, but I'm more of a minarchist.

I may find it wrong to sell dope, but I don't think it my right to impose this view on anyone else. It is a moral view, not a legal one. Selling human flesh is completely different and so is property theft. Drug dealing/selling/buying should be legal provided it is between consenting persons. Whether or not someone is of age to consent is a completely different matter. I don't think we here to get into this.

That is the problem with libs: they have a fantasy view of "how the world ought to be."
I believe that all of them own at least one pair of rose-tinted glasses, which they wear while
pouring over the sacred works of their god, the Great Ludwig.

Really? Our fantasy view is that humans are self interested and will give up a less satisfactory life for a more satisfactory life given the chance. That humans are, in general, rational and see the benefits of living in society peacefully as outweighing the costs of having to be constrained by the rights of others. Notice I said "in general" so any attack based on the fact that there are sociopaths and psychopaths can safely be ignored, as the vast majority of people do not aggress against others.

Isn't communism a much more fantastical view of how the world "ought to be". It even believes its coming to be inevitable, like christians believe in the inevitability of Christs return. I mean, all you have to do is read 10 pages of Fourier to realize how many misconceptions people have about communism.

"There will be anti-lions and anti-crocodiles, on whose back we shall be able to travel huge distances in no time, and the anti-hen who in six months would lay enough eggs to pay off the English national debt. An anti-beaver will see to the fishing, and an anti-whale will move sailing ships, an anti-hippopotamus will tow the riverboats. With no more than a few hours of daily work, men will be free to occupy themselves with play and developing their intellectual, moral, and artistic faculties to an extent hitherto unprecedented in history. But more, in this garden of delights men and women shall live 144 years, and of these 120 will be spent in the active exercise of love. This, then, is the vision of natural man, in the fulfillment, for the first time, of his new and unnatural powers."

Oh, but go on, you were saying libertarians see the world with rose-tinted glasses? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Klaatu

8th April 2010, 05:48

There isn't one official interpretation of the Constitution. To say it "has" been interpreted ignores all the interpretation going on everyday. There isn't one right answer, and to say there is infers a level of ignorance I find shocking

Three words: Supreme Court Decisions

I was asking for sources (which you claim exist) where the government was blamed.

I seems to have started under Reagan, and this sentiment has been growing exponentially ever since (heard of the "tea-party?")
The tea party is like a gross, pus-filled boil, ready to pop. But the anger is badly misdirected.

I have, in my mind, proven this.

:lol:

He did not deregulate, he just regulated more

Huh?

All you got out of that was a claim as to the originality of Rothbard's thought?

I digress. The gold standard was actually responsible for most of the economic collapse of the 1930s.
The stock market crash was actually only a spark, a trip-wire, so to speak.

You should be in favor of lowering taxes and removing regulation if you really aren't a fan of big business.

:confused:

Its not true Capitalism. Companies are getting favors from government so they don't have to compete. I would love a real competition, but companies don't actually want to compete; it is hard and a lot of the time companies that can't keep up go bankrupt. Their solution? They lobby for protections from new competitors. I want capitalism, but not what we have and they are not one in the same.

So you agree that the U.S. Corporate System is corrupt.

credit expansion, and harmfully low interest rates

"harmfully low interest rates???"

Its not capitalism. You can't buy off a market system. You can buy off government. Thats how it got perverted; government interference, lobbied for or not.

What makes YOUR capitalism any different than the capitalism that exists now?
Do you expect the "new capitalist" to be more honest than the "old capitalist?"

Anytime you try to regulate something like porn, prostitution, drug dealing, or anything like that you are essentially taking a moral stance against it. Why should one person's morals be forced upon anyone else?

I'm not going to worm myself out of this one. I am against it; I wouldn't allow it.

AHH - OOH - GA (Contradiction alert!)

Theres no trap. Being neutral doesn't mean endorsing one view or endorsing its opponent. There is no trap for people who actually understand what non-intervention is.

You take a position; that is a your moral. (A moral is a principle or opinion).

Yes, I too enjoy security provided by the government, but I don't want it running any other facet of my life. It should only exist to protect the bodies and properties of individuals, and if restricted to this realm I would be perfectly okay with it.

Anyway, since obviously you didn't think through what having the government make "everything easy for you" leads to, let me illustrate. IF the government were to make everything easy you would make no decisions in your life, you would live on a strict schedule have all your meals (only things that are as healthy as possible) fed to you, be told when to exercise and for how long, be told where to work and for how long, and this would be your life. An even life is having someone else make decisions (especially moral ones) for you. Is that really what you want? Humans to be merely drones for some governing body to decide what is best for?

Even the most totalitarian regimes on earth didn't interfere in citizens' lives to that extent!
Even Big Brother (1984) was not this watchful of his citizens! Talk about slippery slopes!
Can you provide evidence that the government will completely micro-manage our every
waking moment? Where is your proof?

There is something important which you do not know: Socialism is not about government at all (SURPRISE!)
Socialism is about PEOPLE. It is about common people owning everything; it is an end to
aristocratic rule and power brokers. You blame government, I blame private wealth. So what.
The common man should have control of their lives. HEY - isn't this just what the "founders" wanted?

I don't like BIG GOVERNMENT either - I just don't think that is THE major problem - I put blame on the
BIG CORPORATIONS for the failure of the system. And they are not going to go away any time soon.
And they are MUCH BIGGER and MORE POWERFUL than any governmental body in this country.

I truly fear The United Corporations of Amerika. They are the elephant in the room.

I do not mind retaliation in response to an attack. If you knew anything about libertarians they don't advocate just laying down when you get hit. They advocate hitting back.

I may find it wrong to sell dope, but I don't think it my right to impose this view on anyone else. It is a moral view, not a legal one. Selling human flesh is completely different and so is property theft. Drug dealing/selling/buying should be legal provided it is between consenting persons. Whether or not someone is of age to consent is a completely different matter. I don't think we here to get into this.

I don't see how your views and mine are all that different. You don't seem to like BIG POWER
any more than I do. So why don't you give (real) socialism a serious thought? But first, clear your
mind of any existing stereotypes which you have about it. Then do a careful study. You will
see that a citizen-owned factory is not such a bad idea after all. You should join us, not fight us.
Because socialism IS all about common men having control of their lives. Stop comparing it to Hitler already.
That is flat out WRONG. Your juxtaposition of nazis and soviets to bona-fide socialism shows how
uninformed you are, how uninformed Glenn Beck is, and how uninformed 99% of people are.

