|
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 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
 Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| I'm beginning to suspect their cries come from irrationality and jealousy towards those who succeed in life |
Returning to this argument is just silly. You think me and Fox want a rich person's money because we're jealous, when, in reality, we're arguing for redistribution of wealth to the poor majority i.e. not us!
Anyway, I will introduce you to one thinker who shaped my opinion. It's Rawls with 'A Theory of Justice'. A nice way to look at his theory is this...
If humans decided the construction of society before they were born everyone would naturally want the poor to be protected and suffer some restriction on total individual liberty. Afterall, there is a higher percentage chance you would get born as a child in a poor family than one in a rich family. As the Wikipedia article below states, this produces a "reconciliation of liberty and equality". People are happy with this social contract because everyone is protected regardless of the situation they're born into - there's justice. This distributive justice doesn't happen in society because rich people will always argue to keep what they've already got.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| So what do you propose has been the cause of mans rapid accent in the past 2 centuries? |
Again, the fact that something in moderation has provided good results does not mean the same thing in excess will provide better results. Don't put forward a simpleton argument like "Some of X is good, so of course more of X is even better!" and try to dodge your way around the obvious counterargument though.
The rest of your post is just trying to goad and insult me into engaging you, which I've all ready (unfortunately fairly rudely) said I consider a waste of time. The only reason I responded in this case is because I'd hate a casual reader to mistakenly think arguments such as the one I responded to are actually valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BS.Dos. wrote: |
The Free Market & US Water Privatisation:
New York - Suez (Fr)
Chicago - Veolia (Fr)
Pittsburg - Thames (UK)
Las Vegas - Suez (Fr)
New Orleans - Veolia (Fr)
Seattle - Thames (UK)
Riverside CA - Suez (Fr)
Grand Canyon - Veolia (Fr)
Buffalo - Thames (UK)
Houston - Suez (Fr)
Tampa - Veolia (Fr)
Atlanta - Suez (Fr)
The Atlanta privatisation was particularly interesting. After awarding the 20-year contract to the French company Suez, they immediately fired 200 of the workers. The Mayor of Atlanta at the time who oversaw the contract negotiations was Bill Campbell. To show their gratitude for being awarded the contract, Suez generously made a $6900 dollar campaign contribution to Bill despite the fact that he wasn't actually running for office at the time. Bill did however enjoy a nice trip to Paris with his fiancee where he was wined and dined in the top hotels and restaurants. Unfortunately, back in Georgia, the people of Atlanta experienced an almost immediate deterioration in their water quality, which resulted in residents having to boil their water before it was safe to drink. The problem was compounded by the fact that none of the Suez employees knew where the water connections were. The people who did know where they were had, unfortunately, recently been fired.
So, there we have it: the privatisation of water at the hands of the free market. Personally, I don't know which is worse, the corruption, the job losses or the fact that a large number of Americans' are now paying Europeans for their drinking water. |
What happened in Atlanta and Bolivia are unfortunate. However, the real problem is not the free market rather it is corporatism, rent-seeking on the behalf of a corporation. It doesn't matter whether the corporation is state run or state sponsored, it is corporatism all the same. I would be more convinced it was the free market if there was choice among the differing participants in the aforementioned markets; there is always choice in a free market as monopolies are impossible. And to segue, I take the points made by Bacasper and Privateer, the real problem is corporatism, not socialism. I agree with Mises on this point. There is no real socialism in the West, or the OECD for that matter. Although there is a lot of rent-seeking behavior being done by many governments, banks, unions and, yes, even utilities, throughout the world today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| So what do you propose has been the cause of mans rapid accent in the past 2 centuries? |
Again, the fact that something in moderation has provided good results does not mean the same thing in excess will provide better results. Don't put forward a simpleton argument like "Some of X is good, so of course more of X is even better!" and try to dodge your way around the obvious counterargument though.
|
But this is exactly what you do. Govt intervention has had some good results. Unfortunately the bad far outweighs the good. Furthermore, the things that have worked (Korea is a pretty good example) aren't replicable. What works for one country, won't necessarily work for another.
| Quote: |
| "Some of X is good, so of course more of X is even better!" |
The cognitive dissonance* in this statement is amazing.
