|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The goal of capitalism isn't profit but it's consumption. The goal of companies is profit and they would prefer a monopoly over a free market since that way they maximize their profits.
Anyway this whole tjing about right wing economists not wanting safety nets is simply wrong. Friedman for example explicitly expresses his dislike fkr poverty and proposes to replace the current system with a negative income tax.
|
On March 31 2014 00:36 RvB wrote:
The goal of capitalism isn't profit but it's consumption. The goal of companies is profit and they would prefer a monopoly over a free market since that way they maximize their profits.
Anyway this whole tjing about right wing economists not wanting safety nets is simply wrong. Friedman for example explicitly expresses his dislike fkr poverty and proposes to replace the current system with a negative income tax.
You saw capitalism in the street ? He told you his goal was consumption ?
Capital, from the latin root caput (meaning the head), is the accumulated stock of wealth used for production and consumption. Capitalism, if "it" has a goal, and if it exist, is all about accumulating capital, and not consumption.
And Friedman negative income tax is a fraud. He was saying that because he knew that the market would not resolve the social question by itself.
|
On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:On March 30 2014 12:04 Nyxisto wrote:On March 30 2014 11:54 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 11:34 Nyxisto wrote:
so you can scam people all week long and political redistribution is unnecessary because the nice republicans spend some money on their Sunday church trip? This is probably the most anecdotal argument I have ever heard. It's like saying that we don't need to pay waiters/waitresses anymore because your uncle gives a lot of tips. It's more accurate than what you "feel" they think, so I think his evidence counts. The point was that the idiotic video is nowhere close to how Christian conservatives view Jesus. On a personal level, they are extremely generous to those in need, but oppose government intervention that can promote laziness. When you look at those cities run on the left's social gospel, it shows just how ineffective it is. ? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous? I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that. I've already said that government is a necessary evil. Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule. I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do. I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go.
If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version.
As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits.
|
On March 31 2014 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 00:36 RvB wrote:
The goal of capitalism isn't profit but it's consumption. The goal of companies is profit and they would prefer a monopoly over a free market since that way they maximize their profits.
Anyway this whole tjing about right wing economists not wanting safety nets is simply wrong. Friedman for example explicitly expresses his dislike fkr poverty and proposes to replace the current system with a negative income tax. You saw capitalism in the street ? He told you his goal was consumption ? Capital, from the latin root caput (meaning the head), is the accumulated stock of wealth used for production and consumption. Capitalism, if "it" has a goal, and if it exist, is all about accumulating capital, and not consumption. And Friedman negative income tax is a fraud. He was saying that because he knew that the market would not resolve the social question by itself.
You saw capitalism in the street? He told you his goal was accumulation?
|
On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:On March 30 2014 12:04 Nyxisto wrote:On March 30 2014 11:54 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 11:34 Nyxisto wrote:
so you can scam people all week long and political redistribution is unnecessary because the nice republicans spend some money on their Sunday church trip? This is probably the most anecdotal argument I have ever heard. It's like saying that we don't need to pay waiters/waitresses anymore because your uncle gives a lot of tips. It's more accurate than what you "feel" they think, so I think his evidence counts. The point was that the idiotic video is nowhere close to how Christian conservatives view Jesus. On a personal level, they are extremely generous to those in need, but oppose government intervention that can promote laziness. When you look at those cities run on the left's social gospel, it shows just how ineffective it is. ? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous? I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that. I've already said that government is a necessary evil. Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule. I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do. I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits.
Which is more important, serving society or making profits?
|
On March 31 2014 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On March 31 2014 00:36 RvB wrote:
The goal of capitalism isn't profit but it's consumption. The goal of companies is profit and they would prefer a monopoly over a free market since that way they maximize their profits.
Anyway this whole tjing about right wing economists not wanting safety nets is simply wrong. Friedman for example explicitly expresses his dislike fkr poverty and proposes to replace the current system with a negative income tax. You saw capitalism in the street ? He told you his goal was consumption ? Capital, from the latin root caput (meaning the head), is the accumulated stock of wealth used for production and consumption. Capitalism, if "it" has a goal, and if it exist, is all about accumulating capital, and not consumption. And Friedman negative income tax is a fraud. He was saying that because he knew that the market would not resolve the social question by itself. You saw capitalism in the street? He told you his goal was accumulation?
