|
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 |
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| How about we just copy everything Japan does? Emulate successful countries where there is less inequality, socialism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| or Sweden? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" |
I certainly do remember that part, though a "sufficiently broad interpretation" of the Commerce Clause is what made it go from covering the intended "interstate commerce" to absolutely everything anyone does/consumes/produces in the U.S.
A "sufficiently broad interpretation" of the general Welfare could mean the Feds should buy everyone a house to live in, but that doesn't make it a good interpretation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
I certainly do remember that part, though a "sufficiently broad interpretation" of the Commerce Clause is what made it go from covering the intended "interstate commerce" to absolutely everything anyone does/consumes/produces in the U.S.
A "sufficiently broad interpretation" of the general Welfare could mean the Feds should buy everyone a house to live in, but that doesn't make it a good interpretation. |
I don't think saying that our citizens getting enough food to eat is a part of general welfare is an unreasonably broad interpretation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would like to see a state by state approach. 50 different social experiments would be pretty cool. Let Alabama go theocratic, and let Massachusetts go social democrat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| It looks like Sergio got owned by Fox. |
Fox didn't even reply to me.
Please don't dumb the thread down any further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Some more questions:
-Sweden has prospered as a result of free market initiatives. It seems to have prospered from such while remaining decidedly socialist, no? |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
No mention of socialism/socialist
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| -No one seems to be defending the notion of charity replacing social programs, so what do libertarian social programs look like? |
Libertarian social programs would look like getting off your arse and getting on your bike
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| It seems that there's a two-pronged attack against bankers and the poor. One is understandable, but it sounds as if the poor are the second most powerful DC lobby. They aren't. If bankers are first, big business is the second. On the whole, big business is being portrayed here as the lil whipping boy that everyone else is unfairly exploiting. Isn't this position a bit milk-toast? |
Yes, nothing screams big business quite like unfunded liabilities of $100 trillion, a top tax rate of 45% and a welfare expenditure of 35% of gdp
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| -Monopolies=bad. Hegemons=? The technical non-monopolies seem akin to technical virgins. Some offer this free market dream of anyone having a chance to compete, but Wal-Mart is a good example of how this doesn't really pan out. To wrestle with a gorilla, you have to be a gorilla. Of course, there are emerging markets, but the free market model seems to let gorillas be gorillas. In the case of goods (a la Wal-Mart), that may be ok, but in terms of information and the media (a la Murdoch), isn't that a problem? |
A man who insists on state monopolies in health and education asking others to justify monopolies?
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Pollution, poverty, and corruption are as old as the pyramids. To say they're the product of socialsim and only socialism is a campaign promise more than anything of real substance. To suggest a free market will end all of that is, well, horribly naive.
Isn't it? |
Yes, I suppose it's rather naive, but whose position is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:06 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
I think it is: "Big Government" is a product of being bought off. The Rand/Mises solution is to curtail government, but the solution works as easily in the opposite direction: get business out of government.
|
Bingo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:39 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
I think it is: "Big Government" is a product of being bought off. The Rand/Mises solution is to curtail government, but the solution works as easily in the opposite direction: get business out of government.
|
Bingo. |
That's almost impossible.
The more the government spends, the larger the private capture of it. This is the representative democratic manifestation of the Iron Law of Aristocracy.
Specifically, Social Security is probably the only safe program in this regard, since its inflow is payroll taxes and its outflow goes directly to seniors. Unemployment is probably safe, as well (I would argue its the only appropriate stimulus, besides short-term injections to State governments to cover their sudden shortfalls)
But Medicare/Medicaid (especially Bush's modification of it) is a huge boon to the medical industry. It was the medical industry which added 1.7 million jobs from 2001 to 2006.
"Defense spending" is one of the worst in this regard. Its a subsidy for Lockheed-Martin. But nobody would argue that "defense" should be privatized.
Where Sergio and I diverge is right here. He thinks the rich are subsidizing the poor. Well, not in America, anyway. Here, the middle-class subsidizes the rich, and some of the poor as well.
A government that supports the middle-class will tax little, tax progressively, and spend sparingly, with an eye that a high proportion of what is spent goes directly to recipients, and not industrial middlemen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
I think it is: "Big Government" is a product of being bought off. The Rand/Mises solution is to curtail government, but the solution works as easily in the opposite direction: get business out of government.
|
Bingo. |
Specifically, Social Security is probably the only safe program in this regard, since its inflow is payroll taxes and its outflow goes directly to seniors. Unemployment is probably safe, as well (I would argue its the only appropriate stimulus, besides short-term injections to State governments to cover their sudden shortfalls)
But Medicare/Medicaid (especially Bush's modification of it) is a huge boon to the medical industry. It was the medical industry which added 1.7 million jobs from 2001 to 2006.
"Defense spending" is one of the worst in this regard. Its a subsidy for Lockheed-Martin. But nobody would argue that "defense" should be privatized.
|
Defence should of course remain public, but current spending levels are hugely disproportionate. Nonetheless, the postive correlation between campaign funds and electoral outcomes is well established so politicians will continue to simply promise support for subsidies in exchange for campaign finance.
In 2010, defence aerospace industries contributed over 9 million US dollars to the two parties. In 2009 Lockhead spent 10 millions dollars on lobbying activity alone. With that kind of money being thrown about - and that is just one example of many - the kind of reform being called for will not materialise. Campaign finance laws need to be revised before any progress can be made. I am not sure that the system can ever be whiter than white, but surely most agree that it can be significantly improved upon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
No mention of socialism/socialist |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
No mention of socialism/socialist here either. Then again, both pages say that these countries have mixed economies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden:
| Quote: |
| Sweden has one of the most highly developed welfare states in the world. The country has a higher level of social spending to GDP than any other nation. Additionally it provides equal as well as comprehensive access to education and health care. |
| Quote: |
As of 2007, total tax revenue was 47.8% of GDP, the second highest tax burden among developed countries, down from 49.1% 2006.[120] Sweden's inverted tax wedge � the amount going to the service worker's wallet � is approximately 15% compared to 10% in Belgium, 30% in Ireland, and 50% in United States.[115] Public sector spending amounts to 53% of the GDP. |
| Quote: |
| Eighty percent of the workforce is organised in trade-unions which also have the right to elect two representatives to the board in all Swedish companies with more than 25 employees. |
| Quote: |
Sweden�s entire population has equal access to health care services. The Swedish health care system is government-funded and heavily decentralized. The health care system in Sweden is financed primarily through taxes levied by county councils and municipalities.
Sweden regularly comes top or close to the top of worldwide healthcare rankings. |
I know. Either all of the above is due to the free market initiatives or this system is going to collapse before our very eyes...
| Quote: |
| Yes, nothing screams big business quite like unfunded liabilities of $100 trillion, a top tax rate of 45% and a welfare expenditure of 35% of gdp |
I could use those same numbers to claim that bankers are getting the wrong end of the stick. The private sector sure invests a lot in campaign contributions to be getting screwed like that, no?
| Quote: |
| A man who insists on state monopolies in health and education asking others to justify monopolies? |
Here you're not answering the question and just inventing my position. I am, of course, for socialized med and education, but I don't really have a problem with private healthcare and schools running alongside them. The point, however, is that, when a single company gets something like 60%+ control of one sector or market, I don't really buy that it's simply open to anyone to come along and provide better competition. We see that in the case of Microsoft's attempt to dominate the browser market and in the way Wal-Mart sets up stores and sells things for a loss to drive out competition.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Pollution, poverty, and corruption are as old as the pyramids. To say they're the product of socialsim and only socialism is a campaign promise more than anything of real substance. To suggest a free market will end all of that is, well, horribly naive.
Isn't it? |
Yes, I suppose it's rather naive, but whose position is it? |
On this thread alone, we have the pollution argument and a theoretical 0% employment rate. And this is far from the first time they've come up on these forums.
As for getting business out of government, I wouldn't call it impossible, just an extremely challenging task that lacks the political will to do so. I'd say it's far more realistic and likely than gutting government regulation so that big business isn't inconvenienced. Whichever direction you want things to go, campaign finance reform is probably a key element to getting what you want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It isn't my position that the US is socialist, though, so why are you telling me that it's not?
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Then again, both pages say that these countries have mixed economies. |
Which nobody disputes
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden:
| Quote: |
| Sweden has one of the most highly developed welfare states in the world. The country has a higher level of social spending to GDP than any other nation. Additionally it provides equal as well as comprehensive access to education and health care. |
| Quote: |
As of 2007, total tax revenue was 47.8% of GDP, the second highest tax burden among developed countries, down from 49.1% 2006.[120] Sweden's inverted tax wedge � the amount going to the service worker's wallet � is approximately 15% compared to 10% in Belgium, 30% in Ireland, and 50% in United States.[115] Public sector spending amounts to 53% of the GDP. |
| Quote: |
| Eighty percent of the workforce is organised in trade-unions which also have the right to elect two representatives to the board in all Swedish companies with more than 25 employees. |
| Quote: |
Sweden�s entire population has equal access to health care services. The Swedish health care system is government-funded and heavily decentralized. The health care system in Sweden is financed primarily through taxes levied by county councils and municipalities.
Sweden regularly comes top or close to the top of worldwide healthcare rankings. |
|
�Sweden's industry is overwhelmingly in private control� the Wiki article said. And then of course there's the efforts of the Swedish government to divest state owned assets.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Here you're not answering the question and just inventing my position. I am, of course, for socialized med and education, but I don't really have a problem with private healthcare and schools running alongside them. The point, however, is that, when a single company gets something like 60%+ control of one sector or market, I don't really buy that it's simply open to anyone to come along and provide better competition. We see that in the case of Microsoft's attempt to dominate the browser market and in the way Wal-Mart sets up stores and sells things for a loss to drive out competition. |
I know of not a single exception to the proposition that a private monopoly is a monopoly because it's simply very good at its job (owes its monopoly status to the anterior satisfaction of the demands of consumers). There�s nothing fairer than the free market and a monopoly is only virtuous. But today�s private monopolies find that they have competition tomorrow; tis folly to indulge the outraged blinkers of the baying mob by clamoring for Big Brother to break them up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fat_Elvis
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but libertarians seem to me to ignore the fact that power is not simply exercised by governments but also corporations. |
Of course this is a very important and valid point. If a corporation becomes so powerful that it starts behaving like a government, then that is indefensible from a libertarian POV. The largest Wall Street corporations usually have their own intelligence agencies, propaganda arms, and sometimes even hire thugs to intimidate opposition. They also put their own people into the highest levels of state government to ensure favorable (ie. monopolistic) legislation is passed. This is what happens when a class of robber barons (Rockefellers, Morgans, Harrimans et al) takes over the reigns of government. Of course this system of governance has nothing to do with libertarianism, however. It is far more akin to socialism, since it begins with central banking (one of the fundamental planks of the communist manifesto).
| Quote: |
| For example, can a market ever be genuinely considered 'free' when control is simply handed from government to corporations? And if you think that the market will automatically correct itself, aren't you ignoring things such as collusion between companies, the corrupting power of money over the rule of law, as well as the high cost of entering the market meaning that it is only wealthy elites who control the economy? |
Collusion between companies is actually not a form or corruption, since it is a voluntary exchange. Corruption is when the state intervenes and passes laws (enforced at gunpoint) giving one party an unfair (or exclusive) advantage over others. If a single company offers a better/cheaper good or service and happens to 'monopolize' a given industry at a given time, this is not actually a monopoly (since competition is free to move anytime if they are willing or able). A true monopoly requires government backing (just look at the history of corporatocracy in the US, beginning with the railway industry). |
You're twisting definitions to suit your own ends again. How would a reduced libetarian govenment stop collusion in the marketplace between companies with regard to prices, labour conditions etc? It would be powerless, and companies, driven by the profit motive, would have nothing to lose by doing this, surely?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| Free market capitalism seems to be perceived by libertarians as a kind of pure state, which government simply meddles in, whereas in fact there is no pure state, and capitalism emerged partly through the endorsement of governments and continues to thrive in countries such as Korea and China who never subscribed to the Washington Consensus and where governments have played an active role along with business in running the country. The chaebols in this country only exist due to government patronage and protection. And yes it's true, these countries also have low welfare commitments too. |
Again, cartels and monopolies are a result of government regulation. This has nothing to do with free market capitalism. In fact, it is a form of socialism. |
Could people on this forum please stop referring to the governments of the USA and Korea as socialist? THEY ARE NOT SOCIALIST. Korea simply used a different form of capitalism to get ahead, and it has been highly successful so far. Can you point out any historical examples of libertarian economies succeeding?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| At the heart of libertarianism is a lot moralistic thinking - 'government spending is bad', 'the rabble should pay for themselves' - and 'what-if' scenarios e.g what if the Roosevelt administration hadn't intervened in the Great Depression. |
Oh man... Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression for a decade and his new deal made things much worse (this is very well known, despite the misinformation taught in public schools). In no way, shape or form did his policies end the Depression. It ended because the country entered a massive state of growth fueled by huge trade surpluses in and after WWII. |
You've just proved my point with some more what-if thinking. How do you know? Can you travel to alternative dimensions and see a different USA without Roosevelt as President?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
The Austrian economics of the likes of Mises and Rothbard which many libertarians seem to base their ideas on is unscientific, disdaining mathematical modelling and any kind of scientific method in favour of ideologically loaded a priori assumptions. Their permanent talk of recession and gloom makes them popular at times of economic downturn, as like a stopped clock they appear right once every business cycle.
|
What are the odds that you've actually read a single book or article by either Mises or Rothbard? I'm guessing zero. |
No, I haven't so the same reason I haven't read books on astrology and alchemy, as they are pseudo-sciences.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| The rest of us can, however, take comfort in the fact that they are a group of intellectual fringe dwellers whose fanciful ideas will never be accepted by the mainstream. |
You "take comfort" in your government bankrupting the country, giving trillions to banks with no oversight, expanding their unjust wars based on lies, lying to you as a matter of course, raising your taxes and stealing your purchasing power? Yeah right. I think you're fooling yourself. |
No, I take comfort in the fact that the ideas of intellectual fringe dwellers such as those that seem to congregate on this forum such as yourself have never and will never take hold to any great extent as the vast majority of people realise that they live in a society as much as a marketplace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| I would like to see a state by state approach. 50 different social experiments would be pretty cool. Let Alabama go theocratic, and let Massachusetts go social democrat. |
Social experimentation is fine, and probably even good, but surely it should be kept within certain bounds? Certain states becoming fundamentalist Christian theocracies is probably not going to turn out well in the long run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, bounds are necessary. The deal brokered between the Mormons and the federal government comes to mind. You can have your state if you abide by the laws of the country. The fed needs to keep a light hand though, so as to give individual states room to do things their own way.
I think we have already had several state theocracies. Didn't you have to be a member of the congregationalist church in MA to vote through the 1820's? |
|
| 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
