Screw 'em if they hate us by 6ixStringJack

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That would be wonderful!

Yep. If the cradle you bought from the co-op breaks and injures your child, you can try to sue, and try to collect from, every co-op member individually, since the co-op isn't legally considered a person responsible for their product.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So we're back to "When I use a word,” – said Humpty Dumpty, - “it means what I want it to mean". Maybe you should come up with a better term than 'corporation' since your sense of the word doesn't agree with most everyone elses.

So, you're back to strawmanning again? How do YOU know what my sense of the word is? Did you bother to ask, or are you just intent on defending "capitalism as you know it"?

What I mean by "corporation" is the "United States version". Since different laws apply in different nations I simply wanted to be clear that I was talking about the kind of corporation that we're most familiar with.

Quote:
Yep. the 4 billion with the lowest standard of living.

Umm, it's not like we have the highest standard of living Geezer. We're not exactly an advert for our own brand of corporatism. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

Quote:
In East Germany, 10% of the population worked for the Stasi

Well, see, there ya go! A government work program!

Quote:
Yep. If the cradle you bought from the co-op breaks and injures your child, you can try to sue, and try to collect from, every co-op member individually, since the co-op isn't legally considered a person responsible for their product.

Are you telling me that you can't imagine a setup in which a cooperative can be considered as an entity w/o giving it "human rights"? I know you're not that stupid Geezer, but you're in typical form: caviling, nitpicking, and strawmaning from the sidelines.

So let me give you something to posit: Since you've already admited that corporations aren't necessary, tell us... WHAT is is that you find so appealing about corporations in their USA version that you would advocate their current form?

Oh, and BTW- Have you thought of anything positive to say about the USA yet? Just curious, since you're always griping about criticism and yet... you yourself haven't said anything positive.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:46 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I mean by "corporation" is the "United States version".

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Harley-Davidson? Ben & Jerry's? Gibson Guitars? They're all corporations. How about partnerhips and limited liability companies?

Quote:
Umm, it's not like we have the highest standard of living Geezer. We're not exactly an advert for our own brand of corporatism. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

Where did I say 'we' have the highest standard of living? But people in countries with an active capitalist economic system do have higher living standards, on average, than those with non-capitalist systems.

Quote:
In East Germany, 10% of the population worked for the Stasi - Well, see, there ya go! A government work program!

SO you think informing on your neighbors is a good thing to do? Why am I not surprised?

Quote:
Are you telling me that you can't imagine a setup in which a cooperative can be considered as an entity w/o giving it "human rights"?

Sure. And I can imagine a setup in which a corporation can be considered as an entity w/o giving it "human rights".

Quote:
WHAT is is that you find so appealing about corporations in their USA version that you would advocate their current form?

I don't particularly find anything appealing about them other than what I've said before. They produce a wide range of products which meet consumer wants at a reasonable price. I also have much more confidence that they will do so than I have in your proposals for alternatives which currently either fill small niches in the economy, or have to be propped up by government to exist at all.

Quote:
Oh, and BTW- Have you thought of anything positive to say about the USA yet?

Diversity. Bourbon. Jazz. Blues. The First Amendment. The Second Amendment. The Philly Cheesesteak. National parks. Local government. The availability of multiple - sometimes almost ridiculous - choices in almost anything I want to buy. Factory 5. Dissent. The fact that you, SignyM, can bash the government unmercifully and not disappear (try that in China). I dunno. How many pages you want to read? The ability of immigrants to come here with a dream and build a future for their family. The fact that millions more want to get into the US than want to get out. Baseball. Volunteer military. Volunteerism in general. Folks whose house is already underwater stacking sandbags to save someone elses house.

Pick away, Siggy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:59 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Diversity. Bourbon. Jazz. Blues. The First Amendment. The Second Amendment. The Philly Cheesesteak. National parks. Local government. The availability of multiple - sometimes almost ridiculous - choices in almost anything I want to buy. Factory 5. Dissent. The fact that you, SignyM, can bash the government unmercifully and not disappear (try that in China). I dunno. How many pages you want to read? The ability of immigrants to come here with a dream and build a future for their family. The fact that millions more want to get into the US than want to get out. Baseball. Volunteer military. Volunteerism in general. Folks whose house is already underwater stacking sandbags to save someone elses house.

Geez, you're a bastard, but I gotta admit, it's hard to argue with anything you just listed.

By "Factory 5" I assume you're talking about Factory 5 Racing, yes? Verrrrrrryyyy sweet cars.

Now I've gotta go eat. For some strange reason, I'm craving a Philly Cheesesteak...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quotable Geezer quotes:

"At least you're consistant. Any time anyone says anything less than disparaging about the US you gotta jump up with your litany of horrors. I don't believe that I have ever seen you post anything at all positive about your country.

Admit it, Siggy. You're the hater."

"But folks who are unremittingly, stridently critical of everything that happens in and relating to the US, who never have a positive thing to say about the country, and who insult and demean anyone who thinks that, with all its faults, it's a pretty good place, aren't helping to improve anything. They really are just hating, and add nothing positive to a search for solutions to the problems."

"You just insult, demean, obfuscate, lie, redefine words and concepts to fit your agenda, and - when all else fails - bullshit."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
SO you think informing on your neighbors is a good thing to do? Why am I not surprised?

It was a JOKE, son!

Quote:
active capitalist economic system do have higher living standards, on average, than those with non-capitalist systems.

So how do you define the EU, which has a slew of nationalized industries and central banks, highly regulated industries which pay both corporate taxes and VAT (similar to our sales tax but typically 15 %), strong government wage/ hour regulations, etc? Capitalist? Socialist?

