CNBC suppresses Republican Debate Poll - Page 9
Forum Index > General Forum |
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
now, the interesting thing is, neoliberalism has been widely documented and criticized, and the various arguments seem to make sense. i do not know if your economics would overturn this, i rather doubt it. 90% of academic economists? do they all support forbes's quixotic campaign then? do a poll like 'corporate profit margins is key for supply side economics to work,' how many would agree. yes, if you give more profit opportunities, they will goa bout it, but profits are not value neutral. it only appears so to a propertarian view of the world. in any case, advocacy of government policies is only one potential source of social change. i dont know why forbes is not touting say workers rights and stuff, like you know, responsible corporate behavior and intelligent public policies. the kewl kids are all doing it. further, looking at the list of things forbes advocates, he is like the god of teh bourgeoisie. i doubt you appreciate this though. | ||
Alizee-
United States845 Posts
Quite frankly even if you hate his social opinions, would you rather be able to debate the issues and do what's best or would you rather have your population get killed off by countless wars to not be around any longer to debate the issues? Unfortunately for any of this to do any good Ron Paul must win because the establishment will not take influence from his ideas, he either wins and changes things or loses and his ideas fall on deaf ears. That's an unfortunate reality. By the way JesusCrux I'm going to Canterbury for a semester this January :D | ||
Vigilante
United States130 Posts
EDIT: Many people have a misconception that all Paul supporters are just anti-war activists. While I definitely wouldn't say I'm "pro-war," this is far from the deciding factor in why I'm supporting him. His positions on social issues like civil liberties are direly needed. We need a president who has the balls to veto things like the Patriot Act, or laws that will suspend Habeas Corpus, or violate our constitution. | ||
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
i am well aware that you can hold a respectable position on the moving about of various economic indicators, but do realize that taking these things to be primary goods is lacking. not to mention the very nature of economic analysis is static when it comes to states of society. this is the domain of sociology. now i am not going to take issues iwth your economics as far as new zealand, but you should not then project new zealand onto other societies, this is not taking into account of how you evaluate success of the thing in new zealand. I didn't want to bring NZ into this either but the reason I raised it was because many Scandinavian and Eastern European countries are now being advised by the very politicians who implemented those policies in NZ and are experience great economic growth. now, the interesting thing is, neoliberalism has been widely documented and criticized, and the various arguments seem to make sense. i do not know if your economics would overturn this, i rather doubt it. 90% of academic economists? do they all support forbes's quixotic campaign then? do a poll like 'corporate profit margins is key for supply side economics to work,' how many would agree. yes, if you give more profit opportunities, they will goa bout it, but profits are not value neutral. it only appears so to a propertarian view of the world. There are definitely external factors but the basic premises is that private markets result in economic growth, which as a result leads to alleviation of poverty. Of course there are areas where government must intervene, but I don't know what you mean by 'corporate profit margins is key'... Less corporate tax results in more investment which leads to things like more small businesses being started up and thus greater employment... Which is arguably more successful than taxing companies highly and redistribution. in any case, advocacy of government policies is only one potential source of social change. i dont know why forbes is not touting say workers rights and stuff, like you know, responsible corporate behavior and intelligent public policies. the kewl kids are all doing it. You're not very specific. How did Forbes not tout workers rights? What are you referring to? If you're talking about minimum wage I'm sure you're well aware of how raising the minimum wage affects availability of employment. Or probation periods, it's generally those on the Left who are against them. Or increasing public wages... Which screws up the efficiency of private/public competition and accountability. Holiday pay... Well, it certainly gives people an incentive to get ahead so that they can afford to take time off work... Which is a problem for education to deal with, rather than labour laws. What kind of workers' rights are you thinking of? further, looking at the list of things forbes advocates, he is like the god of teh bourgeoisie. i doubt you appreciate this though. Finally, if you think he's in it for the money he and his associates are probably better off not being politicians and making billions by taking advantage of the Democrats getting into power, because it would mean less competition for them as less people have the incentive to become rich and powerful in the business environment. Seriously though, if you haven't read it before I'd really recommend reading Economics in One Lesson, which answers most of your general questions... let me just quote one part of it, since you mentioned workers rights: + Show Spoiler + We have already seen some of the harmful results of arbitrary governmental efforts to raise the price of favored commodities. The same sort of harmful results follow efforts to raise wages through minimum wage laws. This ought not to be surprising, for a wage is, in fact, a price. It is unfortunate for clarity of economic thinking that the price of labor’s services should have received an entirely different name from other prices. This has prevented most people from recognizing that the same principles govern both. Thinking has become so emotional and so politically biased on the subject of wages that in most discussions of them the plainest principles are ignored. People who would be among the first to deny that prosperity could be brought about by artificially boosting prices, people who would be among the first to point out that minimum price laws might be most harmful to the very industries they were designed to help, will nevertheless advocate minimum wage laws, and denounce opponents of them, without misgivings. Yet it ought to be clear that a minimum wage law is, at best, a limited weapon for combatting the evil of low wages, and that the possible good to be achieved by such a law can exceed the possible harm only in proportion as its aims are modest. The more ambitious such a law is, the larger the number of workers it attempts to cover, and the more it attempts to raise their wages, the more certain are its harmful effects to exceed any possible good effects. The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall be paid less than $106 for a forty-hour week is that no one who is not worth $106 a week to an employer will be employed at all. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation. The only exception to this occurs when a group of workers is receiving a wage actually below its market worth. This is likely to happen only in rare and special circumstances or localities where competitive forces do not operate freely or adequately; but nearly all these special cases could be remedied just as effectively, more flexibly and with far less potential harm, by unionization. It may be thought that if the law forces the payment of a higher wage in a given industry, that industry can then charge higher prices for its product, so that the burden of paying the higher wage is merely shifted to consumers. Such shifts, however, are not easily made, nor are the consequences of artificial wage-raising so easily escaped. A higher price for the product may not be possible: it may merely drive consumers to the equivalent imported products or to some substitute. Or, if consumers continue to buy the product of the industry in which wages have been raised, the higher price will cause them to buy less of it. While some workers in the industry may be benefited from the higher wage, therefore, others will be thrown out of employment altogether. On the other hand, if the price of the product is not raised, marginal producers in the industry will be driven out of business; so that reduced production and consequent unemployment will merely be brought about in another way. When such consequences are pointed out, there are those who reply: “Very well; if it is true that the X industry cannot exist except by paying starvation wages, then it will be just as well if the minimum wage puts it out of existence altogether.” But this brave pronouncement overlooks the realities. It overlooks, first of all, that consumers will suffer the loss of that product. It forgets, in the second place, that it is merely condemning the people who worked in that industry to unemployment. And it ignores, finally, that bad as were the wages paid in the X industry, they were the best among all the alternatives that seemed open to the workers in that industry; otherwise the workers would have gone into another. If, therefore, the X industry is driven out of existence by a minimum wage law, then the workers previously employed in that industry will be forced to turn to alternative courses that seemed less attractive to them in the first place. Their competition for jobs will drive down the pay offered even in these alternative occupations. There is no escape from the conclusion that the minimum wage will increase unemployment. The belief that labor unions can substantially raise real wages over the long run and for the whole working population is one of the great delusions of the present age. This delusion is mainly the result of failure to recognize that wages are basically determined by labor productivity. It is for this reason, for example, that wages in the United States were incomparably higher than wages in England and Germany all during the decades when the “labor movement” in the latter two countries was far more advanced. In spite of the overwhelming evidence that labor productivity is the fundamental determinant of wages, the conclusion is usually forgotten or derided by labor union leaders and by that large group of economic writers who seek a reputation as “liberals” by parroting them. But this conclusion does not rest on the assumption, as they suppose, that employers are uniformly kind and generous men eager to do what is right. It rests on the very different assumption that the individual employer is eager to increase his own profits to the maximum. If people are willing to work for less than they are really worth to him, why should he not take the fullest advantage of this? Why should he not prefer, for example, to make $1 a week out of a workman rather than see some other employer make $2 a week out of him? And as long as this situation exists, there will be a tendency for employers to bid workers up to their full economic worth. All this does not mean that unions can serve no useful or legitimate function. The central function they can serve is to improve local working conditions and to assure that all of their members get the true market value of their services. For the competition of workers for jobs, and of employers for workers, does not work perfectly. Neither individual workers nor individual employers are likely to be fully informed concerning the conditions of the labor market. An individual worker may not know the true market value of his services to an employer. And he may be in a weak bargaining position. Mistakes of judgment are far more costly to him than to an employer. If an employer mistakenly refuses to hire a man from whose services he might have profited, he merely loses the net profit he might have made from employing that one man; and he may employ a hundred or a thousand men. But if a worker mistakenly refuses a job in the belief that he can easily get another that will pay him more, the error may cost him dear. His whole means of livelihood is involved. Not only may he fail to find promptly another job offering more; he may fail for a time to find another job offering remotely as much. And time may be the essence of his problem, because he and his family must eat. So he may be tempted to take a wage that he believes to be below his “real worth” rather than face these risks. When an employer’s workers deal with him as a body, however, and set a known “standard wage” for a given class of work, they may help to equalize bargaining power and the risks involved in mistakes. But it is easy, as experience has proved, for unions, particularly with the help of one-sided labor legislation which puts compulsions solely on employers, to go beyond their legitimate functions, to act irresponsibly, and to embrace short-sighted and antisocial policies. TI do this, for example, whenever they seek to fix the wages of their members above their real market worth. Such an attempt always brings about unemployment. The arrangement can be made to stick, in fact, only by some form of intimidation or coercion. One device consists in restricting the membership of the union on some other basis than that of proved competence or skill. restriction may take many forms: it may consist in charging new workers excessive initiation fees; in arbitrary membership qualifications; in discrimination, open or concealed, on grounds of religion, race or sex; in some absolute limitation on the number of members, or in exclusion, by force if necessary, not only of the products of nonunion labor, but of the products even of affiliated unions in other states or cities. The most obvious case in which intimidation and force are used to put or keep the wages of a particular union above the real market worth of its members’ services is that of a strike. A peaceful strike is possible. To the extent that it remains peaceful, it is a legitimate labor weapon, even though it is one that should be used rarely and as a last resort. If his workers as a body withhold their labor, they may bring a stubborn employer, who has been underpaying them, to his senses. He may find that he is unable to replace these workers with workers equally good who are willing to accept the wage that the former have now rejected. But the moment workers have to use intimidation or violence to enforce their demands—the moment they use mass picketing to prevent any of the old workers from continuing at their jobs, or to prevent the employer from hiring new permanent workers to take their places—their case becomes suspect. For the pickets are really being used, not primarily against the employer, but against other workers. These other workers are willing to take the jobs that the old employees have vacated, and at the wages that the old employees now reject. The fact proves that the other alternatives open to the new workers are not as good as those that the old employees have refused. If, therefore, the old employees succeed by force in preventing new workers from taking the place, they prevent these new workers from choosing the best alternative open to them, and force them to take something worse. The strikers are therefore insisting on a position of privilege, and are using force to maintain this privileged position against other workers. If the foregoing analysis is correct, the indiscriminate hatred of the “strikebreaker” is not justified. If the strikebreakers consist merely of professional thugs who themselves threaten violence, or who cannot in fact do the work, or if they are being paid a temporarily higher rate solely for the purpose of making a pretense of carrying on until the old workers are frightened back to work at the old rates, the hatred may be warranted. But if they are in fact merely men and women who are looking for permanent jobs and willing to accept them at the old rate, then they are workers who would be shoved into worse jobs than these in order to enable the striking workers to enjoy better ones. And this superior position for the old employees could continue to be maintained, in fact, only by the ever-present threat of force. By the way, that's cool you're coming to Canterbury this Summer Alizee (it will be Summer here, anyway)! The weather here is great at the moment! What made you choose to come here? And what will you be studying? If you want someone to show you 'round the beaches and stuff let me know | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
workers' rights is not necessarily understood as a hostile demand backed up by the threat of legal force. talking about worker as a part of society, it is simply corporate and capital management recognizing labor in a social way and engaging in fair discussions, rather than by force of market, to negotiate wages. society is here understood not as a random collection of individuals but a state of affairs with peculiar attitudes etc among the individuals. talking about legally enforced workers rights(a separate discussion), it si basically a legal deprivation of the capitalist power to coerce. i find little problem in this. whether the capitalist then decide to do less business is another problem. maybe they simply would have to be told that they do not do business for themselves. a private market is a horrendously simplified statement. if i were still concerned with the narrow subject of economic growth no dobut i'd be a free marketer, but in consideration of the humane and progressive society i must submit to the principle of a healthy society understood as a harmonious and sustainable set of attitudes. now my psoitve social doctrine is rather lengthy to put into words, since it involves methodological concerns(as devleoped by my understanding of some metaphilosophical concerns, particularly in regard to language and normative discourse) delineating categories of appeal and with them the specific languages of analysis. for instance, speaking about 'the evil of low wages,' i would say this is a reification of the issue. the issue is 'the evil of certain employers giving out low wages.' what would be a positive doctrine in response to this? make it plain to capitalists that they do not work alone and are in cooperation witht he people they hire. this seems to be the only way out of the situation, and is directly against the narrow world view of private property. i would characterise my positive social doctrine as primarily an ethical plea. the central methdological thesis is that, a normative social theory is ethical. of course i do have a practical public policy theory but it is rather plain. i am not ignorant of economics, contrary, i do very well in economics, but i can see its limits from a few lightyears away. of course, the force of critical analysis diluted into the workings of a specific social structure viewed from a specific perspective is disheartening, and this is why i do not do economics or political science, insofar it is understood as government. as i said before, normative, prescriptive theory limit their audience by limiting their reification of human actions. the nonreified is the audience. anyway Finally, if you think he's in it for the money he and his associates are probably better off not being politicians and making billions by taking advantage of the Democrats getting into power, because it would mean less competition for them as less people have the incentive to become rich and powerful in the business environment. no, he is not in it for the money. he is in it for his spirit of capitalism and conception of individaul and private enterprise. both are flawed pathologies at best. Less corporate tax results in more investment which leads to things like more small businesses being started up and thus greater employment... results in? as in a chemical reaction? surely you dabble in human motivation and such. profit margin, the celebration of private gain, is at least taken as primary here. There are definitely external factors but the basic premises is that private markets result in economic growth i am not talking about growth or material wealth etc, but an analysis of social attitudes and behavior. of course, i am free to recognize material deprivation where i see them, but here the concern is that, taking economic growth as primary is not even making a firm statement on social welfare, much less constitute a theory of social health. | ||
Mimi
6 Posts
| ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
baal
10486 Posts
On October 16 2007 20:33 Mimi wrote: what on gods earth is the term "pro life" supposed to mean? to be against abortion | ||
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28267 Posts
although he kind of is both that derives from the american constitution being quite libertarian and while I generally greatly disagree with that (I want a big, powerful state with huge taxes able to guarantee the welfare of all it's citizens), he deserves respect for his consistency, and having based his politics around a genuine belief system and an ideology rather than going with the popular flow. | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 16 2007 13:52 oneofthem wrote: only to an audience with no grasp of his theory. quite obviously, to locke, if his theory of self ownership fails, so does his theory of labor and so on, then it is fair to say his theory of property is an extension. i did not try to trace his argument as it is, just a critical overview. lockean theory of property acquires its natural law characteristic largely from the natural impression of self ownership, so drawing this connection is hardly improper. You misrepresented his progression from self ownership to land ownership in order to poo poo it. | ||
Vigilante
United States130 Posts
On October 16 2007 21:55 MarklarMarklar wrote: Pro-life people are crazy, It's not like we'll run out babies any time soon. The right of individuals to life is not contingent upon the needs or wants of the rest of society. If you want to make the argument that fetuses aren't people/persons/individuals/whatever and thus don't have rights, I'd be willing to listen. Otherwise, I am going to support the right to life. | ||
pubbanana
United States3063 Posts
On October 16 2007 23:54 Vigilante wrote: The right of individuals to life is not contingent upon the needs or wants of the rest of society Says who? | ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
Guns. Basically, if you decide that you have the right to take the life of an individual, he will probably disagree, and get some type of weapon to defend himself. If you decide to take the lives of a group of individuals, they will most likely form some type of group and do the same thing. On larger scales these are called wars. (this technically does change who really has what rights, but the winner will decide what the definition of rights are, so its irrelevant) | ||
Zalfor
United States1035 Posts
i rather like his honesty (however, i am very wary of white hicks watching fox news...) | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 16 2007 23:26 Mindcrime wrote: erm, no. that i can poo poo it legitimately rather testifies to my truthful representation of his theory. i eman the actual argument of poo pooing it will inevitably invoke his labor stuff so i dont consider the shorthand a problem. You misrepresented his progression from self ownership to land ownership in order to poo poo it. | ||
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
'the evil of low wages,' i would say this is a reification of the issue. the issue is 'the evil of certain employers giving out low wages.' what would be a positive doctrine in response to this? make it plain to capitalists that they do not work alone and are in cooperation witht he people they hire. this seems to be the only way out of the situation, and is directly against the narrow world view of private property. Well, that situation is addressed in the chapters I pasted - you simply cannot 'force' someone to give out high wages. How would you hold someone to account? Either through a) economic incentives, or b) force of the law. Which is explained in the spoiler above in my last post. | ||
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
| ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 17 2007 08:25 Monsen wrote: It's sickening how your candidates depend on campaign contributions while you're basically running a 2 party system... and still call yourself a democracy. Seriously, get the money out of your system... :/ What do you mean? How does one remove the money from the system? | ||
| ||