Danger time for America

[karoaper]

Re: Danger time for America

The question then becomes, who decides what is "excess" and what is "compulsive", and what are the proper markers of when we know whether people are in fact taking care of themselves spiritually and physically and when they are not? If I had to guess I'd say politicians.

Mouse, free market in the hands of smart and responsible economists and politicians is a completely different animal from the free market in the hands of filthy rich tycoons with political connections, who have de-facto monopolies which influence national priorities and actual living conditions. My take is that any system built solely on the pretext of profit, which enters all the layers of life, is a shoddy system. Pure capitalism or free market or whatever might result in strong economy and low inflation and low volatility and etc. etc. etc., but and it's a big but, it does not mean higher standard of life for the citizens.

[karoaper]

Re: Danger time for America

If you're comparing free market to socialism, I have to conceed that free market is much more flexible, much more transparent and more conducive to sustained progress. So that's certainly good. But, as most everything in life, the second it becomes an ideology, whereby moneymaking is almost a religion and an accepted substitute for all other priorities and objectives, it fails in my eyes as the ideal system.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Danger time for America

Mouse, free market in the hands of smart and responsible economists and politicians is a completely different animal from the free market in the hands of filthy rich tycoons with political connections, who have de-facto monopolies which influence national priorities and actual living conditions. My take is that any system built solely on the pretext of profit, which enters all the layers of life, is a shoddy system. Pure capitalism or free market or whatever might result in strong economy and low inflation and low volatility and etc. etc. etc., but and it's a big but, it does not mean higher standard of life for the citizens.

How do you know it doesn't lead to a higher standard of life for citizens? Is that why, the world over, are dying to emigrate to Western Europe, and particularly America, which, compared to the rest of the world, are more free market oriented? "Standard of living" is replete with subjective connotations. It is only when economists and politicians in their grand wisdom, step in and attempt to quantify subjective forces that only individuals, and consumers can ever know.

Furthermore, what is a "de facto" monopoly? In the marketplace, monopolies are naturally absolved. However, if you point to Microsoft, that is the biggest example of a government created monopoly. Monopolies exist where government says they do, and hand the reigns to that company by effectively using the arm of the state to help one company and stifle another.

Whether we like it or not, humans exist in two forms. There are the successful, honest, hard-working and responsible people you alluded to and the tycoons who will use every means to get ahead. Bear in mind, these tycoons are far more common among politics and politicians than among the business world, for it is only in the arena of politics were people are attracted to power. And as we all know, power attracts the worst and most vile among humans. Not everyone can be the shrewed, power-hungry, manipulative and self-seeking politician. But everyone can engage in business at the marketplace. It remains by far that those who pursue business, are far more honest than politicians. Now if you are referring to corporate and government interests merging, then we can effectively label that as fascism, which is present to a degree in all governments, just like all governments are socialistic, varying in degrees.

And on a final note, what's wrong with profit?

[Anonymouse]

Re: Danger time for America

If you're comparing free market to socialism, I have to conceed that free market is much more flexible, much more transparent and more conducive to sustained progress. So that's certainly good. But, as most everything in life, the second it becomes an ideology, whereby moneymaking is almost a religion and an accepted substitute for all other priorities and objectives, it fails in my eyes as the ideal system.

By far, the free market is the only institution that has allowed the human individual to find happiness, sustenance, and what he wants, in a peaceful and cooperative manner, than any other 'system'.

And everything is and becomes in some form or another, an ideology. That is an inescapable paradox which may as well be attached to the human condition. It depends then on what ideology serves best for the well being of all, as opposed to some instead of others.

[karoaper]

Re: Danger time for America

By far, the free market is the only institution that has allowed the human individual to find happiness, sustenance, and what he wants, in a peaceful and cooperative manner, than any other 'system'.

And everything is and becomes in some form or another, an ideology. That is an inescapable paradox which may as well be attached to the human condition. It depends then on what ideology serves best for the well being of all, as opposed to some instead of others.

Well, free market interfaces beautifully with this inescapable paradox. If the bullxxxx of Bush's tax cuts, the lobby fiasco and all the corruption in Washington are representative of current state of this ideology, then serving all is the last thing on it's agenda.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Danger time for America

Well, free market interfaces beautifully with this inescapable paradox. If the bullxxxx of Bush's tax cuts, the lobby fiasco and all the corruption in Washington are representative of current state of this ideology, then serving all is the last thing on it's agenda.

I beg to differ kind sage, but anyone who truly believes in a free market and free trade, realizes Bush's nonsense for what it is. How can you possibly link what is in my eyes clearly nothing but another day of politics in the sun, to the free market? Bush is no economist, and he certainly doesn't practice what he preaches, namely free markets, and free trade, for if he did he wouldn't support the protectionist policies that he does, the tax cuts or incentives to these failing and ailing American companies, tariffs, or the farce that that is NAFTA. Believe you me, those of us who do believe, know and understand free markets, see the Republicans ( and Democrats) as stunt doubles for one another in different takes.

EDIT: What I never understood in the life of me, is that people always complain about politics and politicians, yet they continuously go to the polls and reinforce this system that is built on lies and illusions that people supposedly hold a say in what actually goes on. In the free market, if you do not like a certain company or product, you are free to boycott them, not buy or support their product or company. Do you have a similar choice in politics?

[karoaper]

Re: Danger time for America

How do you know it doesn't lead to a higher standard of life for citizens? Is that why, the world over, are dying to emigrate to Western Europe, and particularly America, which, compared to the rest of the world, are more free market oriented? "Standard of living" is replete with subjective connotations. It is only when economists and politicians in their grand wisdom, step in and attempt to quantify subjective forces that only individuals, and consumers can ever know.

Furthermore, what is a "de facto" monopoly? In the marketplace, monopolies are naturally absolved. However, if you point to Microsoft, that is the biggest example of a government created monopoly. Monopolies exist where government says they do, and hand the reigns to that company by effectively using the arm of the state to help one company and stifle another.

Whether we like it or not, humans exist in two forms. There are the successful, honest, hard-working and responsible people you alluded to and the tycoons who will use every means to get ahead. Bear in mind, these tycoons are far more common among politics and politicians than among the business world, for it is only in the arena of politics were people are attracted to power. And as we all know, power attracts the worst and most vile among humans. Not everyone can be the shrewed, power-hungry, manipulative and self-seeking politician. But everyone can engage in business at the marketplace. It remains by far that those who pursue business, are far more honest than politicians. Now if you are referring to corporate and government interests merging, then we can effectively label that as fascism, which is present to a degree in all governments, just like all governments are socialistic, varying in degrees.

And on a final note, what's wrong with profit?

Compared to many other developed nations, US has a poor standard of living. Only industrial superpower to not have blanket health insurance. The ones who flock to US are young professionals/scientists/academics. (edit: we're including only citizens of other developed nations, right?) This is not a very large portion of the human vocational spectrum. What of those in service industry, blue-collar workers. With huge health insurance costs, depleted social security funds, these people are not that happy.

By de-facto monopolies I ment the few powerful conglomerates which through the backing of politicians enjoy a huge economic edge over competitors. Haliburton, Enron are just few of the names. I'm sure you've been following the Abramov fiasco. The little moms and pops stores are great. They're wonderful for sure as they are the staple of the working middle class that is essential. They're not politicized. But any huge company is by definition politicized; it has to be in order to sustain such a long standing edge.

The fascism is rampant here now. Free market is a vessel, a stable vessel with sound and flexible protocols. But if xxxxxxxs drive this vessel, it can lead to same murky waters that other vessels can get you to.

Finally, profit is fine withing the bigger context. It is means to an end, not the end itself.

[karoaper]

Re: Danger time for America

EDIT: What I never understood in the life of me, is that people always complain about politics and politicians, yet they continuously go to the polls and reinforce this system that is built on lies and illusions that people supposedly hold a say in what actually goes on. In the free market, if you do not like a certain company or product, you are free to boycott them, not buy or support their product or company. Do you have a similar choice in politics?

That's the damned catch 22 in politics. You're screwed if you don't exercise your vote and, unless you can vote for an independent smart candidate and have any chance of winning, you're screwed if you do.

As you correctly mentioned, Democrats are likewise xxxxxs to special interests, just different interests. I think their interests are less destructive and megolomeniacal though.

An example if you will of where the checks and balances of free market have failed simple blue-collar workers in Saipan, a US territory. The garment industry there is forcing their female workers to have abortions in order to continue working for the company. Now, it's free market, so the companies are free to do what they will to make profit, including worse than uncivilized treatment of their employees. The only thing that would stop them is a responsible politician. In this case they were in cahoots with Tom Delay, a queen size bastard. So in this case and sadly in many others, free market is utterly incapable of improving the life of the little guy.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Danger time for America

Compared to many other developed nations, US has a poor standard of living. Only industrial superpower to not have blanket health insurance. The ones who flock to US are young professionals/scientists/academics. This is not a very large portion of the human vocational spectrum. What of those in service industry, blue-collar workers. With huge health insurance costs, depleted social security funds, these people are not that happy.

First of all, standard of living is a subjective element. You cannot possibly measure what the 'right' standard of living is, since society is comprised of individuals, and values are subjective. Furthermore, it is untrue that those who flock to the US are limited to young professionals, scientists or academics. There are many people as we speak crossing the border in search of a better life here.

Second, health insurance is not a right, and certainly not one the government ought to provide. Social Security is illegal, and unconstitutional. Why should I have to pay taxes for Social Security, which is going to go to a bunch of people I don't care about, I will never meet, and a system that will be bankrupt by the time I retire? And who bankrupted Social Security? The same politicians people put their faith in. 'Public theory' and 'public choice' is an illusion. That there is a supposed 'public ownership' is refuted by the very fact that we have no say in where our money is spent, and that politicians can steal at will.

By de-facto monopolies I ment the few powerful conglomerates which through the backing of politicians enjoy a huge economic edge over competitors. Haliburton, Enron are just few of the names. I'm sure you've been following the Abramov fiasco. The little moms and pops stores are great. They're wonderful for sure as they are the staple of the working middle class that is essential. They're not politicized. But any huge company is by definition politicized; it has to be in order to sustain such a long standing edge.

Enron and Halliburton are a typical example of the governments socialistic policies of creating monopolies. That is not a point against the idea of a free market. In fact, it only goes to support the point that government should not be involved in the market at all.

How is a huge company politicized? Wal-Mart is not a company that is politicized and has nothing to do with politicians. In fact, Wal-Mart has continiously had campaigns of envy unleashed against it by the always jealous politicians and "social critics" all exercising their politics of envy. When a company is successful, and is able to dodge government expectations and make a profit, such as Exxon or Google, the arms of the state and the socialistic among us are always quick to point "Hey they made a profit! TAX THEM! REGULATE THEM! THEY MUST BE DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL AND GUILTY THEY ARE MAKING MONEY!"

As far as "mom and pop" stores, who needs them? If you have one great, but mom and pop stores are not a victim of powerful corporations who drive them out. They are a victim of consumer preference. If Joe sees the same product at a mom and pop store and at a Wal-Mart, and the one at Wal-Mart is cheaper, therefore Joe will likely buy his product from Wal-Mart. What's wrong with that? If the mom and pop store can compete, then so be it. If it can't, tough luck, the owners move on to another avenue.

The fascism is rampant here now. Free market is a vessel, a stable vessel with sound and flexible protocols. But if xxxxxxxs drive this vessel, it can lead to same murky waters that other vessels can get you to.

The free market, and peoples peaceful, voluntary and cooperative relations and transactions with one another, are not a 'vessel' and certainly no 'driven' by anyone. It is precisely the complexity and the anarchic nature of the marketplace which frightens politicians, regulators and 'social critics'. It is because of its complexity and unpredictability and voluntary nature which prompts these people to want to have control. It is precisely becuase there is no one driver of the marketplace that it is so successful. When there is one driver, or politician, or entity at the helm 'driving' the market, that is what we call central planning, the pillar of totalitarian systems such as socialism and fascism. No one single individual or entity can 'drive' the market because it cannot possibly process all of the information that goes into other people's decision-making, which is why, all systems continuously move toward disorder. The more a country and an economy become centralized, the closer it gets to breaking because of these complexities.

Finally, profit is fine withing the bigger context. It is means to an end, not the end itself.

Indeed, it is always is a means.

[karoaper]

Re: Danger time for America

Page about Wal-Mart's presence in Washington. It does say WM started with the ambition not to get involved in politics. Well that changed pretty fast when word got out of Wal-Mart's monopolistic, narrow-minded vision of retail business. Profit first.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/lobby.html