User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 102

  1. #41
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    What does market Socialism mean to you?
    It would be very hard for me to explain it all here. I predominately subscribe to the Economic Democracy(propper noun, you see?) form of market Socialism, of which many features I stated bellow. It's all rather complex, so you might want to look it up. You could also look into works of David Schweickart. to get an idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    1) Anti-Trust vs. Intellectual Property (the classic poles of suit/counter-suit). I think Anti-Trust makes a lot of sense in fast moving industries like computing, and electronics. There is healthy competition and we don't want an established player to stifle it.
    However, in Bio-tech, the situation is different. Often, there is a 15 year lead-time of R&D before a product gets to market. If we don't protect Intellectual Property in these circumstances, there is little incentive to do the R&D to make new products.
    In the vast majority of cases, monopoly is a very negative thing. There is little incentive for a company in a monopoly friendly government to be productive. They no longer have encompassing interests, for they need no ones support. Corporations being broken up does not necessarily require a country's research and devlopment being ruined. Such intellectual endeavors can be supported federally.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    2) I don't believe wealth can be properly redistributed with taxation. I believe charity feeding social entrepreneurship is the only way to get the leverage needed to actually solve problems like extreme-poverty, and preventable communicable diseases. Of course, the govenrment can help a bit with incentives, and tax-breaks. But simply "re-distributing" wealth is inffective in my opinion. What is needed is creation of more wealth ("growing the pie").
    How do you think entrepreneurship will be so effective?

    I should clarify that I don't mean taxing the rich and then litterally sending a check to poor people. I do, however, believe giving the rich higher taxes, and spending the tax money on social development.
    The people among the richest 1 percent of the population in this country has far more many that can be reasonably earned or used by one person.
    I see nothing wrong with taking it from them. On the other hand, many poor people are so disadvantaged that they barely have a chance. If money taken from the rich is spent on education(among many other things) especially where it is most lacking, then it might even the playing field more.

    Growing the pie simply does not do. As you know, if you enchance the size of the pize, the proprtionate distribution of the pie will remain the same. The disproportion of the distribution in this country is destructivel rampant.
    First of all, to get the poorest people of this country to a middle-class living standard simply by increasing the GDP Per Capita would take an enormous amount of financial growth. More than can be expected.
    Even then, how rich will the rich be at that point? The imbalance will still be too vast, with the rich basically holding half if not more of society under their thumbs.
    Further more, the country has been getting progressively more imbalanced for decades. Growing the pie will not counter-act this trend. Re-distribution is the most obvious way to deal with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    3) I believe in democratic structures within organizations as well. This is rather different from the extreme of "everyone needs a vote"--that breeds stagnation. I think only those people who know and care about a decision should be involved in making it.
    Well, I've concluded that it is essentially impossible to assure that the right people will have the job. I do believe in direct democracy in a form, and I think it must be practiced within corporations, or shall I say "cooperatives".
    Right now, the authoritarian nature of corporations is having a negative impact on sociey, because business is about as important as the government itself now. Authoritarian commerce is as good as being run by an authoritarian government.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    What do the words libertarianism and Feudalism mean to you? For me these concepts are at odds.
    Feudalism is a system in which a "nation" is comprised of many, only semi-cooperative, often warring factions. The factions themselves are run in a tight, hierarchical manner.

    I see libertarianism in its purest form as a society where regulation and command has been almost completely removed, and instead, the composition of individual wills is what guides the society.

    The way this relates to Feudalism is that it will inevitably become Feudalism.
    Here's a great exampl. "Market feudalism" as I like to call it, comes about as a result of having no business regulations whatsoever. Stronger companies use strictly predatory methods to dominate weaker ones for their own gain. The system within the company is often the same, with rich executives and share holders deciding the fates of masses of meager employees.
    This is what happens when no outside force(like a federal government) draws lines on what is and isn't fair.

