|
On July 28 2011 10:51 ilovelings wrote:
I don't think that nuking japan was a good deterrent for Stalin. You just showed a madman a thing that goes big BOOM. That will inevitably result in him trying to get his own thing that goes boom. It was a message to the entire world who was the new "world boss".
Yes, in retrospect that turns out to be the case. I'm not describing why I dropped the atomic bombs, after all.
|
Personally though, I think it's fine for a child to have a job. Many do (delivering nwspapers, for example). Somehow people get the idea that having a job is exploitative or demeaning and we need to protect our youth from this onerous burden. Not at all. A job is an opportunity, a way to devlop your skills and earn independence.
Oh but that is not a 12 hour job in a factory making football is it?
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 28 2011 10:49 BestZergOnEast wrote:Show nested quote +No, but I can show you examples of horrible working conditions, child labor, unsanitary and overpacked slums, environmental destruction, and a general lack of value in life of any kind. I'd also argue that any authoritative regime is capable of horrible atrocities and that the mentioned mass slaughter is no more related to socialism then the above mentioned problems are associated with democracy. If you look at modern conditions, and compare them to 200 years ago, well yes, things were worse 200 years ago. DUH! But if you look at conditions 250 years ago, and then 200 years ago, you see things are rapidly improving. So it does no good to say "capitalism 200 years ago had poor working conditions" you should look at how condtions for workers changed. The reason why there was child labour was because parents weren't rich enough to not put their child to work. Capitalism ALLOWED for child labour to end by making the parents more productive. It wasn't government that ameliorated conditons for the working class, it was capitalism, capital accumulation, the development of industry.
You're delusional if you think it was capitalism, and not government regulation, that ended child labor.
|
Say that when you're the man from Argentina whose grandmother dies of a cold because he can't get fever medication because of an "efficient" government.
What are you talking about?
|
On July 28 2011 10:47 BestZergOnEast wrote:
As far as ethnic cleansing and genocide is concerned, considering EVERY EXAMPLE OF THIS HAS BEEN A GOVERNMENT AT WORK, I find it pretty hilarious that you claim the market will do this. Of course various competeting defence agencies would have incentives to work together, not to go to war with each other. The only organization that can go to war is government... war is far too costly fo little to no gain for any market actors to do it. It requires coercive taxation + the ability to debase the currency supply.
Government is greatest the creation of the free market. At the beginning of society there was nothing BUT the free market... And no, not "EVERY EXAMPLE OF THIS HAS BEEN A GOVERNMENT AT WORK"
God... how can you make such ugly sweeping statements and try to make civil argument?
In business, monopoly is the second most profitable position, and the most linearly stable. Why in the hell would arms companies with different ways of "policing" ever cooperate except on the most shallow of levels?
Also, war in the conventional sense can only be waged by government... war in the guerrilla sense can be waged by just about any bum on the street with a manifesto.
|
On July 28 2011 10:52 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 10:49 BestZergOnEast wrote:No, but I can show you examples of horrible working conditions, child labor, unsanitary and overpacked slums, environmental destruction, and a general lack of value in life of any kind. I'd also argue that any authoritative regime is capable of horrible atrocities and that the mentioned mass slaughter is no more related to socialism then the above mentioned problems are associated with democracy. If you look at modern conditions, and compare them to 200 years ago, well yes, things were worse 200 years ago. DUH! But if you look at conditions 250 years ago, and then 200 years ago, you see things are rapidly improving. So it does no good to say "capitalism 200 years ago had poor working conditions" you should look at how condtions for workers changed. The reason why there was child labour was because parents weren't rich enough to not put their child to work. Capitalism ALLOWED for child labour to end by making the parents more productive. It wasn't government that ameliorated conditons for the working class, it was capitalism, capital accumulation, the development of industry. You're delusional if you think it was capitalism, and not government regulation, that ended child labor.
let's put it this way. Capitalists realized that was much more profitable to sell product to kids that having them working  . States at the same time realized that Child labour was bad for the survival of the state.
|
On July 28 2011 10:52 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 10:49 BestZergOnEast wrote:No, but I can show you examples of horrible working conditions, child labor, unsanitary and overpacked slums, environmental destruction, and a general lack of value in life of any kind. I'd also argue that any authoritative regime is capable of horrible atrocities and that the mentioned mass slaughter is no more related to socialism then the above mentioned problems are associated with democracy. If you look at modern conditions, and compare them to 200 years ago, well yes, things were worse 200 years ago. DUH! But if you look at conditions 250 years ago, and then 200 years ago, you see things are rapidly improving. So it does no good to say "capitalism 200 years ago had poor working conditions" you should look at how condtions for workers changed. The reason why there was child labour was because parents weren't rich enough to not put their child to work. Capitalism ALLOWED for child labour to end by making the parents more productive. It wasn't government that ameliorated conditons for the working class, it was capitalism, capital accumulation, the development of industry. You're delusional if you think it was capitalism, and not government regulation, that ended child labor.
Indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
Easily the most famous example of a free market/unregulated business completely failing to protect its employees (and not a single company, the problem was widespread) and the need of government to step in to address the issue
|
You're delusional if you think it was capitalism, and not government regulation, that ended child labor.
Capitalism enabled productivty to increase. Workers wages are determined by productivity. In third world countries parents often have their children work, because it is hard to feed everyone. If they were wealthier they wouldn't be forced to do this. Likewise, as America became wealthier they no longer needed children to work. Anyway the impetus behind child labour laws is the same reason for the minimum wage - to prevent unskilled labourers from competeting with skilled labourers.
|
On July 28 2011 10:53 BestZergOnEast wrote:Show nested quote +
Say that when you're the man from Argentina whose grandmother dies of a cold because he can't get fever medication because of an "efficient" government.
What are you talking about?
Vital government systems like health care cannot be carelessly capitalized. It does not work. Not in the short term. Not for those who inevitably get run over by the system anyways... look at Soviet Russia and the MILLIONS who lost pensions and housing when the nation was capitalized... is Russia any better off now?
|
So 140 people died in a fire. Big deal. Governments have slaughtered hundreds of millions.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
If you look at modern conditions, and compare them to 200 years ago, well yes, things were worse 200 years ago. DUH! But if you look at conditions 250 years ago, and then 200 years ago, you see things are rapidly improving. So it does no good to say "capitalism 200 years ago had poor working conditions" you should look at how condtions for workers changed. The reason why there was child labour was because parents weren't rich enough to not put their child to work. Capitalism ALLOWED for child labour to end by making the parents more productive. It wasn't government that ameliorated conditons for the working class, it was capitalism, capital accumulation, the development of industry.
I just remember my self that you always have lived in a country with regulations.
|
On July 28 2011 10:47 chickenhawk wrote:Show nested quote +Bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima and killing around 250,000 people sounds horrible... and was horrible... but imagine if we had made that major offensive towards Kyushu? How many MILLIONS of Japanese would have died for the exact same result... not to mention the many thousands of Americans who also would have died... What rational President could NOT utilize the best means of cauterizing the wound that was the Pacific during WWII...
So why nuke a city? Full of citizens? Why nuke 2 cities? Why not a island with at least low population? And then say 'See there? We have thousands more?' Besides this is far from the objective of the thread.
Yes, for impact we kill nobody and hamstring ourselves of one of the TWO nuclear bombs we have... yes...
We COULD have obliterated Kyoto or Tokyo, but we didn't we even searched out for industrial centers that were surrounded by mountains and on rivers to reduce the impact...
|
Vital government systems like health care cannot be carelessly capitalized. It does not work. Not in the short term. Not for those who inevitably get run over by the system anyways... look at Soviet Russia and the MILLIONS who lost pensions and housing when the nation was capitalized... is Russia any better off now?
The problem is Russia wasn't "capitalized". Ironically, during the cold war, no one ever asked the question "if the Russians surrendered, they gave us the keys to the kremlin and said "fix us" what should we do? Everyone was just focused on beating the Russkies, not what to do afterwards. So when socialism died there was a power vacuum. Eventually Putin did make some free market reforms and they have helped that nation significantly.
Vital systems like health care MUST be left in the hands of the free market. State monopolies are too inefficient, too cumbersome, too prone to failure. You need market competition to ensure quality and affordability.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 28 2011 09:55 ShatterZer0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 09:49 Whitewing wrote:
As an economist, I feel fairly confident about the following: Major cuts in many programs are required, from defense spending (get rid of all those unnecessary overseas bases, hell, we've had 20 of them in Germany since the start of the bloody cold war) to welfare. Further, a significant increase in taxes are required for the top earners and for those with the majority of the wealth (top 95 percentile).
We could get rid of the majority of the department of homeland security (most of it is what's known as "security theater" anyway, and is essentially useless) and that would be a huge help. Perhaps you're an economist, but even if the United States cut ALL of its armed forces budget it's STILL be bankrupt but 2050... Social Security and Medicare/aid are what will be the nation's real challenges, and no politician DARES even looking at them for fear of the Elderly vote. Both of them are SERIOUSLY broken and are in NEED of likewise serious revamping. Major cuts are fine, but significant tax increases would slaughter our already fragile economy, the United States never "buckles down" because the moment it does the capital fares market gets thoroughly splattered... already we increase minimum wages and slowly roll back W. Bush era taxes which tighten the noose on our utterly underemployed job market, increasing taxes significantly wouldn't actually increase the amount of income that comes from taxing anyway.... which as an economist you should know.
