sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,855
- 6,393
- 126
"Capitalism" is about as well defined as "Communism" these days, which is to say, not well defined at all. There is no "Capitalism" or "Communism", there are only a near Infinite amount of isms influenced by one or the other or both. People need to stop using those terms if they want to communicate meaning, as everyone has their own definition of the terms that varies greatly from every one elses definition.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
What Moore says in this part is correct and actually rather insightful. Since relatively few people are wealthy or upper class, most of the opposition to national health care and most of the support for foreign outsourcing, H-1B, H-2B, and L-1 visas, and mass immigration comes from people who are merely middle class or working class. Why do they support policies that are not in their rational selfish interest? Because they have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated with free market dogma. They believe that if only they work hard enough these problems cannot possible affect them.
Most Americans do still believe that we have a meritocracy and that the solution to our nation's economic problems is not better economic policies to protect us from the economic forces that ail us, but rather for Americans work harder and smarter. Thus, the majority of people believe that higher education is the solution to our nation's problems--if people weren't lazy and were willing to work hard and educate themselves, then we wouldn't have problems with unemployment. The powers-that-be -- the media, the politicians, and the grant-funded intellectuals are doing everything they can to hammer this message home--that we need more and better education as the solution to our problems and that the problem is not the government's economic policies.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Maybe he supports a mixed economy--an economy with elements of socialism and capitalism. Does advocacy of a mixed economy necessarily make a guy a nutjob or an all-out blood red commie?
My view: I don't agree with everything that he says, but I do appreciate good satire and he is a good satirist. I enjoy watching him point out the hypocrisy on the side of his ideological opponents.
Yes, the importance of ownership as it pertains to resource distribution and means of production. Again, property ownership says nothing of your civil rights and liberties. I don't know how ownership of means of production or property in any way guarantees any other right. That is unless you can explain to me how your speech is free at your private place of employment or your right to bear arms is maintained in a private apartment complex where it is expressly forbidden.
You need to start disassociating the state from the economy. One protects and enumerates your rights as they pertain to the state and your civil existence and the other is simply an ideology with regards to allocating resources. It's easy to assume that private ownership automatically conveys social freedoms but this is not the case, especially when goods are vastly and unequally distributed.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Then how has every major concentration of wealth eventually been dissipated?
Again, he's using the wrong words. I understand what he's saying, but I'm pointing out that the way he phrases it is probably designed to capture as much PR as possible and doesn't actually make any sense.
A gigantic tool that only a cult following actually takes seriously. Kinda like Al Gore, but a tad more loony.
< SARCASM >
Now, THERE's a well documented, well supported, fact based description. Great links, too! :roll:
< SARCASM >
so i guess everyone has to be an expert before participating in forums.
i thoguht AT was a place to come to learn and have discussions, whether it be computers, software, politics. guess i was wrong.
i wonder how Anand feels about what this place has become.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
I would agree that no system is inherently incorruptible, though some may be better than others. The real solution to corruption in these regards is the Rationality Factor--very simply--to have a populace composed of rational and honest people. I think that this explains why some European nations manage to maintain a high quality of life and standard of living in spite of their being heavily socialist.
It's not all about the system of government, but also the entire culture. In other words, an awful system of government with good people will produce bad results, and a great system of government with awful people will produce bad results.
If I had to choose between the two, I think it would be better to have a bad government and good people with a good philosophy. At least in that situation the people will be able to fix their government and the kind of government that you have and how well it works is a reflection of the populace, anyway. In contrast, a good government with rotten people is only going to end up corrupted and will devolve over time.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Sure, not everyone can be "winners". However, is it unreasonable to ask that people be compensated based on their contribution to the act of wealth production? Is it unreasonable for people to be ask to be protected from competition with the billions of impoverished people (as a result of decades of heavy-duty socialism and communism and population explosion) who would be willing to work for far less than the amount of value a worker contributes to wealth production?
I read what you're saying and almost get the sense that you are building a straw man and then knocking it down. That is to say, it's almost as though you're implying that anyone who complains about how the free market is inefficient or unjust is a pansy socialist who needs to grow up and poke his head out of the lollipop forest and see reality.