It's in the definition of the word. Capitalism FROM CAPITAL.
In fact, consumption only started to rise after the fordist compromise : before that, only production was considered as the real goal of "capitalism".
|
On March 31 2014 02:25 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:On March 30 2014 12:04 Nyxisto wrote:On March 30 2014 11:54 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 11:34 Nyxisto wrote:
so you can scam people all week long and political redistribution is unnecessary because the nice republicans spend some money on their Sunday church trip? This is probably the most anecdotal argument I have ever heard. It's like saying that we don't need to pay waiters/waitresses anymore because your uncle gives a lot of tips. It's more accurate than what you "feel" they think, so I think his evidence counts. The point was that the idiotic video is nowhere close to how Christian conservatives view Jesus. On a personal level, they are extremely generous to those in need, but oppose government intervention that can promote laziness. When you look at those cities run on the left's social gospel, it shows just how ineffective it is. ? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous? I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that. I've already said that government is a necessary evil. Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule. I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do. I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits. Which is more important, serving society or making profits?
I'd say in the short run serving society and in the long run they're pretty equal. It's hard to serve society well if you run out of money.
|
On March 31 2014 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 02:25 Roe wrote:On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:On March 30 2014 12:04 Nyxisto wrote:On March 30 2014 11:54 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
It's more accurate than what you "feel" they think, so I think his evidence counts.
The point was that the idiotic video is nowhere close to how Christian conservatives view Jesus. On a personal level, they are extremely generous to those in need, but oppose government intervention that can promote laziness. When you look at those cities run on the left's social gospel, it shows just how ineffective it is.
? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous? I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that. I've already said that government is a necessary evil. Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule. I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do. I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits. Which is more important, serving society or making profits? I'd say in the short run serving society and in the long run they're pretty equal. It's hard to serve society well if you run out of money.
Pretty equal ? That's some amazing economics you got there, can you explain us how please.
|
On March 31 2014 02:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 02:25 Roe wrote:On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:On March 30 2014 12:04 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous? I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that. I've already said that government is a necessary evil. Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule. I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do. I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits. Which is more important, serving society or making profits? I'd say in the short run serving society and in the long run they're pretty equal. It's hard to serve society well if you run out of money. Pretty equal ? That's some amazing economics you got there, can you explain us how please.
Uhh, I was giving an opinion. Did you want me to justify it? It doesn't come from some economics equation if that's what you're after.
On March 31 2014 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On March 31 2014 00:36 RvB wrote:
The goal of capitalism isn't profit but it's consumption. The goal of companies is profit and they would prefer a monopoly over a free market since that way they maximize their profits.
Anyway this whole tjing about right wing economists not wanting safety nets is simply wrong. Friedman for example explicitly expresses his dislike fkr poverty and proposes to replace the current system with a negative income tax. You saw capitalism in the street ? He told you his goal was consumption ? Capital, from the latin root caput (meaning the head), is the accumulated stock of wealth used for production and consumption. Capitalism, if "it" has a goal, and if it exist, is all about accumulating capital, and not consumption. And Friedman negative income tax is a fraud. He was saying that because he knew that the market would not resolve the social question by itself. You saw capitalism in the street? He told you his goal was accumulation? It's in the definition of the word. Capitalism FROM CAPITAL. LOL In fact, consumption only started to rise after the fordist compromise : before that, only production was considered as the real goal of "capitalism".
I don't care what the word 'capitalism' is derived from... I mean it's an interesting piece of trivia... but...
|
That capitalism leads to accumulation of capital in the hands of only a few can be observed in basically every developed economy on this planet, especially over the course of the last three decades.If capitalism would be about consumption we would put policies in place that distribute money to the lower and middle classes as these are the people that mainly spent their money on consumption. (and fuel economic growth btw, which we didn't have that much of over the course of the last few years)
|
On March 31 2014 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 02:25 Roe wrote:On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:On March 30 2014 12:04 Nyxisto wrote:On March 30 2014 11:54 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
It's more accurate than what you "feel" they think, so I think his evidence counts.
The point was that the idiotic video is nowhere close to how Christian conservatives view Jesus. On a personal level, they are extremely generous to those in need, but oppose government intervention that can promote laziness. When you look at those cities run on the left's social gospel, it shows just how ineffective it is.
? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous? I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that. I've already said that government is a necessary evil. Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule. I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do. I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits. Which is more important, serving society or making profits? I'd say in the short run serving society and in the long run they're pretty equal. It's hard to serve society well if you run out of money.
Just because you run out of profits doesn't mean you've run out of money. Profits are just meant for expansion and mitigation of ups and downs in the market. Outside those reasons profits aren't necessary to keep an organization running (that's pretty obvious seeing volunteers, non-profits, etc.) and to serve society - only necessary if you need to beat competition which wouldn't happen if everyone was working together to better society. So I'd say in the long run profits are unimportant compared to providing a service or doing actual work and progress.
|
On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:On March 30 2014 12:04 Nyxisto wrote:On March 30 2014 11:54 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 11:34 Nyxisto wrote:
so you can scam people all week long and political redistribution is unnecessary because the nice republicans spend some money on their Sunday church trip? This is probably the most anecdotal argument I have ever heard. It's like saying that we don't need to pay waiters/waitresses anymore because your uncle gives a lot of tips. It's more accurate than what you "feel" they think, so I think his evidence counts. The point was that the idiotic video is nowhere close to how Christian conservatives view Jesus. On a personal level, they are extremely generous to those in need, but oppose government intervention that can promote laziness. When you look at those cities run on the left's social gospel, it shows just how ineffective it is. ? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous? I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that. I've already said that government is a necessary evil. Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule. I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do. I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits.
Don't tell the republicans that Europe is a conservative paradise. Then they won't be able to say that Obama is just trying to turn the US into a European style socialist republic.
But seriously jonny, if you're only talking about US debt, if libertarians had their way and imposed austerity, the US wouldn't be able to supply the world's demand. We'd be in a crisis all over again. Even the neoliberals know you gotta give the people welfare and circuses to prevent revolution.
|
On March 31 2014 02:55 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 02:25 Roe wrote:On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:On March 30 2014 12:04 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous? I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that. I've already said that government is a necessary evil. Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule. I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do. I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits. Which is more important, serving society or making profits? I'd say in the short run serving society and in the long run they're pretty equal. It's hard to serve society well if you run out of money. Just because you run out of profits doesn't mean you've run out of money. Profits are just meant for expansion and mitigation of ups and downs in the market. Outside those reasons profits aren't necessary to keep an organization running (that's pretty obvious seeing volunteers, non-profits, etc.) and to serve society - only necessary if you need to beat competition which wouldn't happen if everyone was working together to better society. So I'd say in the long run profits are unimportant compared to providing a service or doing actual work and progress.
For an organization, yeah, you need profits to stay afloat. It holds true for non-profits as well. If they don't turn a profit (many do, many don't) they'll need to rely on outside funding to fill the gap. If that outside funding is inconsistent and expenses are consistent, they'll likely want to set up an endowment in order to keep funding stable.
|
On March 31 2014 03:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:On March 30 2014 12:04 Nyxisto wrote:On March 30 2014 11:54 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 11:34 Nyxisto wrote:
so you can scam people all week long and political redistribution is unnecessary because the nice republicans spend some money on their Sunday church trip? This is probably the most anecdotal argument I have ever heard. It's like saying that we don't need to pay waiters/waitresses anymore because your uncle gives a lot of tips. It's more accurate than what you "feel" they think, so I think his evidence counts. The point was that the idiotic video is nowhere close to how Christian conservatives view Jesus. On a personal level, they are extremely generous to those in need, but oppose government intervention that can promote laziness. When you look at those cities run on the left's social gospel, it shows just how ineffective it is. ? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous? I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that. I've already said that government is a necessary evil. Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule. I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do. I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits. Don't tell the republicans that Europe is a conservative paradise. Then they won't be able to say that Obama is just trying to turn the US into a European style socialist republic. But seriously jonny, if you're only talking about US debt, if libertarians had their way and imposed austerity, the US wouldn't be able to supply the world's demand. We'd be in a crisis all over again. Even the neoliberals know you gotta give the people welfare and circuses to prevent revolution.
