User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 88

  1. #21
    clever fool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Survive & Stay Free View Post
    Well, that would depend on what you mean by capitalism (I'd say there were capitalisms rather than capitalism to be honest) and there's nothing about the idea in general, per se which involves the provision of a good standard of living to all (and a better one to the few), if it generated greater profit to do the opposite and materially deprive and immiserate the general population then it would do that too, just consider the impact of traffic in crystal meth or heroin in the communities were that's popular.

    The idea that the "rising tide raises all boats", that "everyone is doing better, just some people are doing even better than most", are neo-liberal myths, there's a lot of good information about that available online if you are interested, it was a popular idea in the eighties, when they gave massive tax cuts to the very richest taxpayers instead of the greater number which paid less taxes but really could have done with a cut, but there's a lot of evidence in the time in between that its a fallacy.
    I agree there is not just one form of capitalism. There are many liberal economic theories just as there are many socialist ones, and no two societies, capitalist, socialist, or whatever else are going to be identical anyways.

    As far as the Reagan/Thatcher era goes, I think very few people advocating any form of capitalism nowadays is advocating a return to the supply-side theory that was behind "Reaganomics" though this theory wasn't entirely wrong and wasn't as monstrous as the left sometimes pretends, it wasn't as much of a success as some on the right pretend either. I think Bill Clinton got beter economic resuts than Reagan did, he managed to balance the budget and that was due to his cutting defense spending. But I also think Bill Clinton's economic policy couldn't have been a success had it not been based on sound theory, cutting the defense budget wasn't all there was to it.

    All that to say there is not just one way to manage an economy with success. Reagan's economic policy is not the only form of capitalism that exists.
    Likes Lark liked this post

  2. #22
    Digital ambition Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iNTJ
    Enneagram
    583 so/sp
    Posts
    10,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Perceptions of inequality rose in the 19th century when people moved in mass to cities. The physical closeness people had to each other increased perceptions of inequality.
    Perception and doing something rally concrete about it are two different things. I still claim that equality basically starts with 20th century.



    This fact isn't really suprising to liberal economists, I mean you no offense when I say this but I wouldn't place too much faith in the nationalizations your country has implemented, mainly because this is how countries in the 20th century have become ruined. You said elsewhere that the major exploitation of oil that your country used to benefit from has been cut off due to the war in Syria, which seems like a more plausible explanation than simply saying markets are a failure. Because while I understand that people may be skeptical of markets, that it's difficult to sell markets to people in some countries, this does not mean public opinion is informed on this matter. It seems your country has plenty of natural resources which have never been exploited.

    Venezuala is a recent example of nationalizations that have failed, the people there are "perishing amongst plenty".

    The perfect equality will never be achieved since that simply isn't realistic. However having some decent balance in equality of opportunity and resources really matters and that is why first world is the first world and Venezuela is Venezuela. Where you basically have moron on the top that screwed up everybody. Using that as an example of equality is either mean, ignorant or work of propaganda. In a way this only proves why we don't want to be dominated by billionares that will turn us into the Venezuela. Basic equality and dictatorships are the two opposites by definition and someone constantly wants to mix those two.

    To tell you the truth I could shoot at the new Venezuelan leadership and feel no guilt about it.


    I think that in western countries, the standard of living is decent. Even for a low income household like mine. The problem is more, in my case, being able to build a futrue, economic mobility. The reasons for lack of economic mobility are too much to get into for the sake fo this thread, though, I feel.
    Exactly, because you have welfare state that makes sure that society remains relatively stabile. What is the opposite pole of billionares and dictators. Western Europe is currently doing better in the standard of living statistics than the US exactly because it still has mechanisms that provide basic equality.

    In eastern Europe this also got messed up for the most part and now "weird" things started to happen. Since people will do just about anything to keep or develop further these mechanisms that are vital for having a decent life without constant stress. Even if it means anti-western retoric, market bashing ... etc. Since experiment with "western values" is generally such a flop that people are openly thinking and doing in bringing back certain aspects of Communism, that ar being mixed with nationalism.


    Right I agree with this, I'm just saying the study itself is kinda misleading; at least the manner in which it is presented to the public. I've seen numbers that prove that inequality is just as bad if not worse in places where production is in the hands of government, just so you know. This isn't a problem solely of capitalist societies, contrary to popular belief.
    That is because you are mixing equality and government. Which are two separate scales.
    However you can't have basic equality without healthy government, and you can't have healthy government without democracy and good education system. Neither you can have it if the rich basically buy the government or they make some kinds of a parallel govermant/cartel that controls the people through market.