    If you can call this a "system", then it is one with far too much inner conflict and power jockeying to be a productive one.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    There will always be a super-class. I just believe that the more-or-less meritocracy-based formation of a super-class that comes out of a free-for-all of a free-market is better than nepotism, apointee-ism, and even populism. Each generation will have a new super-class. Many member will have working-class roots. I realize that there is still a lot of the Good-Old-Boy network. However, entrepreneurship (social entrepreneurship in particular) is often what gets people into the new parts of thes networks. (See Kliener Perkins Caufied & Byers).
    There will always higher and lower level citizins in a country, just because aboslute equality can't hold together. But how super does a "super-class" have to be? The upper classes of the USA are so much better off than the lower classes that it's ridiculous. It's unfair and unecessary for a working society.

    People do not always have merrit just because the win the fight. They might have the most merits for protecting themselves and conquering others, but that in no way implies that they are the based for serving the people.
    A business or government has no reason to help anyone if it does not have interests bound to the needs of its people. A society must be stable for it to provide a good living, and to make developmental progress. A society will be most stable when everyone feels that it is in their own best short and long term interest to account for the interest of others.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I am not sure what you mean by this. I often consider myself a follower of libertarianism, but not always. Hardly a "religous" faith in it. My rationalizin abilities aside, I am neither selfish nor insensitive (at least not most of the time).
    You may be an exception, but the fact is, there is a whole class of personality that I've identified as the "Libertarian personality" and I actually know several people who agree with me.
    On that note, I notice there is an affinity between Libertarianism and INTJs, which might explain some things.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #42
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Although, wealth and power go together, by Super-Class, I mean the relatively small group of people with the ability to influence world affairs to a great deal. I am certainly willing to change my opinon on this. But I see ne evidence to counter the opinion that there will always be a super-class.
    Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Albert Einstein, Louis Pasteur, Galileo, Christopher Columbus, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Issac Newton, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Thomas Edison, The Wright Brothers, John Locke, Rene Descartes, Sigmund Freud...do I need to go on? None of these people had great "wealth" or "power" but became worldly influential their own ways. We do not need a super class, and the moment people no longer allow one, will be the day it ceases to exist.

    I also have some reasons do believe that such a class is fundamental.

    1) Although I believe in equal opportunity, I don't believe people are created the same. There are differences. Some of those differences will better equip them to be in a position of power. Right now, a lot of the reasons that people reach that power, is due to family history, color of skin in many western nations, being male in many nations, and simply knowing the "right" people. I consider these poor reasons for being in power, but it is what it is.

    2) Most people don't want power, while only a few do. Power comes with responsibility. I usually don't want power (in many contexts).
    As I mentioned earlier, exceptional people do not need their own special class to become worldly influential. And the people who are currently the rulers are clearly not the most adept at being so. They are simply those most willing to cut the throats of their fellow human beings to maintain their power and wealth.

    To me a "free" market is simply meant to be a market that can be trusted completely, is efficient, provides infinite liquidity to what is being traded, and is open to all.

    No such market exists. But I believe being close to that ideal has many advantages.

    1) Things can be traded to reach so they reach where they have most value.
    2) People can specialize and focus on what they are good at, and trade for the rest of what they need.
    3) New, more complex, products and services can be created based on what is traded.
    Here is two points I have discovered that people absolutely must consider when contemplating economic or political philosophy.

    1. How will enacting principles of my philosophy affect the current situation in the short term?
    2. Is it really practical in this world that my philosophy will ever reach fulfillment?

    Because the problem I have with a free market ideology of any kind, is...

    1. As the free market nuts keep passing legislation to make the market "freer", the ruling class simply manipulates the government and market to obtain the maximum profit and power, while bleeding the middle class dry. Thereby making it an ineffective short term philosophy since it doesn't fulfill its intended purposes.

    2. It is impractical that such an ideology can exist in the long term as the government can continue to play a part in it. Since the government prints the money and imposes necessary regulations for product and worker safety, it is incredibly unlikely that the government can be extracted from the market. Thereby it does not seem like a practical long term philosophy.

    I don't "religously" believe in the free-market. If a group of people were to try to corner the water market, and charge exhorbitant prices for anyone who wanted water--well they deserve what's comming to them. A similar thing can be said for oil.
    We'll see how religiously you believe in a free market.