The business sector in Europe is very "conservative" (strong status quo bias).
When was I talking about US debt?
|
On March 31 2014 03:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 02:55 Roe wrote:On March 31 2014 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 02:25 Roe wrote:On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that. I've already said that government is a necessary evil. Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule. I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do. I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits. Which is more important, serving society or making profits? I'd say in the short run serving society and in the long run they're pretty equal. It's hard to serve society well if you run out of money. Just because you run out of profits doesn't mean you've run out of money. Profits are just meant for expansion and mitigation of ups and downs in the market. Outside those reasons profits aren't necessary to keep an organization running (that's pretty obvious seeing volunteers, non-profits, etc.) and to serve society - only necessary if you need to beat competition which wouldn't happen if everyone was working together to better society. So I'd say in the long run profits are unimportant compared to providing a service or doing actual work and progress. For an organization, yeah, you need profits to stay afloat. It holds true for non-profits as well. If they don't turn a profit (many do, many don't) they'll need to rely on outside funding to fill the gap. If that outside funding is inconsistent and expenses are consistent, they'll likely want to set up an endowment in order to keep funding stable.
The gap in what?
|
I just assumed you were. What makes European businesses more "neoliberal" than the US? You implied that Europeans were more conservative and consequently better at accumulating capital.
|
On March 31 2014 03:27 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 03:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 02:55 Roe wrote:On March 31 2014 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 02:25 Roe wrote:On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I've already said that government is a necessary evil.
Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule.
I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do.
I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits. Which is more important, serving society or making profits? I'd say in the short run serving society and in the long run they're pretty equal. It's hard to serve society well if you run out of money. Just because you run out of profits doesn't mean you've run out of money. Profits are just meant for expansion and mitigation of ups and downs in the market. Outside those reasons profits aren't necessary to keep an organization running (that's pretty obvious seeing volunteers, non-profits, etc.) and to serve society - only necessary if you need to beat competition which wouldn't happen if everyone was working together to better society. So I'd say in the long run profits are unimportant compared to providing a service or doing actual work and progress. For an organization, yeah, you need profits to stay afloat. It holds true for non-profits as well. If they don't turn a profit (many do, many don't) they'll need to rely on outside funding to fill the gap. If that outside funding is inconsistent and expenses are consistent, they'll likely want to set up an endowment in order to keep funding stable. The gap in what?
Your budget.
|
On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:On March 30 2014 12:04 Nyxisto wrote:On March 30 2014 11:54 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 11:34 Nyxisto wrote:
so you can scam people all week long and political redistribution is unnecessary because the nice republicans spend some money on their Sunday church trip? This is probably the most anecdotal argument I have ever heard. It's like saying that we don't need to pay waiters/waitresses anymore because your uncle gives a lot of tips. It's more accurate than what you "feel" they think, so I think his evidence counts. The point was that the idiotic video is nowhere close to how Christian conservatives view Jesus. On a personal level, they are extremely generous to those in need, but oppose government intervention that can promote laziness. When you look at those cities run on the left's social gospel, it shows just how ineffective it is. ? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous? I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that. I've already said that government is a necessary evil. Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule. I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do. I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable. Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types... The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people. I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought. You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food. Group 1: The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions. Group 2: The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate. Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share. Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian. Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits.
Well capitalists want to accumulate, I shouldn't have said that capitalists and neo liberals are the same but the things they advocate lead to a model ruled by profit and wanting to make more profit which lead to the possibility for individuals to accumulate. Capitalism is about being totally able as an individual to accumulate and having the opportunities to do that and neo liberalism allows that. In the majority of European countries, taxes for the rich are higher so ofc US capitalists and neo liberals don't want that (the hypocrisy shows itself there, they aren't only caring about free market).
Now neo liberals want the market to rule itself and companies to be able to do what they want. Companies have always sought profit and because they are nowadays controlled by shareholders (who are volatile), they want it more and don't rly think about long term anymore, an example of that is how the gaming sector works.
What else could organizations want? If they want to survive they have to seek profit and invest, be it in R&D or with financial activities (not only fusion/acquisition).