I feel like that guy in the film "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" who tries to warn the police about
the impending danger, but was ignored for too long. I am warning of a corporate takeover of the USA
and no one is listening (except the enlightented folks on this web site) But it may already be too late???

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 07:06

Three words: Supreme Court Decisions

Because those have never contradicted themselves or changed, right? Once made they are always final, right?

I seems to have started under Reagan, and this sentiment has been growing exponentially ever since (heard of the "tea-party?")
The tea party is like a gross, pus-filled boil, ready to pop. But the anger is badly misdirected.

Again, no source? And I've never heard anyone reporting that the teaparties thought the government caused the latest recession, although they do want the government out of their business, it seems.

Huh?

The link you gave me linked to a regulation Bush passed regarding consumer bankruptcy... you love regulation!

I digress. The gold standard was actually responsible for most of the economic collapse of the 1930s.
The stock market crash was actually only a spark, a trip-wire, so to speak.

Tell me how having a money system that the government can't arbitrarily inflate everytime it has a pet project caused the depression.

:confused:

As I pointed out, both regulations and taxation serve to cushion larger/older companies and prevent competition.

So you agree that the U.S. Corporate System is corrupt.

Yes, of course. I do not, however, believe capitalism in general is corrupt.

"harmfully low interest rates???"

Theres this whole thing called the "Austrian Business Cycle Theory" that Hayek got a Nobel Award in Economics for. Maybe you should at least know an explanation for the boom/bust cycle? Keynesians (and economists in general) attribute it to an unexplainable drop in demand.

What makes YOUR capitalism any different than the capitalism that exists now?
Do you expect the "new capitalist" to be more honest than the "old capitalist?"

I expect capitalism free of government intervention except so far as preventing fraud, theft, and murder, to be incapable of anything but honesty.

AHH - OOH - GA (Contradiction alert!)

Its not a contradiction at all. I take the moral stance that whatever it was we were talking about is wrong. I take the political stance that it is wrong for the government to outlaw said action because some people find it immoral while others may not. Libertarianism is a political, not moral philosophy. I don't have to do drugs, have sex with prostitutes, or not contribute to charity to recognize that other people may not find it wrong and may want to take part in these activities. Any voluntary act between consenting adults should not be illegal.

You take a position; that is a your moral. (A moral is a principle or opinion).

Do you not recognize you can have morals without feeling the need to inflict them on others?

Even the most totalitarian regimes on earth didn't interfere in citizens' lives to that extent!
Even Big Brother (1984) was not this watchful of his citizens! Talk about slippery slopes!
Can you provide evidence that the government will completely micro-manage our every
waking moment? Where is your proof?

Do you read anything I say? Thats the reductio ad absurdum of your argument that "government should make things easy".

There is something important which you do not know: Socialism is not about government at all (SURPRISE!)
Socialism is about PEOPLE. It is about common people owning everything; it is an end to
aristocratic rule and power brokers. You blame government, I blame private wealth. So what.
The common man should have control of their lives. HEY - isn't this just what the "founders" wanted?

Ownership in common isn't ownership at all. Ownership is the right to dispose of something. If you need group consent to do anything thats hardly freedom either. And if you recognize that you don't need group consent for somethings (i.e. to use the bathroom) because its more effective to merely have one person take initiative surely your brain can make the next logical step and conclude that private ownership of the means of production can, and is, for the most part, more efficient than having a committee squabble and bicker and ultimately compromise and do little? I don't care about the common man, or any man, having control of their lives. But the second they start stealing from others for this control is the second I stand against them.

I don't like BIG GOVERNMENT either - I just don't think that is THE major problem - I put blame on the
BIG CORPORATIONS for the failure of the system. And they are not going to go away any time soon.
And they are MUCH BIGGER and MORE POWERFUL than any governmental body in this country.

But the reasons the corporations are big is because of government interference. Your reasoning is like saying you don't mind guns, just the bullets that fly out and do damage. Without the guns (i.e. government interference), bullets (i.e. corporations, companies, etc etc) would have no power to do any real harm. Take away the guns, you take away the bullets powers. I'm not advocating no government.

I don't see how your views and mine are all that different. You don't seem to like BIG POWER
any more than I do. So why don't you give (real) socialism a serious thought? But first, clear your
mind of any existing stereotypes which you have about it. Then do a careful study. You will
see that a citizen-owned factory is not such a bad idea after all. You should join us, not fight us.
Because socialism IS all about common men having control of their lives. Stop comparing it to Hitler already.
That is flat out WRONG. Your juxtaposition of nazis and soviets to bona-fide socialism shows how
uninformed you are, how uninformed Glenn Beck is, and how uninformed 99% of people are.

Are there any existing cases of socialism don't involve despotism and rations and aren't living subsistence level existences? Its not like I think its the most wonderful thing in the world that some people are poor, but its like Mises' said:

It is difficult to see how people can decide that Socialism is in any way better than Capitalism unless they can maintain that it functions better as a social system. With the same justification it might be said that a machine constructed on the basis of perpetual motion would be better than one worked according to the given laws of mechanics—if only it could be made to function reliably. If the concept of Socialism contains an error which prevents that system from doing what it is supposed to do, then Socialism cannot be compared with the Capitalist system, for this has proved itself workable. Neither can it be called nobler, more beautiful or more just.

I feel like that guy in the film "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" who tries to warn the police about
the impending danger, but was ignored for too long. I am warning of a corporate takeover of the USA
and no one is listening (except the enlightented folks on this web site) But it may already be too late???

I don't agree with the corporations having so much hold over the government. But if the government limited itself to things only prescribed explicitly in the Constitution the government wouldn't have any power to grant favors/protections/etc etc. If the government was tiny and limited in it powers, why would companies waste time trying to bribe it? To get their road repaved sooner? Ha-ha.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 07:41

Also, you completely ignored my Fourier quote. This makes me a sad puppy.

Demogorgon

8th April 2010, 12:24

Do you think people would ever have such advertisements on childrens shows? Would the network allow it?
I don't know how it is now, but for what it's worth, when I was a kid, advertisements for alcohol were common on children's TV in Britain. There is some controversy as to whether they were aiming the adverts at children or just at the parents they presumed would be watching with their children, but at any rate, their you go.

Also, although it is before my time, tobacco used to be advertised on children's TV as well.

Klaatu

10th April 2010, 06:00

Because those have never contradicted themselves or changed, right? Once made they are always final, right?

