|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
The free market is not going to protect the rights of employees. If consumers want those rights protected, they should educate themselves and shop accordingly. This is not a utilitarian argument, it's a moral one. |
Actually, from an Economic point it's a utilitarian one. Rational people (customers) will make the best choices for themselves although every customer is different. You set some moral bar for those you do business with; others don't. While this rationale is perfectly acceptable, customers who simply are looking for lower prices have their preferences as well. Also, if it is a question of morality, does this make you any better than a customer who buys their coffee at Dunkin Doughnuts? |
Rational actors is bullflop. Ever heard of herd mentality? All you Cato types love to deify consumers who act like rats at a feeder bar begging for more Three and a Half Men, Super Bowl XXXYU and American Idol. Americans are dullards, and they act against their interests with regularity. |
I really enjoy Cato.
Why is watching Three and a Half Men, the Super Bowl or American Idol against my rational interests? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
Let me turn this around on you: are you saying that the moral implications of a decision can be combined on the same axis with its utilitarian implications? In other words, if I decide to murder my parents so as to get my inheritance, is that reducible to cost/benefit analysis -- the answer depends on how much I'd stand to inherit, my chances of getting caught, etc.?
Obviously that is an extreme case, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at here. Morality and utility are two different things, cannot be conflated, and indeed are often in diametric opposition. |
Well, hmmm, I wouldn't advocate murder as yes that would be completely immoral. I was only thinking in terms of all of the products and services being offered in the legal economy.
| Kuros wrote: |
Pluto,
I re-read Stillnotking's post a few times. Although you and I probably are coming from the same place on economic ideology, I can't find anything wrong with what Stillnotking has wrote. He hasn't griped about corporations controlling the economy or asked for further regulation. He's just expressed a preference in corporate policy. He's voting with his dollar. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, its commendable if he does it well. |
Indeed, you're right. Customers play a very important role in any economy. Their actions will determine what the suppliers will offer. My only point is that there are many customer preferences. Certainly everyone would love to shop at Nordstrom although not everyone can. So I go to Wal-Mart and buy the package of tube socks for $1.99 because I can't afford anything else.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Rational actors is bullflop. Ever heard of herd mentality? All you Cato types love to deify consumers who act like rats at a feeder bar begging for more Three and a Half Men, Super Bowl XXXYU and American Idol. Americans are dullards, and they act against their interests with regularity. |
Individual Liberty, Free Markets, Peace -- What's not to like?
Cato's got some nice articles and they make some reasonable arguments, but I prefer the Journal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember reading someone from Cato (Boaz?) defending child labor in coal mines. Even though they would get particulate induced emphysema or TB, they were earning a wage and extending their lives past infancy, where they would have died without the Industrial Revolution.
When left to its own devices, the market creates Gilded Ages, pools, trusts, and collusion. Americans are dullards, as I state, because 75% of them believe in angels, and larger number of them don't believe in evolution than in any other Industrialized country in the world. We prefer to be passive, have our ideas and entertainment force fed to us, and keep our heads in the sands while the whole time believing ourselves superior to other nations because of "rights" we are willing to flush down the toilet for false senses of security.
And yet, still in the top 10%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Consumers certainly don't act rationally. Most people if they go to buy an iPod for $150 and someone tells them they can get it for $100 across they street, they'll cross the street. But if they buy a $1,500 big screen tv and someone tells them they can get it for $50 cheaper across the street, they won't bother.
Or there's the famous experiment where 1 person is given $100. His job is to figure out how much to give another person. The other person can accept or reject the offered money. If the person rejects the money, both get nothing. Both subjects are university students with a need for money. They find that if the first person offers the second person a miserly sum. Say $10-$20 the second person almost always rejects the offer and both walk out with zero. A rational second person would think "well, that's $20 I didn't have before." But people are willing to lay rationality aside to teach the other guy a lesson about fairness.
Loads of other studies have been done to show how people make emotional choices and then post rationalize their choice. For example, they find most people search electronic opinion sites AFTER their purchase. They want rational confirmation they made a good purchase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I remember reading someone from Cato (Boaz?) defending child labor in coal mines.
|
Link?
| Quote: |
When left to its own devices, the market creates Gilded Ages, pools, trusts, and collusion. |
Competition...uh... Do you know what "the market" is? The dissemination of large amounts of information. If two actors of colluding to raise prices/limit supplies, the 'market' is then ripe for a new participant who can undercut them. The only way to prevent the new participant is with 1) violence, or the threat thereof and 2) government.
Also, you need to get over this idea that non-market societies (or ones with less dependence on markets) are less unequal. Castro rolls in a Benz and the average Cuban makes 20$/month. The Soviet Union was a land of insane inequality, when measured by consumption (the proper way). China? Camon.
You need to watch this:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/profile.html
It is a mixture of governments and markets that cause inequality, collusion and the rest. Nuance.. There is no perfect world. There will be no workers paradise.
I see nothing wrong with entertainment. You have internalized the Marxist idea of "false consciousness", which is nonsense. Passing the time with fun and games is absolutely no problem. Every society in the history of the world has done it. We tell eachother stories and engage in competition. It is part of our species. I sure as shi.t don't want to live in a society with no entertainment, fun or games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Or there's the famous experiment where 1 person is given $100. His job is to figure out how much to give another person. The other person can accept or reject the offered money. If the person rejects the money, both get nothing. Both subjects are university students with a need for money. They find that if the first person offers the second person a miserly sum. Say $10-$20 the second person almost always rejects the offer and both walk out with zero. A rational second person would think "well, that's $20 I didn't have before." But people are willing to lay rationality aside to teach the other guy a lesson about fairness |
This is a outcome often used as evidence for 'evolutionary morality'. We have hard-wired into use an innate sense of fairness.
This talk (from CATO) describes it very well. I'm waiting for his book to arrive.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4297 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| Quote: |
I remember reading someone from Cato (Boaz?) defending child labor in coal mines.
|
Link?
| Quote: |
When left to its own devices, the market creates Gilded Ages, pools, trusts, and collusion. |
Competition...uh... Do you know what "the market" is? The dissemination of large amounts of information. If two actors of colluding to raise prices/limit supplies, the 'market' is then ripe for a new participant who can undercut them. The only way to prevent the new participant is with 1) violence, or the threat thereof and 2) government.
Also, you need to get over this idea that non-market societies (or ones with less dependence on markets) are less unequal. Castro rolls in a Benz and the average Cuban makes 20$/month. The Soviet Union was a land of insane inequality, when measured by consumption (the proper way). China? Camon.
You need to watch this:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/profile.html
It is a mixture of governments and markets that cause inequality, collusion and the rest. Nuance.. There is no perfect world. There will be no workers paradise.
I see nothing wrong with entertainment. You have internalized the Marxist idea of "false consciousness", which is nonsense. Passing the time with fun and games is absolutely no problem. Every society in the history of the world has done it. We tell eachother stories and engage in competition. It is part of our species. I sure as shi.t don't want to live in a society with no entertainment, fun or games. |
I'm not a Communist, or even a socialist. You've created a false dichotomy. I'm not talking about non-market societies or Communist ones, I'm talking about managed economies. Nothing can arise to challenge a railroad trust or an oil trust, nor did it in the Gilded Age. The federal government broke it up, not the invisible hand.
The child labor thing is from Libertarianism: A Primer, by David Boaz. No, I don't have a page number. But it's there, and it was stated by a member of the Cato Institute, funded and founded by Koch industries. Koch made their fortune building power plants for Stalin, among other things. They were also fined by the gov't for stealing oil profits from Native American tribes. But don't worry, surely another energy company will arise to fill the market's need for someone to give back the money. Let's not involve those bureaucrats or the fat cats in Washington, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The child labor thing is from Libertarianism: A Primer, by David Boaz. No, I don't have a page number.
|
I've read that book. Bought it at a Cato event, actually. Maybe you want to provide more context to his quote, eh?
| Quote: |
But it's there, and it was stated by a member of the Cato Institute, funded and founded by Koch industries. Koch made their fortune building power plants for Stalin, among other things. They were also fined by the gov't for stealing oil profits from Native American tribes. |
I don't care who funds anything. I've never been into the 'source' game.
My experience with Cato is that they are non-violent, against the war on drugs, against war, in favour of a great degree of sexual/religious freedom, pro-immigration and the like. Ohhhhhhh that Koch guy must be a nefarious bastard.
| Quote: |
But don't worry, surely another energy company will arise to fill the market's need for someone to give back the money. Let's not involve those bureaucrats or the fat cats in Washington, right?
|
So, you would say that the Washington types weren't already involved? Camon. Do you know your own history? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Sweet Jesus. Your bile bladders sure do like to flop. For the information, I studied a number of disciplines. That happens when you go to school for seven years. That and being able to read. Did you read my posts? Doubtful, your assumptions likely filled in the blanks for you. Poor devil bears. Read the posts above, then respond. |
It took you 7 years to get a BA? Congratulations! Though most people who go to school that long end up with a Masters or a law degree.
Well, I did work full time for six of the seven years as a social worker, a longer than most careers in the industry. I also ran a radio station and edited/published comics, zines, and two literary mags. Oh, and studied five different disciplines. Wait, what does this have to do with the discussion? Oh, yeah, it doesn't. In the age of the internet its ridiculous to attack anyone on the basis of their education on a topic. Though I shouldn't really expect more out of the likes of Pluto and thepeel.
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| I am opposed to corporations, in principle, because of the status they hold in the US legally. I also find that the drive to maximize profitability, the easiest and most direct way to increase the value of its shares, to be an ultimately destructive force for all involved. |
Again, it seems as though you don't know or understand the principles of corporate governance. What status do they hold legally? The Federal Government levies a 35% (plus a tax levied by states) tax on net income then shareholders are taxed on any gains -- double taxation! Also, corporations are constantly being sued and regulated. So unless these are your beefs, I don't see what problem you have with their legal status.
As for profits, that is why people go into business. It should be noted that simple profits don't increase the value of the firm or the firm's shareholders. (i.e. A firm could cut its sales force and increase its profit but would it increase the value of its shares?) Do you even know where the lion's share of profits end up? (Hint: it's not returned to the shareholder in the form of dividends)
The legal status a corporation holds is that of a juristic person. That is what I am opposed to in principle. Corporate officers can be held responsible for illegal behavior, but the corporation itself cannot beyond a monetary fine. And the way most laws are currently written it is not feasible to bankrupt a corporation by fining it into nonexistence. That is what I am opposed to. That too many corporations get away with literal murder, their justification being the maximization of shareholder value.
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| As a preemptive answer I would rather see a co-op system similar to the one employed by the Maytag corporation pre-buyout. I think it is the next step in the evolution of capitalism, the return of socialistic principles to the system. We've already trended toward this in the US with things like water and power utilities. Some of the EA branches employ a system whereby they operate almost like a private company, with the employees and stockholders being one in the same. |
If you want to start up a firm, do whatever you wish. If you want to go public and give all your shares to your employees, be my guest. Most rational people and firms initiate an IPO to generate a financial income that can be reinvested back into the firm.(pssst! that means more productivity and jobs)
It also means a massive payout for the corporate founders. |
I suppose I just hate rich people. Run with that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Or there's the famous experiment where 1 person is given $100. His job is to figure out how much to give another person. The other person can accept or reject the offered money. If the person rejects the money, both get nothing. Both subjects are university students with a need for money. They find that if the first person offers the second person a miserly sum. Say $10-$20 the second person almost always rejects the offer and both walk out with zero. A rational second person would think "well, that's $20 I didn't have before." But people are willing to lay rationality aside to teach the other guy a lesson about fairness |
This is a outcome often used as evidence for 'evolutionary morality'. We have hard-wired into use an innate sense of fairness.
This talk (from CATO) describes it very well. I'm waiting for his book to arrive.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4297 |
Yeah I picked that one up from the shermer talk at CATO. He has an interesting idea, explain the free market to liberals as like evolution (something they accept and don't fear) and explain evolution to conservatives as the free market (something they accept and don't fear). I think Darwin was rather influenced by Smith's "invisible hand" in his idea for natural selection. And I think both Smith and Darwin grappled for better metaphors. Both argued the idea of a bottom up self organzing system but couldn't divorce the english language from the top down nature. Another example of how the human brain as to get around some evolutionary heuristics.
Shermer's book, however, has met with some criticism by his peers. He's a little too happy to grasp at slim research to build his case. But all n all a novel approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| But it's there, and it was stated by a member of the Cato Institute, funded and founded by Koch industries. Koch made their fortune building power plants for Stalin, among other things. They were also fined by the gov't for stealing oil profits from Native American tribes. But don't worry, surely another energy company will arise to fill the market's need for someone to give back the money. Let's not involve those bureaucrats or the fat cats in Washington, right? |
Poisoning the well fallacy. Cato's arguments stand or fall on their own merits. You might not like their funding, so don't join then on moral grounds. But attack their actual arguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Or there's the famous experiment where 1 person is given $100. His job is to figure out how much to give another person. The other person can accept or reject the offered money. If the person rejects the money, both get nothing. Both subjects are university students with a need for money. They find that if the first person offers the second person a miserly sum. Say $10-$20 the second person almost always rejects the offer and both walk out with zero. A rational second person would think "well, that's $20 I didn't have before." But people are willing to lay rationality aside to teach the other guy a lesson about fairness |
This is a outcome often used as evidence for 'evolutionary morality'. We have hard-wired into use an innate sense of fairness.
This talk (from CATO) describes it very well. I'm waiting for his book to arrive.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4297 |
Yeah I picked that one up from the shermer talk at CATO. He has an interesting idea, explain the free market to liberals as like evolution (something they accept and don't fear) and explain evolution to conservatives as the free market (something they accept and don't fear). I think Darwin was rather influenced by Smith's "invisible hand" in his idea for natural selection. And I think both Smith and Darwin grappled for better metaphors. Both argued the idea of a bottom up self organzing system but couldn't divorce the english language from the top down nature. Another example of how the human brain as to get around some evolutionary heuristics.
Shermer's book, however, has met with some criticism by his peers. He's a little too happy to grasp at slim research to build his case. But all n all a novel approach. |
Here is another good talk of his:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22
The evolutionary morality field is very new. I think it is quite exciting (for obvious reasons). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Corporate officers can be held responsible for illegal behavior, but the corporation itself cannot beyond a monetary fine. And the way most laws are currently written it is not feasible to bankrupt a corporation by fining it into nonexistence. |
So you want to outlaw insurance?
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| That too many corporations get away with literal murder, their justification being the maximization of shareholder value. |
I don't think post-SARBOX that anything you say here is true. You got anything besides Enron?
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| I suppose I just hate rich people. Run with that one. |
I don't think so. You haven't said one thing about private equity firms, which often have several million dollar minimums. You just hate common, upper-middle class shareholders, apparently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I don't think so. You haven't said one thing about private equity firms |
There is likely a good reason for that. I'll help him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity
Enron was the exception. There are thousands of firms in the US and abroad that don't behave as did it. If it were the norm, or part even a significant minority, the whole system would implode. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Corporate officers can be held responsible for illegal behavior, but the corporation itself cannot beyond a monetary fine. And the way most laws are currently written it is not feasible to bankrupt a corporation by fining it into nonexistence. |
So you want to outlaw insurance?
What does insurance have to do with it? Laws written to limit a corporations liability, or to prevent any entity, be it individuals, organizations or other corporations, from suing a corporation into bankruptcy unfairly benefit the corporations. Ultimately that's what I'm opposed to, the manipulation of the free market to allow certain, or in some cases all, corporations an unfair advantage.
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| That too many corporations get away with literal murder, their justification being the maximization of shareholder value. |
I don't think post-SARBOX that anything you say here is true. You got anything besides Enron?
I'm not even referencing Enron here. I'm talking about industries like Vinyl producers who commisioned a study in the seventies that PROVED that PVC was not only dangerous, but likely fatal. The Italian company that paid for the study buried the study and the producers, both Europeans and 'American', colluded to deny the findings of the study. A Californian siding manufacturer was even found guilty of causing the death of an employee a few years ago. This is not a one-off occurence. There are lots of examples of corporations dumping illegal chemicals that harm people because proper disposal was prohibitively expensive. There is no real way for 'justice' to be enacted in these instances. The company is fined or sued and it costs them money, sometimes not even enough money to prevent the company from doing those very things again. You can't jail or hang a corporation. That's too bad.
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| I suppose I just hate rich people. Run with that one. |
I don't think so. You haven't said one thing about private equity firms, which often have several million dollar minimums. You just hate common, upper-middle class shareholders, apparently.
Sorry, I forgot the emoticon. There are some issues with the PE firms too. Ultimately our half-assed free market is problematic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