    Certianly not, but I don't think government producing food would decrease the chance of it being toxic. There is no basis to suppose it would. In fact, it would only increase the chance of it being toxic, because in a nationalized sector of the economy it is basically government regulating itself. And self-regulation isn't better just because it is the public sector doing it. The government simply needs to set up laws to punish those careless private actors for selling toxic food/water.

    Ok but you haven't said anything about days with your child, having sick leaves etc. Even the pooerest worker should be able to enjoy live a little bit with his family.
    If the governmet is democratic it can greatly help with keeping the food none toxic. However my argument was that due to market liberalization US got abundance of food that is bad for human health, to the point that many countries cut off imorting of the food from US. My point that solving that kind of stuff can't really be done without some kind of law or goverment, since the new technology allows you a million ways to lower the cost at the expense of quality. (what can't be determined with substantial lab work)

    What I actually wanted to say is that the voices for food protectionism in my country got pretty common/loud. As well as the ones that require keeping the ban on GM food and all similary problematic foods. Especially since through open borders we are being swarmed by cheap imported food and junk that can't be selled in a more wealthy EU state. So it is a practical question: do you have a problem with the people who want severe regulation of the certain market in their own country ?

  3. #23
    clever fool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Virtual ghost View Post
    Exactly, because you have welfare state that makes sure that society remains relatively stabile. What is the opposite pole of billionares and dictators. Western Europe is currently doing better in the standard of living statistics than the US exactly because it still has mechanisms that provide basic equality.
    While I do credit part of the help I got from welfare, without consumer choice and low prices people on welfare wouldn't be able to do much with their money. I don't think the third statement is true - having lived in both places, living standards in US are better, except if you can't find work. It's easier to be off work in Western Europe, since there is safety net, but it's also harder to find work here because of the money government takes out of busiensses to invest back into the safety net. Newton's third law applies to economics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In this case action is taking money out of the economy and creating a large safety net, which has the reaction of slowing business, growth, and lowering quality of life somewhat as a result of reduced growth.

    Really, I think having a safety net is practical and many slightly "libertarian" economists like Friedman and Hayek agreed with a safety net, just on a smaller scale than advocates of the welfare state usually imagine. The problem more radical libertarians like Bastiat or Ayn Rand had with the welfare state seemed to be one of deontological ethics rather than pragmatism.

    So if we are thinking pragmatically, it's a question of choices. Do we want higher standard of living, better job oppurtunities, growth, a good chance to become a big "winner", but also a possibility of being among the "losers" in this economy, or do we take care of the "losers" but at the expense of them potentially staying dependant on welfare much, much longer? Different people will choose different things. Personally, I choose the former. Even if it would mean potential risk of "losing".

    So it is a practical question: do you have a problem with the people who want severe regulation of the certain market in their own country ?
    Not unless it is my own country.

    I'm just skeptical that this thing will work, I hope the reforms in your country will at least better things for you economically, but I am deeply skeptical.

    I am also aware nothing exists in isolation, potential trade partners stopping trade with my own country will probably affect my standard of living, however I also don't feel it is up to me to dictate to other countries how they should manage their economies. I would much rather they not stop being trade partners but I also think there is nothing short of going against my ethics that I could do.

    Ok but you haven't said anything about days with your child, having sick leaves etc. Even the pooerest worker should be able to enjoy live a little bit with his family.
    Where's the beef?

    That is because you are mixing equality and government. Which are two separate scales.
    However you can't have basic equality without healthy government, and you can't have healthy government without democracy and good education system. Neither you can have it if the rich basically buy the government or they make some kinds of a parallel govermant/cartel that controls the people through market.
    I disagree about democracy. People nowadays use the term "democracy" to mean "good government", but that is circular logic and a truism. Hitler was democratically elected. This should be proof enough "democracy", ie electoral politics are not enough to stop bad government.

    In order to have good government, you need to have social contract. Social contract, as long it is upheld, and written correctly, ensures against government being bought by the special interests you bring up. Many countries in the third world like Africa are having elections but this doesn't solve their problems, because their problem is lack of social contract, which leads to corrupt institutions. Elections do nothing to solve this.

    I think many people forget about how important social contract theory was in creating govenrment which respects rights in western countries.

  4. #24
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,319

    Default

    What's the worst that happens when an oligarchy of financial elites rises?
    Opportunities are closed off to common people and social services may be limited.

    What's the worst that happens when equality is sought?
    The Khmer Rouge. Genocide with the wiping out of a quarter of the population.

    I know which poison I'll pick and I won't take for granted the economy and social system that we do have with whatever faults there might be.
    "You know, with Hitler, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him."
    Norm MacDonald

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    25,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    What's the worst that happens when an oligarchy of financial elites rises?
    Opportunities are closed off to common people and social services may be limited.

    What's the worst that happens when equality is sought?
    The Khmer Rouge. Genocide with the wiping out of a quarter of the population.

    I know which poison I'll pick and I won't take for granted the economy and social system that we do have with whatever faults there might be.
    So that's the choices then, its a the conclusion of Ghostbusters choose the shape of your destructor sort of thing then?

  6. #26
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    11,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    What's the worst that happens when an oligarchy of financial elites rises?
    Opportunities are closed off to common people and social services may be limited.

    What's the worst that happens when equality is sought?
    The Khmer Rouge. Genocide with the wiping out of a quarter of the population.

    I know which poison I'll pick and I won't take for granted the economy and social system that we do have with whatever faults there might be.
    So it's either an American Oligarchy or the The Khmer Rouge? This is the kind of bullshit rhetoric that elects people like Trump. Of course no one is picking the The Khmer Rouge so eh, no big deal, Ill just be happy with whatever crumbs the elite leaves us, as long as we are deemed "deserving". Don't believe anyone says that? Have a look.

    House Republican: ‘We're not talking about taking away benefits from those who deserve those benefits’ | TheHill

    I'm tired of hearing these are the choices so - pick. America was a leader when it was investing in its people. It no longer does, not for about 50 years in earnest. That's why we're getting left behind and will continue to do so. Trump is speeding up that process. Is this what you want? Because you no longer have a country when everyone is living on their island of me and mine only, without complaint.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.
    Likes Stell liked this post

  7. #27
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Survive & Stay Free View Post
    So that's the choices then, its a the conclusion of Ghostbusters choose the shape of your destructor sort of thing then?
    No. It's not. But, the point is it's not good to promote an "eat the rich" mentality. It will do no good to simply rob those who benefit most from the economic and financial system instead of actually fixing the system incrementally. Things can get worst. Much worst.
    "You know, with Hitler, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him."
    Norm MacDonald
    Likes Typh0n liked this post

  8. #28
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    So it's either an American Oligarchy or the The Khmer Rouge? This is the kind of bullshit rhetoric that elects people like Trump. Of course no one is picking the The Khmer Rouge so eh, no big deal, Ill just be happy with whatever crumbs the elite leaves us, as long as we are deemed "deserving". Don't believe anyone says that? Have a look.

    House Republican: ‘We're not talking about taking away benefits from those who deserve those benefits’ | TheHill

    I'm tired of hearing these are the choices so - pick. America was a leader when it was investing in its people. It no longer does, not for about 50 years in earnest. That's why we're getting left behind and will continue to do so. Trump is speeding up that process. Is this what you want? Because you no longer have a country when everyone is living on their island of me and mine only, without complaint.
    I never said you had to pick. Or used my analysis to persuade you or anyone else to vote for a particular person.

    I'm an idealist at heart. But, I try to remember history to reign in my idealism.

    Also, it's sort of funny that you use a Trump nostalgic talking point that "things used to be better when the country was like it was a long time ago." So you support MAGA. lol
    "You know, with Hitler, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him."
    Norm MacDonald

  9. #29
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    11,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    I never said you had to pick. Or used my analysis to persuade you or anyone else to vote for a particular person.

    I'm an idealist at heart. But, I try to remember history to reign in my idealism.

    Also, it's sort of funny that you use a Trump nostalgic talking point that "things used to be better when the country was like it was a long time ago." So you support MAGA. lol
    I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. They stopped investing. Which is why the US is being and will continue to be left behind in the future. Which is where my focus is.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

  10. #30
    clever fool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. They stopped investing. Which is why the US is being and will continue to be left behind in the future. Which is where my focus is.
    In what?

Similar Threads

  1. Which Function Is Closest To The Unconscious And Why?
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 06-07-2013, 01:54 AM
  2. [Inst] Feeling the need to preserve ones beauty: Is this an Sx/SP and Sp/Sx thing?
    By The Great One in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-01-2012, 05:47 AM
  3. University and "The grass is greener on the other side"
    By Snow Turtle in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-21-2009, 05:34 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