Raven Posted June 21, 2002 Report Posted June 21, 2002 quote: I understand that you believe current systems are better than making changes. I think your afraid of change....very mob like. But you are entitled to your opinion....but I disagree. I'm not opposed to all change, just the change you are suggesting. In fact I think I mentioned some types of change I would like in our political system. To say that I am afraid of change is clearly incorrect, better to say that I oppose what I consider harmful change. Would you appreciate it if I was to suggest a policy of conquest for America and then criticize you for being afraid of change when you objected to my idea? quote: Maybe....maybe not....unlike you I do not discuss my points and ideas from the bizarre position of having some divine insight that others do not. Thank you quote: Oh...and if their made to feel their voice has no meaning why would they be interested in the first place? Im not suggesting that the people should have no say, this is dangerous, rather I suggest that there voice in politics should be further limited to prevent unwise policies that are none the less supported by the mob from being implemented, welfare being an example of such. quote: You are popular...just for me it's in a sick fascinated kinda way.... You are too kind quote: Heh heh...they already get life terms....they just redraw voting lines..... I believe Gerrymandering is the technical term The problem, however, is that congressmen who want to get reelected (as just about all of them do) have to appeal greatly to there constituencies in such manners that can lead to waist (pork barrel politics being the prime example) or to horrible (but popular) bills being passed. quote: Your best interests or mine or the people's? I think you are losing sight of why these positions exist in the first place... I was thinking of the nation as a whole. quote: People are what its all about. Of course people are what its all about, but whether its about using people are helping people is a matter of personal preference and whim. quote: I think we are blinded by our successa success that that comes at the expense of others..a success that takes from those it is supposed to encompass forces are moving to change that.I believe we should move with that change instead of trying to fight it. For someone to succeed others must always fail, always. If everyone achieved the same level of something, it wouldnt be called success it would be called average, only those who rise above the average are truly successful and for some to rise above others must fall below (its pretty simply math). quote: I sure as hell dont want that power able to dictate policy over people. Why ever not? quote: Tell me if I'm wrong. I'll drop it again. Youre wrong quote: lol! you're trying to fight the nature of humanity itself (in debates). Speak, shout, diplomatically insult, then go name-calling (straigth-forward), and, if possible, use weapons Thats the spirit! quote: And that is a problem in my eyes. There is more to a person than a means to shareholder return. Yep, but we just havent figured it out yet quote: A lot of extremely rich people. Some good some bad. Also the rich wanna be's....gamblers incognito....and those who have a nest egg and are seeking to expand it. Not the working poor or vast majority of other personnel who are economically cut off from ever even trying to be part. And there is something wrong with this? quote: There is more to a story then what CNN puts out. Always!
Epsilon 5 Posted June 21, 2002 Report Posted June 21, 2002 quote: quote:lol! you're trying to fight the nature of humanity itself (in debates). Speak, shout, diplomatically insult, then go name-calling (straigth-forward), and, if possible, use weapons ThatÔÇÖs the spirit! Oh boy
Steve Schacher Posted June 21, 2002 Report Posted June 21, 2002 quote:Also, if I offended I apologize. No need to apologize to me. I don't get offended by what happens here.