Quote:
or have to be propped up by government to exist at all

Why... this describes our corporations to a "T"!

---------------

Diversity- cool
Bourbon- Scotch
Jazz- meh
Blues- OK if "Rhythm &.."
The First Amendment- you bet!
The Second Amendment- eh. But important.
The Philly Cheesesteak- Pizza
National parks- too bad Bush is letting them go to pot
Local government- You haven't seen mine, have you?
The availability of multiple - sometimes almost ridiculous - choices in almost anything I want to buy.- meh
Factory 5- It's a car?
Dissent- YOU? LIKE DISSENT? HA!
The ability of immigrants to come here with a dream and build a future for their family.- Time to shut the door!
The fact that millions more want to get into the US than want to get out- Unless they're from the EU, China, Canada, or a host of other nations that aren't dirt-poor.
Baseball- Too slow. Insert here
Volunteer military.- mmmm. needs some thought.
Volunteerism in general.- Thumb's up!
Folks whose house is already underwater stacking sandbags to save someone elses house.- That too.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:42 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I had some family medical things to attend to over the last few days that involved a lot of ER and doctor time, which is why my replies have been so short. Here it is: Sweden is socialist.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism Capitalism is an economic system in which property is owned by either private individuals or a corporation.

Though the better definition would be to say that the means of production are privately owned.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

To rephrase this to be more specific to modern countries, "... control by the government."

Sweden has a government-run central bank by which it directs the economy. Health care is government-paid by 20 counties and 1 municipality, and these localities own their hospitals and health care facilities outright. These councils also provide for in-home care. A 1-year maternity leave is paid for by the national government. It also pays for quality public child care, all 1-5 year old children are guaranteed a place in a public day-care facility. School between the ages of 6-16 is compulsory and paid for by the state. More advanced education is paid for by the state but is not compulsory. Public transportation covers all of Sweden. Sweden also has extensive public housing. It has a nationally subsidized guaranteed minimum standard of living. The necessities of life are either paid for or provided by the government either on the basis of need or universally. The money comes from personal and business taxes, a publically-controlled redistribution of wealth.

In sum:
"All are guaranteed a minimum standard of living, and income is redistributed over a person's lifetime as Sweden is socialistic and seeks to narrow income gaps."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

That's what I thought:

capitalism: the means of production are owned by individuals.

Communism: the means of production are owned by the worker (but in practice "the state")

Socialism: income distribution is controlled by the State

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 2:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So Geezer, any comments in whether socialism or capitalism produces a better lifestyle?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 3:22 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Geez, you're a bastard...

Nope. I got my parent's marriage license right here...

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 3:43 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"All are guaranteed a minimum standard of living, and income is redistributed over a person's lifetime as Sweden is socialistic and seeks to narrow income gaps."

But you're talking about the government of Sweden.

Read what Wikipedia says about the economy.

"Sweden is an export-oriented market economy featuring a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labour force."

"Sweden has always provided solid support for free trade (except agriculture), free immigration, and strong property rights."

"Sweden's industry is overwhelmingly in private control; unlike some other industrialized Western countries, such as Austria and Italy, publicly owned enterprises were always of minor importance."

CIA World Factbook describes the economy as: "Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. "

Sounds like capitalists to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 3:51 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Though the better definition would be to say that the means of production are privately owned.

Capitalism is hardly unique in this regard. Most systems utilise private ownership, so I don't think we can use private ownership as a defining characteristic of Capitalism.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 4:02 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Geezer, any comments in whether socialism or capitalism produces a better lifestyle?

Depends. The socialism Rue that described above and that you apparently agree to, is a governmental function - a social welfare system - not an economic one.

A socialist economy is one in which the government directs the kind and nature of production. This is not what Sweden, for example, has as an economy.

Maybe you're talking about a Socialist Market economy, like China's?

In any case, you can't determine whether a particular capitalist or socialist economy will produce a better lifestyle without seeing the particular economy, and seeing the particular government, that goes with it.

Overall, I'd venture to say that countries with capitalist or free-market economies do better than those with socialist or socialist market, i.e. state-controlled, economies. Note that this is seperate from what type of goverment they have; democracy, constitutional monarchy, social welfare, etc.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 6:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I don't get your post. In one case you say that a communist government and a communist economy are inextricably tied. In the other case you seem to be saying that socialism is untied from government?

I guess the one nice thing about capitalism is that it crashes in a big way every several decades, reminding us all that concentrating capital is not a good thing.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 8:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

By the WIKI definition, any commune could be called socialist. Even conservative, strict, religious communes such as the Shakers, the Oneida Community, or the Harmony Society (Rappites) could be called socialist. There was a little hitch with what most people currently think of when thinking of socialism. (WHAT ??!!! It's NOT godless communism imposed from above, intent on turning people into slaves of the state ??!!!) So I changed the definition slightly. Rather than saying 'the community' controls the distribution of wealth, I reframed it as 'the government' controls the distribution of wealth - and in a democracy like Sweden, it is a form of community action. However, it doesn't necessarily have to be the government performing the will of the community. It could be the community directly.

Not only does the government control the distribution of wealth, up to this point it owns a fair bit of the means of production. So I would say Sweden, in addition to be socialist, is also NOT particularly capitalist, either.

"Get a headache in Sweden and the pills you buy will be from a government-owned pharmacy. Buy shares and you’ll be making a transaction through a stock market part-owned by the state.

Whether it has to do with posting letters, making phone calls, placing a bet, buying a bottle of wine or spending an evening at the opera, the national authorities are an important shareholder – if not outright owner – of the firms involved.