So, what in your view is "wrong with this country"?
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
My speech is still free at a private place of employment, as is my right to own firearms in a private apartment complex. It's just that I just might run the risk of being fired and having to find another place to live. Their right - the owner of the company, the owner of the apartment complex - to control of that property assures this.
On the other hand, if they want to use that real estate, company, or the proceeds from selling either to pursue speaking their mind on an issue, their right to property ensures that it can't be stolen from them in an effort to shut them up.
No, I really don't. Not to mangle Ms. Rand's words too badly, but if you don't own the results of your brain and your brawn, translated into property, it's not likely that you're going to have ownership over your brain or brawn either.
Edit: Grammar.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
I don't know if it's natural, but sometimes the people will take care of these problems themselves. In the French and Russian Revolutions the people literally slaughtered the upper classes. In Brazil the lower classes try to kidnap members of the upper class and hold them for ransom:
Excerpted from an interview with the coordinating producer of the PBS Wide Angle film "Ransom City"
Will down-and-out, desperate, formerly working class Americans, some of whom may be sick and without health care or hope, begin kidnapping CEO's and politicians' family members and holding them for ransom, perhaps "offing" one of them from time to time?
Moore or Gore are both very bright and well reasoned. I take it you've never bothered to listen to what either of them has to say. I have, but I don't automatically accept what either of them says without giving it serious thought.
If you have, I won't speculate whether you're bright enough to comprehend, let alone address their points. I'll leave that to you.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
We built this country on the idea that the free market would reign. We certainly don't live in a completely free market economy, but we're probably about as close as it gets. I don't quite know what to say to your points.
What sort of protection do you want from people who are willing to do the same work for less money? You want the government to come in and put tariffs on goods coming into this country? Ultimately, that's going to hurt our economy (and the global economy) more than it's going to help. Yes, people get left behind (steel workers in this country) and that sucks, but that's also reality. Things change. The less we try to cling to the past and embrace the future, the more secure our economy is.
Your first point is exactly what I want: a relatively free market that pays people based on the value they contribute. I don't want any price floors or price ceilings. I don't want someone else trying to figure out what everything is worth... just let it all work itself out.
What's wrong with this country? Plenty! If we're going to talk strict economics, I'd say that the structure of corporations is disturbing. It seems to me like we have relatively few people on many different boards, all of whom are basically overcompensating themselves at the CEO level.
I also think that, globally, there needs to be a push for companies to accept responsibility for their environmental impact. Right now, the cost of their actions is simply dumped on the government and I think it would be better for everyone if that burden was at least shared, if not passed almost completely to the company itself. I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.
I'm increasingly worried about those who are left behind. With the closing of state-run mental health institutions we've let some of the neediest and least self-reliant people out into the cold. In general, I feel that our government concentrates too much on providing higher level goods and services, while it should be concerned with the basics.
With the increasingly global structure of the economy, I'd like to see this country more forcible export our health standards. I'd like to see better regulation of the food and goods that are imported into this country via an expansion of our regulatory agencies. Not only would this improve the quality of goods coming into this country, but it would help boost standards in the exporting countries.
I think this country needs health reform. I don't think Obama's answer is the right one.
I dunno, there's a hell of a lot that needs to be fixed from gerrymandering to the FDA to lobbyists to public schools to prisons to tort law to ... to ... I guess enumerating every single point isn't really going to get us anywhere.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Moore or Gore are both very bright and well reasoned. I take it you've never bothered to listen to what either of them has to say. I have, but I don't automatically accept what either of them says without giving it serious thought.
If you have, I won't speculate whether you're bright enough to comprehend, let alone address their points. I'll leave that to you.
Propaganda is a powerful thing. It had a whole country of otherwise good people believing that a certain race/religion was not human, to the point that they needed to be shipped off and exterminated.
It caused this country to believe that marijuana will make a minority come over and rape your wife. (reefer madness)
"Documentaries" like Sicko, Bowling for Columbine, Farenheit 9/11, Loose Change, and Al Gore's global warming diatribe, are made so weak minded people will watch and believe everything that is said without verifying the "facts" that are presented.
