User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 303

  1. #11
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Without wishing to be confrontational I would also point out that all of the data gathered is circumstantial to the outcome. I have the same argument with politicians who claim that by sending out leaflets every week that they increased voter turnout. They fail to take into account the vast amount of information they are not looking at which, in this case, is that the person in question has a whole lot more effecting their lives than the delivery of a political leaflet. No data is gathered to directly support whether any voter decided to make their change due to the leaflet, the association is assumed.
    That I am inclined to believe. The citation of statistical information in the manner of just now reeks of confirmation bias, the conclusion is already reached, it is not contingent on evidence.

    Its like the old joke about politicians asking voters if they like their principles because if they dont they may have others they can interest them in. Using the analogy of sales.

    The thing about power and control is that aswell as being the perfect mechanism for equitably and efficiently distributing scarce resources market forces are supposed to mitigate the power and control of agents and agencies such as firms in the economy.

    Its the whole reason that classical economics was originally labelled political economy, it was meant to decentralise and devolve power and control and perform an empowering function for individuals as producers and consumers.

    The main drive was to be consumer sovereignty, markets, under conditions of perfect competition and therefore tending towards the supply of generic goods by a number of competiting producers to individuals with perfect information would make everything affordable and of a high quality as greater and greater surplus becomes the norm.

    However, consumer sovereignty is at best a half truth, the perfect conditions do not exist and are unlikely to ever exist, its an illusion, a foundation myth and fiction. Useful ideologically as a contrivance to rationalise and justify a special interest but its not factually accurate.

    That's before you consider the peter principle, Dunning-Kruger effect, corruption and nepotism, game theory or any of the other eschewing factors you rightly make mention of.

    Capitalism to me is a hypothesis to test like any other, its been found wanting in the balance, its promises unfufilled, most of the predictions that good capitalist theorists like Hayek made about central planning at the time of the calculation debate are equally true of corporate capitalism, boardrooms, execs and private managerialism.

    Class struggles have and will survive capitalism as much as they did "socialism", neither system has proven able to contain or manage them in a satisfactory way. As you say power and control.
    Likes Xander liked this post

  2. #12
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post

    There is an organised and well funded movement to revise history afoot, of which you are a great representative, but the depression was not caused by FDR it was caused by Wall St. and their political cronies, it was the New Deal, and ultimately, probably the second world war, which pulled the US and the world out of the depression.
    IMO, it's a pretty facile reading of history that would hold a president accountable for a crisis that started under his predecessor. (It's not even clear to me that the predecessor caused it... in the case of the current crisis, as far as I am able to make sense of these things, the actions of both parties contributed to it via deregulation.... again, this is another reason I favor order.)

    If you want to argue that the actions of Obama and FDR prolonged the various crises, that's a more defensible position, IMO. But that probably wasn't what was argued on whatever blog, radio, or TV show that came from. (To be fair the actions of the left over the past year has shown that they're also prone to that kind of thing. )
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78
    Likes Xander liked this post

  3. #13
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    The thing is, that welfare states, health and safety laws, minimum wages, they are all aspects of functional capitalism.
    Sure, but there is something called the Economic Freedom Index. Nations that are most free tend to do much better than nations that are least free. The top 5 nations (Hong Kong [I know Hong Kong isn't a nation, but it's on the list.], Singapore, New Zealand, Canada, and Chile far outperform the bottom five nations (North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Eritrea).

    If you impoverish your work force by underpaying them, have them work in conditions adverse to their health and safety and create conditions under which unemployment, even temporarily, or sickness, disability or dependents means destitution and death then the work force's lives will be nasty, brutish and short.
    False premise. In a free market, you earn what you deserve to earn. If you don't think you are being paid fairly, you can find another job. No one is forcing you to work in harsh conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    What you wont have is a skilled, educated and motivated work force, you eliminate the most pressing concern of the conservative mind which is the free loader or free rider problem but you do so by eliminating your human resources.
    There are plenty of medical school applicants in the U.S.; you don't need government interference to motivate them. People are motivated to work hard and get an education because they have dreams. Eliminate as many obstacles to these dreams and everyone will be better off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    Europe has far from declared war on free market economics, Europe has for a very long time sought to steer a path besides the dogmas of either socialism or capitalism, for the reason that central European powers, in particular Germany, value political moderation and pragmatism and do not want extremes and extremism the like of which gives rise to either nazism or communism.
    Many European nations have adopted some Reaganomics principles. In 2007, Merkel cut the corporate income tax rate by 8.9%; Germany has cut it's corporate tax rate from 52% in 2000 down to 19.8%. In 2006, Sweden eliminated its estate tax.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    I'm not sure if you see yourself as a patriotic American or have some other allegiance but the reality is that the free market is a fable,
    It's a continuum. I'd like to be closer to Hong Kong than North Korea on the Economic Freedom Index.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    Remember when the public servants, low paid workers, benefits claimants, health and safety regulations, consumer rights and workers rights caused the world economy to go into crisis requiring a massive tax funded kick back to the too big to fail conservatives in the city? Nope, neither do I.
    The 2008 Financial Crises was caused by government interference into the free market. The Banking Industry is the most heavily regulated industry. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) bureaucrats, whose job it was to oversee the banks, surfed for internet porn instead. Democrats pressured banks into making loans to poor people. After the crises, both parties bailed out the banks instead of letting them fail; that's not free market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    There is an organised and well funded movement to revise history afoot, of which you are a great representative, but the depression was not caused by FDR it was caused by Wall St. and their political cronies, it was the New Deal, and ultimately, probably the second world war, which pulled the US and the world out of the depression.
    The Great Depression was started by Hoover and enthusiastically maintained by FDR for 11 years. I can list for you the unemployment rates during the New Deal years. The New Deal didn't work at all; it wasn't designed to work. It was designed to buy votes for FDR. The vast majority of New Deal monies went to swing states that FDR needed for re-election.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    IMO, it's a pretty facile reading of history that would hold a president accountable for a crisis that started under his predecessor. (It's not even clear to me that the predecessor caused it... in the case of the current crisis, as far as I am able to make sense of these things, the actions of both parties contributed to it via deregulation.... again, this is another reason I favor order.)

    If you want to argue that the actions of Obama and FDR prolonged the various crises, that's a more defensible position, IMO. But that probably wasn't what was argued on whatever blog, radio, or TV show that came from. (To be fair the actions of the left over the past year has shown that they're also prone to that kind of thing. )
    I think the left are totally responsible for this kind of thinking, usually on big cultural or normative questions and usually as pertain to a perceived outsider, underdog or minority (minorities matter more to contemporary leftwingers than majorities or majoritarianism once mattered to their predecessors).

    The regurgitation of opinion from other partisan sources is a big issue, I hardly ever hear anyone exercise an awareness of primary, secondary or tertiary sources anymore.

    I would actually say that individual presidents couldnt be blamed for problems which are a consequence of big structural problems or much wider social and cultural factors. Probably not even single administrations. Not with the lifespans that they have and limits placed upon them. Radical changes for the better are usually prevented but so are any radical changes for the worse.

    However, that's not got currency for anyone, it'd be like seeking to fairly and reasonably compare good religion and good atheism, most pundits in that debate will compare good religion with bad atheism or bad religion with good atheism, its not accidential.

  5. #15
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    False premise. In a free market, you earn what you deserve to earn. If you don't think you are being paid fairly, you can find another job. No one is forcing you to work in harsh conditions.
    So a waitress in your eyes deserves to earn a pittance and rely on the kindness of the patrons?

    This person is your front face, your only point of reference for the customer and, as you posited, the defining person in whether it's a good restaurant or not?

    Under you ideas you'd have to deregulate public pay in the UK which would lead to much more expense in pay bargaining and people jumping ship to earn more money.

    Of course this also works on the idea that your kind of work is in demand and that leaving an employer won't reflect poorly upon you or that your current employer won't poison the well by refusing to give a good reference and thereby keeping you tied in to your current job.

    Sorry but it's just to simplistic to work in the real world.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #16
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Sure, but there is something called the Economic Freedom Index. Nations that are most free tend to do much better than nations that are least free. The top 5 nations (Hong Kong [I know Hong Kong isn't a nation, but it's on the list.], Singapore, New Zealand, Canada, and Chile far outperform the bottom five nations (North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Eritrea).
    Who do you think created the index and why and for what purpose and whose interests does it serve?

    I'm sure there's alternative indicators, I've read about the one you've choosen as valid too and how its suggested, because of the power bequeathed to finance capital mainly, that some truly dictatorial and despotic regimes are among the most "free" there are or have been, such as Pinochet's regime.

    False premise. In a free market, you earn what you deserve to earn. If you don't think you are being paid fairly, you can find another job. No one is forcing you to work in harsh conditions.
    That's an ideological, as opposed to factual, statement there.

    In the free market you earn what your employer thinks you deserve, there is no objective or natural calculation of dessert and your ability to overcome that by seeking an alternative employer is limited by the amount of employers and what they are all willing to pay.

    To be frank that's a pretty moronic formula you've got there which makes little reference to reality and is probably only useful as an easily recalled and propagated maxim. Like the articles of faith in a religion or holy script. Its designed to shut down thinking, or forego the need for it, rather than expand it critically.

    To given an example of it, its a little like saying that every lion has a right to an antelope for breakfast, what if there's no antelope around? What if antelope are extinct?

    The Great Depression was started by Hoover and enthusiastically maintained by FDR for 11 years. I can list for you the unemployment rates during the New Deal years. The New Deal didn't work at all; it wasn't designed to work. It was designed to buy votes for FDR. The vast majority of New Deal monies went to swing states that FDR needed for re-election.
    Your information is wrong.

  7. #17
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    So a waitress in your eyes deserves to earn a pittance and rely on the kindness of the patrons?
    A waitress deserves to earn whatever her skillset demands. David Beckman has a greater skillset so he demands more money than the waitress.

    This person is your front face, your only point of reference for the customer and, as you posited, the defining person in whether it's a good restaurant or not?
    Good service is only one element to a good restaurant. Ask Gordon Ramsay. A good restaurant needs good food, good service, good prices, clean atmosphere, and I would add....good parking spaces.

    Under you ideas you'd have to deregulate public pay in the UK which would lead to much more expense in pay bargaining and people jumping ship to earn more money.
    Yes. Trust me, you'll be happier.

    Of course this also works on the idea that your kind of work is in demand and that leaving an employer won't reflect poorly upon you or that your current employer won't poison the well by refusing to give a good reference and thereby keeping you tied in to your current job.

    Sorry but it's just to simplistic to work in the real world.
    Deregulation will result in more job opportunities because there will be more incentive to start businesses and that will create competition for labor, meaning more choices for the waitress.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    So a waitress in your eyes deserves to earn a pittance and rely on the kindness of the patrons?

    This person is your front face, your only point of reference for the customer and, as you posited, the defining person in whether it's a good restaurant or not?

    Under you ideas you'd have to deregulate public pay in the UK which would lead to much more expense in pay bargaining and people jumping ship to earn more money.

    Of course this also works on the idea that your kind of work is in demand and that leaving an employer won't reflect poorly upon you or that your current employer won't poison the well by refusing to give a good reference and thereby keeping you tied in to your current job.

    Sorry but it's just to simplistic to work in the real world.
    I think at this point this is more about "winning" a debate online than reality.

    In any case I've not known anyone to really be persuaded by anyone has had so say online. The information is already out there and its usually easy to tell pretty quickly if someone is the sort of person liable to be persuade by new information at all or likely to hold on tenaciously to their own received wisdom.

  9. #19
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    Your information is wrong.
    Unemployment rates during the Great Depression: (courtesy of Amity Shlaes)

    Oct 1933: 22.9% unemployment
    January 1934: 21.2% unemployment
    November 1934: 23.2% unemployment
    July 1935: 21.3% unemployment
    December 1936: 15.3% unemployment
    August 1937: 13.5% unemployment
    January 1938: 17.4% unemployment
    January 1940: 14.5% unemployment

    1941: US enters WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    To be frank that's a pretty moronic formula you've got there which makes little reference to reality and is probably only useful as an easily recalled and propagated maxim. Like the articles of faith in a religion or holy script. Its designed to shut down thinking, or forego the need for it, rather than expand it critically.
    Look at who gets paid in professional sports. People with greater skillsets like Lebron James, David Beckman, and Derek Jeter get paid a lot more than their team mates because they deserve it. It's a very obvious example.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Unemployment rates during the Great Depression: (courtesy of Amity Shlaes)

    Oct 1933: 22.9% unemployment
    January 1934: 21.2% unemployment
    November 1934: 23.2% unemployment
    July 1935: 21.3% unemployment
    December 1936: 15.3% unemployment
    August 1937: 13.5% unemployment
    January 1938: 17.4% unemployment
    January 1940: 14.5% unemployment

    1941: US enters WW2
    I know you think this proves your point but like I said before your information is wrong.

    I'm beginning to suspect that you dont understand what you're seeking to make an argument about but just feel really motivated to play the part of the debating activist.

    Look at who gets paid in professional sports. People with greater skillsets like Lebron James, David Beckman, and Derek Jeter get paid a lot more than their team mates because they deserve it. It's a very obvious example.
    Its obviously a really bad example

    How could you possibly mean to cite a pretty unique and untypical example from the world of professional sports as an example for wage calculation by market forces in the real world?

    That's one of the very, very few examples in which a unique individual, with unique skills set and unique capacity to negotiate exists, its anomalous, an exception to the norm.

    I cant believe you did that, as debating goes that was a major mistake.

Similar Threads

  1. Slavery, child labor, organized religion and a free-market economy
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-22-2013, 11:21 PM
  2. Define capitalism, socialism, free market fundamentalism, communism, etc.
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-14-2012, 06:34 PM
  3. Why your diet may not be working like you want...
    By sdalek in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 08:01 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