    As for a few people bleeding the market dry--I know there are many corrupt people in the world, and power has a way of corrupting people. However, in my way of seeing things, the market ceases to be "free" when controlled by some agent in this way, whether it is a government or simply corrupt individuals manipulating/breaking the rules of trade.
    Precisely, so no such thing can ever exist as long as there are corrupt people in the world and a government to interfere with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It would be very hard for me to explain it all here. I predominately subscribe to the Economic Democracy(propper noun, you see?) form of market Socialism, of which many features I stated bellow. It's all rather complex, so you might want to look it up. You could also look into works of David Schweickart. to get an idea.
    I looked into it. The ideas are actually fairly appealing to me since the system espouses both a market economy, and a flat-tax.

    However, I am wary of "social control of investment." This smack of a planned economy.

    Consider this:
    Everything human beings to do is linked to the economy in someway, since every activity produces, or consumes resources (even if the resource is air, water, and the land to live on). Trying to plan the economy for even something as small as a town is daunting because now one needs to consider the resources produced and consumed by each person in the town. There can certainly be successes in this style(Things like space-flight, DARPA-net, and the human genome project are notable). However, a great many lurches forward have been largely unplanned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    In the vast majority of cases, monopoly is a very negative thing. There is little incentive for a company in a monopoly friendly government to be productive. They no longer have encompassing interests, for they need no ones support. Corporations being broken up does not necessarily require a country's research and devlopment being ruined. Such intellectual endeavors can be supported federally.
    I generally agree with this. But we have to note that federal funding for science tends to get hijacked by ideology (which is bad for bias). I would prefer the kind-of "averaging out" of biases that happens when market forces control research.

    I would really like it if people simply appreciated the pushing of the boundaries of knowledge and capability through their patronage, but I know that is very wishful thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    How do you think entrepreneurship will be so effective?
    Consider what is already working:
    Garmeen Bank.
    Ashoka.
    The X-prize.
    Amyris.

    and even
    really small ones like:
    d.light design - affordable lighting and power solutions

    Along with philanthropy:
    The Gates Foundation and others.

    I would much rather give my money to organizations like this than our inefficient and fairly innept govenrments.

    In fact, I would rather give my money to friend or family member in need than the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I should clarify that I don't mean taxing the rich and then litterally sending a check to poor people. I do, however, believe giving the rich higher taxes, and spending the tax money on social development.
    The people among the richest 1 percent of the population in this country has far more many that can be reasonably earned or used by one person.
    I see nothing wrong with taking it from them. On the other hand, many poor people are so disadvantaged that they barely have a chance. If money taken from the rich is spent on education(among many other things) especially where it is most lacking, then it might even the playing field more.
    The basic problem is that your are taking money away from people who are good at using resources to produce more and giving it to the governments, and not the actual people who need it. (Most governments are essentially black-holes for resources in modern times).

    The two richest people in the U.S. have pledged their fortunes to solving some of the worlds toughest issues, many others in the Fortune 400 have done the same. I also believe that they would be much more competent in making use of their resources towards the desired ends than a gov't run organization.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Growing the pie simply does not do. As you know, if you enchance the size of the pize, the proprtionate distribution of the pie will remain the same. The disproportion of the distribution in this country is destructivel rampant.
    First of all, to get the poorest people of this country to a middle-class living standard simply by increasing the GDP Per Capita would take an enormous amount of financial growth. More than can be expected.
    Even then, how rich will the rich be at that point? The imbalance will still be too vast, with the rich basically holding half if not more of society under their thumbs.
    Further more, the country has been getting progressively more imbalanced for decades. Growing the pie will not counter-act this trend. Re-distribution is the most obvious way to deal with it.
    Something about comparing real poverty with relative poverty strikes me as ungrateful. I am a firm believer that I would much rather have 1% of a billion than 50% of 0 if those were the rules of the game.

    I realize, that there is real corruption, and a lot of people who have wealth got it by being corrupt. However, I think people exagerate how crooked people really are. Corruption needs to be dealt with, I certainly agree with that. But taxation of everyone in a braket is an ineffective means to deal with it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well, I've concluded that it is essentially impossible to assure that the right people will have the job. I do believe in direct democracy in a form, and I think it must be practiced within corporations, or shall I say "cooperatives".
    Right now, the authoritarian nature of corporations is having a negative impact on sociey, because business is about as important as the government itself now. Authoritarian commerce is as good as being run by an authoritarian government.
    I largely agree with you on this. Many modern start-up function like you mentioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Feudalism is a system in which a "nation" is comprised of many, only semi-cooperative, often warring factions. The factions themselves are run in a tight, hierarchical manner.

    I see libertarianism in its purest form as a society where regulation and command has been almost completely removed, and instead, the composition of individual wills is what guides the society.

    The way this relates to Feudalism is that it will inevitably become Feudalism.
    Here's a great exampl. "Market feudalism" as I like to call it, comes about as a result of having no business regulations whatsoever. Stronger companies use strictly predatory methods to dominate weaker ones for their own gain. The system within the company is often the same, with rich executives and share holders deciding the fates of masses of meager employees.
    This is what happens when no outside force(like a federal government) draws lines on what is and isn't fair.

    If you can call this a "system", then it is one with far too much inner conflict and power jockeying to be a productive one.
    Simply different views on the matter. I see the Feudalism, but it is often as much due to lack of imagination as anything else. Theory-Y management in the company you work for would largely reduce this issue. One could of-course start your own business and see how far it goes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    There will always higher and lower level citizins in a country, just because aboslute equality can't hold together. But how super does a "super-class" have to be? The upper classes of the USA are so much better off than the lower classes that it's ridiculous. It's unfair and unecessary for a working society.
    As I mentioned to Kiddo, what I meant by "Super-class" was the amount of influence someone has, not their wealth. I still need to clarify what I meant with him as well. I will do that below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    People do not always have merrit just because the win the fight. They might have the most merits for protecting themselves and conquering others, but that in no way implies that they are the based for serving the people.
    A business or government has no reason to help anyone if it does not have interests bound to the needs of its people. A society must be stable for it to provide a good living, and to make developmental progress. A society will be most stable when everyone feels that it is in their own best short and long term interest to account for the interest of others.
    I don't know if you've conteplated starting your own business, but I believe you have a conception of it that is quite distorted. I haven't run a successful business yet, but I know in order to do so a business owner necessarily needs to consider the interests of others. In particular, (s)he needs to consider the needs of 1) the customers, 2) the shareholders, 3) the employees. Business owner are bound to make mistakes and hurt a lot of people, but I believe it is usually out of lack of skill, than due to a "power-hungry" mindset.

    I realize this is still a very flawed form of meritocracy. I believe there needs to many creative ways for government to incentivise the externalities that other stake-holders will face. Someone has to regulate the markets to ensure that corruption does not run rampant, but I am wary of placing corrupt/incompetent governments in that role.

    Communism is an abismal failure, and even socialist tendencies cause many of the ills we see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You may be an exception, but the fact is, there is a whole class of personality that I've identified as the "Libertarian personality" and I actually know several people who agree with me.
    On that note, I notice there is an affinity between Libertarianism and INTJs, which might explain some things.
    Well, I know a whole class of libertatians who are quite wonderful human beings. In fact, they tend to be the most charitable people I know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Albert Einstein, Louis Pasteur, Galileo, Christopher Columbus, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Issac Newton, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Thomas Edison, The Wright Brothers, John Locke, Rene Descartes, Sigmund Freud...do I need to go on? None of these people had great "wealth" or "power" but became worldly influential their own ways. We do not need a super class, and the moment people no longer allow one, will be the day it ceases to exist.
    They did have great power. In fact many of the people you mentioned were the ones I had in mind when I said "there will always be a superclass." It is simply the way the world works. Some people have great influence, while others don't. Whether that influence comes from hours of labor, lots of luck, great skill in oration, superior moral authority, or comming upon a powerful idea, they will have an unbalanced influence when compared to others. This influence is what "power" is.

    They could, certainly use it for selfish-ends. They may gain that influence through unfair means. I would ideally like that not to be so (as would any sane individual). Perhaps, we could get rid of the corrupt means of gaining power, but that does not eliminate the imbalance of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    As I mentioned earlier, exceptional people do not need their own special class to become worldly influential. And the people who are currently the rulers are clearly not the most adept at being so. They are simply those most willing to cut the throats of their fellow human beings to maintain their power and wealth.
    Again, I was simply pointing to influence, not net-worth per say. I can explain my philosophy of wealth, later, as it may explain a few descrepancies.