A significant tax increase for top earners (and only top earners, not middle class or low income, or even mid-upper class) would do no such thing, there's a lot of evidence that the vast majority of people in these categories do not spend anywhere near as much as they earn. I wasn't suggesting only cuts to defense, there are other cuts that need to be made as well. The combination of a significant tax increase to top earners and cuts should be enough.
Certainly should not increase taxes on anyone but top earners however, I agree that doing that would in no way help.
|
On July 28 2011 10:57 BestZergOnEast wrote:
So 140 people died in a fire. Big deal. Governments have slaughtered hundreds of millions.
I'm done talking with you. It was fun.
I refuse to argue with someone who can ONLY see the B-2 Bomber's view... and not the civilian's on the ground.
|
On July 28 2011 11:00 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 09:55 ShatterZer0 wrote:On July 28 2011 09:49 Whitewing wrote:
As an economist, I feel fairly confident about the following: Major cuts in many programs are required, from defense spending (get rid of all those unnecessary overseas bases, hell, we've had 20 of them in Germany since the start of the bloody cold war) to welfare. Further, a significant increase in taxes are required for the top earners and for those with the majority of the wealth (top 95 percentile).
We could get rid of the majority of the department of homeland security (most of it is what's known as "security theater" anyway, and is essentially useless) and that would be a huge help. Perhaps you're an economist, but even if the United States cut ALL of its armed forces budget it's STILL be bankrupt but 2050... Social Security and Medicare/aid are what will be the nation's real challenges, and no politician DARES even looking at them for fear of the Elderly vote. Both of them are SERIOUSLY broken and are in NEED of likewise serious revamping. Major cuts are fine, but significant tax increases would slaughter our already fragile economy, the United States never "buckles down" because the moment it does the capital fares market gets thoroughly splattered... already we increase minimum wages and slowly roll back W. Bush era taxes which tighten the noose on our utterly underemployed job market, increasing taxes significantly wouldn't actually increase the amount of income that comes from taxing anyway.... which as an economist you should know. A significant tax increase for top earners (and only top earners, not middle class or low income, or even mid-upper class) would do no such thing, there's a lot of evidence that the vast majority of people in these categories do not spend anywhere near as much as they earn. I wasn't suggesting only cuts to defense, there are other cuts that need to be made as well. The combination of a significant tax increase to top earners and cuts should be enough. Certainly should not increase taxes on anyone but top earners however, I agree that doing that would in no way help.
In theory and ideally, you are completely correct, but it can't feasibly be done in our current economy and governing class.
Low income are never taxed, doing so would be cruel and unprofitable. Social Security and Medicare/aid dwarf anything we could attempt to cut... even defense in the short AND long term..
|
Government is greatest the creation of the free market. At the beginning of society there was nothing BUT the free market.. .
again, I have no clue what the hell you are talking about.
And no, not "EVERY EXAMPLE OF THIS HAS BEEN A GOVERNMENT AT WORK"
Alright, so what is an example of a non governmental genocide?
In business, monopoly is the second most profitable position, and the most linearly stable
Harmful monopolies can only exist because of special dispensation from the state. Concern for monopoly is overstated. Harmful monopolies would not exist on the free market.
. Why in the hell would arms companies with different ways of "policing" ever cooperate except on the most shallow of levels?
They're not "arms companies" they're "justice companies" and it's because it's a lot cheaper to make a deal than it is to go to war. War is EXTREMELY expensive, with little to no benefit. it requires the power of coercive taxation + the ability to debase the currency.
|
On July 28 2011 10:52 BestZergOnEast wrote:Show nested quote +You either count Sweden and Denmark as "socialist" countries, in which case socialism can work fine, or you don't, which would mean that social security and socialized health care aren't socialism. Or, I could count them as "mixed market economies", that in the case of Sweden, was once free market, and since developing this welfare state they have not been doing as well.
It doesn't matter, your argument still doesn't work. There are countries that had strong social security, government controlled health care and still do pretty well. BTW, Sweden is doing more than ok, and Denmark too, with one of the highest income taxes anywhere in the world.
Plus you started out with "every socialist country ends up with labour camps" and now you're saying it might just mean they won't do that well in the long term. Do you see how that damages your credibility?
|
You need market competition to ensure quality and affordability.
So US spends double of Australia, France, Germany, Japan, UK, Norway, Sweden, has the less life expectancy and the infant mortally than those countries, can you please explain to me how it is cheapest and better?
|
Do you know what socialist means? IT means ownership of the means of production by the state. Everywhere this has happened (Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia) you have mass graves. Denmark and Sweden are mixed market economies. Do they have stock markets? Then they are not socialist. Yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