With stakes in 55 groups employing 190,000 people, the state’s huge corporate presence forms part of the famed Swedish model, a dovetailing of state and society whereby a large government and high taxes are mixed with liberal economic policies to provide Swedes with a high standard of living.

To the envy of many, it is working well. The economy grew at 4.4% in the third quarter of 2006, inflation is low, wages are rising and consumption increasing."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't get your post. In one case you say that a communist government and a communist economy are inextricably tied. In the other case you seem to be saying that socialism is untied from government?

In the strict sense of socialism, the government and the economy are inextricably tied, since the government decides what and how much will be manufactured, what prices will be charged, what wages will be paid, etc.

The Swedish version of "Socialism" has little or nothing to do with deciding what or how much the business side of the economy produces, the prices at which it sells, etc. Their version is more concerned with social welfare, not business. Utilities and other services are run by or provided by the government. Not 'socialism' in the classic sense at all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not only does the government control the distribution of wealth, up to this point it owns a fair bit of the means of production.

Three quotes from Wiki, some I've used before.

"Sweden's industry is overwhelmingly in private control; unlike some other industrialized Western countries, such as Austria and Italy, publicly owned enterprises were always of minor importance."

"Sweden has achieved an excellent standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits."

"The Swedish government has announced that it will privatise a number of wholly and partly state owned companies. "The income from these sales will be used to pay off the government debt and reduce the burden of debt for future generations. The Government's ambition is to sell companies to a value of SEK 200 billion during 2007-2010.""

Interesting that your quotes "Get a headache in Sweden..." are from an LA Times article titled "Sweden Moves Towards Privatizing Companies"

Here's some more quotes from the article:

"Reinfeldt does not say the Swedish model needs fixing; the plan is rather a reflection of his government’s ideological belief that the state should not participate in businesses that can be run by the private sector.

His government has announced a list of six companies in which the state’s stakes will be sold: They include V&S, one of the world’s top 10 alcoholic beverage concerns; TeliaSonera, the Nordic region’s largest telecommunications system; Nordea, the biggest Nordic bank; and OMX, the stock market and trading technology company.

These will be followed by many more, assuming Reinfeldt’s government can secure a second four-year term. Future sales could include stakes in power companies, railways, logging operations, airlines and pharmacy chains."

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/05/business/ft-sweden5

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:32 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think we need to recognize that there is nothing either more or less natural about capitalism than there is about communism, socialism, or any other 'ism'. They're all rules PEOPLE make up for how they will relate to each other and how resources will be apportioned. In a really strict sense, any economic forms and any government forms are ALL socially-created human structures.

So it still comes down to - what do you want to end up with ? Do you want to end up happy, well-educated, healthy and prosperous, like the Danes ? Or continue on the current path for the sake of a 'better' ideology ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 12:27 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So it still comes down to - what do you want to end up with ? Do you want to end up happy, well-educated, healthy and prosperous, like the Danes ? Or continue on the current path for the sake of a 'better' ideology ?

While the Danes may have a high per-capita GDP ($47,700 vs. US $41,800), remember that they pay close to 50% of that in taxes. Their literacy is 99%, same as the US. Average years of schooling for adults is 9.7 (US is in #1 with 12). Life expectancy is 77.96 years (US 78).

This is interesting. The poorest 30% of the Danish population pays 14.1% of taxes collected(US 6.3%). The middle 40% pays 37.2% (US 28.4%). The top 30% pays just 48.7% (US 65.3%, #3 in the world behind France and Ireland.)

Looks like Denmark may not work out any better than Sweden.

Edit to add: Forgot happiness. US cannibus use 12.3% - Denmark 4.02%. Yep, we're happier.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 1:21 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
This is interesting. The poorest 30% of the Danish population pays 14.1% of taxes collected(US 6.3%). The middle 40% pays 37.2% (US 28.4%). The top 30% pays just 48.7% (US 65.3%, #3 in the world behind France and Ireland.)

Geezer, Geezer. You wouldn't be deliberately using crap stats, would you?

These are botched statistics. The reason WHY the top 30% of the USA pays more taxes in because our underlying income distribution is so much more uneven than any other developed nation. The Gini index, which is one measure of income inequality, has increased in the USA from 0.394 in 970 to 0.462 in 2000 (and is prolly even higer now) while the Gini index in Denamrk is only 0.247.

In fact, nations that "do well" tend to have lower Gini indexes (more even income distribution) altho not inevitably so.

Hungary: 0.244
Denmark: 0.247
Japan: 0.249
Sweden: 0.250
Germany: 0.283
India: 0.325
France: 0.327
Canada: 0.331
Australia: 0.352
UK: 0.360

http://people.stfx.ca/mgerriet/econ241/Gini% 20coefficient%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.htm

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 4:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As good a place as any, I think.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142115.htm

The Economics Of Nice Folks

ScienceDaily (June 19, 2008) — A basic tenet of economics is that people always behave selfishly, or as the 18th century philosopher economist David Hume put it, "every man ought to be supposed to be a knave."
But what if some people aren't always knaves?

Sam Bowles argues in Science June 20 that economics will get it wrong then, sometimes badly so. He points to new experimental evidence that people do often act against their own personal self-interest in favor of the common good, and they do so in predictable, understandable ways. Poorly-designed economic institutions fail to take advantage of intrinsic moral behavior and often undermine it.

Take this example: Six day care centers imposed a fine on parents who picked their children up late. The effect? Tardiness doubled, and it stayed high even when the fine was removed. Parents, it seems, stopped seeing lateness as an imposition on teachers, and instead saw it as something that could be purchased with no moral failing.

Another example is a study this year which showed that women donated blood less frequently when they were paid for it than when it was an act of charity.

These examples show that economists ignore human altruism at their peril. Standard economic theory assumes that incentives that appeal to self-interest won't affect any natural altruism that may exist, but that assumption is clearly wrong. Bowles discusses the research to date that helps to explain when and why that assumption breaks down.

As the world becomes more interconnected and the resulting challenges to humanity increase, learning to harness these altruistic impulses becomes even more important, Bowles says. So the economists' "holy grail," to learn to design institutions and policies to direct the selfish impulses of individuals to public ends, "will be necessary but insufficient," Bowles says. "The moral nature of humans must also be recognized, cultivated, and empowered."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 4:39 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You wouldn't be deliberately using crap stats, would you?

These are botched statistics.

Take that up with Nationmaster. It's their numbers.

And yes, the richest are a bit richer and the poorest a bit poorer in the US. The government doesn't take quite as much money from everyone and give it to the poor here. That's government, not economy. Has nothing to do with capitalist economy versus socialist economy.

Edit to add: You left out a few countries with low GINI indexes. The Czech Republic at 25.4, Slovakia at 25.81, Bosnia and Herzegovina at 26.15, Ukraine at 28.06. Not sure if these qualify as success stories. SignyM, SIgnyM. Could you be cherry-picking your stats?

Edited again to add:

Lets not forget Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Belarus, Ethiopia, Kyrgystan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Albania, Mongolia, Moldova, Bangladesh, Yemen, and Armenia. Maybe GINI index isn't the best measure of countries which are "doing well"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:47 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

SignyM,

To me, your economic philosophy boils down to this:

If I have the skill, drive, or just good luck to make a lot of money, and you don't, you want the government to take my money and give it to you until we both have the same.

I can see why you'd like that, but why should I?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Take that up with Nationmaster. It's their numbers.

Oh yeah Geezer, you're justing using someone else's stats. You have no responsibility for which one you choose.

Quote:
And yes, the richest are a bit richer and the poorest a bit poorer in the US

A bit???

That's like saying the dead are a bit sicker than the living! Okay Geezer, you tell me... HOW MUCH is that? Show me, in numbers, what percentage of the economy the upper upper centile has here as opposed to there (the EU).

Quote:
You left out a few countries with low GINI indexes: the Czech Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Belarus, Ethiopia, Kyrgystan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Albania, Mongolia, Moldova, Bangladesh, Yemen, and Armenia.

And YOU left out the countries with high Ginis: Sierra Leone 62.9; Central African Republic 61.3; Brazil 60.7; Nicaragua 60.3; South Africa 59.3; Bolivia 58.9; Paraguay 57.7; Colombia 57.1; Chile 56.7;Honduras 56.3; Lesotho 56.0; Guatemala 55.8; Mexico 53.1; Zambia 52.6; El Salvador 52.2; Papua New Guinea 50.9; Nigeria 50.6' Mali 50.5; Niger 50.5; Zimbabwe 50.1.

All things considered, I'd rather live in the Czech Republic than in Sierra Leone. So, yeah... in general nations with low Ginis tend to do better than nations with high Ginis, altho not inevitably so. There have been many detailed, honest and thoughtful studies on this point, more than I can post about here. Feel free to research the topic.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
your economic philosophy boils down to this: If I have the skill, drive, or just good luck to make a lot of money, and you don't, you want the government to take my money and give it to you until we both have the same.

Geezer, you failed to understand a jot of what I said.

Capitalism runs on the flow of money. Think of it as a turbine in a stream. If money stops flowing the turbine stops turning.

But the thing that's hard for people to understand is that, under capitalism, money doesn't "run downhill".... it runs upwards. It flows to the wealthy as profit. That allows the already wealthy to take control of more and more of the economy... fewer and fewer become richer and richer. So when "the lower classes" run out of spendable money consumption drops and people get laid off. Consumption drops further, and more people get laid off and that dynamic leads to a crash.

Henry Ford... a successful capitalist... recognized this dynamic at the beginning of the Great Depression. He tried to turn the tide by keeping his factory running and continuing to pay good wages because he knew that the economy depended on people going out and buying things. If HE could recognize, you should be able to wrap you pro-capitalist brain around it too. The problem was, Ford by himself wasn't enough to turn the tide.

Keynes also recognized this dynamic. Although he wasn't Roosevelt's advisor, Roosevelt heard of Keynes' theory and realized that the only way to get the economy going again was "pump priming" ... putting enough $$$ back into the hands of the average person so that they would once again go out and shop. What he didn't realize was how much $$$ needed to be injected into the economy. Eventually a full-flown war effort ignited a boom.

If you were to look at our Gini index, you would see a sharp rise in the 1920s peaking at 1929, and a significant flattening in the 30;s, 40,s and 50's. We have been creeping up the Gini index since then, until last year, when we were right back at 1929 levels.

But there are major differences between then and now. One of them is that our current deficit is HUGE, the other is that with China breathing down our neck the dollar is set to transition away from being "the" world currency.

I'm trying to point to an economic transition of historic proportions, and all you can think is that I'm jealous???

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:00 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Show me, in numbers, what percentage of the economy the upper upper centile has here as opposed to there (the EU).

Why bother? If I do show that there's not much difference between the US and your favorite country of the week in some particular area, you'll just say those aren't valid statistics, just like you did above.

Percent of income received by the richest 10% could mean inequality, or it could mean nobody's making any money. The country with the lowest % is Slovakia, with not great economic figures otherwise. Same with poorest 10%, with Slovakia again showing up with the highest percent of income. So is Slovakia the best place to be?

Quote:
And YOU left out the countries with high Ginis: Sierra Leone 62.9; Central African Republic 61.3; Brazil 60.7; Nicaragua 60.3; South Africa 59.3; Bolivia 58.9; Paraguay 57.7; Colombia 57.1; Chile 56.7;Honduras 56.3; Lesotho 56.0; Guatemala 55.8; Mexico 53.1; Zambia 52.6; El Salvador 52.2; Papua New Guinea 50.9; Nigeria 50.6' Mali 50.5; Niger 50.5; Zimbabwe 50.1.

All quite a bit higher than the US. Most 'doing well' countries have GINI indexes between mid 20s and low 40s.

Quote:
All things considered, I'd rather live in the Czech Republic than in Sierra Leone.

But this thread's about the US. Would you rather live in the Czech Republic than the US?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Why bother? If I do show that there's not much difference between the US and your favorite country of the week in some particular area, you'll just say those aren't valid statistics, just like you did above.

Why bother? How about... to prove your point? (Which BTW you can't). But hey... whenever you're interested in having an honest discussion let me know.

The reason WHY so many governments have instituted high minimum wages and social welfare reforms is to create a kind of "capital recirculation pump"... putting $$ back into the hands of people who will go out and spend.

Fletch used to argue that profit seamlessly filtered its way back down into the economy. It doesn't and all one has to do is point to our Gini to see that. (And I haven't heard Fletch claim that lately either.)

Money can be put back into the hands of the consumer thru several means: high wages and active income redistribution, credit, or speculation. What speculation does is allow people to spend money they don't actually have... in the 1920's it was their stock value in the 2000's it was their home value. Speculation creates, in essence an alternate currency... funny money. But because there is no backing to this alternate currency it can collapse overnight. Any boom fueled by speculation will also fizzle.

Economists... even well-respected institutional economists... are talking about "the worst since the Great Depression". Many say we'll walk by the graveyard, a few say we'll fall into a headlong collapse, but NOBODY is ignoring potential disaster... they're all talking about it one way or another.

I'm trying to point to an economic transition of historic proportions and all you can say is that I'm jealous???.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:27 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, you failed to understand a jot of what I said.

Maybe you need to work on your presentation?

Quote:
Capitalism runs on the flow of money. Think of it as a turbine in a stream. If money stops flowing the turbine stops turning.

All economies run on the flow of money, or of a money analogue. Big deal.

Quote:

But the thing that's hard for people to understand is that, under capitalism, money doesn't "run downhill".... it runs upwards. It flows to the wealthy as profit.

And they stuff it in their matress and don't do anything with it.

Or... they invest it in other businesses which pay wages to people. Or they build libraries. Or they donate large chunks of it to charity. Or all three. Or lots of other stuff. Wealthy people got nothing in common with each other except they're wealthy. You see them as a unified bloc of clones, from Ben & Jerry to the Waltons to Bill Gates.

Quote:
putting enough $$$ back into the hands of the average person so that they would once again go out and shop.

By taking that money from the more successful people, yep.

Quote:
I'm trying to point to an economic transition of historic proportions, and all you can think is that I'm jealous???

No. I think you consider your motives to be of the highest. That still doesn't change the fact that you want to penalize the people who are able to make money so you can subsidize the spending of those who aren't.

What's strange to me is that you don't realize that you can do this within a capitalist economic system just as effectively (or even more effectively, since there's more money moving around). Sweden is actually a pretty good example. Just tax the hell out of the rich corporations and capitalists and upper-middle class, and send the money down the line to the poor in the form of subsidized services or government jobs. If you don't make it too onerous to the rich folk, you can milk them for enough to keep your social welfare government cranking.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And they stuff it in their matress and don't do anything with it. Or... they invest it in other businesses which pay wages to people. Or they build libraries. Or they donate large chunks of it to charity. Or all three.

Or they speculate with it, which is what just happened with the housing boom. Because seeing no place to invest in production (wages) they hitched their money to the fastest-growing segment they could find. Same with gold.

You have such an profound assumption that capitalism is perfectly self-regulating and always leads to a "happy ending" that you just can't see the essential conundrum at its base... a conundrum we meet with every economic collapse.

Social welfare keeps capitalism running, not the other way around. W/o it, capitalism collapses. Our older generations learned that lesson from Herbet Hoover (who BTW was a profound tax cutter and a great believer in "trickle down" policy). And thanks to GWB- who did a fine job of kicking apart the system that kept the economy from collapsing- we get a chance to learn that lesson all over again.

But yanno what? I'm not going to convince you. Events will speak for themselves, and if you're smart you'll learn from them.

---------------------------------
WOOOO HOOOO!!! Let's party like it's 1929!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:50 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But hey... whenever you're interested in having an honest discussion let me know.

Or you could start by answering all my points above, instead of crying GINI about everything.

Quote:
The reason WHY so many governments have instituted high minimum wages and social welfare reforms is to create a kind of "capital recirculation pump"... putting $$ back into the hands of people who will go out and spend.

Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Austria have no minimum wage - it's set by collective bargaining, just like unions do here (Maybe more folk here should unionize?). Canada has no national minimum wage, with each province setting its own, which range above and below US (which also allows States and localities to enforce higher minimums - Up to $15.00/hr in some places). France is pretty high at 7.61 euro/hr but the workweek is limited to 35 hours. Got any higher?