They also have to maintain their image, and it's most of the time taken for some kind of morality when it's not. Look at how the subcontractor of every global firms treat their employees, at the beginning of the millenium, nike and others had to make their subcontractor stop using children because people had started to yell at them for it.
Every company tries to make more profit, and only a few care about other problems (environmental or ethical) when they aren't obligated to (by countries or because their image might get worse).
Lastly I agree with you, profit is a driving force because it will be reinvested (well it's not the case in EU right now), but because capitalism and neo liberalism are ruling the world, the individuals behind the companies are able to get incredibly rich. And their salaries are almost never reinvested in a productive way, meaning it's often invested in financial stuff while basic employees and workers could buy more basic products and increase the demand (hence make the economy work alot more).
|
On March 31 2014 03:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 03:27 Roe wrote:On March 31 2014 03:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 02:55 Roe wrote:On March 31 2014 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 02:25 Roe wrote:On March 31 2014 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 30 2014 19:32 Acertos wrote:On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types...
The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people.
I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought.
You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food.
Group 1:
The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions.
Group 2:
The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate.
Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share.
Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian.
Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart? The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely. The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one. And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power. So to have a good society minarchism should be established? So that the laws of the market can rule supreme? Liberals have always tried to put together two concepts : individual liberties and the well being of society. The answer was either utilitarism with a great amount of sacrifices or contractualism (with a powerful state). But neo liberals and capitalists (it s exactly the same, capitalists just found with neo liberalism more arguments for their stupid cause) don t care about the well being of society and wants society to be ruled by the market s law and not by individual liberties like they are trying to say. Society isn t more free with market s law at its head because the market s law makes it so that only short term profit matters. The only difference here is that the rules of the oligarchy hayek wanted aren t written on paper while the ones of dictatures are : job insecurity, inexistent social ladder, passive control of the expectations and desires... Yes some people are more free, free to treat like shit their employees, to use earth resources, to establish a society with consumerism at its core only to make profit. History shows that since the 70s, economies have.never been that unstable and inequalities in developed countries are rising. Capitalism isn t based on long term growth but capital accumulation (the easiest way to accumulate is to make huge short term profit) and free trade. A conservative view is a view that advocates stagnation and doesn t want political or social changes. Now i don t understand how the free market way or capitalist (which is preserved and advocated by conservatives) can create a better society when its goal is to make profit. Actually that should be the job of the government, to better the life of all of its citizens (and being ultra rich doesn t make you necessarily happy). At the end of the day, it comes down to what s a good society, and if people want a moral one. If that s the case, people should understand free market isn t the way to go. If neo liberals just wanted to accumulate capital they'd be pushing to make the US economy more like Europe's conservative version. As for profit being a driving force, don't forget that society shapes markets and that very few people and organizations only care about profits. Which is more important, serving society or making profits? I'd say in the short run serving society and in the long run they're pretty equal. It's hard to serve society well if you run out of money. Just because you run out of profits doesn't mean you've run out of money. Profits are just meant for expansion and mitigation of ups and downs in the market. Outside those reasons profits aren't necessary to keep an organization running (that's pretty obvious seeing volunteers, non-profits, etc.) and to serve society - only necessary if you need to beat competition which wouldn't happen if everyone was working together to better society. So I'd say in the long run profits are unimportant compared to providing a service or doing actual work and progress. For an organization, yeah, you need profits to stay afloat. It holds true for non-profits as well. If they don't turn a profit (many do, many don't) they'll need to rely on outside funding to fill the gap. If that outside funding is inconsistent and expenses are consistent, they'll likely want to set up an endowment in order to keep funding stable. The gap in what? Your budget.
There's no gaps in a budget unless you mean there's missing data, which is just a data management problem.
|
On March 31 2014 03:31 IgnE wrote:
I just assumed you were. What makes European businesses more "neoliberal" than the US? You implied that Europeans were more conservative and consequently better at accumulating capital.
They're conservative, as in preserving the status quo, via regulations and financial sector support. US relies more on markets to regulate which businesses succeed or fail. In the US it's more likely that your business will be wiped out by a new firm or your loans will be wiped out in bankruptcy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