Menchise Posted June 22, 2002 Report Posted June 22, 2002 And now for some belated replies. quote:They developed the marketplace, but not the market. You need consumers, as well as producers, to have a market. If people won't buy, sellers can't sell. Therefore, it is not a game that everyone must play.My ambiguous writing strikes again: I was referring to every producer in the marketplace. quote:How would handle countries that can't support farming because the terrain is too frigid, or too mountainous, or too desert? For these countries, trading for food is the only option, which in your words, would make them dependent on other countries for food.Those countries don't have the capacity in the first place, and they're not the ones that are complaining, hence they are beside the point. quote:I don't understand your connection between the cost of food and the cost of production of other goods. Production costs are based on the cost of material, overhead costs, labor costs, and profit margin. Unless you are referring to having to increase labor costs because laborers need more to pay for food that is imported instead of locally produced, I think you're overstating the impact of food costs on overall production costs across the board.The higher prices are not the only factor; there is also the issue of where that money goes (i.e. out of the national economy), and the long term consequences of that leakage. It's a negative multiplier effect: because the item is imported, most of the income that is generated from the item's consumption is leaked out of the national economy, which in turn reduces the nation's capacity to consume, which in turn reduces the level of savings; less consumption leads to less income for producers, and less savings leads to less investment, which in turn leads to less production, and so on. Ideally, these leakages would be offset by the income received from exports, but when the imports include such basic essentials as food, the effect is much more difficult to counterbalance. quote:But in order to compete internationally, they are demanding that the other producers somehow change their ways in order to force their way into an existing market. That is simply not the way that it's done. If you can't make it outright on your own, you don't belong in the market.Their demands have nothing to do with the other producers: they're complaining about governments using export subsidies to lower prices. quote:Operations can only expand up to the ability of the producer to produce. Small countries do not have the resources to compete on the global scale against already established producers. Wishing it to be so will not make it so.They have no problem with that. The problem they have, as I mentioned before, is with big countries using government resources to prop up the established producers. quote:The problem for developing countries is that they're developing too late. The Industrial Revolution occured 100 years ago. The time to strike was then. Some smaller countries are in the plight they're in because they are small countries that are in remote corners of the world, which either resulted in: 1) the world passing them by on the way to modernization, 2) them being too remote for cost-effective trading, 3) their own cultures not keeping up with the rest of the world (for various ethnic, religious, or political reasons), 4) lack of resources, education, etc.Again, that is beside the point of this issue.
Menchise Posted June 22, 2002 Report Posted June 22, 2002 quote:Socialism cannot exist as a pure system because it is a utopian form of government (one where all people exist in harmony and prosperity).Of course pure socialism is utopian, just like pure capitalism is dystopian, but a pure system is not the same as a fundamental system. Fundamentally, socialism can exist. quote:Humans will always seek to better themselves to a greater degree than their peers for domination of others appears to be a strong instinctual drive for humanity as a whole.The only instinctual drives that are inherent in humanity are self-preservation, self-interest, and reproduction; everything else is determined by material and social conditions. The conditions generated by class division make it necessary for people to dominate others in order to secure their interests. quote:A pure socialist system has never existed and will never exist for there will always be a person or group leading the nation and all citizens must be equal for such a system to exist.A libertarian socialist system does not require nor desire central leadership because labour is self-managing. quote:The form of Government adopted by western culture is a blend of the two extremes.The dominant western system is Liberal Capitalism. quote:There are examples of predominant socialism in countires such as France and Canada. Health care is offered free of charge and vacation time is extended however taxes are much higher and the quality of living decreases as a result.France and Canada are far from socialist. At the most they are reformist, and even that's changing these days. quote:The system adopted by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany uses ideals of socialism to temper the caustic capitalist system. This blend of Government allows for prosperity through commerce and the distribution of wealth through socialist programs.Those ideals and programmes are liberal: they're about redistributing wealth on the basis of maintaining equal opportunity.
Guest $iLk Posted June 22, 2002 Report Posted June 22, 2002 Wonder when the bell is going to ring and round 2 begin>?
CommanderJohnson Posted June 22, 2002 Report Posted June 22, 2002 There needs to be an intelligent computer running all political and business decisions so all decisions made benefit the most people with the most good while doing the least harm over the status quo. That'd solve all of these problems. (since if the computer can't hurt any MORE people, quantitatively, than the current system, it couldn't really make any "immoral" decisions)
Kartoffel Posted June 22, 2002 Report Posted June 22, 2002 That wouldent work, dredd, because: 1. The computer could break down. 2. Someone could hack it. 3. There would have to be maintenence on it, and those people could be corrupt and hack the computer. 4. Not everyone would agree to this. 5. numerous other reasons i can't think of.
Menchise Posted June 24, 2002 Report Posted June 24, 2002 Another point against the computer proposal is the same as one of the points against coordinatorism in general: Coordinator and managerial classes tend to generate conditions in which they are indispensable, regardless of their primary function. Therefore, even if the coordinator is as impartial as a computer can be, its top priority will always be to maintain its control over decision making, even when it contradicts with its intended goal of serving humanity. In fact, a computer is more likely to do this than a human, because the computer has been engineered for a specialized task, thus it cannot be anything other than what it was built for. [ 06-24-2002, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Menchise Posted June 24, 2002 Report Posted June 24, 2002 quote:History has recorded a constant battle between two factions of the globe, the havs and the have-nots. The members of these factions have shifted drasticaly in the course of history for europe was an economic center in Roman times, a regressed land in the dark and middle ages, and has again become a economic center from the romance era to the post-modern era. Countries develop at different rates to different ends. The western economy and way of life is not the natural progression of the world as a whole for there are some nations whose culture values subsistance living as compared to development. The invastion of the western world into cultures of different social tracks is devastating for the culture of said country and promotes a feeling of inferiority among its members. The culture then begins to lash out at the force which caused a change in thier established way of life (Bin Laden). Over time the nation's culture will begin to accept the western culture and through cultural diffuion while at the same time the western culture is ammended by the same process. This process is known as globalism. Extremeist such as the aforementioned terrorist are swept away through public will through this process. The answer for the developing nations is time. The United States was once a backwards nation and required ~150 years to assert itself in the global community. One must rember that most of the developing nations are former colonies and have only had their independence for a maximum of 70 years.Your argument suggests that Westernization will lead to prosperity for developing countries, most of which are former Western colonies. Notice the contradiction jumping up and down?
Menchise Posted June 24, 2002 Report Posted June 24, 2002 quote:If the government took away 90% of it's regulations and let the free market do it's thing, you would see a HUGE increase in production, a HUGE increase in Jobs, and a HUGE increase in taxable income.What regulations would you like to see removed and kept? quote:The Unions were a necessity back in those times, but nowadays the Unions are a dinosaur, there are so many employee owned business's now that it is unreal. 90 days at home depot and you begin to collect stock options etc. Nothing will motivate a worker more then to have a direct effect on their own bottom line. The harder you work the more money the company makes, and the more money the company makes, the more money YOU make.First, unlike unions, stock options do not enable employees to have any substantial decision making or negotiating power in relation to the company directors, hence the so-called ownership is really tokenism. Secondly, in order to maintain a consistent rate of returns from the stocks, the share price would need to constantly grow, which would require workers to constantly increase the labour they put in to production. Thirdly, the stock market does not fluctuate according to performance alone: it is also affected by speculation and other factors that have no relevance to the performance of the company. Therefore, not only are stock options a poor substitute for union activity, they are also against the interests of workers because they require a constant increase in productivity to gain the same rate of returns over time.
Menchise Posted June 25, 2002 Report Posted June 25, 2002 quote:So, if you are new to the work force, you get a job at say McDonalds, or Baskin Robbins, for 3.85 an hour, and actually the minimum wage in Seattle right now is 6.90 an hour, McDonalds is hiring right now for 8 an hour plus benefits immediately. When the market sets the rates, there is a good chance that it's gonna be higher.Market rates are only higher when there is a labour shortage. quote:At the same time, and excellent example came out of Eastern Washington. The largest asparagus processing plant in the world is over there. The growers used to be able to pay the workers by the amount of asparagus they picked, and some of the REALLY good pickers were making upwards of $12 an hour. Now they have to pay them ALL a minimum of 6.90 an hour, well, the good ones have now slacked off and the bad ones are even worse. Their production is now 75% of what it was, their profits are down, and so now they are talking about shutting down the plant because they cannot afford to do business in Washington because of its high minimum wage. Washington state in it's STUPIDITY had now forced a plant that employs over 1500 people year round and over 60,000 seasonly, to shut down. IT'S gonna be gone, all because the government decided what the true "living wage" should be.I assume you're referring to Seneca's Dayton plant. The minimum wage increases were the result of public pressure, notably from the poverty-striken towns of Eastern Washington. quote:The market should ALWAYS set the minimum wage, and if the wage is not high enough, they will not get workers. Pretty darn easy, and goodness gracious, it actually works.Wages and conditions go down during economic booms, after the companies get the workers, which is why employees tend to strike during those periods. [ 06-25-2002, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Menchise Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 quote:At least in this country I have a choice of what I wish to produce, and I have the choice of what I will consume. It's all about free choice and freedom. A republican form of government and a free enterprise capitalist system, it's all about freedom of choice, gotta love it!!In that system your choices are limited to the options that owners make available, both in terms of jobs and products, both of which are designed to maintain and/or expand the owner's power regardless of the effect on consumers and workers. Therefore, while the range of options may be vast, the choice is not free, because workers and consumers have no substantial say in the content or nature of the available options.
Epsilon 5 Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 man this is starting to look like a one-man's show
Steve Schacher Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 quote:Therefore, while the range of options may be vast, the choice is not free, because workers and consumers have no substantial say in the content or nature of the available options.Workers have a say in the options available to them based on the occupation they choose to pursue. Some occupations/vocations have a wider range of options than others. Consumers have a say on a range of choices in that the choices that consumers reject will eventually disappear and be replaced with choices more favorable to the consumers. It's called voting with your dollars.
Lotharr Posted June 26, 2002 Author Report Posted June 26, 2002 Take that idea one step further and you have a government owned and operated by big business...lovely....
Guest Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 Menchise and Lothar, you are still looking at the world through your college eyes, neither of you have held a job in the real world yet, NO Lothar, the military is not a real world job. It's a job, don't get me wrong, but it is not a REAL world job, it is a government job, and EP5, you have yet to have a real job either. Your opinions on socialism come from books and intellectuals in universities. REAL world economics DO NOT work the way you claim they work, it is obvious that you have knowledge from books and others that have knowledge from books. In the REAL world, Socialism has done nothing but destroy that which it is supposedly trying to save. Spout all you want about how terrible capitalism is, all I see is how huge the economy of the US is and how small the economy of these socialist countries are. I like our economy, than you very much, it works, and works well. The government on the other hand does NOT work and does not work well. Socialism is government controlling the economy, and when the government does NOT work well, the economy won't either. You guys spout off with you nonworking dream models, because that is all they will ever be, dreams, because socialism cannot and NEVER will work. It will kill far more then it will help, just as it always has. Sometimes I feel sorry for you guys in your worldview, because it is so unrealistic.
Epsilon 5 Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 quote: Your opinions on socialism come from books and intellectuals in universities.I haven't been to college yet, and I never read a single book on social issues. And you still haven't answered my question. I will repeat so you know. quote:EP5, those statistics are for those between 0-45, after that, you are no longer worth the energy or money to continue with real healthcare.Where does it says that? (the 0-45) quote:and EP5, you have yet to have a real job either.True, but I'm starting the 3rd quote:Spout all you want about how terrible capitalism is, all I see is how huge the economy of the US is and how small the economy of these socialist countries are.Canada's economy is not small. Maybe compared to the US, but we have about 10 times less people, mind you. And btw, the US has a deficit, Canada doesn't. While the US are in a recession, the Canada has the first rank (as of now) for economical growth in the G8 in 2002. [ 06-26-2002, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]
Steve Schacher Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 The role of profits, by Walter Williams, the former head of the Economics Department at George Mason University. Excerpt: quote:So what are profits? Put simply, profits are a price, just as wages, rents and interest are prices. Profits are the prices paid as residual claims to entrepreneurs in their role as risk-takers, innovators and decision-makers. Just as workers will not provide their services without wages, entrepreneurs will not provide theirs without profits. Profits, like other prices, steer resources from low-valued uses to higher-valued uses.
Steve Schacher Posted June 26, 2002 Report Posted June 26, 2002 The Moral Basis of Capitalism, by Robert Tracinski -- Capitalism Magazine. Excerpt: quote:With the fall of communism and the alleged end of the "era of big government," many commentators and politicians grudgingly acknowledge the practical value of capitalism. The free market, they concede, is the best system for producing wealth and promoting prosperity; the private economy, in Bill Clinton's words, is the "primary engine of growth." But this has not led to the triumph of capitalism. Quite the opposite: Federal taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product are at their highest rate since the Second World War; antitrust assaults on the market's winners are growing; the regulations on the federal register continue to expand by 60,000 pages per year; even the Republicans' recent tax cut proposal would only mandate a minor decrease in the projected growth of government revenues. By practically every measure, government interference in the free market is growing. If capitalism is recognized as the only practical economic system—then why is it losing out to state control? The reason is that no one, neither on the left nor the right, is willing to defend capitalism as moral. Thus, both sides agree, whatever the practical value of capitalism, morality requires that the free market be reigned in by government regulations. The only disagreement between the two sides is over the number of regulations and the rate of their growth. What no one has grasped yet is that capitalism is not just practical but also moral. Capitalism is the only system that fully allows and encourages the virtues necessary for human life. It is the only system that safeguards the freedom of the independent mind and recognizes the sanctity of the individual.
Menchise Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:Menchise and Lothar, you are still looking at the world through your college eyes, neither of you have held a job in the real world yet, NO Lothar, the military is not a real world job. It's a job, don't get me wrong, but it is not a REAL world job, it is a government job, and EP5, you have yet to have a real job either. Your opinions on socialism come from books and intellectuals in universities.You're assuming that all socialists are unemployed bookworms. Most socialists that I have met in person have what you call a real job, and they're more politically active than I am. quote:Socialism is government controlling the economy, and when the government does NOT work well, the economy won't either.Now we're arguing over labels. I have already stated that I do not support what you call socialism, and I have already provided links to the model that I do support (on page 6). [Mean Mood] Now for some real debating... [/Mean Mood] quote:Workers have a say in the options available to them based on the occupation they choose to pursue. Some occupations/vocations have a wider range of options than others.The issue is not about how wide the range of options is; it's about who determines what the options are in the first place. My point is that workers have no substantial say in that regard. quote:Consumers have a say on a range of choices in that the choices that consumers reject will eventually disappear and be replaced with choices more favorable to the consumers. It's called voting with your dollars.The options that replace others are still not determined by consumers. I'll give you an example of what I'm getting at: Let's say I've had a shower and now I'm going to choose what to wear. I pick two options: a blue jumper or a red sweater. Because I have direct input in the options, my choice is free. Now let's say I've had a shower and now I'm going to choose what to wear. Someone walks in and tells me that I have two options: a green or yellow dress. Regardless of what I choose, the choice is not free (for more than one reason). Let's say I pick the yellow dress, hence rejecting the green one. The next day, I have to choose between a yellow or orange dress. The choice is still not free, even though the orange is more compliant with the yellow dress that I chose previously.
Raven Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote: I haven't been to college yet, and I never read a single book on social issues. So your opinions are shaped by others opinions and personal gain (I believe you mentioned earlier you come from a poor family). A lack of formal education hardly is a sign of understanding or a lack of bias, if anything it is a sign of the opposite. quote: Canada's economy is not small. Maybe compared to the US, but we have about 10 times less people, mind you. And btw, the US has a deficit, Canada doesn't. While the US are in a recession, the Canada has the first rank (as of now) for economical growth in the G8 in 2002. First of all, Canada is not socialist; its capitalist with socialist reforms. There is a distinct difference, furthermore, though Canada may have a growing economy it doesnt have a large one, there is a difference. quote: The reason is that no one, neither on the left nor the right, is willing to defend capitalism as moral. Dont forget vote buying, by giving money to people a party can effectively purchase votes not really my idea of how democracy is suppose to work. quote: Now we're arguing over labels. I have already stated that I do not support what you call socialism, and I have already provided links to the model that I do support (on page 6). Yes, I remember this; the people are supposed to manage themselves. Delightful, why dont we allow farm animals to take care of themselves as well. Its madness, pure and simple, there would be a terrible paucity of infrastructure and thus things that require infrastructure (like coordinating shipments of good and the likes). quote: Now let's say I've had a shower and now I'm going to choose what to wear. Someone walks in and tells me that I have two options: a green or yellow dress. Regardless of what I choose, the choice is not free (for more than one reason). Let's say I pick the yellow dress, hence rejecting the green one. The next day, I have to choose between a yellow or orange dress. The choice is still not free, even though the orange is more compliant with the yellow dress that I chose previously. If someone walked in after I got out of the shower I would scream at them and generally be perturbed, but maybe thats just me Seriously though, your analogy is overly simplistic. Imagine instead that (after getting out of the shower) you were presented with a dozen people each with three or four items of clothes and they are vying against each other to get you to choose one of there outfits. This is called competition, and it is an integral part of modern capitalism.
Menchise Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:So what are profits? Put simply, profits are a price, just as wages, rents and interest are prices. Profits are the prices paid as residual claims to entrepreneurs in their role as risk-takers, innovators and decision-makers. Just as workers will not provide their services without wages, entrepreneurs will not provide theirs without profits. Profits, like other prices, steer resources from low-valued uses to higher-valued uses.Walter Williams is absolutely correct: profits are prices for the entrepreneur's risk-taking, innovation, and decision-making. The entrepreneur risks money, innovates a product, and makes decisions that make or break the business (at least initially). So why am I against this?... 1. What is the goal of the entrepreneur's risk-taking, innovating, and decision-making? To get profits. 2. Where do profits come from? Do they come from the entrepreneur's risk-taking, innovating, or decision-making? No! They come from the labour of workers. No matter how big the risk, how innovative the innovation, or how smart the decision is, there can be no profits without the labour of workers, because labour produces value and profit is extracted from value. 3. What does the entrepreneur produce? The conditions in which the workers' labour will generate value. 4. Considering the interests of the entrepreneur, what design will constitute the labour conditions? One that maximizes profit. 5. What's wrong with the labour conditions produced by entrepreneurs, which are designed to maximize profit? A. Decision-making is authoritarian B. Working conditions have little regard for workers' well-being C. Inefficiency (it generates large volumes of waste) D. Exploitative (the people that do the hardest work in the most unpleasant conditions get the least reward)
Menchise Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:So your opinions are shaped by others opinions and personal gain (I believe you mentioned earlier you come from a poor family). A lack of formal education hardly is a sign of understanding or a lack of bias, if anything it is a sign of the opposite.So, you think I'm ignorant because I'm a well-off academic, and you think E5 is ignorant because he's not. Read to yourself! quote:Yes, I remember this; the people are supposed to manage themselves. Delightful, why donÔÇÖt we allow farm animals to take care of themselves as well. ItÔÇÖs madness, pure and simple, there would be a terrible paucity of infrastructure and thus things that require infrastructure (like coordinating shipments of good and the likes).Workers are not farm animals, and if you had actually read the proposals that I linked to, you would recognize that I'm not referring to decision-making on a whim without infrastructure or institutions. quote:Imagine instead that (after getting out of the shower) you were presented with a dozen people each with three or four items of clothes and they are vying against each other to get you to choose one of there outfits. This is called competition, and it is an integral part of modern capitalism.It doesn't matter how wide the range of options is, the choice is not free because consumers don't have a substantial say in the options. Picking one option instead of another may prompt other owners or managers to determine options that are more compliant with the choices of consumers, but that does not make the choice more free. The freedom simply isn't there.
Guest Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 Menchise, I would hate to live in your world, wherever it is. My world is NOT at all like yours, I have a hard time grasping your reality, because it's NOT reality. When people are unemployed, when government owns and controls the means of production, the economy and the people STAGNATE and are poor. When capitalism comes in, such as in Mexico and China, Jobs are created, the people's standard of living is raised, competition drives that living standard higher and higher. CAPITALISM WORKS, SOCIALISM CANNOT and will not. It NEVER has and NEVER will...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now