Quote:
Money can be put back into the hands of the consumer thru several means: high wages and active income redistribution, credit, or speculation.

Income redistribution. That's where the government takes money from me because I'm better at earning it, and give it to you, who isn't, right?

Quote:
Economists... even well-respected institutional economists... are talking about "the worst since the Great Depression".

Maybe that's why they call it "The Dismal Science". If I'd ever seen any accurate economic forecasts by more than a few economists I might be more interested.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"You have such an profound assumption that capitalism is perfectly self-regulating and always leads to a "happy ending" that you just can't see the essential conundrum at its base... a conundrum we meet with every economic collapse.

Social welfare keeps capitalism running, not the other way around. W/o it, capitalism collapses. Our older generations learned that lesson from Herbet Hoover (who was a profound tax cutter and a great believer in "trickle down" policy). And thanks to GWB- who did a fine job of kicking apart the system that kept the economy from collapsing- we get a chance to learn that lesson all over again.

But yanno what? I'm not going to convince you. Events will speak for themselves, and if you're smart you'll learn from them.

---------------------------------
WOOO HOOO!!! Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:58 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You have such an profound assumption that capitalism is perfectly self-regulating and always leads to a "happy ending" that you just can't see the essential conundrum at its base...

Hardly. But I'm not willing to scrap it for the pig-in-a-poke you're offering.

Quote:
Social welfare keeps capitalism running, not the other way around.

Proof would be nice. Otherwise that's just an assertion.

Quote:
But yanno what? I'm not going to convince you.

Nor I you. But it's interesting to discuss. More so if you, and especially Rue, wouldn't get so upset when anyone disagreed with you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The reason WHY so many governments have instituted high minimum wages and social welfare reforms is to create a kind of "capital recirculation pump"... putting $$ back into the hands of people who will go out and spend.-Signy

Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Austria have no minimum wage - it's set by collective bargaining, just like unions do here- Geezer

And what about social welfare, which you deliberately ignore?

Quote:
Although there are no state-mandated minimum wages one can say that something similar exists. Everyone has a right to Sozialhilfe (social welfare) which is defined very well. No matter whether you are employed or not, you always have the right to a (very limited) income. If you work for less, you will get the rest from the local Sozialamt, the social welfare administration, run by the city or county government. Sozialhilfe for a family of four is a little less than 2000 DM per month, excluding rent. The rent for a reasonable (and often subsidized) apartment is payed by the government on top of this.

See, this is what I mean by you being dishonest. My point was the the EU nations instituted a whole host of social welfare reforms, not just minimum wages, which redistribute income downwards... as I said, a capital recirculation pump. Now you can nitpick and say they don't have "minimum wages" in some nations, but they do in others AND they actively transfer wealth downwards thru a variety of mechanisms. The visible, undeniable result of that capital recirculation pump is a more even income distribution and a lower Gini. Now, we could have had an interesting discussion on any number of topics: Is it better to move money downwards thru welfare or minimum wages? How much money do EU nations push towards the bottom compared to the USA? Does it do any good?

But- no. You plug your ears and hum loudly, pretending that the EU nations "don't". You nitpick, change the topic, ad hominem the other poster, and in general enagage in a whole repertoire of disinformational tricks. Now, I can bird-dog each rhetorical trick down to the facts but really... since you have no interest in having an honest discussion what's the point?

So I don't get upset when people disagree with me. Fletch2 and I have had many honest and productive disagreements about the economy. It's just when they're dishonest. And you, friend, practice just about every form.

Quote:
Social welfare keeps capitalism running, not the other way around.-SignyM
Proof would be nice. Otherwise that's just an assertion.-Geezer

What do they say about learning from history?

"Our older generations learned that lesson from Herbet Hoover (who BTW was a profound tax cutter and a great believer in "trickle down" policy). And thanks to GWB- who did a fine job of kicking apart the system that kept the economy from collapsing- we get a chance to learn that lesson all over again. But yanno what? I'm not going to convince you. Events will speak for themselves, and if you're smart you'll learn from them."

-------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:53 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And what about social welfare, which you deliberately ignore?

In that particular comment perhaps, but I've mentioned taking money from those able to earn a lot of it and giving it to those who aren't several times. For example, this from a few posts ago:

"That still doesn't change the fact that you want to penalize the people who are able to make money so you can subsidize the spending of those who aren't.

What's strange to me is that you don't realize that you can do this within a capitalist economic system just as effectively (or even more effectively, since there's more money moving around). Sweden is actually a pretty good example. Just tax the hell out of the rich corporations and capitalists and upper-middle class, and send the money down the line to the poor in the form of subsidized services or government jobs. If you don't make it too onerous to the rich folk, you can milk them for enough to keep your social welfare government cranking."

Quote:
Although there are no state-mandated minimum wages one can say that something similar exists.

But you said "high minimum wages and social welfare reforms." I don't argue the social welfare systems, but I checked the high minimum wage part and it is just not correct.You wouldn't want to present incorrect information, would you?

Quote:
My point was the the EU nations instituted a whole host of social welfare reforms, not just minimum wages, which redistribute income downwards.

Then perhaps you should actually say what you mean.

Quote:
Is it better to move money downwards thru welfare or minimum wages?

Why just welfare or minimum wages? Can't you think of any other options?

Quote:
Social welfare keeps capitalism running, not the other way around.-SignyM
Proof would be nice. Otherwise that's just an assertion.-Geezer
What do they say about learning from history?

"Our older generations learned that lesson from Herbet Hoover (who BTW was a profound tax cutter and a great believer in "trickle down" policy). And thanks to GWB- who did a fine job of kicking apart the system that kept the economy from collapsing- we get a chance to learn that lesson all over again.

Sorry, Siggy. That's not proof, just another assertion.

And I see you're using the "You're not saying what I want you to say so you're being deceitful" crap again. When you make assertions I look to see the truth of these statements. Since I can't read your mind I have to take your statements at face value. If you say countries use high minimum wage AND social welfare programs, and I don't argue with the fact that social welfare programs are used, all I'm gonna check out is the minimum wage claim. If I find data which indicates it may be wrong, I'll point it out. Not sure how that's deceitful.

Just out of curiosity, do you want government to penalize the people who are able to make money so they can subsidize the spending of those who aren't?

Not expecting a straignt answer, BTW.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:46 PM

Siggy,

You're never really going to get anywhere with us libertarian types until you address the core difference in worldviews. Socialism holds that the interests of the group outweigh the rights of the individual as a baseline. I'm not willing to sign up for that. I suspect Geezer isn't either.

Sure, there's gotta be some balance, and everyone has some interest in the welfare of the community in which they live. But when you start with the assumption that the fruits of a mans labor are the property of the state - well, you've lost me right there. If that's the case, then I'll be damned if there'll be any "fruits". Not from my hands, anyway.

Let me ask you this. Have you checked up on Geezer's avatar? That might be a place to start.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:12 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Okay. Here's the thing.

In order to have redistribution of wealth you first gotta have...WEALTH.

State controlled business economies, i.e. classic socialism, have never been able to create or accumulate wealth very successfully. The only things that the Soviet Union ever exported successfully were weapons and vodka. In a free market, folks looked at the other goods they produced and said 'no thanks'. The only place they could sell most of their stuff was in the countries they controlled.

China is now making money only by dropping their central planning micro-management and embracing capitalist business practices which allow folks who know business to pursue profit and gain personal income from it (including partnering up with or selling to capitalist corporations). Same with a lot of the other Socialist countries who are now divesting themselves of their industries so they can be run more efficiently by businesspeople who expect to profit from them, thus providing more income to tax and redistribute (or put into Swiss bank accounts).

Most all countries which have successful social welfare systems designed to redistribute wealth get that wealth from having capitalist, free market, profit-oriented business economies they can tax.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge- Geeezer is not a Libertarian. You haven't heard a single peep out of him about how "government" should w/draw it's blanket protection from corporations, have you? He's also a profound believer of USA intervention overseas.. He will defend every instance that our troops stepped on foreign soil, including Vietanm and Iraq. I thought foreign entaglements was anathema to Libertarians. He's also rather protective of police. How could you confuse him as a Libertarian? Unless you yourself are confusing pro-corporatism with Libertarianism?

AFA you w/holding the fruits of your labor... Fine. Do it. I'm sure everyone else will get along w/out you just fine. Just don't use anything that's socially provided and you won't be thought of as a parasite, 'kay?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Okay. Here's the thing.

So now you're changing your story again. It's not about "penalizing" the wealthy, or about me being "jealous", or whether the EU countries have minimum wages, or whether capitalism is a self-sustaining sytem, or the Gini index... it's all about wealth creation? Yanno, I brought that point up about... oh, 20 posts ago.

Pardon me if I don't follow you down the bunny trail. You've strawmanned, ad hominened, shapeshifted, innuendoed, and in general disinformationalized so often you've lost my interest. Here's one example:

Quote:
My point was the the EU nations instituted a whole host of social welfare reforms, not just minimum wages, which redistribute income downwards.-Signy
Then perhaps you should actually say what you mean. -Geezer

The funny thing, that's exactly what I said:

Quote:
The reason WHY so many governments have instituted high minimum wages and social welfare reforms...

Her's another:

Quote:
Show me, in numbers, what percentage of the economy the upper upper centile has here as opposed to there (the EU).- Signy
Why bother?- Geezer

Nothing like standing behind your point, eh? You realized you were on shaky ground, and decided to attack me instead of discussing the point.

Since you seem to have a "dishonesty reflex" I have no interest in anything you might say.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:41 AM

I'll let Geezer speak for himself. But libertarians don't have a problem with police. They have a problem with stupid laws.

And I'd guess the Geezer might have some sympathy for removing corporate perks if convinced the effort wasn't a foil to attack free markets in general. That's one reason I've been trying to encourage you to see the common ground, rather than the different aims.

It's unlikely that either of our 'sides' will achieve any of our utlimate goals. But we can at least agree on some of the elements of the status quo that could be changed for the better. If your goal is to reduce excessive corporate influence over our government, you'll get more support from libertarians and conservatives by pointing that ways that current law violates free trade principles - not by holding up corporate power as an example of the inherent evils of free trade.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'll let Geezer speak for himself

I have no interest in anything Geezer might have to say.

AFA agreeing on common points... I'm not going to "frame" my argument in a way that sounds nice to you in order to get your buy-in. We have a fundamental disagreement on capitalism, and to say otherwise is dishonest. As you should know by now, I think you're fundamentally, hopelessly naive about it. Everything that you propose.... well, guess what- we've "been there, done that"... and it's got us to where we are today: royally fucked over. Going back to the past isn't going to help us with the future. It's like my SO says: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

But we CAN agree that corporations have too much power, and we can both help each other reduce that power as much as possible (HA!) until it gets to the point where it's no longer a problem for one of us. At that point, we'll go our separate (and possibly conflicting) ways.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have no interest in anything Geezer might have to say.

Hmmm... can't really help pointing out the obvious here...

Quote:
AFA agreeing on common points... I'm not going to "frame" my argument in a way that sounds nice to you in order to get your buy-in.

It's not a matter of framing the argument. It's a matter of convincing someone who disagrees with your fundamental philosphy why it might it might be in their interest to support a common goal.

Quote:
But we CAN agree that corporations have too much power, and we can both help each other reduce that power as much as possible (HA!) until it gets to the point where it's no longer a problem for one of us. At that point, we'll go our separate (and possibly conflicting) ways.

Right, and my point is that your approach directly inhibits that goal. From my point of view, it's not the amount of money or power that the corporations have - it's their ability to corrupt our political system. Our government has become a primary tool of the corporates. Severing that 'bond' is my only real interest.

I don't begrudge companies or corporations that that manage to become wildy successful by providing goods and services that people want. I get pissed off when they achieve, or maintain, their power and wealth through manipulation of the political process. But the "process" is as much to blame for that as the corporations.

Your naivete comes in when failing to recognize that our government drives this kind of collusion as much as the corporations. On one level, they grant specific perks and favored status to corporations. I think you get that. But on the another level, they exact a form of 'tribute' from corporations by coming at them with laws and regulation that the corporations can't afford to ignore. Then the authors of that legislation open their doors and the 'bidding' process begins.

These efforts are naively supported by people who think such regulation will finally bring corporations to heel, not recognizing how they're being played. The net result is expanding government power that demands ever greater "investment" from the corprations it threatens. The regulation you're so fond of is the source of the problem.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hmmm... can't really help pointing out the obvious here...

What's obvious? Geezer is dishonest. At this point I've decided it's not in my interest to discuss anything with him simply because I'd have to keep pointing out his dishonesty and it makes for tedious, unproductive discussions. In additon, by not engaging him I don't create a forum for him. So humor me, and point out the obvious 'cause I ain't gettin' it!

Quote:
It's not a matter of framing the argument. It's a matter of convincing someone who disagrees with your fundamental philosphy why it might it might be in their interest to support a common goal.

If I have to convince you to support your own goal, which may be in common with mine... do I really want you on my side???? If you can't' find your own self-interest, I'm not sure you'd be a reliable ally.

Perhaps what you really wanted to say was that I need to demonstrate that we DO have a goal in common. THAT makes more sense!

Quote:
Your naivete comes in when failing to recognize that our government drives this kind of collusion as much as the corporations

There is the corruptor and there is the corrupted. The way I see it, you're focusing on the effect and I'm focusing on the cause. The cause of the problem is economies of scale and concentration of capital, which by iteself causes an imbalance of power even without government. If you don't see that point... or you think that wealth SHOULD control everyhting... then we will have to agree to disagree.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So humor me, and point out the obvious 'cause I ain't gettin' it!

Just ribbing you a bit. The 'obvious' is that you're spending quite a lot of time responding to statements you say have no interest in. But mostly just kidding.

Quote:
If you can't' find your own self-interest, I'm not sure you'd be a reliable ally.

I hear ya, but frankly, that's been the attitude of most of the Libertarians I've known, and it's the main reason we never get anywhere. It's actually related to some of the stuff HK was talking about. You can't just lay out 'the facts' and expect people to see their way to a specific conclusion. Not because they're dumb or naive, but because reason isn't a black and white thing.

Quote:
Perhaps what you really wanted to say was that I need to demonstrate that we DO have a goal in common. THAT makes more sense!

I'll buy that.

Quote:
The cause of the problem is economies of scale and concentration of capital, which by iteself causes an imbalance of power even without government.

I can see what you're saying. But wealth and power aren't exactly the same thing. Wealth can buy power, but only if it's for sale. I'm suggesting we take down the 'for sale' sign on government.

I know it's tempting to see money and power as the same thing. But no matter how rich someone else is, they can't force you to do something against your will - not with money anyway. They can only do that by applying force against you - which can only be done legally using the government (through laws, court decisions and eventually armed agents).

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I know it's tempting to see money and power as the same thing. But no matter how rich someone else is, they can't force you to do something against your will - not with money anyway.

They can make it fatal to do anything other than what they dictate. Your choice: shell shrimp under slave-like conditions for near-starvation wages, put up with being raped by your supervisor, live in 12-to-room conditions using four beds in rotating shifts... or starve. How does your Libertarian philosophy explain Victorian England?

Quote:
They can only do that by applying force against you - which can only be done legally

Whoa, stop right there! Who says they'll only do things "legally"? And who defines legal and illegal anyway? Corporations are famous for applying muscle when it suits them, legally or illegally, economic or otherwise.

Without ever firing a gun, Microsoft "killed" all of its competition. Some of what they did was illegal, but they could just have easily done it "legally".
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:08 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- Geeezer is not a Libertarian. You haven't heard a single peep out of him about how "government" should w/draw it's blanket protection from corporations, have you?

But that hasn't been the topic. You assert that capitalism and corporations are evil and should be done away with. I assert that they are necessary if you want to have wealth, whether you redistribute it or not.

Quote:
He's also a profound believer of USA intervention overseas.. He will defend every instance that our troops stepped on foreign soil, including Vietanm and Iraq. I thought foreign entaglements was anathema to Libertarians.

Never heard of Vietanm, although I spent a less than fun year in Vietnam. The problem I have with you and Iraq is your assumption that it's all an evil plot to get the oil. There were probably mistakes made, both in pre-war intelligence, and in post-war pacification. But evil plot - don't think so.

Quote:
He's also rather protective of police.

Well, since most folk aren't allowed to defend themselves, someone's gotta do it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:14 PM