    The richest people I know tend to also be the most generous. I know there are many who do get wealthy by cutting throats. But that practice generally does not bring you customers, nor make your emplyees productive. Granted, shareholders may or may not know or care about corruption (that is until the words "Accounting Irregularities" shows up on news about the company for which they own shares)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Here is two points I have discovered that people absolutely must consider when contemplating economic or political philosophy.

    1. How will enacting principles of my philosophy affect the current situation in the short term?
    2. Is it really practical in this world that my philosophy will ever reach fulfillment?
    I am actually fairly content with the way things are now in the U.S. There is certainly room for improvement. But, I am fairly opposed to radical changes of any sort to the economy. I will certainly entertain ideas, but what we have kinda works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Because the problem I have with a free market ideology of any kind, is...

    1. As the free market nuts keep passing legislation to make the market "freer", the ruling class simply manipulates the government and market to obtain the maximum profit and power, while bleeding the middle class dry. Thereby making it an ineffective short term philosophy since it doesn't fulfill its intended purposes.

    2. It is impractical that such an ideology can exist in the long term as the government can continue to play a part in it. Since the government prints the money and imposes necessary regulations for product and worker safety, it is incredibly unlikely that the government can be extracted from the market. Thereby it does not seem like a practical long term philosophy.
    You have in mind a much more radical "free-market" than I do. I still believe fair-play is important in a market (including labor). A govenrment that can ensure fair-play needs to be fairly free of corruption. IMO, a corrupt covenrment regulating a market, is worse than a black-market. There is more trust in the black-market--that's why it exists.

    What need do you think black-markets fulfill? Why do they show up both in corrupt regimes, and in places that have exessive regulation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    We'll see how religiously you believe in a free market.



    Precisely, so no such thing can ever exist as long as there are corrupt people in the world and a government to interfere with it.
    That is the way with ideals. There is no such thing as a circle or a line either. But their very useful to think about to achieve particular ends.

    Karl Marx, came nowhere as close Adam Smith in creating a useful ideal. John Maynard Keynes did create something useful as well, but the problems with Macroeconomic theories are quite clear. Friedman showed many of the problems with Keynes's Theories.

    Here is a good comparison"
    Discover It: Keynes vs. Friedman

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  4. #44
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Hm...you certainly have your own perceptions. But they are difficult to compare to mine because you have your own definitions. That is the difficulty with these kind of philosophical discussions because at some point you aren't sure whether or not you are discussing the same thing.

    Power to me is the ability to control, such as through public opinion or resources.

    The Super Class to me is those who have gained control of the media, government, and market and thus have the means to secure their wealth and power.

    Obviously those definitions are inherently different than yours. Whereas my Super Class seeks as much invisibility as possible for the sake of self preservation, yours includes members who are self sacrificing for the good of the people they lead, sometimes to the point of their own demise. Ultimately, my super class would very rarely do anything that they wouldn't see the end result of in their lifetime, whereas yours has members who work for causes they know they will never see the end result of in their lifetime. With such incredibly contrasting ideas of what a "super class" is and what constitutes such a class's "power" it is virtually impossible to discuss our views of the world in a way that doesn't fall into an ideological discourse on the semantics of such ideas.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  5. #45
    The Unwieldy Clawed One Falcarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    COOL
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    Dino None
    Posts
    2,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Karl Marx, came nowhere as close Adam Smith in creating a useful ideal. John Maynard Keynes did create something useful as well, but the problems with Macroeconomic theories are quite clear. Friedman showed many of the problems with Keynes's Theories.
    Friedman is probably not the best person to critic Keynes.

    As a policy maker Friedman was near retarded. Only one of his policies was not near universally reject, it is supposedly his deepest regret, the Socialist would love the idea far more than any free market capitalist advocate and very much do so; can you tell me what it is?

    *Falcarius open his wallet and spits on both sides of his twenty pound notes.*
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalassa View Post
    Oh our 3rd person reference to ourselves denotes nothing more than we realize we are epic characters on the forum.

