Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What the current crisis teaches us about capitalism or Why I'm not a libertarian
What exactly do you mean by questioning my "good faith in this thread"?
the free market would do just that, which is not as bad as it appear.
The sweet shops were once the engine behind the USA.
The sweet shops in China were greatly responsible for about 700 millions people to go from a state of deplorable poverty to being able to have disposable income.
Sweet shop are often only a stage, a period, often necessary for allowing a civilization like ours to exist (if this is a good thing or bad thing is your opinion).
Of course this does not mean that the human rights chart should not be observed and enforced.
but you just cannot go from having nothing to having everything, at least not in large scales, and not in a way that would be as efficient and fast as the free market, so if helping people out of their misery is the goal, i suggest you reconsider your opinion of sweet shops.
Well, at least you're open and upfront about your opinion of sweatshops. Personally, I can't support a system that views sweatshops and child labour as a necessary evil because I find it ethically abhorrent.
Also, I'd argue that it doesn't necessarily have to be necessary stage of development. Perhaps it does in the context of capitalism, but we can at least try to change our system of production and distribution in ways that make sweatshops unnecessary.
Nature is not a win-win situation either.
Rabbits get eaten.
This is the balance. Win-win, in this case, leads to an unbalanced world that is unsustainable.
And I would argue that capitalism leads to the same, especially in regard to social relations.
Well, at least you're open and upfront about your opinion of sweatshops. Personally, I can't support a system that views sweatshops and child labour as a necessary evil because I find it ethically abhorrent.
this is why i said i questioned your good faith (intentions)...
I specified that I believed the human right chart should be enforced but you did included "child labour" in this sentence in what seem to be an effort to embellish your points...
which could mean you are craving "being right" or "having" the right opinion to make yourself feel good instead of wanting to share opinions and see other points of view...
Hence me questioning your good faith
this is why i said i questioned your good faith (intentions)...
I specified that I believed the human right chart should be enforced but you did included "child labour" in this sentence in what seem to be an effort to embellish your points...
That's because sweatshops have traditionally involved child labour. I suppose it's possible to have sweatshops that don't exploit child labour, but many do and the people who run them often don't give two shits about "human rights." Do you think China gives a shit about human rights when they persecute people for their religious beliefs, and even execute them and sell their organs? How much more do you think they care about human rights in their sweatshops?
The Buddha promoted free enterprise. But also promoted the role of govt in regulating the economy.
You know the sutras far better than I do, DD. Can you provide references.
And did he oppose slavery? After all, 'market forces' operate within that market, too, and may have been among the drivers that led to its partial abolition.
I am viruntly against sweatshops of any manner. I'm no longer a free market capitalist. I believe in an economic system where what you have is the fruits of your own labors, and the taxes you pay are on the goods you consume. I'm also in favor of heavily taxing any inheritance that is above a certain ratio to the average inheritance and using those taxes solely for the purposes of providing high quality college education to any who prove they are deserving of it and equalizing the school systems in poorer districts. If it takes heavy regulation to keep the greediest from breaking the backs of others to make themselves richer, so be it.
I'm also in favor of heavily taxing any inheritance that is above a certain ratio to the average inheritance and using those taxes solely for the purposes of providing high quality college education to any who prove they are deserving of it and equalizing the school systems in poorer districts. If it takes heavy regulation to keep the greediest from breaking the backs of others to make themselves richer, so be it.
And how does "average inheritance" get calculated? By whom? In theory it's a nice idea but putting it into practise would be an entirely different (and IMO totally untenable) story.
Raven, it's as simple as taking the total values of all individual inheritances as they go through probate and calculating the average inheritance of an individual person. It's not that hard. The only point that would require a lot of debate is what the ratio would be that could still be considered reasonable. The only other exception I would make is a sole proprietorship business. If it is a sole proprietorship, I wouldn't break it up regardless of the value, provided the heir in question kept it, or heirs if they were going to transfer to a partnership or LLC. As for the value of a super inheritance, it would have to be something huge, but with a decent chunk left over. Enough that the heir in question actually had the chance to build something of their own with it, even though most of these heirs of super fortunes had every key building block handed to them from an early age.
Raven, it's as simple as taking the total values of all individual inheritances as they go through probate and calculating the average inheritance of an individual person. It's not that hard. The only point that would require a lot of debate is what the ratio would be that could still be considered reasonable. The only other exception I would make is a sole proprietorship business. If it is a sole proprietorship, I wouldn't break it up regardless of the value, provided the heir in question kept it, or heirs if they were going to transfer to a partnership or LLC. As for the value of a super inheritance, it would have to be something huge, but with a decent chunk left over. Enough that the heir in question actually had the chance to build something of their own with it, even though most of these heirs of super fortunes had every key building block handed to them from an early age.