They are final 99.99 % of the time. There are only two ways to overrule a Supreme Court decision.
(a) A second Supreme Court decision reversing the first (this is so rare, I can't think of it ever having happened)
(b) A Constitutional Amendment. For example, amendments 13,14,15 over ruled slavery and effectively nullified
the Dred Scot decision. Amendment 16 overruled the Court on income taxation.

The Court's job is to interpret the Constitution. Like I said, you don't agree with some of these decisions
(Roe v Wade perhaps?) Then fight for an amendment to change it. If you don't like paying income tax,
(a) get an amendment passed which repeals it (this has only happened once: the 21st, repealing prohibition)
(b) take your chances with the IRS, or (c) get the hell out of America altogether. You would love Somalia,
with it's minimal government and free-enterprise system. Why don't you move there and take on a job
earning third-world wages, as you said you would. You can then learn all about how Laissez Faire
capitalism functions in real terms.

Again, no source? And I've never heard anyone reporting that the teaparties thought the government caused
the latest recession, although they do want the government out of their business, it seems.

Watch just about any tapes of Reagan's speeches. Teabaggers didn't want to embarrass their fuehrer (George Bush) with protests.
You keep demanding "sources," yet provide none yourself. Are we required to accept your word as gospel?

The link you gave me linked to a regulation Bush passed regarding consumer bankruptcy... you love regulation!

Part of the "regulation" was actually "deregulation," that is, the bank could jack up interest to any level (read this article)
Read and learn, Money-worshipping Misean Monastery Monk.
Credit Card Tricks and Traps
http://www.rd.com/advice-and-know-how/credit-card-tricks-and-traps/article175291.html

Your claim of government interference causing banking problems is like saying, you raise a child, and he turns out bad.
Thus you should not have "interfered" in his development, because, left alone, without guidance, he would have grown
up to be a good citizen, instead of the criminal that he is...

Capitalism itself is like a small child. With guidance and rules, he functions better than if there were none.
Unguided children usually grow up to be troubled, misfit adults, some even exhibit criminal behavior.
Economic systems, like capitalism, are similar to child development. Spare the rules, suffer the problems.

Tell me how having a money system that the government can't arbitrarily inflate everytime...

Are you suggesting/advocating a return to the gold standard?

As I pointed out, both regulations and taxation serve to cushion larger/older companies and prevent competition.

Yet again, you provide no examples, sources, nor proof of this. (Spare us the "proof from your own mind" please)

Yes, of course. I do not, however, believe capitalism in general is corrupt.

I guess you believe that people are, in general, honest and hold high moral standards? (oops, the answer is yes):
"I expect capitalism free of government intervention except so far as preventing fraud, theft, and murder, to be incapable of anything but honesty.'

You're lucky there is no law against having an incredibly high level of naivete. (You would be in jail right now)

Maybe you should at least know an explanation for the boom/bust cycle? Keynesians (and economists in general) attribute it to an unexplainable drop in demand.

Oil price shockwaves have immediately preceded every recession in the past 40 years. Coincidence?
(hitting oneself over the head with a hammer causes a big headache - repeated half a dozen times,
there would seem to be a cause and effect, eh?)

Any voluntary act between consenting adults should not be illegal.
Do you not recognize you can have morals without feeling the need to inflict them on others?

Red Herring. I do not care what adults do behind closed doors! I was talking about capitalist porno spammers sending their trash to kids.

Do you read anything I say? Thats the reductio ad absurdum of your argument that "government should make things easy".

Don't get me started on your own logical fallacies. Let me reproduce your own prior dubious claim here:
"IF the government were to make everything easy you would make no decisions in your life, you would live on a
strict schedule have all your meals (only things that are as healthy as possible) fed to you, be told when to exercise
and for how long, be told where to work and for how long, and this would be your life. An even life is having
someone else make decisions (especially moral ones) for you. Is that really what you want? Humans to be merely
drones for some governing body to decide what is best for?"

In addition to being a classic "straw man" argument, this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, where your
"proof" is within your own mind (which you had even admitted to, in a prior post)

And I repeat: "Can you provide evidence that the government will completely micro-manage our every
waking moment? Where is your proof?" The onus is on YOU to provide examples of this "future shock"
you claim will happen... and stop dodging my question.

Ownership in common isn't ownership at all.

That's ridiculous. So two business partners cannot "own" a business jointly? A married couple do not
"own" their home and assets jointly? THINK, MAN

If you need group consent to do anything thats hardly freedom either.

So when Americans vote for president (group consent) this is NOT freedom???
Do you even know what you are talking about?

private ownership of the means of production can, and is, for the most part, more efficient than having a committee squabble and bicker and ultimately compromise and do little?

So then large companies' board of directors (a committee) "squabbles and bickers and ultimately compromises and does little?"
WOW - capitalism must be even more flawed than I had thought... I guess the best system within a corporation is for every
man to fend for himself; hence the cut-throat, back-stabbing, face-stepping-on tactics used by CEOs of corporations, in
order to climb to the top of the dung heap? (better than being underneath it all, eh?) No wonder they fail; complete lack
of cooperation; so much more to bolster my argument for extremely heavy-handed regulations in order to restore
order to that jungle of corporate mismanagement.

I don't care about the common man, or any man, having control of their lives. But the second they start stealing from others for this control is the second I stand against them.

Then you must stand against capitalism. Because that is where the crimes are going on.

But the reasons the corporations are big is because of government interference.

Again, no proof given, no examples, only your opinion. But I will provide some counter examples:
the 19th century produced large singly-owned private trusts. Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, etc.
There was no "government interference" involved, other than land grants given to the railroads.
(which is "constitutionally sound," as per the 5th amendment's clause of eminent domain.)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html

Microsoft got pretty big, practicing shrewd, deceptive maneuvers, so much so that it was proposed
that they be broken up, AT&T style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Are there any existing cases of socialism don't involve despotism and rations and aren't living subsistence level existences? Its not like I think its the most wonderful thing in the world that some people are poor...

Third world countries are ALREADY poor, and dictators easily get into power, due in part to lack of education of the citizenry.
Socialism does not make these countries poor. On the contrary, people can get better education, health care, justice, etc
than they could get under a free market (again, think of Somalia's open-ended system: no government, no protection
from crime, no nothing.)

I don't agree with the corporations having so much hold over the government.

Ever hear of lobbyists? For example, how does coal-mine owner Don Blankenship get away with what he does?
Documents Reveal Extensive Violations At Mine
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125788709

You bet the corporations own government: Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
"Dick Durbin: Banks "Frankly Own The Place"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/dick-durbin-banks-frankly_n_193010.html

If the government was tiny and limited in it powers, why would companies waste time trying to bribe it?

Indeed. They could just run roughshod over the common folk, like a juggernaut, raping and pillaging all the way.
Fire half the town police department, and crime GOES DOWN, right???

LeftSideDown

11th April 2010, 06:11

They are final 99.99 % of the time. There are only two ways to overrule a Supreme Court decision.
(a) A second Supreme Court decision reversing the first (this is so rare, I can't think of it ever having happened)
(b) A Constitutional Amendment. For example, amendments 13,14,15 over ruled slavery and effectively nullified
the Dred Scot decision. Amendment 16 overruled the Court on income taxation.

You can't think of the Supreme Court ruling differently? Well, for a while there was this thing called "Separate but equal" that the Supreme court ruled was okay with Plessy v. Ferguson and Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, but then later overturned it (wait, we're not still separate but equal? I know this must be shocking for you) with Brown v. Board of Education and further with Bolling v. Sharpe.

The Court's job is to interpret the Constitution. Like I said, you don't agree with some of these decisions
(Roe v Wade perhaps?) Then fight for an amendment to change it. If you don't like paying income tax,
(a) get an amendment passed which repeals it (this has only happened once: the 21st, repealing prohibition)
(b) take your chances with the IRS, or (c) get the hell out of America altogether. You would love Somalia,
with it's minimal government and free-enterprise system. Why don't you move there and take on a job
earning third-world wages, as you said you would. You can then learn all about how Laissez Faire
capitalism functions in real terms.

Do you know what a libertarian is? hahhaha, why would I support overturning Roe v Wade? Haha, that was a good one. Did I ever contest that the Court's job was anything else? All I said was that it wasn't always right, and its reversal on "separate but equal" only proves this. I really wouldn't love Somalia, because although it lacks a central government (I don't know how much you know about history, but Somalia's government was one of the most corrupt and was purging an ethnic minority (I forget which) before it collapsed) it still is run by warlords. Despite this the country has improved tremendously since the collapse of its government, but it still fails to meet the criteria that I originally stipulated. Let me copy and paste it several times so you might actually read it this time.

"if it improves my standard of living"
"if it improves my standard of living"
"if it improves my standard of living"
"if it improves my standard of living"
"if it improves my standard of living"
"if it improves my standard of living"
"if it improves my standard of living"
"if it improves my standard of living"

Do you now understand the conditions under which I will take a job in the third world? Do I need to paste it more? I'm prepared to should you further assert that I ever said I would voluntarily go and get a job in the third world.

Watch just about any tapes of Reagan's speeches. Teabaggers didn't want to embarrass their fuehrer (George Bush) with protests.
You keep demanding "sources," yet provide none yourself. Are we required to accept your word as gospel?

How do I prove that I've heard nothing about teabaggers claiming that the government caused this recession? Prove what teabaggers AREN'T saying? Thats pretty ridiculous, I'm just asking you to source what they are.

Part of the "regulation" was actually "deregulation," that is, the bank could jack up interest to any level (read this article)
Read and learn, Money-worshipping Misean Monastery Monk.
Credit Card Tricks and Traps
http://www.rd.com/advice-and-know-how/credit-card-tricks-and-traps/article175291.html

Interesting. I guess there was deregulation that resulted in an environment that was inimical to consumers, but most of these rate hikes and new policies stem from the fact that there is a recession and banks/credit cards are less willing to lend money in an environment where the person you're lending to may lose their job or business in even just a month's time. If government had not caused the recession and credit cards did this they would see a lot more people dropping and they would become less/un profitable. Why don't you switch to debit :D?

Your claim of government interference causing banking problems is like saying, you raise a child, and he turns out bad.
Thus you should not have "interfered" in his development, because, left alone, without guidance, he would have grown
up to be a good citizen, instead of the criminal that he is...

Capitalism itself is like a small child. With guidance and rules, he functions better than if there were none.
Unguided children usually grow up to be troubled, misfit adults, some even exhibit criminal behavior.
Economic systems, like capitalism, are similar to child development. Spare the rules, suffer the problems.

Your analogy is begging the question. You think that capitalism is that I do not, so trying to use analogy like that is like me using an analogy of socialism being an angry bully who is given a gun and told that he can make anyone do anything he wants and expecting him to do the right thing. It gets us nowhere, does it?

Are you suggesting/advocating a return to the gold standard?

Not necessarily. Could be silver, or steel. Although gold has some of the best attributes of a medium-of-exchange, I really don't care about paper, as long as the government was under strict obligation to print no more than it destroys (replacing old bills with new bills). Any amount of money is ideal, but changing amounts are not.

Yet again, you provide no examples, sources, nor proof of this. (Spare us the "proof from your own mind" please)

Alright, so whenever I make a statement such as 2+2=4 I must prove this to you? But, I will provide proof from a "leftist, anti-capitalist" as wikipedia describes him. Gabriel Kolko, ladies and gentlemen, a round of applause please: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17413331/Gabriel-Kolko-The-Triumph-of-Conservatism

I guess you believe that people are, in general, honest and hold high moral standards? (oops, the answer is yes):
"I expect capitalism free of government intervention except so far as preventing fraud, theft, and murder, to be incapable of anything but honesty.'

No, I believe people are self-interested and that the free-market amplifies this so that honesty and name-reputation both become very important (if your company consistently or even seldomly sells faulty equipment sales will suffer). Really, if Meat Company A caused epidemics every year and Meat Company B did not who would you buy from? This is true of every single industry. Even if its only occasional incidents, if they happen often enough the press will report on it and likely have boosted sales and this company with incidents will have to change policies or be liquidated.

You're lucky there is no law against having an incredibly high level of naivete. (You would be in jail right now)

Well I'm certainly glad you aren't a legislator, as doubtless you'd make laws against any/all who oppose you.

Oil price shockwaves have immediately preceded every recession in the past 40 years. Coincidence?
(hitting oneself over the head with a hammer causes a big headache - repeated half a dozen times,
there would seem to be a cause and effect, eh?)

Decreased interest rates also preceded every recession of the past century. Coincidence?

Red Herring. I do not care what adults do behind closed doors! I was talking about capitalist porno spammers sending their trash to kids.

1) You think capitalist companies are targeting children? More than likely these children don't have credit/debit cards to even buy the stuff, why would they waste resources?
2) There exist spam blockers and the like for a reason, I don't like spam, but I dislike paternalistic government even more.

Don't get me started on your own logical fallacies. Let me reproduce your own prior dubious claim here:
"IF the government were to make everything easy you would make no decisions in your life, you would live on a
strict schedule have all your meals (only things that are as healthy as possible) fed to you, be told when to exercise
and for how long, be told where to work and for how long, and this would be your life. An even life is having
someone else make decisions (especially moral ones) for you. Is that really what you want? Humans to be merely
drones for some governing body to decide what is best for?"

In addition to being a classic "straw man" argument, this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, where your
"proof" is within your own mind (which you had even admitted to, in a prior post)

And I repeat: "Can you provide evidence that the government will completely micro-manage our every
waking moment? Where is your proof?" The onus is on YOU to provide examples of this "future shock"
you claim will happen... and stop dodging my question.

Can I provide evidence for something that will in all likelihood not happen? Of course not. But you really have a hard time with logic don't you? You want government to make things easy for you, I took that thought to its logical extreme and showed you the absurdity of it. I'm not going to prove that its going to happen, because its probably not. Thats just the logical extreme of it, and if the logical extreme produces absurd consequences perhaps the original thought wasn't the best thought at all?

That's ridiculous. So two business partners cannot "own" a business jointly? A married couple do not
"own" their home and assets jointly? THINK, MAN

No, because ownership is the right to exclude, and since neither can exclude the other (unless one has more shares than the other) it is "possession" (Isn't that the words you guys use?) same for marriages.

So when Americans vote for president (group consent) this is NOT freedom???
Do you even know what you are talking about?

No, because democracy =\= freedom. If 51% of people vote to enslave the other 49% is that freedom? If 51% of people vote to do away with freedom of religion, press, assembly, petition etc etc that is not freedom. While democratic governments often are the most free ones, that doesn't mean you can say that democracy makes people free, because it doesn't necessarily.

So then large companies' board of directors (a committee) "squabbles and bickers and ultimately compromises and does little?"
WOW - capitalism must be even more flawed than I had thought... I guess the best system within a corporation is for every
man to fend for himself; hence the cut-throat, back-stabbing, face-stepping-on tactics used by CEOs of corporations, in
order to climb to the top of the dung heap? (better than being underneath it all, eh?) No wonder they fail; complete lack
of cooperation; so much more to bolster my argument for extremely heavy-handed regulations in order to restore
order to that jungle of corporate mismanagement.

How can you admit in one sentence that committees do all the things I described and in the next continue to advocate democratic control of the workplace? Do you just imagine in your head that no one will ever disagree? Or are you saying if someone does disagree with the majority, well, oh well for him, he should've been on the "right" side? Government is the so inefficient its crazy, and yet you would hand over more power and responsibility to it and make it bigger and more inefficient? The reason why GM and the Government and most large corporations aren't as competitive as smaller/newer/more innovative firms (and also the reason why they need government protection) is because of decreasing returns to scale which occurs as:
1) corporate heirarchy/bureaucracy becomes too thick thus slowing decision making processes
2) labor feels more and more disconnected and more likely to shirk
3) necessarily there is less labor oversight

Yet, in your mind Socialism will magically solve all these problems by introducing this "corporate jungle" into every aspect of an industries management? Good luck with that.

Then you must stand against capitalism. Because that is where the crimes are going on.

Sorry, for the crime of improving the standards of living for millions (probably billions) I plead guilty.

Again, no proof given, no examples, only your opinion. But I will provide some counter examples:
the 19th century produced large singly-owned private trusts. Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, etc.
There was no "government interference" involved, other than land grants given to the railroads.
(which is "constitutionally sound," as per the 5th amendment's clause of eminent domain.)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html

Haha, those companies back then are tiny in comparison to the behemoths we have today (Walmart, McDonalds, basically any fast food franchise, GM, etc etc). I don't care that the Robber Barons were so big; they were good companies who more frequently than not were some of the most innovative, most efficient, and best run companies of the 19th century!

For proof see: http://the-big-pic.org/Fulsom-fullaccount.htm

and: http://mises.org/daily/2317

But you're probably mad at Rockefeller for: "Significantly, Rockefeller passed these savings along to the consumer, as the price of refined oil plummeted from more than 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 10 cents in 1874 and 8 cents in 1885"

And Vanderbilt breaking the steamboat monopoly of Collins and any other of the numerous advantages these "robber barons" inflicted upon the poor consumer! All those low prices! It was torture.

Microsoft got pretty big, practicing shrewd, deceptive maneuvers, so much so that it was proposed
that they be broken up, AT&T style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

What "shrewd, deceptive maneuvers"? Giving consumers good computer's at a low price? How shrewd and deceptive they are!

Third world countries are ALREADY poor, and dictators easily get into power, due in part to lack of education of the citizenry.
Socialism does not make these countries poor. On the contrary, people can get better education, health care, justice, etc
than they could get under a free market (again, think of Somalia's open-ended system: no government, no protection
from crime, no nothing.)

Yes because if you tell the workers they own everything suddenly all these magical things you listed just pop out of the sky, right?

Ever hear of lobbyists? For example, how does coal-mine owner Don Blankenship get away with what he does?
Documents Reveal Extensive Violations At Mine
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125788709

You bet the corporations own government: Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
"Dick Durbin: Banks "Frankly Own The Place"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/dick-durbin-banks-frankly_n_193010.html

Did you read what I said? I said I do NOT agree with corporations being able to garner favors. However your solution is to destroy wealth producers (capitalism) and mine is to reduce wealth destroyers (the government).

Indeed. They could just run roughshod over the common folk, like a juggernaut, raping and pillaging all the way.
Fire half the town police department, and crime GOES DOWN, right???

Who would buy from a company that did this? And you're making things up I haven't said. I didn't say government should stop enforcing laws etc etc, but they shouldn't be able to give favors/grants/subsidies and bailouts. We could end all crime by locking everybody up, why don't we just do that Enviro? Seriously, in capitalism there are only voluntary actions that are taking place (that are legal) and I can't imagine anyone voluntarily agreeing to be raped. Of course, if they do (some sort of BDSM stuff) they should certainly be allowed to, but if a company (lets say walmart) started torching towns that they were located in would you continue to buy from them? THINK!!!

Klaatu

13th April 2010, 05:51

You can't think of the Supreme Court ruling differently? Well, for a while there was this thing called "Separate but equal" that the Supreme court ruled was okay with Plessy v. Ferguson and Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, but then later overturned it (wait, we're not still separate but equal? I know this must be shocking for you) with Brown v. Board of Education and further with Bolling v. Sharpe.

Sure there are a few rare cases I did not think of.

"if it improves my standard of living"

What a "convenient way out" for you to state you would work for low wages in a third world country.Yeah Right.

Why don't you switch to debit ?

I am considering it. I might just switch to cash.

Your analogy is begging the question. You think that capitalism is that I do not, so trying to use analogy like that is like me using an analogy of socialism being an angry bully who is given a gun and told that he can make anyone do anything he wants and expecting him to do the right thing. It gets us nowhere, does it?

Your use of an analogy like that assumes that socialism is totalitarian (like nazis and soviets) As I've pointed out
many times before, this is NOT SO. Bona-fide socialism is not a lot different than capitalism (surprise!) because
socialism is also about ownership by people (sometimes all people, sometimes small groups)

You think of socialism as being "state capitalism." It is not that either.

Not necessarily. Could be silver, or steel. Although gold has some of the best attributes of a medium-of-exchange, I really don't care about paper, as long as the government was under strict obligation to print no more than it destroys (replacing old bills with new bills). Any amount of money is ideal, but changing amounts are not.

The money supply must be increased in order to accommodate an increasing population.

Alright, so whenever I make a statement such as 2+2=4 I must prove this to you?

No but you must (and I must) prove things which are not known to the uninformed average reader.

No, I believe people are self-interested and that the free-market amplifies this so that honesty and name-reputation both become very important (if your company consistently or even seldomly sells faulty equipment sales will suffer). Really, if Meat Company A caused epidemics every year and Meat Company B did not who would you buy from? This is true of every single industry. Even if its only occasional incidents, if they happen often enough the press will report on it and likely have boosted sales and this company with incidents will have to change policies or be liquidated.

What about all of the people killed in that annual time frame by food-borne pathogens?
"Oh, my toddler died from eating a bad hamburger. Well I guess I won't be eating at THAT restaurant anymore!"
This is all people are going to do about it... Yeah Right.

Well I'm certainly glad you aren't a legislator, as doubtless you'd make laws against any/all who oppose you.

REPOST
"I expect capitalism free of government intervention except so far as preventing fraud, theft, and murder,
to be incapable of anything but honesty."

OK I won't comment. Let others decide what you are saying here.

Decreased interest rates also preceded every recession of the past century. Coincidence?

You did not answer my question.

1) You think capitalist companies are targeting children? More than likely these children don't have credit/debit cards to even buy the stuff, why would they waste resources?
2) There exist spam blockers and the like for a reason, I don't like spam, but I dislike paternalistic government even more.

1) Yes "capitalist companies" do this (the state does not) and they send out the spam to ALL, without discrimination.
2) Interestingly, it is parents who ask for these anti-spam laws, for these reasons...
3) Don't you suppose curious teens (who are more computer-savvy than their parents) can access this?

Can I provide evidence for something that will in all likelihood not happen? Of course not. But you really have a hard time with logic don't you? You want government to make things easy for you, I took that thought to its logical extreme and showed you the absurdity of it. I'm not going to prove that its going to happen, because its probably not. Thats just the logical extreme of it, and if the logical extreme produces absurd consequences perhaps the original thought wasn't the best thought at all?

Thank you for recanting your outlandish prediction.

No, because ownership is the right to exclude, and since neither can exclude the other (unless one has
more shares than the other) it is "possession" (Isn't that the words you guys use?) same for marriages.

You said that "Ownership in common isn't ownership at all."
The hell it isn't. All of the people of this country OWN the national parks, the roads, the city library, etc.

No, because democracy =\= freedom. If 51% of people vote to enslave the other 49% is that freedom? If 51% of people vote to do away with freedom of religion, press, assembly, petition etc etc that is not freedom. While democratic governments often are the most free ones, that doesn't mean you can say that democracy makes people free, because it doesn't necessarily.

You are going against the "founders" here.

How can you admit in one sentence that committees do all the things I described and in the next continue to advocate democratic control of the workplace?

You said it, I didn't. Just carrying YOUR WORDS "to logical extremes." How does the shoe fit the other foot?

Haha, those companies back then are tiny in comparison to the behemoths we have today (Walmart, McDonalds, basically any fast food franchise, GM, etc etc). I don't care that the Robber Barons were so big; they were good companies who more frequently than not were some of the most innovative, most efficient, and best run companies of the 19th century!

The most exploitative too. They used child labor. They had unsafe and unhealthy working conditions. They worked
12 to 16-hour days. They busted unions. There was no unemployment comp if you got laid off. There was no workman's
comp if one got hurt on the job. For example, my grandfather's thumb was ripped right out of the socket when he was
working in a machine shop back in the 1920s. He had to sue in court just to get a small compensation for his loss.

And you talk of price cuts - so what.

What "shrewd, deceptive maneuvers"? Giving consumers good computer's at a low price? How shrewd and deceptive they are!

DAMN you are uninformed. Do some research on how Bill Gates fucked over Steve Jobs (Start by renting the movie
"Pirates of Silicon Valley") Get informed.

Did you read what I said? I said I do NOT agree with corporations being able to garner favors. However your solution is to destroy wealth producers (capitalism) and mine is to reduce wealth destroyers (the government).

MY solution is to nationalize those industries which have repeatedly broke the public trust by breaking the law,
exploited and killed workers, etc. We can start with the coal industry. This latest tragedy is the result of capitalist corruption.
A good book to read: "Big Coal" by Jeff Goodell

Seriously, in capitalism there are only voluntary actions that are taking place (that are legal) and I can't imagine anyone voluntarily agreeing to be raped. Of course, if they do (some sort of BDSM stuff) they should certainly be allowed to,

Metaphorically "raped," you goof. (You sound like DATA from Star Trek.)

but if a company (lets say walmart) started torching towns that they were located in would you continue to buy from them? THINK!!!

Whale-Mart may as well "torch towns" (metaphorically!) By the way they force small businesses to fold (you should be
protesting W.M. right along with me...)

LeftSideDown

13th April 2010, 08:00

Sure there are a few rare cases I did not think of.

Rare, but important... anyway, illustrates my point that there isn't one "official" interpretation of the Constitution, as it can (and has) changed, even within the Supreme Court.

What a "convenient way out" for you to state you would work for low wages in a third world country.Yeah Right.

I was being honest. It wasn't a "way out" either, it was a stipulation. You asked me if I would be willing to work a third world country job to prove that capitalism is bad? I stated I would be willing to work one if it improved my standard of living, because it would be against my interest to go work somewhere less capital intensive than the US.

I am considering it. I might just switch to cash.

Sounds good to me.

Your use of an analogy like that assumes that socialism is totalitarian (like nazis and soviets) As I've pointed out
many times before, this is NOT SO. Bona-fide socialism is not a lot different than capitalism (surprise!) because
socialism is also about ownership by people (sometimes all people, sometimes small groups)

And your analogy assumes capitalism is like a small child... whats your point? I could even say that you're confusing capitalism with state-capitalism.

The money supply must be increased in order to accommodate an increasing population.

Why must I print more paper to accommodate a bigger population? As long as the currency is divisible you don't need to print more of it as you become more productive, smaller amounts of it become more valuable.

No but you must (and I must) prove things which are not known to the uninformed average reader.

IF they weren't known (my arguments), than I showed them to be true or at least logically conceivable.

What about all of the people killed in that annual time frame by food-borne pathogens?
"Oh, my toddler died from eating a bad hamburger. Well I guess I won't be eating at THAT restaurant anymore!"
This is all people are going to do about it... Yeah Right.

What about all the people (40000 a year) killed on the State's roads a year? You have absolutely no recourse from them, at least with a private company (and just laws) you could prosecute them, be reimbursed (I know you can't place a value on life, but reimbursement isn't an attempt to do this), or you can boycott this corporation. If your toddler's death was an anomaly (i.e. its only ever happened to you) you won't find much support (obviously this company is serving most of its customers satisfactorily), but if it is continuously killing people it will be relieved of its ability to wield capital which it was using irresponsibly (killing people).

You did not answer my question.

It could be coincidence, or it could be a result of the lowered interest rate. Its an interesting point, but it doesn't explain any recession before the past forty years, I think its more than likely caused by something else (like credit expansion) and oil is one of the first things to react to the scramble for resources. I honestly don't know enough about it (oil shockwaves) to make an informed opinion

1) Yes "capitalist companies" do this (the state does not) and they send out the spam to ALL, without discrimination.
2) Interestingly, it is parents who ask for these anti-spam laws, for these reasons...
3) Don't you suppose curious teens (who are more computer-savvy than their parents) can access this?

How effective are regulations? You have to press "yes" when it asks if you're 18? Oh, thats going to stop so many people. Regulation either:
a) is ineffective
b) drives the activity underground, where it then begins to act outside even the regulation of consumer preference (if you can only get porn from one well hidden website they can charge ridiculous prices, not offer variety, etc etc)

Perhaps the teenagers could access it, but I think parental oversight is more effective than regulation. The regulation would
a) have to make it hard even for legal adults to access the stuff
b) outlaw it entirely (which would make it hard for legal to access the stuff)

Thank you for recanting your outlandish prediction.

Its not a prediction. Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications to a logical but absurd consequence.

Is not my scenario an absurd but logical consequence of adopting the "make life easy for you" doctrine? I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying the statement leads to absurd consequences so perhaps there is something wrong with the statement (Maybe its not a good idea that the government should make things easy for people...)

You said that "Ownership in common isn't ownership at all."
The hell it isn't. All of the people of this country OWN the national parks, the roads, the city library, etc.

Ownership doesn't come from use. If it did, we'd have a lot of problems (If I ride your bike, even for a minute, it becomes mine under this definition). Ownership is the right to dispose of something. Do I have the right to dispose of a national park? Do I have the right to dispose of a road? Or do I just have the right to use it? Using =\= make something yours. If it did we wouldn't have museums because everyone could come in and "use" (just observing in this case) priceless artifacts than take them. To restate: ownership is not derived from use.

You are going against the "founders" here.

I don't think so:

“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers, stated that democracy was much like

“two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch”.

Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. (I read that this one may not actually be Thomas Jefferson, but I'll post anyway in case it was)

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

John Adams: That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world

John Marshall: Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

I'm sure there are more if you really want me to find them.

You said it, I didn't. Just carrying YOUR WORDS "to logical extremes." How does the shoe fit the other foot?

What were you taking to its logical extreme? I don't understand. You admitted that committees and large corporate hierarchy are inefficient (or at least I think you did) because of all the disagreements that occur, but you advocate a Socialism that does nothing more than extend this problem to everybody. You weren't taking anything to its logical extreme, you were just contradicting yourself.

The most exploitative too. They used child labor. They had unsafe and unhealthy working conditions. They worked
12 to 16-hour days. They busted unions. There was no unemployment comp if you got laid off. There was no workman's
comp if one got hurt on the job. For example, my grandfather's thumb was ripped right out of the socket when he was
working in a machine shop back in the 1920s. He had to sue in court just to get a small compensation for his loss.

And you talk of price cuts - so what.

All of these things are awful (by today's standards) but can you prove they were unnecessary? In Bangladesh, for instance, when they introduced laws preventing child labor either:
a) the child starved because even though they only brought about 1/5th of the family income in through their labor, this was the difference between life and death
b) became prostitutes.

I don't know what working conditions were like before capitalism, but standards of living were much lower especially for the work they did (no capital to make labor more productive).

DAMN you are uninformed. Do some research on how Bill Gates fucked over Steve Jobs (Start by renting the movie
"Pirates of Silicon Valley") Get informed.

He fucked over one person and brought personal computers to millions of people? Hmm, I wonder what cost-benefit analysis shows here. I'm sorry for Steve Jobs, but hes doing pretty well himself now, no?

MY solution is to nationalize those industries which have repeatedly broke the public trust by breaking the law,
exploited and killed workers, etc. We can start with the coal industry. This latest tragedy is the result of capitalist corruption.
A good book to read: "Big Coal" by Jeff Goodell

Nationalize them so they can be just like the roads that kill 40,000 a year... great. (In 7-8 years of Vietnam only 50,000 were killed, to put in perspective... and this happens every year)

Metaphorically "raped," you goof. (You sound like DATA from Star Trek.)

I don't know what "rape" you're talking about. So long as property rights are observed, the only "raping" that can be done is by one company to another (I.e. reducing prices through efficiency and running the other company out of business). And this benefits us.

Whale-Mart may as well "torch towns" (metaphorically!) By the way they force small businesses to fold (you should be
protesting W.M. right along with me...)

Well, I kind of dislike Wal-mart because its resorted to using government (through minimum wage laws) to force other companies out of business, but if Wal mart was only being competitive and made small businesses go out of business (who had to be inefficient users of capital) I have no problem. I also have no problem with you or anyone refusing to support wal-mart and only buying from locally owned places.

Klaatu

15th April 2010, 03:32

I was being honest. It wasn't a "way out" either, it was a stipulation. You asked me if I would be willing to work a third world country job to prove that capitalism is bad? I stated I would be willing to work one if it improved my standard of living, because it would be against my interest to go work somewhere less capital intensive than the US.

So then basically, to hell with those poor undeserving starving kids in Africa, eh? (just carrying your argument to "logical extremes..." that's all)

And your analogy assumes capitalism is like a small child... whats your point?

Do you know how small children behave? They are free-spirited by nature. They test and test and test and their parents.
They test until they discover that they acquire limits on their behavior. They cannot "do whatever they want." For to do
so would invite hazard, even danger, into their lives. (a) consider the little boy who tries to jump his bike on a makeshift
ramp, then falls down and splits his head open. Consider the teenage girl who disregards her parents' advice, and finds
herself pregnant (or worse). I could go on and on... Capitalism is like a child, in that people WILL do what it takes to
get money: (sell drugs) Industry will dump toxic waste (because it is cheaper to dump than to clean up). Spammers will
send ads (email is free!) Bankers will raise interest rates ("Everyone else is doing it!") and so on and so forth.

Unregulated capitalism is like a small child, it needs many rules and oversight, else it gets into big trouble.

Why must I print more paper to accommodate a bigger population? As long as the currency is divisible you don't need to print more of it as you become more productive, smaller amounts of it become more valuable.

(a) population can (and usually does) increase much faster than productivity gains.
(b) increased money supply (slowly, of course) allows greater investment capital funding (Friedman et al) thus improved economic growth

IF they weren't known (my arguments), than I showed them to be true or at least logically conceivable.

Logical? (coffee squirting out my nose) Your argument is "logical" only about 50% of the time...

What about all the people (40000 a year) killed on the State's roads a year? You have absolutely no recourse from them...

Should I sue the guy who built the road because I had too much to drink, and decided to drive anyway???

If your toddler's death was an anomaly (i.e. its only ever happened to you) you won't find much support (obviously this company is serving most of its customers satisfactorily),

The only "support" I need is a jury of non-libertarians. I will make damn sure there are no libertarians in the jury pool, the next time I must sue someone.

It could be coincidence, or it could be a result of the lowered interest rate. Its an interesting point, but it doesn't explain any recession before the past forty years, I think its more than likely caused by something else (like credit expansion) and oil is one of the first things to react to the scramble for resources. I honestly don't know enough about it (oil shockwaves) to make an informed opinion

Here is a thought: (a) oil prices skyrocket, then (b) potential car-buyer can't decide on small vehicle (will gas prices drop?)
or large vehicle (will gas prices keep rising?) Hence THEY DO NOT BUY AT ALL; Hence they "wait for oil prices to stabilize"
Hence workers are laid-off, due to depressed vehicle sales, hence seeds of recession are sown...

My solution is to either (a) control the price of petrol or (b) nationalize the oil industry altogether or (c) both

I pick option C

Perhaps the teenagers could access it, but I think parental oversight is more effective than regulation.

I think you will eventually see that "regulation" is as necessary as "parental oversight" for those who have
less-than intelligent minds... (not you nor I, but there are those who need this oversight: criminals, for example...)
Don't you disagree?

Its not a prediction. Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications to a logical but absurd consequence.

Is not my scenario an absurd but logical consequence of adopting the "make life easy for you" doctrine? I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying the statement leads to absurd consequences so perhaps there is something wrong with the statement (Maybe its not a good idea that the government should make things easy for people...)

THEN WHY SAY IT???

Ownership doesn't come from use. If it did, we'd have a lot of problems (If I ride your bike, even for a minute, it becomes mine under this definition). Ownership is the right to dispose of something. Do I have the right to dispose of a national park? Do I have the right to dispose of a road? Or do I just have the right to use it? Using =\= make something yours. If it did we wouldn't have museums because everyone could come in and "use" (just observing in this case) priceless artifacts than take them. To restate: ownership is not derived from use.

Then who "owns" the national parks? Aliens? God? Sponge-Bob-Square-Pants???

don't think so:

“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers, stated that democracy was much like

“two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch”.

Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. (I read that this one may not actually be Thomas Jefferson, but I'll post anyway in case it was)

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

John Adams: That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world

John Marshall: Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

I'm sure there are more if you really want me to find them.

Why the flying fuck did they set up a "democracy" then, if they were against it??? Why not a monarchy or dictatorship?

These founders were expressing their distrust of the average Joeplumber dropout, stupid, trailer park trash idiot to vote
in a proper way (that is, with a thinking mind to the issues at hand.)

Not to vote for which clever candidate spouted off the clever slogans or most incredible rhetoric. In other words,
the founders might have wanted the power to be held by educated people (something I have strongly promoted)
not goofuses and buffoons. I would like to see this country run by smart people, not dufusses, as has been in recent years.
Technically speaking, a monkey could elected to congress - there is nothing to legally prevent this from happening.

You weren't taking anything to its logical extreme, you were just contradicting yourself...
private ownership of the means of production can, and is, for the most part, more efficient
than having a committee squabble and bicker and ultimately compromise and do little?

YOU SAID THIS, STUPID

Do you even remember what you say? Are you a member of the "CRYSTAL-T" party?

All of these things are awful (by today's standards) but can you prove they were unnecessary?

Why would I want to "prove they were unnecessary?" (WTF?)

He fucked over one person and brought personal computers to millions of people? Hmm, I wonder what cost-benefit analysis shows here. I'm sorry for Steve Jobs, but hes doing pretty well himself now, no?

Here's some "cost-benefit analysis" for you: The Mafia capitalists would provide large community donations to schools,
churches, parks, etc. Yet they had squeezed "protection money" from local businesses. (You are OK with this?)

analyze THIS.

Nationalize them so they can be just like the roads that kill 40,000 a year... great. (In 7-8 years of Vietnam only 50,000 were killed, to put in perspective... and this happens every year)

Jezus...Straw Man

I don't know what "rape" you're talking about. So long as property rights are observed, the only "raping" that can be done is by one company to another (I.e. reducing prices through efficiency and running the other company out of business). And this benefits us.

Unless it is YOU who is dumped out on the street, eh?

Well, I kind of dislike Wal-mart because its resorted to using government (through minimum wage laws) to force other companies out of business,

Whoops, an imperfect capitalist enterprise/ If there is one, there MUST be others, eh? Logically-speaking, you know...