|
On October 21 2011 04:42 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame? He doesn't care "who's to blame". He just says that the system is bad for the reasons he mentioned. Who takes over who, who shoots who is unimportant. The point is that someone got shot. Alas the system is bad and can't be used. You basically admitted defeat just now...
I certainly did not. He's arguing we need governments to stop regulating the corporate sector, and I explained why this is a bad idea. While governments prevent free market, which he obviously supports, I simply explained how corporations will make the market unfree themselves.
"You basically admitted defeat just now..."
|
On October 21 2011 04:46 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:42 ParasitJonte wrote:You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame? He doesn't care "who's to blame". He just says that the system is bad for the reasons he mentioned. Who takes over who, who shoots who is unimportant. The point is that someone got shot. Alas the system is bad and can't be used. You basically admitted defeat just now... I don't think he did. I think you misread what he said. Its okay. Government is problematic, but it is at least construed as a structure that is responsible for providing for the needs of society as a whole. That construal in the minds of the public is a powerful thing, because the public can hold it accountable. Of course the public can also hold the corporation accountable, but I think we're all just in favour of gutting their ability to screw us all over by imposing stifling regulations on them, and the obvious means of doing this is through the vehicle of government.
That's a very crude way of doing things. It will hurt people who haven't done anything wrong. It's sort the lazy guy's way; it probably won't work as intended. It also has a very "us vs them" kind of feeling.
Government is very important. And democratic systems are the best ones we've managed to create. And nobody should be allowed to screw other people over unless the exchange was voluntary and transparant.
And I think there are ways to change things. If people organize and boycott all politicians accepting campaign contributions from, say, financial institutions then that will have a very immediate effect. But in most cases, it has turned out to be very hard to make it profitable for politcians to do the right thing...
|
What i never understood why would free market proponents who hate all things governess not like unions.
Unions are businesses created by people essentially lawyers hired by a similar group of people in order to gain power equal to that of the employers, in order to negotiate.
And so then if free market people dislike unions to me it just seems like the idea's of a free market is leave the wealthy people alone and collectivism is not a wealthy person. And so by decanting unions they encourage wealth inequality in a society in which the use of labor lawyer costs money as then the employer the one with the money who can afford lawyers always has the upper hand.
Also what's up with this government being reduced to limited role = less corruption
government corruption is outside influence/person in government using government to profit
To remove outside influence you remove money from government, in a government like the US a republic you would probably put a general tax, probably use some part of income tax to be put away in order to run elections. And remove people from using money outside of those coffers from running ads etc, have government funded debates etc. Ofc that still leaves how the press should act and how people get their name out there in the first place in order to be backed. Frankly i think the press should be allowed to do all the investigate journalism as they please but have strict policy in pointing out opinion pieces by people and people should be penalized when they are wrong be it on purpose or by mistake and should be forced to "print" a reaction on the same media.You can never remove a single person trying to profit themselves, that type of corruption you can only hope to catch and severely punish.
As far as government's role in a society is entirely up to the people in that society. Government is not a place to do business it's a place where people live under the same laws. I am not in favor of a planned society i much prefer people running like chickens with their heads cut off stumbling into things and that working out but that doesn't mean no regulation, in-fact it means well thought regulation. Also i find government is perfect for footing the bill on large projects whos goal is the benefit people that being said i don't think high speed rail in california from sf to La is all to well thoughtout, there is much greater demand of high speed rail in the DC area out to new york and philly etc. So they can't always be aligned with me i just have to hope they make the right decision in the long and if they show ineptitude, that should be accessed why that occur and fixes to be in place.
That being said people who say government role doesn't compete with business and thus fails are misleading. Often it's business who influences government to making government ineffective, look at the post office short of one law passed forcing them to pay the government for their current and future employee pensions they would be completely profitable. They are down sizing and adjusting to demand and yet cannot turn a profit due to that crippling law and no one argue that a post office is not necessary in a society to which you can be petitioned by the government to serve jury duty. And it's not like the post office runs off government money, it runs on it's on money yet it's not allowed to compete and it's prices are locked in by a government body i forget the initialism for it. Privately funded government run. And so due to the influences of business it's essentially has to operate with people who shoot itself in it's foot.
edit: herp time to read 2 3 pages, this thread moves so fast.
|
On October 21 2011 04:56 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:42 ParasitJonte wrote:You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame? He doesn't care "who's to blame". He just says that the system is bad for the reasons he mentioned. Who takes over who, who shoots who is unimportant. The point is that someone got shot. Alas the system is bad and can't be used. You basically admitted defeat just now... I certainly did not. He's arguing we need governments to stop regulating the corporate sector, and I explained why this is a bad idea. While governments prevent free market, which he obviously supports, I simply explained how corporations will make the market unfree themselves. "You basically admitted defeat just now..."
I think you need to re-read what you actually wrote ;o.
|
On October 21 2011 04:49 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:45 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 04:42 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:40 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 04:28 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:18 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 04:16 BlueBird. wrote:On October 21 2011 03:44 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 03:34 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 03:32 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
yeah we are on the same page.
You want to give the governmetn so much power that it doesn't need anything from the corporations.
And I want to limit the government's power that the corporations don't need anything from the government.
The problem with the first is that since government officials are still people, you can't have them not need anything from the market without them having the right to take whatever they want with no reprecussions.
You think that the problem with my idea is that without the government the corporations will run amuck, however you're ignoring pretty much all historical evidence, that the only time that corporations HAVE been able to run amuck is when they are able to manipulate legislature to give them unfair competitive advantages in the marketplace.
Without the unfair competitive advantage that they get from the government they will be forced by the rules of the free market to improve quality and reduce prices in order to not be out-competed. I encourage you to go read about the industrial revolution. Particularly, the plight of the working class. Yeah... I know there's a ton of literature about how free market fails. But ALL of that literature relies on the idea that the government should be the supreme legislative power of the nation. But any time you give the government supreme legislative power nothing good will come of it. This is why a government needs a consitution the rules of which it can not cross. This is why a Constitution is so important. It defines the role of the government as a body whose purpose is to protect the Human rights defined/established in it, and managing the economy is NOT in the scope of protecting human rights in fact it directly VIOLATES property rights. I actually went to the archives and saw the constitution last week, you can't even read the original document anymore just a bunch of scribbles and smudges(been like this for quite some time), the people that worked on it didn't really know how science/industry/population growth would make this country change.. it's a different world, and a different time. The document itself is magnificent, and stands for some really awesome stuff, but to say that it's not a little outdated? That's why the constitution allows the supreme court to mess with it, it's pretty much in the constitution that they get to interpret it, and for quite some time( at least as long as I've been alive, not a history major) we've been using the government to regulate, or even help big business and the economy. We also can make amendments, etc. Fun  science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government. This is true to an extent, and I agree with you to a degree.