*Always wanted to use this term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the title of this thread is BS. Taxation as used in this article has jack crap to do with socialism. Its a tax issue. Not a socialism vs capitalist one. The idea that taxation in and of itself is a socialist concept is utterly retarded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| So what do you propose has been the cause of mans rapid accent in the past 2 centuries? |
Again, the fact that something in moderation has provided good results does not mean the same thing in excess will provide better results. Don't put forward a simpleton argument like "Some of X is good, so of course more of X is even better!" and try to dodge your way around the obvious counterargument though.
|
But this is exactly what you do. |
No, it's not what I do. This is exactly what I complained about: you don't interact with what I actually say. I have portrayed myself as for moderate, intelligent government regulation. I decidedly do not argue that because some regulation is good, substantially more must be better, because I want to stop at some. For that matter, I'd never argue more regulation without qualification is better, because with regulation it's all about the specifics of the regulatory statute in question.
The thing is, as you say, a lot of the regulation we have on the books in America isn't exactly ideal, and as such I feel it should be replaced with properly functional regulation. There are plenty of aspects of the market place that should not be regulated (easy example: rent control, terrible idea, even in theory, much less in practice). If I used the "Some of X is good, more must be better!" argument style, I'd be advocating Communism, which is the end result of applying that argument scheme to regulation. I have openly declared I don't support Communism.
Seriously, you yourself even just gave a counterexample to your own argument: just because some regulation is good, that doesn't mean more would be good. So why on Earth would you think the same argument applied to marketplace freedom would be a sound one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know when you were born, but we havn't had true free markets as long as I have been alive. We are further away from the true liberal* ideal of the free market than we have ever been.
Who is most qualified to decide which policies are the correct ones? You?
Again, I ask you to provide me with the authors you feel have most influenced modern leftist thought. The only people who espouse these ideas are politicians who hope to gain/retain power. No right thinking person believes socialism is an answer to anyone.
As for you accusing me of not engaging your argument, the knife cuts both ways brother.
*Look this word up, you may be surprised as to its true origins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding your claim that I am not engaging your arguments, I'm discussing your argument right now, it's you that keeps trying to change the focus away from that onto completely unrelated questions like "What sort of Socialism related books do you like to read?" and "Why are you such a jealous, covetous person Fox?" All I'm doing is engaging an argument you yourself made, how can I engage your argumentation more thoroughly than that?
Retract the argument I objected to, defend your argument (without referencing me or my beliefs), or I'm afraid I have nothing else to say in response to you. That was the sole reason I posted in response to you, and it's the sole thing I'm willing to respond to you regarding at the present. Anything else is a dodge, and I have no interest in such tactics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| I'm beginning to suspect their cries come from irrationality and jealousy towards those who succeed in life |
Returning to this argument is just silly. You think me and Fox want a rich person's money because we're jealous, when, in reality, we're arguing for redistribution of wealth to the poor majority i.e. not us!
Anyway, I will introduce you to one thinker who shaped my opinion. It's Rawls with 'A Theory of Justice'. A nice way to look at his theory is this...
If humans decided the construction of society before they were born everyone would naturally want the poor to be protected and suffer some restriction on total individual liberty. Afterall, there is a higher percentage chance you would get born as a child in a poor family than one in a rich family. As the Wikipedia article below states, this produces a "reconciliation of liberty and equality". People are happy with this social contract because everyone is protected regardless of the situation they're born into - there's justice. This distributive justice doesn't happen in society because rich people will always argue to keep what they've already got.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice |
I was familiar with the "veil of ignorance". However it starts with an assumption that is false. That being the notion that wealth is finite. This notion is simply not the case. Productivity is when you make an item with less imputs. We can always find ways to lessen the imputs (capital and labor) in production. Therefore the idea that some how there is a fixed amount of material items in the universe is absurd and not a notion I subscribe to.
The so called "rich" are simply those who are best at funnelling capital and labor to their most productive use. They are the people who create wealth and jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Regarding your claim that I am not engaging your arguments, I'm discussing your argument right now, it's you that keeps trying to change the focus away from that onto completely unrelated questions like "What sort of Socialism related books do you like to read?" and "Why are you such a jealous, covetous person Fox?" All I'm doing is engaging an argument you yourself made, how can I engage your argumentation more thoroughly than that?
Retract the argument I objected to, defend your argument (without referencing me or my beliefs), or I'm afraid I have nothing else to say in response to you. That was the sole reason I posted in response to you, and it's the sole thing I'm willing to respond to you regarding at the present. Anything else is a dodge, and I have no interest in such tactics. |
I guess I'm goading you as I'm curious as to the reasons people such as yourself hold the beliefs you do. I'm really at a loss to respond. You ruled out referencing your beliefs, which I did in the first sentence of my reply. But I can't see how your beliefs are separate from how I perceive the motives for you having those beliefs.
You seem to be personally offended by what I said about people who hold your beliefs. For that, all I can say is I'm sorry you feel that way. You seem to want to debate in a vacuum which, honestly, isn't that fun. You will probably acuse me of trolling, but I'm genuinely curious about how people come to hold beliefs that run counter to what is observable.
We follow scienific priciples in almost every endeavor except for that which matters most, the provision of goods and services. Granted, we are not currently at a completely satisfactory level of consumption for all people but we have come an incredibly long way in a short amount of time and we know the cause of this. Therefore, it seems strange to me that certain people are so intent on stifling further progress. That being free enterprise and entrepreneurship in a market that is not distorted by outside disinsentves.
I have basically broken all of your arbitrary rules in my response, for which I am truly sorry. as I have broken your rules, I don't expect a reply from you. So, I will leave you with a quote to ponder.
| Quote: |
Used to the conditions of a capitalistic environment, the average American takes it for granted that every year business makes something new and better accessible to him. Looking backward upon the years of his own life, he realizes that many implements that were totally unknown in the days of his youth and many others which at that time could be enjoyed only by a small minority are now standard equipment of almost every household. He is fully confident that this trend will prevail also in the future. He simply calls it the American way of life and does not give serious thought to the question of what made this continuous improvement in the supply of material goods possible.
Ludwig von Mises |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I absolutely love that book.
See also Basic Economics and Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell.
Next on my reading list: Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert P Murphy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
I absolutely love that book.
See also Basic Economics and Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell.
Next on my reading list: Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert P Murphy. |
I'm a massive fan of Sowell. Haven't read any of his work yet, but I read his articles religiously.
EDIT: Went searching for some of Sowell's work and found these.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/online/4341346.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/online/2993841.html
An anthology of some of his columns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The most stupid thing a country can do is sell off a government monopoly on a service to a foreign company. The justification is always that it will "improve services" but because there is no real competition the company has no incentive at all to improve services and simply drains money out of the company and hence out of the country.The NZ government recently had to buy its rail service Tranzrail back from an Australian company that had been making profits for itself but not investing any money back into improving the service and infrastructure. Why should they? It's a monopoly after all. If you don't have to compete for customers there is no need to improve anything.
There's a reason richer country free market ideologists force privatization on poorer countries' government services and it's not out of benevolence.
A government monopoly can become more efficient if run like a private corporation but there is no need to sell it to a private company to achieve that. NZ Post is a good example. It is still a state-owned company but is run like a private company. That means it's profits ultimately go back to the taxpayers who use its services. Also because it is state-owned the executives are forced by the government to provide good services and keep prices down.
Free market purists would rather sell it off to a foreign company and watch it's profits taken overseas and its services degraded and prices for consumers increase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
The most stupid thing a country can do is sell off a government monopoly on a service to a foreign company. The justification is always that it will "improve services" but because there is no real competition the company has no incentive at all to improve services and simply drains money out of the company and hence out of the country.The NZ government recently had to buy its rail service Tranzrail back from an Australian company that had been making profits for itself but not investing any money back into improving the service and infrastructure. Why should they? It's a monopoly after all. If you don't have to compete for customers there is no need to improve anything.
There's a reason richer country free market ideologists force privatization on poorer countries' government services and it's not out of benevolence.
A government monopoly can become more efficient if run like a private corporation but there is no need to sell it to a private company to achieve that. NZ Post is a good example. It is still a state-owned company but is run like a private company. That means it's profits ultimately go back to the taxpayers who use its services. Also because it is state-owned the executives are forced by the government to provide good services and keep prices down.
Free market purists would rather sell it off to a foreign company and watch it's profits taken overseas and its services degraded and prices for consumers increase. |
Yes, there's very often a distinctly anti-foreigner element to left-wing economics (except with respect to immigration of course - that goes without saying)
I'm sorry to hear that foreign ownership (Tranzrail) has resulted in a decline in standards in NZ rail. Perhaps this indicates a lack of entrepreneurialism in NZ, or that many customers prefer air travel (in such a big country with a population 50% that of London)? Have you explored these possibilities, or have you just put it down to an explanation that's emotionally-satisfying? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
The outgoing Labour party didn't have to buy the rail roads. They did anyway, and payed hugely over the odds. Network economies have very low returns to scale in a country like NZ. Broadband and railways are a prime example. It doesn't take a genius to work it out. Low population density over relatively large distances. This is simply a disadvantage the NZ economy has to work with. Luckily we have comparative advantages in other areas.
There is no evidence to suggest that the NZ govt could run the railroads more efficiently. Ie at a lower cost for a better service. |
|
| 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