    Narcissism, plain and simple.

  6. #46
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falcarius View Post
    Friedman is probably not the best person to critic Keynes.

    As a policy maker Friedman was near retarded...
    It makes very happy to hear someone else say that.


    I'll get to your responses later, ygolo.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #47
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falcarius View Post
    Friedman is probably not the best person to critic Keynes.

    As a policy maker Friedman was near retarded. Only one of his policies was not near universally reject, it is supposedly his deepest regret, the Socialist would love the idea far more than any free market capitalist advocate and very much do so; can you tell me what it is?

    *Falcarius open his wallet and spits on both sides of his twenty pound notes.*
    Friedman was right on a couple of issues. Ending the draft being one, and the preeminence of monetary policy over fiscal policy in modern society being another. I don't consider myself a follower of the Chicago School. However, he was a relentless supporter of civil liberties, and he earns a gold star in my book for that alone. And Keynes was wrong about A LOT.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #48
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I looked into it. The ideas are actually fairly appealing to me since the system espouses both a market economy, and a flat-tax.

    However, I am wary of "social control of investment." This smack of a planned economy.

    Consider this:
    Everything human beings to do is linked to the economy in someway, since every activity produces, or consumes resources (even if the resource is air, water, and the land to live on). Trying to plan the economy for even something as small as a town is daunting because now one needs to consider the resources produced and consumed by each person in the town. There can certainly be successes in this style(Things like space-flight, DARPA-net, and the human genome project are notable). However, a great many lurches forward have been largely unplanned.
    Planning with a very large number of people is feasible if it is networked and structured. As I said, I do not support Sovity style command economies at all, but I think more consensual planning is necessary and should be used perhaps not so much to outline the path of the economy, but to influence and augment it. The fact is, I think the stock market is a crazy idea. We have so much of the economy riding on the so-called "animal spirits" of a mass of investors who are essentially gamblers and prospectors. That kind of chaos is unreasonable.

    You speak of lurches forward, and I know what you mean. It is the nature of things that big changes generally come from unintended epiphanies, but I ask you what forward is? There will naturally be great leaps forward under a planless system, but there will also be, and have been, just as many leaps backwards. In fact, most leaps "forward" are double-edge swords. Much of the devlopment in this country since the eighties for instance has been helpful to managers and suppliers, but so has it been harmful to laborers and consumers.

    This enters into the field of philosophy rather than government, but I think that people put too much effort into trying to find this so called forward leaps. People are too inclined to sacrifice a contented living for an unneseccary fortune, which usually never comes true. The USA is ingrained with the spirit of a lottery player, and I have never liked it.


    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I generally agree with this. But we have to note that federal funding for science tends to get hijacked by ideology (which is bad for bias). I would prefer the kind-of "averaging out" of biases that happens when market forces control research.
    Corporate funding for science gets hijacked by self-interest and capricious personal fancy. And while I do recognize many instances of ideology hijacking research, I might somewhat controversially note that ideology, at the core, is the only thing that gives purpose to the final product of science, it's something that we can debate back and forth.


    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Consider what is already working:
    Garmeen Bank.
    Ashoka.
    The X-prize.
    Amyris.

    and even
    really small ones like:
    d.light design - affordable lighting and power solutions

    Along with philanthropy:
    The Gates Foundation and others.

    I would much rather give my money to organizations like this than our inefficient and fairly innept govenrments.

    In fact, I would rather give my money to friend or family member in need than the government.
    Something I find very interesting about this list is that it contains the gates foundation. Bill Gates amassed an enormous fortune running a corporate empire that undermined competition and squandered scientific development.
    What's even more insulting is that, dominating the airwaves with it's economic power, Microsoft went on to convice most of America that it was the vanguard of new technology. In reality, Microsoft stole most of it's ideas without credit, and stamped half of the other ideas that it considered incompatible or threatening to it's system. Microsoft is actually a glorious example of much of the corrupt business I speak of.
    I personally think that Gates's philanthropy is either for the sake of building a legacy, or and act of contrition.
    But you know, what I usually say to stuff like this is that Gates could be giving away a lot more than he is.