This is why we need grassroots organization/mobilizing and why we need to build an alternative set of structures that are participatory in nature. those things are equivalent to unions, but once again unions have more power... by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no. People should have power. Power is fine if it doesn't screw over society. Power is great if its held by the many. No. We don't have a fair way of doing that in most cases. Nobody that I know of takes the position that democracy is a good system. Being able to vote for theft and call it anything but theft is the sign of an immoral society. So we go out and make the system work. We go out to the streets and we organize, and we build movements that takes the needs of the many into consideration. We're all screwed by the system, so we all go out together and fix it. But people will disagree. It does work in cases were the vast majority (like 95% say?) are in agreement. Perhaps then it's easier to waive the requests of the remaining 5% so long as the motion isn't to murder these 5% or something like that... Still, majority rules is a very imperfect system. But organizing and discussing and trying to bring society forward are of course valid actions. The hard part is deciding what's OK to vote on and what's not. Where to draw the line so to speak... Majority rules is possibly a bad system in some cases yes. So we go out and create local solutions, through forming parallel organizations. Reduce the scope of some decisions. People have a say in things they have a stake in. In order to do that, we start by organizing and mobilizing, and discussing it on an issue by issue basis. again, same solution. It takes a drastic restructuring of society.
Yes, local solutions will be good . I'm all for it. If less money wen't to centralized systems people would have more money left over to be able to do things like that...
|
The idea is that if you have the backing of the majority of people, the decision IS correct.
I want you to take a moment and realize that this isn't morally or factually correct. Just because alot of people think something is right doesn't make it factually correct. Why can't you understand this??? It's flawed in that aspect, and you know why. Do I like democracy, yes I do, it beats the shit out of alot of other forms of government. Does it have flaws? Of course, it was designed by humans!
Do you really think you control your fate to the extent that you can be confident in your ability to get yourself out of anything? Are you really going to give up your own power and control over the system because you think that you or somebody close to you will never need it?
No, but I'm quite confident in my ability not to make stupid decisions and piss away everything I have. I'm sorry you don't share my optimism.
Yes, some people just can't make it in this environment (even though they've got the education and ability to work). This doesn't mean they're no longer people and should be demoted to some sort of a lesser status in society and only given enough aid to ensure their bare survival. You may as well just kill them then, that's even cheaper, isn't it?
Because I'm going to suggest killing people who don't contribute to society, rightttt
No you sensationalist numbskull, I do not want to kill those who are unemployed, I was simply saying it's frustrating that I'm supporting them when many (not all) of them are there because of bad decisions on their part. Is this really that hard of a concept for you to wrap your mind around?
How delightfully naive.
We can do this all day pal. Besides there's no need for that condescending, pretentious garbage.
|
On October 21 2011 04:46 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:06 H0i wrote:On October 21 2011 03:46 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement? First you open free trade. if you have a company in 1 nation that's a monopoly, opening free trade allows other companies to compete from across the world. If the entire world's industry in monopolized into one company, then it will run huge costs to supply its services across the world, this will open up an opportunity for a more local company to make a profit. Question. How are for example water supply companies going to compete? Or health care? Or banks? Or electricity? Creating such a company requires a MAJOR investment, which you can only afford if you are... rich. Also many of the investments would be highly inefficient, like a lot of the things we're doing right now. For a new water/electricity company to form and compete, they would, for example need to build a completely new pipeline/cable system because they are not allowed to use the available one because it is owned by another corporation. This naturally means those areas, and similar ones, will be in control of a tiny amount of companies (that make deals with each other), or just one. The corporation will then grow and grow and grow, especially because of it's monopoly, and it will then go into other areas and destroy small businesses. They could create, for example a huge company like wal mart, which out-competes every smaller business and thus focuses the power even more, forming yet another monopoly. These kind of events continue and then we get corporatism again, like we have right now. On October 21 2011 03:41 Ercster wrote:On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement? The people will deal with it. If the people become tired of buying from that company, then they make a new one. That is a how a free market works. People will deal with it? Like they are dealing with it right now? Are they? No, those companies are destroying them and taking all their wealth, and many people are doing nothing about it because they're not even aware of it. The corporations and elite control many people through media, etc. They create an environment where many raise their children with a toxic mindset designed to reject anything that tries to attack the corporate power and wrongdoings, do you not see it? Many people are brainwashed. People are waking up though, so I guess we could say people are dealing with it. This is a very good thing. On October 21 2011 03:32 Kiarip wrote:
You think that the problem with my idea is that without the government the corporations will run amuck, however you're ignoring pretty much all historical evidence, that the only time that corporations HAVE been able to run amuck is when they are able to manipulate legislature to give them unfair competitive advantages in the marketplace.
Without the unfair competitive advantage that they get from the government they will be forced by the rules of the free market to improve quality and reduce prices in order to not be out-competed. I sort of destroyed this argument above and I can do it in many more ways, but you're basically saying government should not exist because corporations can make it corrupt? So, you think governments shouldn't exist? No police, no laws? Then what stops the corporations from doing "illegal" things like building a private army, if there are no laws? They are an infinitely greedy and selfish entity after all. Do we really want to live in a world where wars will be fought to determine what is the ultimate corporation? Crazy. Stop corporatism, stop greed, stop corruption and stop brainwashing humanity. Human "nature" is not an excuse. There is no human nature, there is only that which some falsely believe to be human nature, and the bad mindset of some people is the direct result of an ideology of greed, hate and darkness, instead of love and light. First response: 1. Companies didn't just form from thin air, they started small and grew to where they are now. 2. Monopolies will only thrive if people continue using the companies services or goods, as soon as they stop, the company will fail. Second Response: We aren't a free-market, so until that happens your argument isn't valid. Third Response: He didn't say that government should not exist, he said that government and corporations should be separate.
1. What do you propose? We destroy everything that exists and start over? Also, you're explaining what I am saying. Corporations started small and grew to what they are now, monopolies.
2. Yes. And what does the company do to prevent this? They prevent the existence of alternatives and brainwash people through media control. If a company holds a monopoly it is in a position to keep it actively, even if according to the "free market" some other company has a better product.
My argument is not invalid. We do not have a free market because corporations control the government. If we would not have a government they would make their own rules to make the market not free, to benefit themselves. A free market is a contradiction.
So if governments and corporations should be separate, then what does that mean? It means government not interfering where corporations don't want them to? Doesn't that mean.... government doing what the corporations want to, or not doing what they don't want them to do? Which means there really isn't a government anymore, except maybe on the security and liberty section, which will be taken over by corporations as well in their attempt to un-free the market to gain more profits.
|
On October 21 2011 04:34 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:32 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 03:23 DrainX wrote:Thats some serious cherry picking. Why not mention Scandinavia? Why I think it will work? Because it already does work where I live. Sure, the system isn't perfect but equality and social mobility are a lot better over here. The story is more complicated than that. First of all, Scandinavia grew wealthy from all very uber liberal reforms during the latter half of the 19th century (much like other countries like Japan). The society I guess you're thinking of then started to take shape more and more but up until 1950 the ratio of taxation to total output was always below 20%. After 1950 we got tighter labor market regulations and by 1970 the ratio was above 50%. Incidentally the economy was slowing down all while the ratio increased until we reached stagnation and suffered from horrible political decisions that caved the way for our big crisis - much like this crisis has been created by politicians. It wasn't until the Socia Democrats lead by Göran Persson took som hard decisions and stopped the growth of government and put together the financial framework (which among other things states that the government should aim for a budget surplus and deine a self-imposed spending ceiling for the coming years) that the economy finally turned around and is now one of the best in all of the world. Also worth noting is that Sweden created a net total of 0 new private jobs during the period 1970-2000 (jobs in the public sector were created). That such policies don't work in creating wealth is obvious. Not just from bad countries but from good countries like Sweden. They may work in sharing wealth however. They may work decently, or at least do less harm, in homogenous countries. After all, what problem is a minimum wage (or barriers in general) in a country were everybody looks the same, speaks the same language, comes from roughly the same background has roughly the same education? But look at what happened as soon as Sweden, and other countries, decided (and rightly so in my opinion) to open our borders? Did we gain the same kind of economic boost USA did when people migrated there? Nope. We got trouble and racism pretty much because suddenly people didn't fit into the existing structure and so you get people living here for 10 years before getting a job. What I find especially ironic is how these bureaucratic systems inevitably end up favoring those already on top. Wall Street was bailed out, main street wasn't. CEOs go to Washington/Stockholm and ask for favorable loans or financial aid that common people with small businesses would never get. Jobs aren't competed for, they're given to family members. Knowing the right people is more important than being virtuous and skillful. Rules and reguations are created so complex and convoluted that only the big companies can employ enough lawyers and other non-productive people to navigate the mazes and come out on top. It's always one big giant boot stomping the face of the common man. That's why free societies are important. At least if you want to create wealth and be open to anyone while being able to say that things are as fair as they possibly can get. who cares about creating wealth if its only created in the hands of a few. South Africa for example, upon liberalising it's economy underwent a lot of growth, in terms of GDP, but people were almost universally worse off as a result. 'growth' is just another scam, really, people love to advocate growth, but who the hell cares if the top .001% enjoy higher profits if everyone else stagnates. The fortune 500 has more assets. Woop. Meanwhile poverty is up, less people have healthcare, education, the gini index goes through the roof. That's not what growth means to me, but that's what it means in the way you use it. In a feudal economy do the peasants care if the king raids the treasury of the next kingdom? It would count as growth.
You're right. Growth in itself isn't a goal at all. And I only support free societies. The created wealth tends to benefit everybody in those societies.
|
On October 21 2011 04:58 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:46 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:42 ParasitJonte wrote:You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame? He doesn't care "who's to blame". He just says that the system is bad for the reasons he mentioned. Who takes over who, who shoots who is unimportant. The point is that someone got shot. Alas the system is bad and can't be used. You basically admitted defeat just now... I don't think he did. I think you misread what he said. Its okay. Government is problematic, but it is at least construed as a structure that is responsible for providing for the needs of society as a whole. That construal in the minds of the public is a powerful thing, because the public can hold it accountable. Of course the public can also hold the corporation accountable, but I think we're all just in favour of gutting their ability to screw us all over by imposing stifling regulations on them, and the obvious means of doing this is through the vehicle of government. That's a very crude way of doing things. It will hurt people who haven't done anything wrong. It's sort the lazy guy's way; it probably won't work as intended. It also has a very "us vs them" kind of feeling. Government is very important. And democratic systems are the best ones we've managed to create. And nobody should be allowed to screw other people over unless the exchange was voluntary and transparant. And I think there are ways to change things. If people organize and boycott all politicians accepting campaign contributions from, say, financial institutions then that will have a very immediate effect. But in most cases, it has turned out to be very hard to make it profitable for politcians to do the right thing...
It is crude. and it was tongue in cheek. obviously I don't have The Answer to All That Ails Us.
part of the answer is hamstringing the ability of corporations to exert influence. This can't be done with a simple rejuggling of regulations, society literally needs to be fundamentally reordered or else the situation re-occurs in the future. People recognize this.
Us vs. Them is precisely how many people feel, and I was capturing that in my response. It is also quite accurate-- I construe 'us' to be the citizen, the collective rights of citizens and of society, and the overall health of society and ability for it to provide for its citizens. 'Them' are individuals and/or entities which pursue independent needs at the expense of the whole. Kind of like cancer.
You can poke holes in my conceptualization of what 'them' equates to. You can say 'look look, there are individuals in that 'them' that you just defined'. But I think everyone reading this gets the bigger point.
|
On October 21 2011 05:03 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:34 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:32 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 03:23 DrainX wrote:Thats some serious cherry picking. Why not mention Scandinavia? Why I think it will work? Because it already does work where I live. Sure, the system isn't perfect but equality and social mobility are a lot better over here. The story is more complicated than that. First of all, Scandinavia grew wealthy from all very uber liberal reforms during the latter half of the 19th century (much like other countries like Japan). The society I guess you're thinking of then started to take shape more and more but up until 1950 the ratio of taxation to total output was always below 20%. After 1950 we got tighter labor market regulations and by 1970 the ratio was above 50%. Incidentally the economy was slowing down all while the ratio increased until we reached stagnation and suffered from horrible political decisions that caved the way for our big crisis - much like this crisis has been created by politicians. It wasn't until the Socia Democrats lead by Göran Persson took som hard decisions and stopped the growth of government and put together the financial framework (which among other things states that the government should aim for a budget surplus and deine a self-imposed spending ceiling for the coming years) that the economy finally turned around and is now one of the best in all of the world. Also worth noting is that Sweden created a net total of 0 new private jobs during the period 1970-2000 (jobs in the public sector were created). That such policies don't work in creating wealth is obvious. Not just from bad countries but from good countries like Sweden. They may work in sharing wealth however. They may work decently, or at least do less harm, in homogenous countries. After all, what problem is a minimum wage (or barriers in general) in a country were everybody looks the same, speaks the same language, comes from roughly the same background has roughly the same education? But look at what happened as soon as Sweden, and other countries, decided (and rightly so in my opinion) to open our borders? Did we gain the same kind of economic boost USA did when people migrated there? Nope. We got trouble and racism pretty much because suddenly people didn't fit into the existing structure and so you get people living here for 10 years before getting a job. What I find especially ironic is how these bureaucratic systems inevitably end up favoring those already on top. Wall Street was bailed out, main street wasn't. CEOs go to Washington/Stockholm and ask for favorable loans or financial aid that common people with small businesses would never get. Jobs aren't competed for, they're given to family members. Knowing the right people is more important than being virtuous and skillful. Rules and reguations are created so complex and convoluted that only the big companies can employ enough lawyers and other non-productive people to navigate the mazes and come out on top. It's always one big giant boot stomping the face of the common man. That's why free societies are important. At least if you want to create wealth and be open to anyone while being able to say that things are as fair as they possibly can get. who cares about creating wealth if its only created in the hands of a few. South Africa for example, upon liberalising it's economy underwent a lot of growth, in terms of GDP, but people were almost universally worse off as a result. 'growth' is just another scam, really, people love to advocate growth, but who the hell cares if the top .001% enjoy higher profits if everyone else stagnates. The fortune 500 has more assets. Woop. Meanwhile poverty is up, less people have healthcare, education, the gini index goes through the roof. That's not what growth means to me, but that's what it means in the way you use it. In a feudal economy do the peasants care if the king raids the treasury of the next kingdom? It would count as growth. You're right. Growth in itself isn't a goal at all. And I only support free societies. The created wealth tends to benefit everybody in those societies.
Me: Growth is another scam, people love to advocate growth, but who the hell cares if the top .0001% enjoy higher profits if everyone else stagnates.
You: Growth benefits everybody in free societies.
US by that definition is not free.
Freedom, if I extend your definition, then means that if growth equates to increased income equality, a society can be considered free. So Sweden/Norway/Denmark/Finland are examples of countries that are considerably more free than the US.
I think we agree on some things--- fundamentally though we don't want a society to be based simply on income-- income is a metric, but it is of varying relevance in different societies. I would be happy to simply work and contribute to society if the bulk of my needs are provided publicly. But its up to the collection of individuals to exercise their rights to having control over their own lives really-- again, local solutions, but we still need a government that's enmeshed with the public, not one divorced from public interest.
|
On October 21 2011 05:02 Pillage wrote:
Because I'm going to suggest killing people who don't contribute to society, rightttt
No you sensationalist numbskull, I do not want to kill those who are unemployed, I was simply saying it's frustrating that I'm supporting them when many (not all) of them are there because of bad decisions on their part. Is this really that hard of a concept for you to wrap your mind around?
Why is it someones fault if he/she is unemployed? Unemployment rates, the official ones NOT changed to make it sound better are above 20% (USA). It's not their bad decisions, it's a problem of the system. The system is obviously wrong and here is why: in order to have every person working we need to get more jobs, which means more growth. Can we grow infinitely? No, we cannot but this is what the economy wishes to do and thus it is a ponzi scheme. Not only the growth, but also the rate of growth is limited. It's simple math, ponzi schemes crash.
The current system and ideology has already failed, it's time to move on.
|
On October 21 2011 05:01 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:49 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:45 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 04:42 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:40 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 04:28 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:18 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 04:16 BlueBird. wrote:On October 21 2011 03:44 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 03:34 caradoc wrote:
[quote]
I encourage you to go read about the industrial revolution. Particularly, the plight of the working class. Yeah... I know there's a ton of literature about how free market fails. But ALL of that literature relies on the idea that the government should be the supreme legislative power of the nation. But any time you give the government supreme legislative power nothing good will come of it. This is why a government needs a consitution the rules of which it can not cross. This is why a Constitution is so important. It defines the role of the government as a body whose purpose is to protect the Human rights defined/established in it, and managing the economy is NOT in the scope of protecting human rights in fact it directly VIOLATES property rights. I actually went to the archives and saw the constitution last week, you can't even read the original document anymore just a bunch of scribbles and smudges(been like this for quite some time), the people that worked on it didn't really know how science/industry/population growth would make this country change.. it's a different world, and a different time. The document itself is magnificent, and stands for some really awesome stuff, but to say that it's not a little outdated? That's why the constitution allows the supreme court to mess with it, it's pretty much in the constitution that they get to interpret it, and for quite some time( at least as long as I've been alive, not a history major) we've been using the government to regulate, or even help big business and the economy. We also can make amendments, etc. Fun science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government. This is true to an extent, and I agree with you to a degree.
This is why we need grassroots organization/mobilizing and why we need to build an alternative set of structures that are participatory in nature. those things are equivalent to unions, but once again unions have more power... by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no. People should have power. Power is fine if it doesn't screw over society. Power is great if its held by the many. No. We don't have a fair way of doing that in most cases. Nobody that I know of takes the position that democracy is a good system. Being able to vote for theft and call it anything but theft is the sign of an immoral society. So we go out and make the system work. We go out to the streets and we organize, and we build movements that takes the needs of the many into consideration. We're all screwed by the system, so we all go out together and fix it. But people will disagree. It does work in cases were the vast majority (like 95% say?) are in agreement. Perhaps then it's easier to waive the requests of the remaining 5% so long as the motion isn't to murder these 5% or something like that... Still, majority rules is a very imperfect system. But organizing and discussing and trying to bring society forward are of course valid actions. The hard part is deciding what's OK to vote on and what's not. Where to draw the line so to speak... Majority rules is possibly a bad system in some cases yes. So we go out and create local solutions, through forming parallel organizations. Reduce the scope of some decisions. People have a say in things they have a stake in. In order to do that, we start by organizing and mobilizing, and discussing it on an issue by issue basis. again, same solution. It takes a drastic restructuring of society. Yes, local solutions will be good . I'm all for it. If less money wen't to centralized systems people would have more money left over to be able to do things like that...
Certain public goods need to be centralized-- it makes sense for some elements of healthcare, education, environment, and elements of civil society.
But we need to reconceptualize things too-- healthcare for example is more than just having hospitals to fix you when you're sick-- its about healthy eating programs, its about exercise and education, it's about supporting sustainable local food supplies, it's about community health professionals and custom solutions to different locales.
|
On October 21 2011 05:04 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:58 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 04:46 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:42 ParasitJonte wrote:You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame? He doesn't care "who's to blame". He just says that the system is bad for the reasons he mentioned. Who takes over who, who shoots who is unimportant. The point is that someone got shot. Alas the system is bad and can't be used. You basically admitted defeat just now... I don't think he did. I think you misread what he said. Its okay. Government is problematic, but it is at least construed as a structure that is responsible for providing for the needs of society as a whole. That construal in the minds of the public is a powerful thing, because the public can hold it accountable. Of course the public can also hold the corporation accountable, but I think we're all just in favour of gutting their ability to screw us all over by imposing stifling regulations on them, and the obvious means of doing this is through the vehicle of government. That's a very crude way of doing things. It will hurt people who haven't done anything wrong. It's sort the lazy guy's way; it probably won't work as intended. It also has a very "us vs them" kind of feeling. Government is very important. And democratic systems are the best ones we've managed to create. And nobody should be allowed to screw other people over unless the exchange was voluntary and transparant. And I think there are ways to change things. If people organize and boycott all politicians accepting campaign contributions from, say, financial institutions then that will have a very immediate effect. But in most cases, it has turned out to be very hard to make it profitable for politcians to do the right thing... It is crude. and it was tongue in cheek. obviously I don't have The Answer to All That Ails Us. part of the answer is hamstringing the ability of corporations to exert influence. This can't be done with a simple rejuggling of regulations, society literally needs to be fundamentally reordered or else the situation re-occurs in the future. People recognize this. Us vs. Them is precisely how many people feel, and I was capturing that in my response. It is also quite accurate-- I construe 'us' to be the citizen, the collective rights of citizens and of society, and the overall health of society and ability for it to provide for its citizens. 'Them' are individuals and/or entities which pursue independent needs at the expense of the whole. Kind of like cancer. You can poke holes in my conceptualization of what 'them' equates to. You can say 'look look, there are individuals in that 'them' that you just defined'. But I think everyone reading this gets the bigger point.
Well. To make it less crude, that's were you should start off then. Get together with those who agree and form the long list of how these people get rich at the expense of other people.
Because such activities should be stopped. Let me give a couple of examples:
- Companies making money while polluting the environment (should be stopped/taxed).
- Companies making money selling hazardous products (should be sued and put out of business)
- Companies lobbying/gaining privileges/influence through government (the power of government must decrease, thereby removing the incentive for lobbying etc.).
- ...
That list can probably be expanded... But that's the type of list people need to make. To me, morality is the most important thing. I don't really care if 0.01% has a 10000 inch TV as long as no immoral act was taken to get those TVs. But immoral actions should be identified and punished.
If you do make such a list however, I think you will be surprised to see how often the government will show up in it. Given that, it's questionable whether the government is an effective veichle to do things.
|
On October 21 2011 05:08 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 05:03 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 04:34 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:32 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 03:23 DrainX wrote:Thats some serious cherry picking. Why not mention Scandinavia? Why I think it will work? Because it already does work where I live. Sure, the system isn't perfect but equality and social mobility are a lot better over here. The story is more complicated than that. First of all, Scandinavia grew wealthy from all very uber liberal reforms during the latter half of the 19th century (much like other countries like Japan). The society I guess you're thinking of then started to take shape more and more but up until 1950 the ratio of taxation to total output was always below 20%. After 1950 we got tighter labor market regulations and by 1970 the ratio was above 50%. Incidentally the economy was slowing down all while the ratio increased until we reached stagnation and suffered from horrible political decisions that caved the way for our big crisis - much like this crisis has been created by politicians. It wasn't until the Socia Democrats lead by Göran Persson took som hard decisions and stopped the growth of government and put together the financial framework (which among other things states that the government should aim for a budget surplus and deine a self-imposed spending ceiling for the coming years) that the economy finally turned around and is now one of the best in all of the world. Also worth noting is that Sweden created a net total of 0 new private jobs during the period 1970-2000 (jobs in the public sector were created). That such policies don't work in creating wealth is obvious. Not just from bad countries but from good countries like Sweden. They may work in sharing wealth however. They may work decently, or at least do less harm, in homogenous countries. After all, what problem is a minimum wage (or barriers in general) in a country were everybody looks the same, speaks the same language, comes from roughly the same background has roughly the same education? But look at what happened as soon as Sweden, and other countries, decided (and rightly so in my opinion) to open our borders? Did we gain the same kind of economic boost USA did when people migrated there? Nope. We got trouble and racism pretty much because suddenly people didn't fit into the existing structure and so you get people living here for 10 years before getting a job. What I find especially ironic is how these bureaucratic systems inevitably end up favoring those already on top. Wall Street was bailed out, main street wasn't. CEOs go to Washington/Stockholm and ask for favorable loans or financial aid that common people with small businesses would never get. Jobs aren't competed for, they're given to family members. Knowing the right people is more important than being virtuous and skillful. Rules and reguations are created so complex and convoluted that only the big companies can employ enough lawyers and other non-productive people to navigate the mazes and come out on top. It's always one big giant boot stomping the face of the common man. That's why free societies are important. At least if you want to create wealth and be open to anyone while being able to say that things are as fair as they possibly can get. who cares about creating wealth if its only created in the hands of a few. South Africa for example, upon liberalising it's economy underwent a lot of growth, in terms of GDP, but people were almost universally worse off as a result. 'growth' is just another scam, really, people love to advocate growth, but who the hell cares if the top .001% enjoy higher profits if everyone else stagnates. The fortune 500 has more assets. Woop. Meanwhile poverty is up, less people have healthcare, education, the gini index goes through the roof. That's not what growth means to me, but that's what it means in the way you use it. In a feudal economy do the peasants care if the king raids the treasury of the next kingdom? It would count as growth. You're right. Growth in itself isn't a goal at all. And I only support free societies. The created wealth tends to benefit everybody in those societies. Me: Growth is another scam, people love to advocate growth, but who the hell cares if the top .0001% enjoy higher profits if everyone else stagnates. You: Growth benefits everybody in free societies. US by that definition is not free. Freedom, if I extend your definition, then means that if growth equates to increased income equality, a society can be considered free. So Sweden/Norway/Denmark/Finland are examples of countries that are considerably more free than the US. I think we agree on some things.
No, not necessarily increased income equality. But probably more so than what you currently have in the US, yes.
If you think about it, the distribution would probably be something like the normal distribution.
It's hard to measure freedom and I won't attempt it. But deconstruct it into two parts: economical and political and it becomes easier. In a lot of senses I do think Sweden is more free than USA... That wasn't always the case. There was a time when people starving in Sweden fled to the US.
I would love to live in Singapore for example if only it became more politically free... Combine the political climate in Sweden (which I think is very good - low corruption etc.) with the economical freedom of Singapore and that's where I would like to live .
|
On October 21 2011 05:11 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 05:04 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:58 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 04:46 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:42 ParasitJonte wrote:You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame? He doesn't care "who's to blame". He just says that the system is bad for the reasons he mentioned. Who takes over who, who shoots who is unimportant. The point is that someone got shot. Alas the system is bad and can't be used. You basically admitted defeat just now... I don't think he did. I think you misread what he said. Its okay. Government is problematic, but it is at least construed as a structure that is responsible for providing for the needs of society as a whole. That construal in the minds of the public is a powerful thing, because the public can hold it accountable. Of course the public can also hold the corporation accountable, but I think we're all just in favour of gutting their ability to screw us all over by imposing stifling regulations on them, and the obvious means of doing this is through the vehicle of government. That's a very crude way of doing things. It will hurt people who haven't done anything wrong. It's sort the lazy guy's way; it probably won't work as intended. It also has a very "us vs them" kind of feeling. Government is very important. And democratic systems are the best ones we've managed to create. And nobody should be allowed to screw other people over unless the exchange was voluntary and transparant. And I think there are ways to change things. If people organize and boycott all politicians accepting campaign contributions from, say, financial institutions then that will have a very immediate effect. But in most cases, it has turned out to be very hard to make it profitable for politcians to do the right thing... It is crude. and it was tongue in cheek. obviously I don't have The Answer to All That Ails Us. part of the answer is hamstringing the ability of corporations to exert influence. This can't be done with a simple rejuggling of regulations, society literally needs to be fundamentally reordered or else the situation re-occurs in the future. People recognize this. Us vs. Them is precisely how many people feel, and I was capturing that in my response. It is also quite accurate-- I construe 'us' to be the citizen, the collective rights of citizens and of society, and the overall health of society and ability for it to provide for its citizens. 'Them' are individuals and/or entities which pursue independent needs at the expense of the whole. Kind of like cancer. You can poke holes in my conceptualization of what 'them' equates to. You can say 'look look, there are individuals in that 'them' that you just defined'. But I think everyone reading this gets the bigger point. Well. To make it less crude, that's were you should start off then. Get together with those who agree and form the long list of how these people get rich at the expense of other people. Because such activities should be stopped. Let me give a couple of examples: - Companies making money while polluting the environment (should be stopped/taxed). - Companies making money selling hazardous products (should be sued and put out of business) - Companies lobbying/gaining privileges/influence through government (the power of government must decrease, thereby removing the incentive for lobbying etc.). - ... That list can probably be expanded... But that's the type of list people need to make. To me, morality is the most important thing. I don't really care if 0.01% has a 10000 inch TV as long as no immoral act was taken to get those TVs. But immoral actions should be identified and punished. If you do make such a list however, I think you will be surprised to see how often the government will show up in it. Given that, it's questionable whether the government is an effective veichle to do things.
The benefit of utilizing government is that people believe it represents the will of the people. It doesn't, for the most part, but the fact that people believe it does makes it a concentrated target, and an opportunity to hold it accountable.
Personally, I'd rather see a long term movement that permeates much deeper into the glocal social fabric where people build parallel organizations which then begin to operate certain social functions. This is a potential example of deep participatory democracy because everyone has a stake in it. But who knows what happens.
|
On October 21 2011 04:52 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:47 Ercster wrote:On October 21 2011 03:56 Talin wrote:On October 21 2011 03:41 Ercster wrote:On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement? The people will deal with it. If the people become tired of buying from that company, then they make a new one. That is a how a free market works. What happens if the people become tired of working in a modern version of slavery? They move to a new job where things are done the exact same way in order to keep expenses low and stay competitive with their old employer? How do they deal with that? This is the part that is absurd to me - you want to reduce control and influence of the government, but by doing that you're reducing YOUR OWN control over the society YOU LIVE IN. Given that governments are corrupt and do a piss poor job at being your representative, but it's still a tool that exists and as long as it exists, you have a method to control and change things. What you're saying is "no, I don't want to have any direct control over the society I live in". You're cutting your options, making yourself less influental, less powerful, and ultimately less valuable. Unless you're at the top of the food chain (which I don't think anyone here is or will ever have a chance to be) - it's literally a social suicide. Which quite simply is a stance I can't take very seriously. How do I answer this so that someone as stupid as you can understand. If people don't like who you work for, they go somewhere else where the work is better, you know, like it is NOW. Because you have the ability and right to post, doesn't mean you should. This is wrongheaded. Who do I work for, sweatshop A or B? errr... I choose neither. Okay. Now I starve.
The answer would probably be that he could take a loan and open his own sweatshop, but if he wants to pay people accordingly, because he knows how shitty it is to work there, he's going bankrupt because he can't compete with the sweatshops who use slave labor. This is capitalism. If one treats his employees worse than you, you gotta follow or close your company.
|
On October 21 2011 05:18 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 05:08 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 05:03 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 04:34 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:32 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 03:23 DrainX wrote:Thats some serious cherry picking. Why not mention Scandinavia? Why I think it will work? Because it already does work where I live. Sure, the system isn't perfect but equality and social mobility are a lot better over here. The story is more complicated than that. First of all, Scandinavia grew wealthy from all very uber liberal reforms during the latter half of the 19th century (much like other countries like Japan). The society I guess you're thinking of then started to take shape more and more but up until 1950 the ratio of taxation to total output was always below 20%. After 1950 we got tighter labor market regulations and by 1970 the ratio was above 50%. Incidentally the economy was slowing down all while the ratio increased until we reached stagnation and suffered from horrible political decisions that caved the way for our big crisis - much like this crisis has been created by politicians. It wasn't until the Socia Democrats lead by Göran Persson took som hard decisions and stopped the growth of government and put together the financial framework (which among other things states that the government should aim for a budget surplus and deine a self-imposed spending ceiling for the coming years) that the economy finally turned around and is now one of the best in all of the world. Also worth noting is that Sweden created a net total of 0 new private jobs during the period 1970-2000 (jobs in the public sector were created). That such policies don't work in creating wealth is obvious. Not just from bad countries but from good countries like Sweden. They may work in sharing wealth however. They may work decently, or at least do less harm, in homogenous countries. After all, what problem is a minimum wage (or barriers in general) in a country were everybody looks the same, speaks the same language, comes from roughly the same background has roughly the same education? But look at what happened as soon as Sweden, and other countries, decided (and rightly so in my opinion) to open our borders? Did we gain the same kind of economic boost USA did when people migrated there? Nope. We got trouble and racism pretty much because suddenly people didn't fit into the existing structure and so you get people living here for 10 years before getting a job. What I find especially ironic is how these bureaucratic systems inevitably end up favoring those already on top. Wall Street was bailed out, main street wasn't. CEOs go to Washington/Stockholm and ask for favorable loans or financial aid that common people with small businesses would never get. Jobs aren't competed for, they're given to family members. Knowing the right people is more important than being virtuous and skillful. Rules and reguations are created so complex and convoluted that only the big companies can employ enough lawyers and other non-productive people to navigate the mazes and come out on top. It's always one big giant boot stomping the face of the common man. That's why free societies are important. At least if you want to create wealth and be open to anyone while being able to say that things are as fair as they possibly can get. who cares about creating wealth if its only created in the hands of a few. South Africa for example, upon liberalising it's economy underwent a lot of growth, in terms of GDP, but people were almost universally worse off as a result. 'growth' is just another scam, really, people love to advocate growth, but who the hell cares if the top .001% enjoy higher profits if everyone else stagnates. The fortune 500 has more assets. Woop. Meanwhile poverty is up, less people have healthcare, education, the gini index goes through the roof. That's not what growth means to me, but that's what it means in the way you use it. In a feudal economy do the peasants care if the king raids the treasury of the next kingdom? It would count as growth. You're right. Growth in itself isn't a goal at all. And I only support free societies. The created wealth tends to benefit everybody in those societies. Me: Growth is another scam, people love to advocate growth, but who the hell cares if the top .0001% enjoy higher profits if everyone else stagnates. You: Growth benefits everybody in free societies. US by that definition is not free. Freedom, if I extend your definition, then means that if growth equates to increased income equality, a society can be considered free. So Sweden/Norway/Denmark/Finland are examples of countries that are considerably more free than the US. I think we agree on some things. No, not necessarily increased income equality. But probably more so than what you currently have in the US, yes. If you think about it, the distribution would probably be something like the normal distribution. It's hard to measure freedom and I won't attempt it. But deconstruct it into two parts: economical and political and it becomes easier. In a lot of senses I do think Sweden is more free than USA... That wasn't always the case. There was a time when people starving in Sweden fled to the US. I would love to live in Singapore for example if only it became more politically free... Combine the political climate in Sweden (which I think is very good - low corruption etc.) with the economical freedom of Singapore and that's where I would like to live .
Singapore is becoming pretty vulnerable to the global economy and an underclass is starting to emerge. I'm not sure if its model is sustainable in the long term.
I think that currently we deconstruct society into two parts, economic and political, but that this is problematic-- why should it be separate. Farmers have a stake in food supply and production issues, and are relevant to local discussions on food security, environmental sustainability, and food prices. These are simultaneously economic and political issues. I can envision a system that doesn't divorce them into two separate domains.
|
On October 21 2011 03:41 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement? The people will deal with it. If the people become tired of buying from that company, then they make a new one. That is a how a free market works.
If that's how a free market works, then it's doomed to stay your fantasy. Because this isn't how reality works.
People will only make a new one if it gives them profit. But before profit can be made new company should return it's initial investments. You see, new companies doesn't just appear out of thin air. You need to invest money into the project first. And then you'll need to pay back this investment otherwise there's no point in starting business to begin with. Monopolistic companies don't have to deal with such things and as a result they can keep prices low enough to have significant competitive edge over new start-up. In case such extra expenses in the form of initial investment is not enough to keep you away from competing with them, they can start using special tactics that free-market advocates seem to completely ignore.
On October 21 2011 03:46 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement? First you open free trade. if you have a company in 1 nation that's a monopoly, opening free trade allows other companies to compete from across the world. If the entire world's industry in monopolized into one company, then it will run huge costs to supply its services across the world, this will open up an opportunity for a more local company to make a profit.
One of the main reasons why companies merge and form cartels and monopolies is because this way they significantly lower expenses. Moreover the free-trade is supposed to eliminate economic borders that put extra costs when it comes to supplying services across the world.
Your "then it will run huge costs to supply its services" statement contradicts the very reason why monopolies and global free-trade treaties exists in the first place and hence it isn't based on reality.
And as I said before, there's special anti-competitive tactics that are currently dealt with by government, what about them? Free market model that you propose won't deal with situations when one company pays to other to not have business with the third one. Because dealing with it will require government intervention that you're against.
|
On October 21 2011 05:08 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 05:03 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 04:34 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:32 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 03:23 DrainX wrote:Thats some serious cherry picking. Why not mention Scandinavia? Why I think it will work? Because it already does work where I live. Sure, the system isn't perfect but equality and social mobility are a lot better over here. The story is more complicated than that. First of all, Scandinavia grew wealthy from all very uber liberal reforms during the latter half of the 19th century (much like other countries like Japan). The society I guess you're thinking of then started to take shape more and more but up until 1950 the ratio of taxation to total output was always below 20%. After 1950 we got tighter labor market regulations and by 1970 the ratio was above 50%. Incidentally the economy was slowing down all while the ratio increased until we reached stagnation and suffered from horrible political decisions that caved the way for our big crisis - much like this crisis has been created by politicians. It wasn't until the Socia Democrats lead by Göran Persson took som hard decisions and stopped the growth of government and put together the financial framework (which among other things states that the government should aim for a budget surplus and deine a self-imposed spending ceiling for the coming years) that the economy finally turned around and is now one of the best in all of the world. Also worth noting is that Sweden created a net total of 0 new private jobs during the period 1970-2000 (jobs in the public sector were created). That such policies don't work in creating wealth is obvious. Not just from bad countries but from good countries like Sweden. They may work in sharing wealth however. They may work decently, or at least do less harm, in homogenous countries. After all, what problem is a minimum wage (or barriers in general) in a country were everybody looks the same, speaks the same language, comes from roughly the same background has roughly the same education? But look at what happened as soon as Sweden, and other countries, decided (and rightly so in my opinion) to open our borders? Did we gain the same kind of economic boost USA did when people migrated there? Nope. We got trouble and racism pretty much because suddenly people didn't fit into the existing structure and so you get people living here for 10 years before getting a job. What I find especially ironic is how these bureaucratic systems inevitably end up favoring those already on top. Wall Street was bailed out, main street wasn't. CEOs go to Washington/Stockholm and ask for favorable loans or financial aid that common people with small businesses would never get. Jobs aren't competed for, they're given to family members. Knowing the right people is more important than being virtuous and skillful. Rules and reguations are created so complex and convoluted that only the big companies can employ enough lawyers and other non-productive people to navigate the mazes and come out on top. It's always one big giant boot stomping the face of the common man. That's why free societies are important. At least if you want to create wealth and be open to anyone while being able to say that things are as fair as they possibly can get. who cares about creating wealth if its only created in the hands of a few. South Africa for example, upon liberalising it's economy underwent a lot of growth, in terms of GDP, but people were almost universally worse off as a result. 'growth' is just another scam, really, people love to advocate growth, but who the hell cares if the top .001% enjoy higher profits if everyone else stagnates. The fortune 500 has more assets. Woop. Meanwhile poverty is up, less people have healthcare, education, the gini index goes through the roof. That's not what growth means to me, but that's what it means in the way you use it. In a feudal economy do the peasants care if the king raids the treasury of the next kingdom? It would count as growth. You're right. Growth in itself isn't a goal at all. And I only support free societies. The created wealth tends to benefit everybody in those societies. Me: Growth is another scam, people love to advocate growth, but who the hell cares if the top .0001% enjoy higher profits if everyone else stagnates. You: Growth benefits everybody in free societies. US by that definition is not free. Freedom, if I extend your definition, then means that if growth equates to increased income equality, a society can be considered free. So Sweden/Norway/Denmark/Finland are examples of countries that are considerably more free than the US. I think we agree on some things--- fundamentally though we don't want a society to be based simply on income-- income is a metric, but it is of varying relevance in different societies. I would be happy to simply work and contribute to society if the bulk of my needs are provided publicly. But its up to the collection of individuals to exercise their rights to having control over their own lives really-- again, local solutions, but we still need a government that's enmeshed with the public, not one divorced from public interest.
Well... Income is secondary... I just want a place where people are free to speak to one another, provide services to one another, love one another, hate one another so long as the don't hurt each other or third parties. Government at all levels should exist to punish that.
I have to go to bed now so I won't comment on what I think needs to be provided publicly  . I will say that, I think there will come a day when it will be very easy to stipulate a minimum level of income that everyone will be entitled to. And that we will be able to raise that level higher and higher. That's basically me advocating increased government and more redstribution. But I think it's the absolute wrong way to go while people are still starving. And it's the absolute wrong way to go for rich countries with open borders.
|
On October 21 2011 04:06 Kiarip wrote:
no you're not. Corruption of the government is the direct result of its power. The more power you give it the more corrupt it becomes. If the purpose of the government is well defined, such as to defend the rights and liberties of its citizens (and those rights and liberties are also well defined,) then the government can do it's job and the people can pursue their goals in life, and the free market simply be what it is, the direct consequence of people's pursuit of happiness and Property rights, meanign a) people want stuff b) you can't take something from someone unless he gives it to you, also c) fraud is illegal (contract rights)
Corruption is the direct result of corporations meddling into things that are at the very least borderline illegal. It's only indirect result of goverment's power. You're purposefully avoiding the source of the problem here. Government also gives us tools to deal with this specific problem in a very direct way. Tools which we don't use.
You would have to set the bar for those rights and liberties pretty damn low for it to not interfere with the free market rules. And even this simply isn't enough in the 21st century. If you want to compete with what the government offers, you must offer social justice, you must uphold basic morality, you must guarantee minimal living standards, unbiased education and scientific research, and most importantly: you still must provide a safety (control) mechanism - so that if your theory ends up not working after all, we can get rid of it peacefully, without engaging in violence and bloodshed.
Give me all of that, and I'll support whatever system you want. Literally any system.
But when you adopt all of those constraints, you'll find that there isn't much left of your free market. Which is exactly the point - free market is a cute idea when you ignore all the requests and constraints of governing. But at the end of the day, you HAVE TO have direct mechanisms that ensure your people are being taken care of.
On October 21 2011 04:06 Kiarip wrote:
a) people want stuff b) you can't take something from someone unless he gives it to you, also c) fraud is illegal (contract rights)
Except you have no revolutionary new ways of enforcing b and c, and you don't provide means or aids for people who want stuff to get stuff. They have to do that themselves, individually.
On October 21 2011 04:06 Kiarip wrote:
That's all, to undermine the free market with government control is to have the government take away one of those three human rights. In general the right that gets shitted on the most is actually the property right, pretty much any forced redistribution of wealth is a violation of humans' property rights.
1. Not if specific individual's wealth wasn't acquired by legal means.
2. That's good thing about having direct control - people can decide which rights they want and in which form. If the property right is being abused (which it so obviously is), then we can fix that problem. The purpose of having rights in the first place is to ensure fairness and equality in all ways.
On October 21 2011 04:06 Kiarip wrote:
That's bullshit. The government isn't the will of the people any more so than corporations are the will of the people.
Government has the obligation to uphold laws and work in the interests of the people. Government is elected by the people and can be replaced by the people. You may say that's all theory and it doesn't really work like that - but it's still THERE, and it can actually be used as intended. You can't expect the government to be the will of the people when the people have no will.
What you're telling me about corporations is that they're going to do what's best for the people because the competition and common market sense will entice them to do this, and I basically have to just trust you that things will work out and give up control that I do have based on that trust? Why on earth would I do that? Convince me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