While I respect your belief in that, I find that whole process totally immoral. I personally have no problem with sharing what I have with those who need it, but I am totally against forcefully taking people's inheritance because you (the collective you) think it can be used in a better way. According to the way you see it, I could amass a fortune via a windfall (for example, Lotto - if I gambled (I don't)) and then someone would come in when I died and tell my daughter she could only have x amount because anything above average would be unfair.
I'm sorry I find the whole idea very distasteful. Now, granted I am not an American so I am no expert on American policies. But, the way I see it, there are other ways to improve education and other important issues. In my opinion, NASA are squandering money on sending probes to Mars when that money could be redirected to welfare and education. The way I see it, what's the point in searching out new worlds when you can't look after the one you have at the moment?
Please understand I am not attacking you, I am putting forward an alternative (that may or may not be workable as once again, I am not an American and that well versed in American politics) that I believe would be better than what you have suggested. But also, I stress this is just my opinion.
Raven, right now I've got one person who agrees with me. It simply comes down to perception of the matter. Your example becomes perfect. Say you did win the Lotto, and you built a business out of the winnings. If your daughter takes over when you die, fine. She pays the normal inheritance tax on it because she is actively seeking to earn the money herself. But, just handing off a multimillion or billion dollar fortune to someone just because it was their parent's is just creating a de facto aristocracy and contributing to further class warfare. Which, class warfare shouldn't be an issue to begin with.
I am viruntly against sweatshops of any manner. I'm no longer a free market capitalist. I believe in an economic system where what you have is the fruits of your own labors, and the taxes you pay are on the goods you consume. I'm also in favor of heavily taxing any inheritance that is above a certain ratio to the average inheritance and using those taxes solely for the purposes of providing high quality college education to any who prove they are deserving of it and equalizing the school systems in poorer districts. If it takes heavy regulation to keep the greediest from breaking the backs of others to make themselves richer, so be it.
the problem with this type of reasoning is that it become highly inefficient if put in practice.
Your intentions are good, but the result of these types of rules is the opposite of what you intended them to be.
Please refer back to my example about the forest a few posts above; when you begin to control things, everything is connected so you end up having to control everything. which requires an enormous amount of resources and end up costing everything. On top of making everyone much, much poorer.
Also these types of rules could work in a world without countries, where everyone would have the same conditions in every countries.
Example of the control you can just begin to imagine as oppose to free market with limited control:
-Tax the rich too much and the incentive to stay here diminish greatly, will you create penalties to offset this risk? Will you force them to stay? how much will all this cost?
-Tax the rich too much and their capability and incentives to start new enterprises diminish greatly. Will you subsidize heavily to boost economy? How costly is this will be
-Tax the rich too much and the incentive for corruptions increase greatly. Will you police everyone all the time? Persecute them, sue them... How costly this will become?
Pat, I'm not claiming to be out to reinvent economics or anything, but I've barely begun with my economic views. The short form is that I see no excuse for a lot of what I see going on in businesses and governments today. Believe me, I'm a firm believer in power corrupting, because if I ever had the authority to act against all that I see wrong, I would be hell unleashed upon a lot of people.
I do ask that members who don't know me very well to read up on what I have posted about my recent tour of duty that spanned a good chunk of the middle east. I do admit to some anger issues, so if it seems like I'm angry at you, I'm probably just angry in general.
The short form is that I see no excuse for a lot of what I see going on in businesses and governments today.
I agree.
The trouble is that people see this, and believe that more control, more regulations etc... will fix these problems.
When these problems would often not exist with less controls.
Certain things must be controlled, like safety of the public, environment etc...
This control will cause enough problems, but control everything and the problems become unmanageable.
Hence the ridiculous size of most modern government.
The trouble is that people see this, and believe that more control, more regulations etc... will fix these problems.
When these problems would often not exist with less controls.
Certain things must be controlled, like safety of the public, environment etc...
This control will cause enough problems, but control everything and the problems become unmanageable.
Hence the ridiculous size of most modern government.
Some governments may be of "ridiculous size" but their effect is as nothing compared to the obscene size of some corporations. Even the US, despite a warped belief in the myth of the Marketplace, was forced into anti-trust laws and now we discover that the oil-rig explosion results may be linked to non-application of regulations. I am sure that the people at Enron were only too delighted that people whined about "big government" while failing to notice they were being robbed by "free enterprise".
Some governments may be of "ridiculous size" but their effect is as nothing compared to the obscene size of some corporations. Even the US, despite a warped belief in the myth of the Marketplace, was forced into anti-trust laws and now we discover that the oil-rig explosion results may be linked to non-application of regulations. I am sure that the people at Enron were only too delighted that people whined about "big government" while failing to notice they were being robbed by "free enterprise".
the government is hardly capable to manage themselves.
Don't you think that if the government was not so enormous, only focusing on a few areas like environment and protection of the public..., don't you think that thay would have been far more efficient at enforcing the rules and managing what they do really want to control?
the government is hardly capable to manage themselves.
Don't you think that if the government was not so enormous, only focusing on a few areas like environment and protection of the public..., don't you think that thay would have been far more efficient at enforcing the rules and managing what they do really want to control?
Not, alas, when overweening corporations and the obscenely wealthy act outwith the law, oppress the poor, steal resources and corrupt those meant to be our guardians.
Not, alas, when overweening corporations and the obscenely wealthy act outwith the law, oppress the poor, steal resources and corrupt those meant to be our guardians.
clearly if your attention is on a thousand different thiefs, it will be harder to catch them all in the act.
If you have only two thief to watch, they are not going to get away with anything.
This was my point.
Your are mixing all kind of ingredients in a pot (outwith the law, oppress the poor, steal resources) and stirring them, so it become impossible to make sense of anything.
It help to keep things simple and focused to make sense of things.
the government is hardly capable to manage themselves.
Don't you think that if the government was not so enormous, only focusing on a few areas like environment and protection of the public..., don't you think that thay would have been far more efficient at enforcing the rules and managing what they do really want to control?
To keep it simple, Pat: No, I don't think that your own simplification of the role of government would do the job better, because I suspect that your definition of "protection of the public" does not go far enough.
the government is hardly capable to manage themselves.
Don't you think that if the government was not so enormous, only focusing on a few areas like environment and protection of the public..., don't you think that thay would have been far more efficient at enforcing the rules and managing what they do really want to control?
What do you suspect my definition of "protection of the public" to be like?
Let me, rather, say what I suspect is not within your definition:
+ sumptuary laws and a redistributive taxation policy;
+ public ownership of gas, coal, steel, banks, oil, and all other fundamental resources;
+ public ownership of land;
+ a universal living wage to all inhabitants;
+ the suffrage extended world-wide.
But, of course, I also have a few ideas about the structure of a government that could deliver these. As we are, after all, only weaving our opinions so a bit of "I only wish it could be so" as a desired outcome cannot do us any harm, I think.
Civilizations rise and fall-- like all systems or organisms they come into existence and go out of existence. The interplay of factors governing that process is extremely complex and overwhelming, beyond the control of any individual and even beyond the possibility of thorough understanding. That some politician or some political agenda matters a whole lot is a delusion.
We have no choice but to accept that the world around us might just go to hell. Now that's impermance for you, the way Buddah must have meant it, the real hard-core stuff. Has anyone learned to live with it? I haven't (without going into panic and then just distracting myself as much as I can) so if someone has, do share some words of wisdom.
PS.I hate to be a pessimist but when it comes to society/humanity I just cannot help it. I suppose ultimately we're stuck with eating the famous Zen strawberry (http://www.zenstrawberry.com):
A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him. Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it tasted!
Comments
What exactly do you mean by questioning my "good faith in this thread"?
Well, at least you're open and upfront about your opinion of sweatshops. Personally, I can't support a system that views sweatshops and child labour as a necessary evil because I find it ethically abhorrent.
Also, I'd argue that it doesn't necessarily have to be necessary stage of development. Perhaps it does in the context of capitalism, but we can at least try to change our system of production and distribution in ways that make sweatshops unnecessary.
And I would argue that capitalism leads to the same, especially in regard to social relations.
I specified that I believed the human right chart should be enforced but you did included "child labour" in this sentence in what seem to be an effort to embellish your points...
which could mean you are craving "being right" or "having" the right opinion to make yourself feel good instead of wanting to share opinions and see other points of view...
Hence me questioning your good faith
and having the same development in the sweetshop countries?
how?
That's because sweatshops have traditionally involved child labour. I suppose it's possible to have sweatshops that don't exploit child labour, but many do and the people who run them often don't give two shits about "human rights." Do you think China gives a shit about human rights when they persecute people for their religious beliefs, and even execute them and sell their organs? How much more do you think they care about human rights in their sweatshops?
The abuses that occur in these places are often appalling, e.g., horrible working conditions, locking people in, not paying for overtime or even minimum wage, etc. Child labour in the context of sweatshops is certainly not an embellishment, although I wish it were.
By treating them as human being instead of commodities, for one.
Most European countries do not have such issues. In Australia, things have generally always been fine.
The USA needs to follow other Western nations, where free enterprise and govt regulation have worked fine together, in wise balance.
The Buddha promoted free enterprise. But also promoted the role of govt in regulating the economy.
You know the sutras far better than I do, DD. Can you provide references.
And did he oppose slavery? After all, 'market forces' operate within that market, too, and may have been among the drivers that led to its partial abolition.
And how does "average inheritance" get calculated? By whom? In theory it's a nice idea but putting it into practise would be an entirely different (and IMO totally untenable) story.
Respectfully,
Raven
While I respect your belief in that, I find that whole process totally immoral. I personally have no problem with sharing what I have with those who need it, but I am totally against forcefully taking people's inheritance because you (the collective you) think it can be used in a better way. According to the way you see it, I could amass a fortune via a windfall (for example, Lotto - if I gambled (I don't)) and then someone would come in when I died and tell my daughter she could only have x amount because anything above average would be unfair.
I'm sorry I find the whole idea very distasteful. Now, granted I am not an American so I am no expert on American policies. But, the way I see it, there are other ways to improve education and other important issues. In my opinion, NASA are squandering money on sending probes to Mars when that money could be redirected to welfare and education. The way I see it, what's the point in searching out new worlds when you can't look after the one you have at the moment?
Please understand I am not attacking you, I am putting forward an alternative (that may or may not be workable as once again, I am not an American and that well versed in American politics) that I believe would be better than what you have suggested. But also, I stress this is just my opinion.
Respectfully,
Raven
Your intentions are good, but the result of these types of rules is the opposite of what you intended them to be.
Please refer back to my example about the forest a few posts above; when you begin to control things, everything is connected so you end up having to control everything. which requires an enormous amount of resources and end up costing everything. On top of making everyone much, much poorer.
Also these types of rules could work in a world without countries, where everyone would have the same conditions in every countries.
Example of the control you can just begin to imagine as oppose to free market with limited control:
-Tax the rich too much and the incentive to stay here diminish greatly, will you create penalties to offset this risk? Will you force them to stay? how much will all this cost?
-Tax the rich too much and their capability and incentives to start new enterprises diminish greatly. Will you subsidize heavily to boost economy? How costly is this will be
-Tax the rich too much and the incentive for corruptions increase greatly. Will you police everyone all the time? Persecute them, sue them... How costly this will become?
etc etc etc...
I do ask that members who don't know me very well to read up on what I have posted about my recent tour of duty that spanned a good chunk of the middle east. I do admit to some anger issues, so if it seems like I'm angry at you, I'm probably just angry in general.
The trouble is that people see this, and believe that more control, more regulations etc... will fix these problems.
When these problems would often not exist with less controls.
Certain things must be controlled, like safety of the public, environment etc...
This control will cause enough problems, but control everything and the problems become unmanageable.
Hence the ridiculous size of most modern government.
Some governments may be of "ridiculous size" but their effect is as nothing compared to the obscene size of some corporations. Even the US, despite a warped belief in the myth of the Marketplace, was forced into anti-trust laws and now we discover that the oil-rig explosion results may be linked to non-application of regulations. I am sure that the people at Enron were only too delighted that people whined about "big government" while failing to notice they were being robbed by "free enterprise".
Don't you think that if the government was not so enormous, only focusing on a few areas like environment and protection of the public..., don't you think that thay would have been far more efficient at enforcing the rules and managing what they do really want to control?
Not, alas, when overweening corporations and the obscenely wealthy act outwith the law, oppress the poor, steal resources and corrupt those meant to be our guardians.
If you have only two thief to watch, they are not going to get away with anything.
This was my point.
Your are mixing all kind of ingredients in a pot (outwith the law, oppress the poor, steal resources) and stirring them, so it become impossible to make sense of anything.
It help to keep things simple and focused to make sense of things.
To keep it simple, Pat: No, I don't think that your own simplification of the role of government would do the job better, because I suspect that your definition of "protection of the public" does not go far enough.
Let me, rather, say what I suspect is not within your definition:
+ sumptuary laws and a redistributive taxation policy;
+ public ownership of gas, coal, steel, banks, oil, and all other fundamental resources;
+ public ownership of land;
+ a universal living wage to all inhabitants;
+ the suffrage extended world-wide.
But, of course, I also have a few ideas about the structure of a government that could deliver these. As we are, after all, only weaving our opinions so a bit of "I only wish it could be so" as a desired outcome cannot do us any harm, I think.
We have no choice but to accept that the world around us might just go to hell. Now that's impermance for you, the way Buddah must have meant it, the real hard-core stuff. Has anyone learned to live with it? I haven't (without going into panic and then just distracting myself as much as I can) so if someone has, do share some words of wisdom.