    Besides, we can't necessarilly make him give anything if he didn't want to. There is no public influence on philanthropy. One of the main points to having the goverment pass around wealth is that the decisions will be made in a more controlled environment by people that are elected and can be voted out of office. It may also be effected by direct democracy systems, like the ones Switzerland. These measure help the will of the people influence where money is going, instead of just leaving it up to the whims of a couple of people.

    To focus on the way that entrepreneurship has devloped technology, I'd like to point out that socialism and entrepreneurship are not actually opposed.
    While I do not mind allowing entrepreneurs to exist, I consider them too unaccountable to centrally rely on.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    The basic problem is that your are taking money away from people who are good at using resources to produce more and giving it to the governments, and not the actual people who need it. (Most governments are essentially black-holes for resources in modern times).
    I have no reason to assume, at all, that people who are rich are generally better at using their money. Now yes, to get there, most of the must know how to make money with money, which is frankly a questionable process until itself when you really think about it. But a lot of people who head businesses demonstrate a remarkable amount of incompetence in anything other than making more money for their business. Many don't even know how to do that, and simply nab a comfortable fortune for themselves before abandoning the train wrecks they make their businesses into. The worst example of all are fortune heirs. They have not earned their money or proven their abilities in anyway, and I feel no guilt in taking money from them (did I mention that I heavily favor the estate tax?).

    The government is not always a failure in these matters. Ironically, I think the main thing that's ruining the American government right now is that it is populated by people who are to bound to corporate interest.


    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    The two richest people in the U.S. have pledged their fortunes to solving some of the worlds toughest issues, many others in the Fortune 400 have done the same. I also believe that they would be much more competent in making use of their resources towards the desired ends than a gov't run organization.
    Throwing a lot of money at a broad problem is not always solving. Philanthropes rarely have the precision that government does. I stand by the point about this use of money being harder to influence than government use of money. And the other question, like what I said about Gates, is whether or not the good of these actions outweighs the bad they committed to get where they are.

    I think at this point, I'd like you to tell me your theory on why you believe that government is usually more inefficient and corrupt than business.


    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Something about comparing real poverty with relative poverty strikes me as ungrateful. I am a firm believer that I would much rather have 1% of a billion than 50% of 0 if those were the rules of the game.
    I find rich people that shutter at the idea of being middle-class ingrateful.
    But you know, like I said, poverty aside, inequality is flatly a problem unto itself. Such vast economic asymetry does very real damage to the country, regardless of other factors.
    The CIA's world factbook page elaborates long term problems for the USA, and interestingly enough, these are some of the comments included in the list.

    "The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

    This two tier gap, these "two Americas" as John Edwards would put it, weaken the country as a whole. But this problem will continue. The same section notes that "inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups." will be among the country's biggest challenges.

    I'd finally like to point out that on a very human level, such inequality is marginalizing and demoralizing. Most poor people on the planet look at a rich person an ask "what makes that person deserve that money so much more than me?". It's troubling, bitter question, and the people who ask it will sadly not get a justified answer.

    By the way, your response didn't address one of my main points. Strictly growing the pie to get the bottom one percent of the country out of poverty would take a ridiculous amount of finnancial growth, which cannot be expected, and it would still do nothing to counter act the growing eccentricity of the country's inequality.


    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I realize, that there is real corruption, and a lot of people who have wealth got it by being corrupt. However, I think people exagerate how crooked people really are. Corruption needs to be dealt with, I certainly agree with that. But taxation of everyone in a braket is an ineffective means to deal with it.
    I return to my point that this is primarily about dealing with inequality, first and foremost. Even if the rich people are totally innocent, the imbalanced distribution of money is problematic and must be dealt with on a pragmatic level. It is my opinion that no even Jesus Christ himself could justly possess as large a share of the public income as Bill Gates.
    Having the government redistribute the money is the most direct and regulated way to do it.