By that logic, I am free to do whatever I like, I just run the risk of being punished for those actions, both in the economic and civil spheres. I would say that, by definition, if there is a punishment for my action than I am not free to do it.
Yes, the owners are free to do so. Those that do not own are not. If my company decides to promote Santa Clause for President and warns me to not dissent or lose my job, then I have little practical choice but to consent. The one big assumption you are making in my opinion is that force (applied by government) is the only coercive force that exists. Being fired or kicked out of my apartment brings real transactional and opportunity costs. And as I said previously, if there is a drastic inequality of ownership then it could bring greater costs. What if my landlord kicks me out, bans me from their complexes, and owns all the apartments in town? That is a powerful coercive force.
Alternatively, using a simple mind experiment, I can construct a simple scenario using private ownership models that drastically impede your freedom. If we concede that the government has no right to your property and you have every right to defend it against any transgression, then simply imagine owning a home and having another private entity purchase all surrounding property, basically putting you on an island. That private owner can now control your entry/exit and access to food, medical care, and utilities. Your solution could be to move, but then you concede that another private entity has enough coercive force without resorting to violence to drive you out of your home.
Yes, you really do. Ms. Rand was an idiot. While this might address individual ownership over collective ownership, it doesn't address the coercive force other private entities might have over you. This assumption is an assumption that any and every individual owns their own goods and property. Most Americans do not outright own their property but are instead indebted to other private individuals who hold the mortgage. Because of the economics of scale, and various other economic factors, most Americans are coerced into giving their labor to other private entities, where many of my Constitutional rights need not apply.
So while the above quote may be right, it ignores the fact that in mankind's quest for power throughout the entirety of mankind, we enslave and conquer as private individuals for our own economic self-interest. Even in our own country, for the better part of a century there was a large group of men and women that didn't own their own lives. They were bought and sold like property. It wasn't until the government and the civil sphere forced equality that the men could participate under their own volition in the free market. It's the assumption that laissez-faire Capitalism results in political freedom that is wrong. You'll simply replace one oppressive force with another.
Also, she has little understanding of economics. She had little comprehension of situations where the market fails, is imperfect, and/or highly inefficient such as arenas with inelastic supply and/or demand. Oh yeah, to believe her idiocy, you have to completely ignore the tragedy of the commons and the massive inefficiencies involved with Coasian bargaining. Her kind of economics is perhaps some of the most inefficient and misguided possible.
If you're going to use an author to try to entangle the two, at least use Friedman and not Rand. However, I still think Friedman is wrong inasmuch as economic freedom relies on political freedom and not vice versa. I think he's wrong about the rise of monopolies and I think he ignores the hundreds of years before civil rights were correlated with private ownership. To believe this, you have to completely ignore the several hundred years comprising the time before and immediately after the rise of the Westphalian state.
Edited: added and clarified
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Is that really necessary anymore? This country has been on fairly solid economic ground for the last fifty years. Yes, there have been downturns, but things have generally been good. Since last Sept things have been really different. There hasn't been enough time to see how any of these new tensions will play themselves out.
Again, I'm not advocating sitting around doing nothing, but I do not believe that taking people hostage at this point is going to accomplish anything because it's not clear that the system is anywhere near broken yet.
i'll sum it up with this.
i came in here asking an honest question looking for an honest answer, doing so as unoffensively as i can. i got some good replies from members and found it rather sad that a "senior moderator" would be the one that basically epitomizes why everyone feels that ATPN has become the cesspool that it is.
The goal of socialism is to maintain your power. Once the wealthy accumulates their wealth, they shift to caring about maintaining and/or growing their power, which socialism is the best way to achieve this.
While, I am undoubtedly quite liberal I am however no fan of Micheal Moore. Though, it is amusing to see all the conservatives get their panties in a bunch over the guy and then do a terrible job debunking his arguments.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
It's similar to what Ayn Rand described in one of the capitalist bibles, Atlas Shrugged. There are some businessmen who would appear to be capitalists because they own and manage businesses, yet who, in actuality, are socialists in that they want the government to enact and enforce laws that favor their businesses to the detriment of their competitors as opposed to keeping the government from regulating businesses at all. See the characters of Orren Boyle and James Taggart in Atlas Shrugged for more details.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter