|
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 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| By trusts I mean oligarchies. Maybe my history got it wrong but I was always taught that the largest companies in the same industries would get together to fix prices, keep out new and smaller competitors, etc. |
But in reality this is not how it works (as explained previously). If you have any examples where this phenomenon supposedly did take place, then kindly post them and we can take a look.
| Quote: |
| You keep mentioning Standard Oil. Maybe they were or weren't a true monopoly. I didn't mention them in my posts. |
Standard Oil is the most famous case, probably in history, of a giant company being busted apart by the government. So I figure it was worth a mention. But if you have any other companies that you think fit the bill, then by all means name them.
| Quote: |
| Your responses seem to indicate there was collusion in the 19th century but it was wtih the blessing of the government. You pointed out a case in which that was the case but I've (and most Americans) were always taught that there were collusion without government blessing amongst companies in certain industries. |
Such as? Which companies, and which industries?
I've already listed a few that did have government backing (including major railroads), but it was rather limited at the time. The real merger between state and corporate power started after the trust busting era, namely around the time that the proto-fascist President Wilson took us into WWI. This was also the time when the Federal Reserve was created, and the robber baron class took control over the entire monetary system via the government-backed Federal Reserve (which is a monopoly over the creation of money).
| Quote: |
| Since the Sherman Anti trust act and subsequent acts enacted to expand or strenghten it, there have been cases of companies colluding secretly to do all manner of things like rotating biddings, fix prices, etc. |
Again, please list examples (even just one would suffice). Just because companies collude does not mean they are stifling competition or that it is bad for the consumer.
| Quote: |
| This is in response to the free market theory. In a purely free market, is it or isn't it possible for companies to collude to run a certain industry by fixing prices, establishing territories, undercutting the prices, even at a loss, from new or smaller competitors. |
I would say it is most certainly not possible. Some people claim it is, but there are no cases in history that I have yet come across. A company slashing prices to undercut its competition is the whole point, and it benefits the consumer. In reality though, predatory pricing is not sufficient to maintain a monopoly (since few businesses are perfectly vertically integrated, and are dependent on others in a complex supply chain). Basically only ever improving and creating newer goods/services can keep a company on top. If a company can maintain a near monopoly share of the market simply by consistently outperforming its competition, then there is no problem. And that's not really a monopoly, since competition is still free to come in at any time should that company grow complacent.
| Quote: |
| Toyota was accused of that at one point. |
How so?
| Quote: |
| In a free market wouldn't that be allowable, since they are allowed to act in any way? |
Sure, but again, what is the problem?
| Quote: |
| Also, when the markets were freer, companies would dump harmful chemicals rivers, employ children, etc. Laws were made to stop that but a free market without any interference would have seen those acts continue wouldn't they? |
Meh, this argument is often tossed around as if things were any different today. Companies actually pollute a lot more on average in socialist countries (like the former Soviet Union), because the government allows it. Most US firms now set up shop in China and elsewhere, where corrupt officials can be bought off, the environment sullied without reproach, and virtual slave labor employed. In a free society, with property rights, pollution actually goes down (since it is illegal to pollute on another person's land - no tragedy of the commons) and wealth tends to be distributed more evenly (ex. the wealth gap in the US is higher now than at any other time in our history).
| Quote: |
| Just like most Americans I like to see a competitive economic environment where companies can grow and prosper. I guess what I am trying to ascertain is how free is the free in market? |
Well, that's up to you to decide. Would you rather live in society where you are free to succeed or fail based on your own merits? Or a society in which the government controls your life (to varying degrees), you are forced to pay taxes, lose purchasing power due to inflation, and have to get permits to do anything? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Army genocide for a reason. For profit. Certain companies in collusion with the Indonesian government instigated this genocide and benefited from it. |
I'm afraid it's just yet another shameful chapter in the history of government mass murder. |
Mass murder for a reason. Mass murder in the interests of power and wealth.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Are you one of those who believes that, when cooperation between business and government produces benevolent consequences, all the credit goes to the government (but when cooperation between business and government produces malevolent consequences, all the blame goes to 'capitalism', the 'free market' and the profit motive)? |
Excuse me, but I'm not the one wedded to the notion that either government or business, the public or the private sector, are bad or good in themselves. You, on the other hand, are committed to the idea that the unrestricted pursuit of private profit inevitably has good outcomes. Visitorq is committed to the idea that everything that cometh from the hands of the government cometh of evil. Logically, you should also be in favour of privatizing law enforcement, the justice system, and the military, something we've seen in Iraq by the way.
The question of whether government or the private sector is better suited to a task should be determined on practical, not ideological, grounds, and the difference between them is less important than the difference between the powerful and the rest of us.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Nothing could be more laughable than the fallacies of the left. |
A strawman is easy to laugh at.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Interesting link, and it strongly supports my point that capitalism thrives in the Third World |
It shows that every American job-creating entity of note has, at some point, employed foreigners over Americans. And yet, these same individuals who decry the "outsourcing of America", such as Lou Dobbs and yourself, are also those who cherish high taxes, public services and unions, seemingly oblivious to even the mere possibility of a causal relationship. Some people are just so dogmatic and impervious to logic that they are incapable of self-blame, it would seem - not unlike children. Or is it your position, Privateer, that we can attribute benevolent outcomes, such as higher wages, solely to unions and the left, but malevolent outcomes, such as when Western businesses flee the West (in search of lower wages), not to unions and the left but rather to greedy, evil capitalism? |
So if jobs are scarce, it's our fault for failing to compete with Indonesian workers? I'd say it's better that we not only look out for our own interests but see our common interest with workers worldwide. Unionization everywhere, in other words, enforcement of law on companies - and a return to restrictions on capital flight.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| U.S. agriculture is heavily subsidized to the point that it's impossible for small farmers in any country to compete, however efficient they are |
Sorry, I don't understand. I thought your political lobby believed in protecting domestic industries? Isn't the US government serving the Common Good by keeping its farmers employed? Why, if these are your views (and I'm very confident indeed that they are), are you now complaining that US agriculture is heavily subsidized, inevitably meaning that Third World nations find it more difficult to sell their agricultural products in rich nations? If the US government abolished subsidies for agriculture, and businesses began purchasing the labors not of American farmers, but of Third World farmers, what would your position be? |
I'm in favour not of protectionism in itself but of things that serve the common interest rather than the interests of the powerful at the expense of the rest of us. You have to ask whose interests are served by subsidizing U.S. agribusiness. Not those of small farmers in America, and there must be a more rational way to feed us all than the current environmentally damaging system. We are talking about everyone's need to have a reliable source of food, whether it be Haitians or ourselves.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| In the Third World we see capitalism unchecked, and, if capitalism is unchecked here, we will start to see the Third World here too. |
I hope you're right. Third World conditions would be precisely what the vulgar Western rabble deserves. The thought of lefties working until the very moment they die of old age (because there aren't any jobs or public services in the West any longer) makes me joyous. And if they're tofu-eating hippies who live til they're 98, all the better! And if the proles wake up one day and find they are unable to nourish themselves, that is an expected outcome of coercing those who create opportunities for workers into providing one free lunch too many. Unsurprisingly, businesses are fleeing this unabashedly parasitical environment in favor of nations where they can pay labor its true market value.
Such is the nugatory, expendable, disposable nature of the laborer. So long as there are paupers in foreign lands prepared to work for pennies for doing the same job as a fat Western prole, many will prefer the cheaper option any day. And why not? Would you buy a laptop that cost $2,000, just to keep British workers in Bovril, as opposed to a $300 laptop assembled in the sweatshops of China? |
So you're completely in favour of the Third-Worldization of the West, especially Britain, because the useless parasitical lower class deserve it, and, conversely, the deserving rich should have more (as you've stated before). You agree that this is the outcome that the current, 'free market' capitalism, system is leading to - and, presumably, the 'freer' the system the faster we will get there. Now, if, as you maintain, free market capitalism always has benevolent outcomes, and if Third-Worldization is the outcome, then you and I clearly have very different ideas of the meaning of 'benevolent'. Because this outcome is benevolent only to the few at the top.
I suppose it makes sense for you to be a cheerleader for the ruling class, posting from your yacht in the South Pacific no doubt. I suspect, however, that you and I belong to the same class, i.e. all those not in the owning and ruling class. Careful what you cheer for.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Capitalism thrives in the Third World in the same way that Privateer thrives when he discovers a grocery store whose low prices enable him to make substantial savings. You think you're saying something earth-shattering, when really it is a triviality: everyone relishes spending less and having more left over. Again, similar to the left's view that the rich should pay for a safety net for the rabble but shouldn't be permitted to have one for themselves, the surprising thing is not that businesses don't like to spend more unnecessarily (which is incredibly unsurprising), but that there are people who think that there should be one rule for the rabble and one rule for businesses. But why, when we all the same human animal, driven by the same instincts and needs (namely, ruthless self-interest)?
The central theme permeating your views, Privateer, is that your particular class of person is owed a living and entitled to receive things regardless of whether others wish to provide them. This, not unlike geocentrism, wishfully puts your particular social class at the center of the universe, oblivious to its rightful position - that of irrelevance. |
Do you think you and I are in a different social class?
Let's have some self-interest, starting with the self-awareness to know whose class interests are at stake in this fight - and which class we belong to.
I'm out of time now. Later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
Just like most Americans I like to see a competitive economic environment where companies can grow and prosper. I guess what I am trying to ascertain is how free is the free in market? |
Regulations should protect the free flow of information. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Otherwise, the gov't should avoid being a market participant: there should be no implicit backing of failures, even if its really really important, like Wall Street or the housing GSEs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe you're saying our history books have it wrong. Perhaps. Historically some of the following folks: (JP Morgan, Andrew Mellon, Leland Stanford, Jay Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, John Jacob Astor.)
were said to be involved in 'fixing' the market. Its historically accepted as such in how we are taught about many of these people. If they in fact didn't so be it. I assume you're saying that they didn't collude to fix prices, markets, etc. with others and/or themselves?
With regards to companies doing bad things in repressive countries as they did in democratic ones, doesn't that say that companies will do bad things if they are allowed to? Whether they do so in a free market country or repressive country is besides the point isn't it? In a free market with little or no regulation they can and will do things that are harmful to people and the environment. Some may not but the lowest common denominator often wins out. If we threw out all the OSHA rules tomorrow, how many companies would all companies retain safety standards that protect people? America had more of a free market in the 19th century and early decades of the 20th century. Numerous laws were enacted due to actions that were harmful to society, correct?
So, a free market is all well and good but wouldn't a totally free market (free of all regulation and safeguards) be harmful to society?
Basically, a balance. Where that line is with regards to too much regulation and not enough is debatable I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
Maybe you're saying our history books have it wrong. Perhaps. Historically some of the following folks: (JP Morgan, Andrew Mellon, Leland Stanford, Jay Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, John Jacob Astor.)
were said to be involved in 'fixing' the market. |
How did they fix the market? You can't really expect me to comment when no specific claim is being made - each of these men were different (aside from being rich), and it's case by case. Specific examples would be helpful, I can hardly be expected to write an encyclopedia on the matter...
| Quote: |
| Its historically accepted as such in how we are taught about many of these people. If they in fact didn't so be it. I assume you're saying that they didn't collude to fix prices, markets, etc. with others and/or themselves? |
Of course most of the history we are taught is biased and dumbed down. Beyond that, I'm saying that in a free market you can't fix prices. Because if the market will not bear the price you are charging, then somebody else will always come along and offer it cheaper.
Beyond that, again, I can't say whether all of those men colluded with the government to fix prices (no doubt many of the did, since that's such an effective way of getting rich). I don't know the history in such detail. I could certainly debate specific examples, however.
| Quote: |
| With regards to companies doing bad things in repressive countries as they did in democratic ones, doesn't that say that companies will do bad things if they are allowed to? Whether they do so in a free market country or repressive country is besides the point isn't it? In a free market with little or no regulation they can and will do things that are harmful to people and the environment. |
No! This is the point I find myself repeating over and over - the free market is not free-for-all anarchy! It doesn't mean you can just trample over everyone else, committing crimes to get ahead. A government (preferably a very limited one, democratically elected, but restricted by various checks and balances to its power) is necessary to maintain the rule of law.
| Quote: |
| Some may not but the lowest common denominator often wins out. If we threw out all the OSHA rules tomorrow, how many companies would all companies retain safety standards that protect people? America had more of a free market in the 19th century and early decades of the 20th century. Numerous laws were enacted due to actions that were harmful to society, correct? |
I don't agree with this. Government enforced safety standards are not justified. Any more than it is justified for the government to ban me from smoking, drinking alcohol, or doing drugs. I should be free to do what I want, including not wearing a seat belt, or a bike helmet, or not wearing a hard hat on a construction site.
On the other hand, nobody should be forced to work in unsafe conditions. But that falls under not allowing slavery.
| Quote: |
| So, a free market is all well and good but wouldn't a totally free market (free of all regulation and safeguards) be harmful to society? |
No, quite the contrary.
| Quote: |
| Basically, a balance. Where that line is with regards to too much regulation and not enough is debatable I guess. |
I don't agree. It is a matter of principle. Either the government is allowed to infringe on the liberties of law-abiding citizens, or it isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
VisitorQ,
Though I think you don't understand the history of the 19th Century well or you just prefer to ignore the facts that don't fit your narrative, I do think some of your arguments are good or at least interesting.
To a certain extent, I think that if a free market could do all those things you said, it would be awesome - even a miracle!
I guess my main point of disagreement is I don't think free markets can be as regulated as you think they can. I am not so optimistic about human behavior and I am very naturally skeptical at any utopia including free market utopia. I would go as far to say that there is no such thing as perfection and we will always have problems and difficulties. Your faith in free markets and their regulation is a little too naive for my taste.
There are also some other disagreements I have such as your statement on work safety. The limits to our freedom is where they interfer with the health and safety of others. We should have a right to smoke (at least in our own homes) because the damage (to the extent that there is any) is limited to myself and my family (if I have one). But, there can be limits on smoking on public because it infringes on others health and safety. Work safety is a very important role of government.
I also think that government with representation has the right to tax and establish safety nets. The key is with representation. Go ahead and stick your teeth in that; I don't doubt you will.
I also found your statement: "A government (preferably a very limited one, democratically elected, but restricted by various checks and balances to its power) is necessary to maintain the rule of law" a curious one.
It is curious because that is exactly what we have in the U.S. And, it is still full of the things you don't like (and me too there are plenty of things I don't like such as how money has perverted the democratic system).
But, that is my concern about your utopia. I just don't believe and have no reason to believe because it has never happened before that we can have these "free markets" you are talking about where no one uses their power successfully to pervert the system. How do you keep monied interest from perverting markets and democracy as has happened throughout American hisotry and the history of every other country I have ever heard of?
How do you stop people from freely disregarding free markets or overthrowing such a system?
I would be interested to hear how you would do it as I am quite cynical that it can be done but I really am open minded about these things whether you want to believe it or not, I just don't think your utopia can be had.
Anyway, I do hope that personal liberties which do not harm others can be more strongly protected. I also wish that those who are currently abusing the system, mostly large monied interests, could be curtailed. But, I don't know how to do that without a strong federal government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A free market system only works when there's an equal playing field, not when the game is rigged by those at the top. The question is how do you prevent them from rigging the game? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| A free market system only works when there's an equal playing field, not when the game is rigged by those at the top. The question is how do you prevent them from rigging the game? |
A free market system is an equal playing field by definition. If it's not an equal playing field (ie. if some people have powers of coercion over others), then it's not a free market.
As for preventing people from rigging the game, the best way is to limit the power of government, since only government is powerful enough to impose its will over all of society. The power to tax is also the power to destroy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| I guess my main point of disagreement is I don't think free markets can be as regulated as you think they can. I am not so optimistic about human behavior and I am very naturally skeptical at any utopia including free market utopia. I would go as far to say that there is no such thing as perfection and we will always have problems and difficulties. Your faith in free markets and their regulation is a little too naive for my taste. |
That's fine - nowhere am I claiming that perfection is possible. I'm just saying that it should be striven for. Nor am I saying we can get rid of all the evils of government. But that should not stop us from doing our utmost to roll back the leviathan state, whenever possible.
| Quote: |
| There are also some other disagreements I have such as your statement on work safety. The limits to our freedom is where they interfere with the health and safety of others. We should have a right to smoke (at least in our own homes) because the damage (to the extent that there is any) is limited to myself and my family (if I have one). But, there can be limits on smoking on public because it infringes on others health and safety. |
No disagreements here.
| Quote: |
| Work safety is a very important role of government. |
This, on the other hand, in no way follows from your previous comment. An employer allowing an employee to do work that some might deem "unsafe" in no way infringes on that workers liberties. Unless of course the worker is forced into doing the work, in which case that counts as slavery (which no libertarian would defend).
| Quote: |
| I also think that government with representation has the right to tax and establish safety nets. The key is with representation. Go ahead and stick your teeth in that; I don't doubt you will. |
You think this point hasn't been brought up before? Representation from whom? From the majority? Are you claiming that gives the government the right to do whatever it wants? So following that logic to its conclusion, the majority could vote in a government that allows slavery of the minority. Some dictators in the past (most famously Hitler) were voted into power. It doesn't give them a moral mandate to do whatever they want.
In short, representation matters, but it is not the issue here. The issue is whether taxation is actually just or not. It isn't (it is literally theft, by any definition, since it is taken by force).
| Quote: |
I also found your statement: "A government (preferably a very limited one, democratically elected, but restricted by various checks and balances to its power) is necessary to maintain the rule of law" a curious one.
It is curious because that is exactly what we have in the U.S. And, it is still full of the things you don't like (and me too there are plenty of things I don't like such as how money has perverted the democratic system). |
You mean that is what we're supposed to have in the US. It is becoming less and less so. How is it the government's job to force travelers to go through body scanners and be subjected to molestation by federal minions? Or for the government to take us to war at the behest of a foreign, undemocratic entity, the UN? Or to sign over a monopoly on money creation to a private banking cartel, the Federal Reserve? Or to spend trillions on a military that goes around the world terrorizing other countries? Or to force everyone to pay into government monopolies, like Obamacare?
Etc. Etc.
| Quote: |
| How do you keep monied interest from perverting markets and democracy as has happened throughout American hisotry and the history of every other country I have ever heard of? |
This is the real crux of the matter. It is up to "we the people". I certainly don't have all the answers in this regard - though I tend to favor peaceful non-cooperation with the system and would avoid violence. Some call for a simple political solution, like voting in a new president who will do a better job, but I personally have not much faith in that unless it is a Ron Paul type who would really make profound changes (assuming he were even able, and didn't just get a bullet in the head for his trouble, like Kennedy).
Anyway, one thing I can say, very confidently, is that the solution to government corruption and abuse of power is not to give the government even more power. Rather, the exact opposite must be true.
| Quote: |
| How do you stop people from freely disregarding free markets or overthrowing such a system? |
Enforce the rule of law and end government-imposed monopolies.
| Quote: |
| I would be interested to hear how you would do it as I am quite cynical that it can be done but I really am open minded about these things whether you want to believe it or not, I just don't think your utopia can be had. |
I don't know it can actually be done or not. For all I know we're all completely screwed. It certainly wouldn't be the first time (I doubt people in Russia expected the sort of hell that was unleashed on them when Stalin took power, or the people in Nazi Germany, or in Mao's China etc.). All I can say is that the current direction we're headed is off a cliff. Things are getting worse, not better.
| Quote: |
| Anyway, I do hope that personal liberties which do not harm others can be more strongly protected. I also wish that those who are currently abusing the system, mostly large monied interests, could be curtailed. But, I don't know how to do that without a strong federal government. |
Do you see it as a mere coincidence that government keeps getting bigger and stronger along with the money powers? I don't see how you could fail to see how they go hand in hand. Especially when you have the president signing over trillions of dollars (and placing a bunch of Goldman-Sachs people into his administration).
Clearly, the idea of giving government more power has been tried and has not succeeded. We know the government has the power to shut down the Fed and curtail the power of Wall Street, but the government doesn't do it. Quit the opposite. Perhaps, it's time to try the opposite approach? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| A free market system only works when there's an equal playing field, not when the game is rigged by those at the top. The question is how do you prevent them from rigging the game? |
The rule of law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VisitorQ,
I was impressed by your response. It seemed honest and sincere and only a little snide but I will take that.
I liked much of what you said but ultimately it rests on "the rule of law" as Kuros said.
The problem is it is naive to assume that people will just magically start following the law when history shows this never happens. So, you need a government to enforce the law. And, you need one strong enough to do it otherwise things will either swing into anarchy or swing into fascism but it won't just "fall into" equilibreum.
As for worker safety, yes, that is exactly the type of place we do need the government to step in. If I offer you a dollar to jump off a cliff and you do, regardless of your free choice in the matter, I am still guilty of murder. It is still up to the employer to provide for safety precautions and having the government define and inspect those safety precautions helps everyone.
And, as for taxes, since we all agree that there needs to be a government and that a government needs to be paid for then taxes are not theft but our monetary contribution to our society. That is significantly different than theft.
On the other hand, if we do not have any say in how the government uses that money, it could be theft, hence representation. The government should be allowed to use that money as most people see fit (without oppressing a minority).
The problem is what constitutes oppressing the minority. I don't think establishing a social safety net is the same as marking, setting up work camps and exterminating a minority (or minorities). And, such a parallell is misleading and even a little insulting.
Anyway, believe it or not, we really do agree on much VisitorQ, but not surprisingly we see some of the solutions differently. There are over 300 million people in America and I bet it would be hard to find any two that completely agreed on everything. But, I am all for finding more ways to agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| Mass murder for a reason. Mass murder in the interests of power and wealth |
Using government.
You started with the observation that there is capitalism in Indonesia. But government and business conspiring to commit genocide for profit isn't capitalism. If you wish to critique the perniciousness of merciless self-interest, be my guest, but capitalism it ain't.
You are, however, absolutely right that capitalism is hungry for Third World proles. And rightly so.
| Privateer wrote: |
| I'd say it's better that we not only look out for our own interests but see our common interest with workers worldwide. Unionization everywhere, in other words, enforcement of law on companies - and a return to restrictions on capital flight. |
You characterize yourselves as liberals, but your desire to exercise control over the volition of others amounts to respect for complete obedience and subjection to authority. The reason for this hypocrisy, as you rightly say (later in your post): naked self interest. And rightly so. If people have rights, chief among them is surely the right to be self-interested. But, where the libertarian is completely honest and straightforward about his self-serving and materialistic ways, the liberal professes to have standards, beliefs and values that are fully contrary to his real character. Probe beneath the veneer of civility, and the human being is a solipsistic and mercilessly self-interested brute. But I don't consider it an insult. Nobody should ever have to apologize for Der Wille zur Macht!
| Privateer wrote: |
| So you're completely in favour of the Third-Worldization of the West, especially Britain, because the useless parasitical lower class deserve it, and, conversely, the deserving rich should have more (as you've stated before). |
Yes. I've stated many times that I take positive delight in the demise of social democracy. I just can't tell you how much I resent the threat of being imprisoned, alongside murderers and child-rapists, unless I submit to the sanctimony of utilitarianism. Let he whose heart bleeds for the poor cast the first donation. Let those who wish for others to receive free lunches be those who pay.
| Privateer wrote: |
| You agree that this is the outcome that the current, 'free market' capitalism, system is leading to - and, presumably, the 'freer' the system the faster we will get there |
Er, no - that's certainly not what I said. I said that, in the light of the unabashed parasitism of the vulgar rabble...spirited by the crassly utilitarian but ultimately self-serving intellectual flatulence of the bourgeois leftist....tax avoidance, capital flight and all that good stuff is only virtuous. People clamoring incessantly for the state to mollycoddle them - and the concomitantly exorbitant levels of confiscation necessary - inevitably drive businesses to pastures where more lavish pickings are to be had.
If DreamWorks threatened people with imprisonment unless they watched Transformers III, some might give in and watch it against their volition. But many consumers would be rightly appalled and avoid watching it all costs and evade the pernicious ways of the coercive. That's what businesses, as consumers of labor, are doing. Coercion and parasitism can only ever hope to bring short-term riches; in the end it is self-defeating.
| Privateer wrote: |
| Now, if, as you maintain, free market capitalism always has benevolent outcomes, and if Third-Worldization is the outcome, then you and I clearly have very different ideas of the meaning of 'benevolent'. Because this outcome is benevolent only to the few at the top. |
When a rich man avoids tax, or employs Third World proles, the welfare state is deprived of his riches and someone else gains instead.
Let's face it: a bob or two invested into emerging markets is always welcome. And the Swiss, the Singaporeans, Monaco and Hong Kong have done very handsomely out of the largesse of the tax-avoiding rich. Meanwhile, public sector parasites in Broken Britain are suffering the pain of fiscal austerity.
| Privateer wrote: |
| The question is how do you prevent them from rigging the game? |
Easy. Via a government composed of the truest of true believing libertarians, whose position towards economic affairs is one of rigorous abstinence from interference.
There's nothing more virtuous than libertarianism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brickabrack
Joined: 17 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
�I am not so optimistic about human behavior and I am very naturally skeptical at any utopia including free market utopia.�
This is really all that needs to be said. People are stupid. When a govt (with a tendency to abuse power) knows this, it rides the wave for all it�s worth. Replace �govt� with �businesses� if you like. Govts convince citizens that there needs to be regulation in the market, because we can�t think for ourselves. It would be uber-chaotic.
When societies reach a certain # of people (maybe 10,000), there is little chance for true democracy and power to the people.
�I also found your statement: "A government (preferably a very limited one, democratically elected, but restricted by various checks and balances to its power) is necessary to maintain the rule of law" a curious one.�
This is necessary, because people/corporations/businesses will take advantage of the market. Why? Because, people are stupid and naive. Unless you are not the type to agree with a �survival of the fittest� philosophy, then you might agree with a majority of this. There is actually no IDEAL because of the many factors involving the reg of markets and consumer protection.
�It is curious because that is exactly what we have in the U.S.�
This is not true. The U.S. does not have this at all.
�This is the real crux of the matter. It is up to "we the people". I certainly don't have all the answers in this regard - though I tend to favor peaceful non-cooperation with the system and would avoid violence. Some call for a simple political solution, like voting in a new president who will do a better job, but I personally have not much faith in that unless it is a Ron Paul type who would really make profound changes (assuming he were even able, and didn't just get a bullet in the head for his trouble, like Kennedy).
Anyway, one thing I can say, very confidently, is that the solution to government corruption and abuse of power is not to give the government even more power. Rather, the exact opposite must be true.�
Yes, the exact opposite. I agree.
You don�t have faith in the system? The �people�? Nor do I. ^^ See my second sentence in the post. Just being realistic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�The law�? Those that make the laws are able to break the laws. How many people actually adhere to �the law�?
Ahhh, all these critiques and problems with no solutions??? Nope. I�m not the type. Shine your light in everything you do and hope that others follow. One reason I don�t let politics, religion or anything else dictate the way I live my life. Sure, I make minor concessions on certain things. My life is wonderful. It�s terrible that so many others don�t feel the way I do.
Solution, in the Grande scheme of things: revolution. Political revolution, economic revolution, spiritual revolution, philosophic revolution, authoritative revolution. The whole gamut. Do I have faith in humanity? Not really, but something�s got to give. Godspeed, people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brickabrack
Joined: 17 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
"U.S. agriculture is heavily subsidized to the point that it's impossible for small farmers in any country to compete, however efficient they are. And look what's happening now: unable to compete, Haitian agriculture faded away, prices then went up, and people are now eating dirt. Literally.
Moreover, this is a pattern we see repeated in Third World countries over and over again. Protective tariffs are dismantled, local agriculture gives way to cash crops and/or to food imports, and in both cases international price fluctuations sooner or later leave them unable to sustain themselves - but profits for capitalists are high.
This lowering of tariffs in other countries is referred to in the rhetoric as 'free trade' and it's in that sense that I refer to 'international free trade capitalism'. Naturally, the existence of heavy subsidies to US agriculture means it's not what libertarians mean by 'free trade' but the reality is simple: the powerful pursue their interests, which, in capitalism, means profit without regard to externalities such as whether people starve - and it's naive to think otherwise. They are actively creating wealth through actively creating poverty. "
Absolutely, 99.9%
One thing. VERY inefficient. Extraordinarily so.
Agribusiness the world over is destroying soil and the ability
to grow sustainable crops....wasting ultra amounts of water, to boot.
These corps, WHO, World Bank, Monsanto, govts and other interests
are displacing and murdering massive amounts of people.
But, pop control and co-dependency are part of the plan, no?
Grow your own! |
|
| 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