    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Simply different views on the matter. I see the Feudalism, but it is often as much due to lack of imagination as anything else. Theory-Y management in the company you work for would largely reduce this issue. One could of-course start your own business and see how far it goes.
    The system is pretty simple. Unregulated competitors will always become feudal in nature. A more powerful referee of sorts must step in to regulate them. The referee is kept in check by building it on encompassing interests that would make it disadvantageous to consume the competitors.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I don't know if you've conteplated starting your own business, but I believe you have a conception of it that is quite distorted. I haven't run a successful business yet, but I know in order to do so a business owner necessarily needs to consider the interests of others. In particular, (s)he needs to consider the needs of 1) the customers, 2) the shareholders, 3) the employees. Business owner are bound to make mistakes and hurt a lot of people, but I believe it is usually out of lack of skill, than due to a "power-hungry" mindset.
    This is true only to a point. The earlier stages that a business is in, the more considerate is has to be, but there's a certain point of take off, like an airplane, where everything changes. Once a company amasses a decent amount of power, it can start surviving on dishonest practice. One example is market predation. You bully and consume other companies to your advantage rather than being productive or innovative yourself. Many, many game companies are guilty of this one. Employees can be controlled with fear and good PR. Unions barely exists these days, and a lot of people are desperate. Again, while a business is small, it will have a much harder time abusing it's employees, but at a certain size the domination becomes easy.
    And in terms of the consumers, they are the biggest patsies of all.
    Just to name one of many scenarios, we have the classic case of businesses producing intentionally low grade products so that they will break early and require people to buy more. That is strictly in the interest of the business, not consumers at all.
    And what about cell phone companies? Their refusal to even out the share with each other diverted them from standardizing signals. As a result, they all require different towers, which is expensive, innefficient, and spotty. Had they all agreed to standarize, or had government made them, we wouldn't even have such a thing as roaming charges...
    Businesses frequently act against the interest of customers, because customers are easy to deceive and threaten.

    You know, on a slightly more general note: If you want a good example of where government did a better job, look at airlines. Ever since government regulation was seriously ruled back on them, it has been one failure after another. We might settle on the notion that some venues are more appropriate for business, and others are more appropriate for government.
    I such a case, I definitely feel that transis belongs to the government. It is a fundamental public need, with an extremely vast infrastructure, and as such, cannot be left in the hands of scattered private prospectors. It shows in everything from the railroad barrons of the late 19th/early 20th century to the airliners of today.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I realize this is still a very flawed form of meritocracy. I believe there needs to many creative ways for government to incentivise the externalities that other stake-holders will face. Someone has to regulate the markets to ensure that corruption does not run rampant, but I am wary of placing corrupt/incompetent governments in that role.
    This is why I bring up democratic practices, as I believe it partly bypasses some of the flawed meritocracy. But I do believe that regulation is good for more than dealing with corruption. It is my opinion that the great depression, the crash of the 80s, and the economic crisis we are going through now were all caused by too little government involvement. And you know, we were pulled out of the last two by government involvement, and I think that's how we will get out of this one.


    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Communism is an abismal failure, and even socialist tendencies cause many of the ills we see.
    I'm not sure if you can call Communism a failure, since no two countries that claimed to be Communist had very comperable practices, and since most people who studied it would agree that no one ever practiced Communism by definition. The real thing never happened.

    As for Socialism: #1: Rarely has a country implemented the kind of Socialism I'm talking about, and when they have, it has usually been fairly successfull.
    #2: While I admit that there are many horrible things about China, Cuba, and the USSR, and that they represent much of socialism's worst potential, I do personal feel that people severely ignore or overlook how many positive things have been accomplished by these countries. I think Americans tend to be willfully ignorant of it, because they don't want to see successes among the "bad guys".
    I tend to think to myself "if a place like Cuba can do as well as it does, imagine how great positively implemented socialism would be".


    and I would simply like to apologize for what is probably the great multitude of typos in this post.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #49
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I tend to think to myself "if a place like Cuba can do as well as it does, imagine how great positively implemented socialism would be".
    Cuba's doing well? Are you serious?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #50
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Cuba's doing well? Are you serious?
    I like where he calls for 'positively implemented socialism'. What does that even mean? How is that different from any other 'brand' of socialism?

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] Sensory stuff you find oddly enjoyable
    By Wolf in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 03-29-2010, 12:41 AM
  2. Yet and Even More 9-11 Conspiracy Stuff On teh Intertubes
    By Abhaya in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-30-2008, 03:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO