NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.

I think there aren't too many moderate capitalists who post in economic threads on this forum.

I guess I'm an economic moderate (I prefer to think of myself as a recovering former Communist), but I don't waste my time in debate. Neither extreme is even listening.

Free trade is the only way to go although it needs some fundemental restrictions(monopolies, minimum wage, labor laws, etc.) state owned economy is flawed especially quota economies. the notion of banning pivate property is insane and in my eyes a restriction of individual rights

I pretty frequently express my support for those issues. I see the centralized government as a necessary safety and regulatory net for the failures of the market. I do support progressive taxation, some welfare, and environmental and safety regulations on industry.

At the same time that I support free trade and free markets along with the minimization of government involvement in economic decisionmaking. In fact, I see no conflict between free markets and a government safety net.

I pretty frequently express my support for those issues. I see the centralized government as a necessary safety and regulatory net for the failures of the market. I do support progressive taxation, some welfare, and environmental and safety regulations on industry.

At the same time that I support free trade and free markets along with the minimization of government involvement in economic decisionmaking. In fact, I see no conflict between free markets and a government safety net.
You're one of the few exceptions. Everybody else seems to be an absolutist. Which seems weird to me. Usually, on most issues, most people don't really care, most of the rest have a moderate opinion, and only a few are hardcore enough to actually identify with an extreme.
Maybe it's just the internets.
I guess I'm an economic moderate (I prefer to think of myself as a recovering former Communist), but I don't waste my time in debate. Neither extreme is even listening.
I'm a recovering libertarian. True about extremists not listening. Wouldn't be extremists if they did.

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.
Present.

Although the socialists here would probably say my policies weren't nearly enough. Put it like this, if you "fall" through the cracks I'd help you. But if you jump through them, you're on your own.

I'd regulate business, but not much. Even the best car needs a set of brakes, though.

The flat tax is a pile of baloney and I've been broke enough to see that. However I'd love to find a way to lower the highest tax level, which I think is too high.

I don't waste my time in debate. Neither extreme is even listening.I agree. It'd only raise my blood pressure.

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.

Because moderates don't debate. By definition, they have an acceptable, centrist, mostly neutral position that includes some agreement with both sides - the precise kind of people who don't go to rhetorical war to defend their ideological strongholds, don't have an axe to grind about the issue, and don't have any avowed ultimate nemesis like pinko commies or capitalist pigs to struggle against.

Hm. Well, I'd have to say that there's a difference between not listening and disagreeing...but I probably shouldn't be posting in this thread, anyway.

Moderate Capitalists Unite!!! We're only moderately exploiting the proletariat :p

I'd say I am actually quite moderate state owned business is a silly idea for the present at least though I do support income tax and (with good funding) public services like healthcare and busses

Though I must say I’m rather too left and down to be a hardcore moderate capitalist too high taxes and civil freedoms being the only real reasons

Hm. Well, I'd have to say that there's a difference between not listening and disagreeing...but I probably shouldn't be posting in this thread, anyway.

Lol. Very true. I have no right to talk, though - the same applies to me.

BTW, sorry I haven't yet replied on the free trade thread. I was out of town and contact with the Internet for a week.

I see the centralized government as a necessary safety and regulatory net for the failures of the market. I do support progressive taxation, some welfare, and environmental and safety regulations on industry.

1.) You assume that Government Failures are of a less extreme or costful nature than Market Failures. You're commiting what we call the "Nirvana Fallacy" by comparing perfect gov't against an imperfect market. :rolleyes:

2.) Why progressive taxation? You penalize those that try and succeed.

3.) Welfare ... should be left up to private charities, not the government.

Moderate Capitalists Unite!!! We're only moderately exploiting the proletariat :p
No one put a gun to your head and told you where to work... Exploit ... *dies laughing*

It's the same reason Agonstics typically don't get involved in all those "religion" flamewars, we're too sensible for everyone's liking. :p

Well, I can't really see what a moderate capitalist would say in an argument. "Let's lower taxes!... or, well, maybe not. I don't know. What do you think? Maybe, now that I think of it, we should raise them instead. We could use a few subsidies in steel... but people don't like taxes... Come to think of it, I'm not sure, I'll come back later after I take another look at things..." It's not much to propel one into an argument and keep in it, so I suppose that it wouldn't make a big ripple in a debate.

I, myself, am most certainly an extremist in economics (comes with being Austrian), and proud of it. As a general rule, most of you are Marxists to me, just some are more in denial than others. :D

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.
That's where I am. Something you have to realize is that in many of those "discussions," advocating any sort of regulation gets you tossed into the socialist category. I just don't care enough to correct them.

Moderate Capitalists Unite!!! We're only moderately exploiting the proletariat :p

Hey, I beleive in the semi-dictatorship of the proletariat!

<.<

We call that democracy. :p

I, myself, am most certainly an extremist in economics (comes with being Austrian), and proud of it. As a general rule, most of you are Marxists to me, just some are more in denial than others. :D

So I'm not alone .... Nice to know there's more than one reader of Von Mises and Hayek out there.

So I'm not alone .... Nice to know there's more than one reader of Von Mises and Hayek out there.

And it's nice to know, judging from your sig, that there's more than one Austrian who isn't an anarcho-capitalist. :D

I may be very conservative....but I'm pretty capitalist.....

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.

We're out here. We're just not very extreme about being moderate.

Hmmmm. . . if only we could figure out a way to make people pay to post in our threads . . .

Capitalism is the proven system to use if you want to help the most people.

I think there aren't too many moderate capitalists who post in economic threads on this forum.
I would have to agree with this. You'd be arguing both against both sides which would be tough to do.

Capitalism is the proven system to use if you want to help the most people.
Bah. Regardless of whether I agree with you or not, that is totally unfounded and you're doing nothing more than quacking out what other people preach. Essentially the entire world is capitalist. But a third of the world lives on less than $400 a year. Besides that, you haven't defined "help". If you mean get rich, perhaps so. But if you actually mean help, then socialized medicine is a must.

We're out here. We're just not very extreme about being moderate.
Someone should take a shot at it.

Bah. Regardless of whether I agree with you or not, that is totally unfounded and you're doing nothing more than quacking out what other people preach. Essentially the entire world is capitalist. But a third of the world lives on less than $400 a year. Besides that, you haven't defined "help". If you mean get rich, perhaps so. But if you actually mean help, then socialized medicine is a must.

Last night's guest on the Colbert Report (hardly a good source, normally, but in this case...) spoke to this issue. Part of the problem is that we have the conservative/capitalist half of the right deal: Free trade and globalization, but that we need to also provide reforms and aid at the same time.

And if you want to talk about economic hellholes, I beleive I have some people in North Korea who could tell you about those (assuming, of course, that they had the free speech with which to do it), and millions upon millions of dead from starvation in communist "paradises" Russia and China.

Someone should take a shot at it.

[Froth at Mouth] All those damn pinko commie liberals and all those damn neo-nazi fascist conservatives have got it all wrong. Why even argue the extremes of the 'fringes' of the political spectrum? Centrism has been proven time and again to be the system which not only seems to provide a dynamic economy, but a social safety net and a degree of freedom and safety hitherto unrealized! Enough with the looney ideologues that threaten to drag our great moderate capitalist democracies (that we fought two world wars to protect; defeating those far right fascist types) into the political wilderness.

It's time to declare an extreme moderation! Anyone proposing either complete lassez-faire economics or state-controlled totalitarianism, or *gasp* leaderless Anarchism should be rounded up, put into concentration camps, and be forced to play three legged races with their ideologically opposed counterparts. It'll be summer camp for ideologues! Force the individualists to work in team events, and the collectivists to work independantly! Proper reindoctrination is a must!

You know why we 'won' the cold war?! It wasn't 'capitalism', it wasn't 'freedom', it was hampered economics baby! That's right, a mix of capitalism with the right to collectively bargain and strike. Damn soviets couldn't compete with our Centrist beliefs! But even now, the Uber-Capitalists want to take away your right to strike, your minimum wage, and your state-sponsored 'Hockey Night in Canada' (sorry, couldn't resist)! They must be moderated!!

I call for all those moderate capitalists out there, to speak your mind! Let the loonies know that it's YOU that cast the deciding vote, the ones that the political establishment covets. It's our Moderate way of life that keeps things sane! Rise up my moderate brothers and sisters! Down with extremism! Up with common sense economics! Razzle-frazzle-frazzit!! galskreho= ....[/Froth at the Mouth]

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.
Myself, I'd settle for a few capitalists who understand that markets are made up of PEOPLE, and are not independent thinking creatures. "The market" isn't going to "correct" things all by itself. "The market" isn't going to be any better, any more fair, or any more practical than the people who compose it.

All those damn pinko commie liberals and all those damn neo-nazi fascist conservatives have got it all wrong....
Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!
To the barricades!

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.

I'm probably a moderate capitalist. I'm for capitalism, free trade and things, but I do (as you say) think that businesses need to be restricted in certain ways to protect the environment, workers rights and to be sure of fair wages and things.

[Froth at Mouth] All those damn pinko commie liberals and all those damn neo-nazi fascist conservatives have got it all wrong. Why even argue the extremes of the 'fringes' of the political spectrum? Centrism has been proven time and again to be the system which not only seems to provide a dynamic economy, but a social safety net and a degree of freedom and safety hitherto unrealized! Enough with the looney ideologues that threaten to drag our great moderate capitalist democracies (that we fought two world wars to protect; defeating those far right fascist types) into the political wilderness.

It's time to declare an extreme moderation! Anyone proposing either complete lassez-faire economics or state-controlled totalitarianism, or *gasp* leaderless Anarchism should be rounded up, put into concentration camps, and be forced to play three legged races with their ideologically opposed counterparts. It'll be summer camp for ideologues! Force the individualists to work in team events, and the collectivists to work independantly! Proper reindoctrination is a must!

You know why we 'won' the cold war?! It wasn't 'capitalism', it wasn't 'freedom', it was hampered economics baby! That's right, a mix of capitalism with the right to collectively bargain and strike. Damn soviets couldn't compete with our Centrist beliefs! But even now, the Uber-Capitalists want to take away your right to strike, your minimum wage, and your state-sponsored 'Hockey Night in Canada' (sorry, couldn't resist)! They must be moderated!!

I call for all those moderate capitalists out there, to speak your mind! Let the loonies know that it's YOU that cast the deciding vote, the ones that the political establishment covets. It's our Moderate way of life that keeps things sane! Rise up my moderate brothers and sisters! Down with extremism! Up with common sense economics! Razzle-frazzle-frazzit!! galskreho= ....[/Froth at the Mouth]
That is probably the longest post I've read without getting too bored to continue part way through. Congrats.

I took the liberty of highlighting my favorite part.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks?
Me, and most people on this continent.

Fergi America']The flat tax is a pile of baloney and I've been broke enough to see that. However I'd love to find a way to lower the highest tax level, which I think is too high.
What country do you live in?

No one put a gun to your head and told you where to work... Exploit ... *dies laughing*
Where did this phrase come from? It seems to be the #1 favourite of extreme libertarians.

I may be very conservative....but I'm pretty capitalist.....
This is supposed to be unusual?

Capitalism is the proven system to use if you want to help the most people.
Moderate capitalism, yes. Extreme capitalism and socialism have always failed.

Myself, I'd settle for a few capitalists who understand that markets are made up of PEOPLE, and are not independent thinking creatures. "The market" isn't going to "correct" things all by itself. "The market" isn't going to be any better, any more fair, or any more practical than the people who compose it.
Thank God for someone who doesn't have faith in this "invisible hand" religion.

Thank God for someone who doesn't have faith in this "invisible hand" religion.
It does often sound as though certain capitalists invoke the divine when they speak of The Market. The Market will correct it! The Market will not permit injustice! The Market is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good entity, which will not suffer aught but the purest of capitalist paradise! If only we sinful humans would stop trying to hinder the will of The Market in our foolishness!

It does often sound as though certain capitalists invoke the divine when they speak of The Market. The Market will correct it! The Market will not permit injustice! The Market is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good entity, which will not suffer aught but the purest of capitalist paradise! If only we sinful humans would stop trying to hinder the will of The Market in our foolishness!

I agree. Some pure Market capitalists sound just as fanatical as diehard Marxists. Disagreeing with them means you haven't been properly 'educated'.

That is probably the longest post I've read without getting too bored to continue part way through. Congrats.

I took the liberty of highlighting my favorite part.

Well it came from my extremely moderate little heart. I meant every centrist word. Really, what could be more entertaining than watching a three-legged race with Michael Moore tied to Pat Robertson?

Well it came from my extremely moderate little heart. I meant every centrist word. Really, what could be more entertaining than watching a three-legged race with Michael Moore tied to Pat Robertson? You win the thread.

You win the thread.
QFT

You win the thread.

Yay! *Does Mikish Dance*

Extreme, laissez-faire capitalism was tried in the US from roughly the 1880s to the 1930s. In the end, it didn't work.

The more extreme examples of socialised capitalism have also failed.

The only reasonable thing to support is moderate capitalism - simply because it's the only economic model that actually works.

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.

We exist. But many of us are still considered socialists because we believe that regulation is important. Corporations do not have the best interests of the community at heart - their concerns are for the profit of their shareholders. They have no choice; it's illegal for them to behave in any other way. But that means regulations need to be in place to ensure that the corporations don't offload costs (such as environmental damage, or safety issues) onto the rest of the community. I also believe that there is a role for crown corporations and non-profit organizations to play.

But saying those things usually gets me labelled as a socialist. Which I don't mind, but it's not really accurate.

Lol. Very true. I have no right to talk, though - the same applies to me.

BTW, sorry I haven't yet replied on the free trade thread. I was out of town and contact with the Internet for a week.No problem, take your time. I know how it is.

No one put a gun to your head and told you where to work... Exploit ... *dies laughing*Did someone put a gun to your head and tell you to live in a country that taxes you exhorbitantly?

[Froth at Mouth] /snipLol. Hilarious.

Myself, I'd settle for a few capitalists who understand that markets are made up of PEOPLE, and are not independent thinking creatures. "The market" isn't going to "correct" things all by itself. "The market" isn't going to be any better, any more fair, or any more practical than the people who compose it.I always did find that to be odd the idea that people with power in governments can't be trusted, but people with power in markets can be.

Yay! *Does Mikish Dance*Uh oh, a straight Canadian male is dancing. <Moves away from the thrashing of limbs.>

I always did find that to be odd the idea that people with power in governments can't be trusted, but people with power in markets can be.

In many, in fact most, cases they can be trusted but there have to be laws to make sure that those who do break the law are punished. The market works better than any other mechanism at allocating goods and srvices, but it does require regulations to prevent criminals from distorting the market or causing it to fail through illegal action.

In many, in fact most, cases they can be trusted but there have to be laws to make sure that those who do break the law are punished. The market works better than any other mechanism at allocating goods and srvices, but it does require regulations to prevent criminals from distorting the market or causing it to fail through illegal action.I don't have a particular disagreement with this, I just wanted to point out that there are people who believe that there doesn't need to be any regulation other than the market regulating itself.

I don't have a particular disagreement with this, I just wanted to point out that there are people who believe that there doesn't need to be any regulation other than the market regulating itself.

That's ridiculous, honestly...I really find it hard to even convince oneself that it's possible for markets to function without regulation. History has pretty clearly shown that to be a failure.

There's a difference between the perfect markets of economic theory and the real world, where people do make decisions that are irrational and they do try to decieve the market for personal gain, and in the real world's markets there is a lag in information (due to the fact that communications and transportation aren't instantaneous) that can be exploited for personal gain.

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.
Yeah, that would be me. I just don't debate about it too much. What's the point? I'm right, everyone who disagrees with me on this subject is wrong.

Uh oh, a straight Canadian male is dancing. <Moves away from the thrashing of limbs.>

I'll have you know, that in some circles, I've had cheers and ovations for those thrashing limbs.

Granted, it was a drunken circle, but cheers and ovations nonetheless.

(The incriminating photos were issued much later.)

That's ridiculous, honestly...I really find it hard to even convince oneself that it's possible for markets to function without regulation. History has pretty clearly shown that to be a failure.

There's a difference between the perfect markets of economic theory and the real world, where people do make decisions that are irrational and they do try to decieve the market for personal gain, You're certainly more moderate than your political compass score would suggest ;)

and in the real world's markets there is a lag in information (due to the fact that communications and transportation aren't instantaneous) that can be exploited for personal gain.Yes, there are certain types of stock speculation that rely specifically on this lag in information, for instance.

I'll have you know, that in some circles, I've had cheers and ovations for those thrashing limbs.

Granted, it was a drunken circle, but cheers and ovations nonetheless.

(The incriminating photos were issued much later.)It's okay, if everyone was drunk, they were probably fairly blurry...perhaps only one or two photos were actually of you and not just your ear or something.

It's okay, if everyone was drunk, they were probably fairly blurry...perhaps only one or two photos were actually of you and not just your ear or something.

Well, actually, it was a wedding, and as the eldest son who was still a bachelor, I was required to dance in my socks to Cotton-Eye Joe.

We're not hicks. Really. They just sent a pretty red-head over with Zambucha and Ouzzo and several months later I have incriminating dance photos sent to me. It was fun. But I plan to be married before I have to go through that again!

Well, actually, it was a wedding, and as the eldest son who was still a bachelor, I was required to dance in my socks to Cotton-Eye Joe.

We're not hicks. Really. They just sent a pretty red-head over with Zambucha and Ouzzo and several months later I have incriminating dance photos sent to me. It was fun. But I plan to be married before I have to go through that again!What kind of weird family tradition is that?

I don't have a particular disagreement with this, I just wanted to point out that there are people who believe that there doesn't need to be any regulation other than the market regulating itself.
Those are the guys who are planning on breaking all the rules in the first place. They'd just like the penalties removed.

I'm kind of an authoritarian when it comes to businesses. I'm all for profit, but why not stick an elected government in charge of the big retailers? That way, the profits fund public services, so that our purchasing is in effect our taxation.

What kind of weird family tradition is that?

French Canadian? Of course, it's the side of my family I barely know, and it could have all been a ruse just to make an ass of myself. The French are like that.

It may not have been done before, but I'll make sure some other poor bastard keeps the tradition up!

I'm kind of an authoritarian when it comes to businesses. I'm all for profit, but why not stick an elected government in charge of the big retailers? That way, the profits fund public services, so that our purchasing is in effect our taxation.

Take away the 'elected' part, and you have the economics of fascism. Once that business partnership starts, elections are likely on the way out...

Government regulation has its limits. At a certain point they become counter productive in the extreme. For example, in the USA, there are millions of pages of regulations that costs people billions of dollars every year.

Take away the 'elected' part, and you have the economics of fascism. Once that business partnership starts, elections are likely on the way out...
The economics of fascism did not fail. For all we might say about the evils of Hitler and Mussolini in their national and social ideologies, they knew how to give people jobs, forge industries and make the trains run on time.

If we can combine those strengths with the social liberties of Proportionally Representative government, we might be on to something.

The economics of fascism did not fail. For all we might say about the evils of Hitler and Mussolini in their national and social ideologies, they knew how to give people jobs, forge industries and make the trains run on time.

If we can combine those strengths with the social liberties of Proportionally Representative government, we might be on to something.

The economics of fascism didn't really have time to fail. It was essentially Keynesian economics with a bludgeon; Defecit spending to make the social spending of the 60's seem tame by comparison. Sooner or later they would have had to pay the bill. Unless they just stole the funds from other sources...

But you're right on the government being able to create initiatives to put people to work. The fascists just had ugly ulterior motives.

You're certainly more moderate than your political compass score would suggest ;)

The problem with the PC is that a lot of questions are worded in a way that doesn't really fit a "moderate" answer, so I end up answering it in a way that moves my score right even though my answer would actually be more moderate.

Yes, there are certain types of stock speculation that rely specifically on this lag in information, for instance..

And most (if not all) of them are illegal; without regulation, those things could happen and companies could be unfairly ruined by speculation that shouldn't be possible in a functioning, efficient market.

Capitalism is the only economic system that works.

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

Some of us are both.

Some of us are both.



So as a libertarian you no doubt believe that I should be able to keep my money that I earn.

The problem with the PC is that a lot of questions are worded in a way that doesn't really fit a "moderate" answer, so I end up answering it in a way that moves my score right even though my answer would actually be more moderate.Ah, I see. Yeah, there's someone else on here who had a similar problem.

And most (if not all) of them are illegal; without regulation, those things could happen and companies could be unfairly ruined by speculation that shouldn't be possible in a functioning, efficient market.I agree; I wonder how a person who believes the market should be unregulated would respond to this.

So as a libertarian you no doubt believe that I should be able to keep my money that I earn.

What I meant was that there isn't just a choice between libertarianism and socialism. Libertarianism is authority issue, socialism is an economic issue. One can be both at once.

The economics of fascism didn't really have time to fail. It was essentially Keynesian economics with a bludgeon; Defecit spending to make the social spending of the 60's seem tame by comparison. Sooner or later they would have had to pay the bill. Unless they just stole the funds from other sources....

And that's why military expansion was so important to fascism; they needed raw materials and money to fund their economy and the massive deficit spending of the central government, and the easiest way to do it was to use that well-funded military

It's actually a lot like the imperial system of the Roman Empire; fascism works great when money is flowing in to the economy from conquests and military spending, but it begins to stagnate and decline once the wars end and the flow of plunder and raw materials stops. Fascism simply couldn't function without conquests or sources of fresh money and raw materials.

What I meant was that there isn't just a choice between libertarianism and socialism. Libertarianism is authority issue, socialism is an economic issue. One can be both at once.


Not so. How can you enforce socialism without removing a person's liberty to keep their own property?

And that's why military expansion was so important to fascism; they needed raw materials and money to fund their economy and the massive deficit spending of the central government, and the easiest way to do it was to use that well-funded military

It's actually a lot like the imperial system of the Roman Empire; fascism works great when money is flowing in to the economy from conquests and military spending, but it begins to stagnate and decline once the wars end and the flow of plunder and raw materials stops. Fascism simply couldn't function without conquests or sources of fresh money and raw materials.

An economy cannot function without sources of fresh money and raw materials.

An economy cannot function without sources of fresh money and raw materials.

Yes, but in an ordinary capitalist economy we get those goods from private investment and trade, and the amounts of them are allocated by the market. I'm talking about mercantilist-style influxes of goods and money as is the case with fascism.

Under fascism, the government adopts a policy of autarky and has huge control over business decisions, and there is no real market to properly allocate raw materials. The result is that shortages will develop and cripple the economy unless it is constantly expanding through conquest and forced collection of goods.

Not so. How can you enforce socialism without removing a person's liberty to keep their own property?But not creating a right to property in the first place.

Extreme, laissez-faire capitalism was tried in the US from roughly the 1880s to the 1930s. In the end, it didn't work.

Quite the opposite, the gilded age had some of the most abhorrent examples of government intervention in economy that had ever existed. The federal government provided funds, seized land, and even sent troops to see to the corporatists demands. It was anything but Laissez-Faire.

Not so. How can you enforce socialism without removing a person's liberty to keep their own property?

Here we go again. People don't have the right to infringe on the rights of others. Private property rights put certain people in a position of power over non-property owners. So, if libertarianism is held to be the maximization of freedom, freedom can only exist with equality. Inequality, created by the right of private property (which gives a property owner the right to the value of another's labor) denies freedom because it gives more rights to one group of people than another. Libertarian socialism is not inherently contradictory.

Here we go again. People don't have the right to infringe on the rights of others. Private property rights put certain people in a position of power over non-property owners. So, if libertarianism is held to be the maximization of freedom, freedom can only exist with equality. Inequality, created by the right of private property (which gives a property owner the right to the value of another's labor) denies freedom because it gives more rights to one group of people than another. Libertarian socialism is not inherently contradictory.

There can be no true equality without purposely handicapping those who are physically and mentally gifted. If there were no property rights, I cannot see any society (I didnt say govt) functioning. I think your example would end with the physically gifted siezing all the property they wanted.

The current state of affairs is so far removed from any consistent economic philosophy that those who more or less agree with it(usually conservatives or people with little interest or understanding of the issues) have no firm ground to stand on other than the weight of their own opinions or an appeal to conservatism. They're either not interested, or have found themselves unable to win in debates and they don't wish to offend people by continuing to argue.

Here we go again. People don't have the right to infringe on the rights of others. Private property rights put certain people in a position of power over non-property owners. So, if libertarianism is held to be the maximization of freedom, freedom can only exist with equality. Inequality, created by the right of private property (which gives a property owner the right to the value of another's labor) denies freedom because it gives more rights to one group of people than another. Libertarian socialism is not inherently contradictory.

But isn't taking away private property infringing on the rights of the property owner? Private property is a pretty well-established concept in the history of the world economy, so I don't really see why its existence is not as justified as other rights like freedom of speech, sexual freedoms, freedom of religion or anything else. All rights infringe on the rights of others, because there are people who believe that you don't deserve to hold that right and so by allowing it you force that concept on them even though they don't accept it.

There's a massive amount of evidence throughout history that shows allowing private property enables society to provide the greatest amount of freedom and greatest economic opportunity to the greatest number, so simple utilitarian analysis says that it's best to allow people to own private property.

It does often sound as though certain capitalists invoke the divine when they speak of The Market. The Market will correct it! The Market will not permit injustice! The Market is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good entity, which will not suffer aught but the purest of capitalist paradise! If only we sinful humans would stop trying to hinder the will of The Market in our foolishness!
Like with this oil dilemma. I can’t stand it when someone says that “the market” will take care of the problem. It will be people that solve the problem. The market is just the means to distribute the solution.

Like with this oil dilemma. I can’t stand it when someone says that “the market” will take care of the problem. It will be people that solve the problem. The market is just the means to distribute the solution.

That's true. People develop the solutions, and the market is the force that brings those solutions to the customers. At both ends, it's people that solve the problem with the market connecting them to make the solutions work.

All the market does is tell the researchers or companies what people want, how much they want, and how much it will have to cost in order for them to buy it (or not buy it if that's what is wanted).

That's true. People develop the solutions, and the market is the force that brings those solutions to the customers. At both ends, it's people that solve the problem with the market connecting them to make the solutions work.

All the market does is tell the researchers or companies what people want, how much they want, and how much it will have to cost in order for them to buy it (or not buy it if that's what is wanted).
Any idea where the whole "market worship" thing originated?

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.

Hey that's about me :)

Except that, I would never agree about progressive income taxation. That's a root of evil and illegal economy. Regressive income taxes are the way to go! Don't we want to encourage people earn more rather than less, or what?!

Hey that's about me :)

Except that, I would never agree about progressive income taxation. That's a root of evil and illegal economy. Regressive income taxes are the way to go! Don't we want to encourage people earn more rather than less, or what?!There isn't anything inherently better about people earning more rather than less.

But isn't taking away private property infringing on the rights of the property owner? Private property is a pretty well-established concept in the history of the world economy, so I don't really see why its existence is not as justified as other rights like freedom of speech, sexual freedoms, freedom of religion or anything else. All rights infringe on the rights of others, because there are people who believe that you don't deserve to hold that right and so by allowing it you force that concept on them even though they don't accept it.

There's a massive amount of evidence throughout history that shows allowing private property enables society to provide the greatest amount of freedom and greatest economic opportunity to the greatest number, so simple utilitarian analysis says that it's best to allow people to own private property.

Is taking away the stolen items of a theif infringing on his/her rights? No it isn't, because is is ill gotten. I must draw the distinction between personnel possessions and property. Property rights primarily involve the right of a minority to own productive property, and to gain all of the surplus value made by wage laborers.

There have been plenty of societies that were just and free that didn't have the concept of private property. Look at American indians. Their society was completely communal, and was free of most of the barbarities found in European culture. Just because there has never been a modern, industrial society that has existed without the right to private property in a truly communal system doesn't mean that such a society is impossible. It rather means that no one has had the ability to try that paradigm, either through oppossing action by the powerful in society or through a lack of resources.

There isn't anything inherently better about people earning more rather than less.

Really?!
What about standard of living. You know, being better off, affording more and o on. I think it is inherently better. On one hand that's what governments say they are trying to do (raising wealthiness of citizens) on the other hand, I feel that it is better, if more people can live better.

Really?!
What about standard of living. You know, being better off, affording more and o on. I think it is inherently better. On one hand that's what governments say they are trying to do (raising wealthiness of citizens) on the other hand, I feel that it is better, if more people can live better.

One doesn't have to earn more to have an increased standard of living.

Any idea where the whole "market worship" thing originated?

I'd have to say pretty recently, in the 1990's. Some of it was a product of the stock market boom; when stocks were soaring and people were seeing their tech stocks soar 700% in one day or hearing analysts call for Qualcomm at $1,000 or Amazon at $500, people saw the market as a miraculous source of wealth that could turn a few dollars in to a few million by slapping a .com on your name and going to the IPO market.

The market became a panacea for all the world's problems; ironically, when the market began to act against people with the stock market collapse of 2000-2002 and the rise in commodities prices, people started to angrily attack it and call it the source of all our problems. Even the resurgence of price gouging is nothing new.

People said nothing when stock prices were soaring due to fake accounting and deception by analysts, but when oil prices started to rise something was immediately amiss...it was price gouging, not the market in action even though the fundamentals of oil are hundreds of times stronger than the fundamentals of Nasdaq 5000 were.

Really?!
What about standard of living. You know, being better off, affording more and o on. I think it is inherently better. On one hand that's what governments say they are trying to do (raising wealthiness of citizens) on the other hand, I feel that it is better, if more people can live better.Personally, my standard of living would be higher if I could live comfortably doing a job I loved than if I was rich but hated my job.

Hey that's about me :)
Sadly, it is not.
Except that, I would never agree about progressive income taxation. That's a root of evil and illegal economy. Regressive income taxes are the way to go! Don't we want to encourage people earn more rather than less, or what?!
That’s the kind of hyperbole that I just can’t stand, and while we're at it:
Look at American indians. Their society was completely communal, and was free of most of the barbarities found in European culture.
A big enough generalization to make me want to punch a baby.

One doesn't have to earn more to have an increased standard of living.


Could you please expand a little on this?! How does it happens?


Okay, I know that you does not have to spend much to have a great time (e.g., I spent last weekend on beach playing football and swimming, having great time, without any expenditure), but that requires effort and people in general do not invest that effort. They invest earned money. I also have lived in USSR, where everybody has supposedly equal standard of living and so on, but it was not too nice...
So?!

I'd have to say pretty recently, in the 1990's. Some of it was a product of the stock market boom; when stocks were soaring and people were seeing their tech stocks soar 700% in one day or hearing analysts call for Qualcomm at $1,000 or Amazon at $500, people saw the market as a miraculous source of wealth that could turn a few dollars in to a few million by slapping a .com on your name and going to the IPO market.

The market became a panacea for all the world's problems; ironically, when the market began to act against people with the stock market collapse of 2000-2002 and the rise in commodities prices, people started to angrily attack it and call it the source of all our problems. Even the resurgence of price gouging is nothing new.

People said nothing when stock prices were soaring due to fake accounting and deception by analysts, but when oil prices started to rise something was immediately amiss...it was price gouging, not the market in action even though the fundamentals of oil are hundreds of times stronger than the fundamentals of Nasdaq 5000 were.
Knew I could count on a great explanation from you.

Is taking away the stolen items of a theif infringing on his/her rights? No it isn't, because is is ill gotten. I must draw the distinction between personnel possessions and property. Property rights primarily involve the right of a minority to own productive property, and to gain all of the surplus value made by wage laborers.

It's not stolen; you pay for it and buy it in a mutual agreement from the other owner. Obviously, there have been times when that isn't the case, but those are so far and few between that they're not accurate.

The productive property is also mutual agreement; people want cars but don't want to make them themselves, so someone makes the investment in the property and facilities necessary to produce them and hires workers in exchange for a mutually agreed-upon wage. In turn, they sell the manufactured good for a profit and reinvest the profit in their business to increase production and accrue more property.

The entire process of production is 100% mutual agreement in a capitalist system. The surplus value of the wage earner is legitimately taken by the property owner because the wage earner agreed to work for that amount of money.

There have been plenty of societies that were just and free that didn't have the concept of private property. Look at American indians. Their society was completely communal, and was free of most of the barbarities found in European culture. Just because there has never been a modern, industrial society that has existed without the right to private property in a truly communal system doesn't mean that such a society is impossible. It rather means that no one has had the ability to try that paradigm, either through oppossing action by the powerful in society or through a lack of resources.

I believe that in the future such a system will be possible. Right now, however, the nature of industrial society requires private property and a market in order to function properly; capitalism isn't the summit of economic development but it is the summit for our current economic and technological level.

However, it does provide the incentives for the kind of technological and social development necessary for a socialist system so I think we'll eventually reach a level that can support a communal system efficiently while preserving our technological advancement and economic growth,

And that's why military expansion was so important to fascism; they needed raw materials and money to fund their economy and the massive deficit spending of the central government, and the easiest way to do it was to use that well-funded military

It's actually a lot like the imperial system of the Roman Empire; fascism works great when money is flowing in to the economy from conquests and military spending, but it begins to stagnate and decline once the wars end and the flow of plunder and raw materials stops. Fascism simply couldn't function without conquests or sources of fresh money and raw materials.

Precisely.

Fascism was essentially Industrialized Imperialism. I don't think it's an accident that the idea originated in Italy, and that it was a right-winged reaction to the employment problem. A big part of Right-Wing ideology, is a return to 'the old days', in this case a nostalgia amongst some in Italy for the 'glory days' of Rome. And that's part of what fascism was about, reliving the glory.

Fascists states were economic dynamos specifically because they put people to work, and got investor confidence going and money circulating in the economy again. But in addition to the major infrastructure programs created to drag these countries back into the 20th century included massive military buildups. The logical use of that military buildup was to attain the resources to keep the military producing more military.

If one of the major fascist powers were left over after world war II, they would be likely facing similar tough economic choices that Russia and China had to make. They would have to consider liberalizing their markets (because fascism, while having the appearance of a capitalist market, is not a 'free' market), or risk going the way of the USSR.

I believe that in the future such a system will be possible. Right now, however, the nature of industrial society requires private property and a market in order to function properly; capitalism isn't the summit of economic development but it is the summit for our current economic and technological level.

However, it does provide the incentives for the kind of technological and social development necessary for a socialist system so I think we'll eventually reach a level that can support a communal system efficiently while preserving our technological advancement and economic growth,

That's about the smartest thing I've ever heard said today. Someone supported capitalism without arbitrarily dismissing socialism. I disagree with your assumptions about the level of technology requried for communalism, but I certainly would rather you be right then certain other people.

Personally, my standard of living would be higher if I could live comfortably doing a job I loved than if I was rich but hated my job.

Well, I do not object that at all. That's of course basics, but on other levels:
Motivation and tax evasion. First progressive taxes does not motivate people (or companies) to earn more. Hence, people would prefer to be lazy rather than raising their standard of living, as you would agree that there is possibilities to earn more in every job that you like.
Secondly, progressive taxes motivates people to hide their income, e.g., to receive like minimum wage and the rest in undeclared cash. And at the end of the day everybody looses (less taxes for government and less social insurance for employee).

The jon that you love is of course obvious start. But then when you pay taxes from your wage there comes another story, that I suppose is more about what is the best for the state, you and society.

Could you please expand a little on this?! How does it happens?


Okay, I know that you does not have to spend much to have a great time (e.g., I spent last weekend on beach playing football and swimming, having great time, without any expenditure), but that requires effort and people in general do not invest that effort. They invest earned money. I also have lived in USSR, where everybody has supposedly equal standard of living and so on, but it was not too nice...
So?!

Let met put it this way. You have the choice of two jobs. You can make a millions dollars a year in Job 1, but you are chained to a desk all day during your shift, and are spontaneously whipped by your overseer for every slightest mishap. Job 2, you make 40,000 a year, have a job you love to do and that excites you creatively. You get 2 weeks paid vacation a year, and can work a flexible schedule. Which would you prefer?

I know this is an extreme example, but i think it illustrates the point between the difference between making money and liking your job.

An economy cannot function without sources of fresh money and raw materials.
Unless, as per the Consumerist State, that wealth is constantly being recycled.

This isn't the 1950's. We spend money, now, and with considerable frequency. If ultimately all money goes quickly from government-owned corporation to government-owned corporation, even if via the people it employs, there is no price paid, no loss made. All we get is public effort for free, and that is a pretty useful resource to have in abundance.

Let met put it this way. You have the choice of two jobs. You can make a millions dollars a year in Job 1, but you are chained to a desk all day during your shift, and are spontaneously whipped by your overseer for every slightest mishap. Job 2, you make 40,000 a year, have a job you love to do and that excites you creatively. You get 2 weeks paid vacation a year, and can work a flexible schedule. Which would you prefer?

I know this is an extreme example, but i think it illustrates the point between the difference between making money and liking your job.


As I explained above, of course, job that you love is first. But progressive taxation does not influence that, as well as standard of living.

I should add that you offer too good choices. I am currently full time financial analyst, earning approximately 6000 in US dollars per year. Which is quite good. And I like my job. But in general I would prefer that people would be encouraged to earn more (progressive income taxation does not force you to choose job that you does not like. nothing does) in the job you like.

Encouragement. Because people are lazy.

Well, I do not object that at all. That's of course basics, but on other levels:
Motivation and tax evasion. First progressive taxes does not motivate people (or companies) to earn more. Hence, people would prefer to be lazy rather than raising their standard of living, as you would agree that there is possibilities to earn more in every job that you like. If people prefer to be lazy, then their standard of living is higher by being lazy than by working, then their standard of living is higher then, as standard of living doesn't refer solely to income.

Secondly, progressive taxes motivates people to hide their income, e.g., to receive like minimum wage and the rest in undeclared cash. And at the end of the day everybody looses (less taxes for government and less social insurance for employee). Taxation itself motivates people to hide their income.

The jon that you love is of course obvious start. But then when you pay taxes from your wage there comes another story, that I suppose is more about what is the best for the state, you and society.I think what's best for everyone is everyone doing the jobs that they like to do, or at the very least the biggest number of people.

If people prefer to be lazy, then their standard of living is higher by being lazy than by working, then their standard of living is higher then, as standard of living doesn't refer solely to income.


In perfect world you would be right. But people are also short sighted. I meand nobody should be forced to do job that he does not like or forced to be industrious. But I think that encouragement in direction of everybody earning more money is beneficial for society and economy. For the reason that more income quite seriously reflects in higher standard of living.


Taxation itself motivates people to hide their income.

Right. But different forms of taxation, provides different motivational forces.

In perfect world you would be right. But people are also short sighted. I meand nobody should be forced to do job that he does not like or forced to be industrious. But I think that encouragement in direction of everybody earning more money is beneficial for society and economy. For the reason that more income quite seriously reflects in higher standard of living.Wouldn't it be better to focus on raising standards of living for the sake of raising standards of living as opposed to focus on raising income for the sake of raising standards of living?

Right. But different forms of taxation, provides different motivational forces.True, however I don't think motivation itself is sufficient reason for regressive taxation.

That's about the smartest thing I've ever heard said today. Someone supported capitalism without arbitrarily dismissing socialism. I disagree with your assumptions about the level of technology requried for communalism, but I certainly would rather you be right then certain other people.

Depending on how fast the economy becomes renewable/circular, how fast productivity grows and how fast we expand in to space, I think it would be possible for a socialist system to function efficiently within this century or the next. Definitely within the next two centuries, possible before the end of this one; all of them are happening, but there are still a lot of what-ifs remaining before we can really get an idea of how things will turn out.

However, I don't think it will be universal throughout human civilization; it'll depend on how well developed and how advanced a place is, with the most developed regions having economic systems closest to socialism and the least developed still in various stages of capitalism until their economies reach the point necessary for socialism to function.

A big enough generalization to make me want to punch a baby.
Is it a leftist baby? Because that might be okay.

I see the centralized government as a necessary safety and regulatory net for the failures of the market.
Markets don't fail. Not without government interference.

It's the same reason Agnostics typically don't get involved in all those "religion" flamewars, we're too sensible for everyone's liking. :p
Sure we do. I see agnosticism as one extreme of the continuum between belief and its absence. Since I see the holding of religious beliefs to be completely irrational behaviour, I'm pretty fanatical about my agnosticism.

Markets don't fail. Not without government interference.

There's always going to be government interference.

There's always going to be government interference.
Then blame the government.

Depending on how fast the economy becomes renewable/circular, how fast productivity grows and how fast we expand in to space, I think it would be possible for a socialist system to function efficiently within this century or the next. Definitely within the next two centuries, possible before the end of this one; all of them are happening, but there are still a lot of what-ifs remaining before we can really get an idea of how things will turn out.

However, I don't think it will be universal throughout human civilization; it'll depend on how well developed and how advanced a place is, with the most developed regions having economic systems closest to socialism and the least developed still in various stages of capitalism until their economies reach the point necessary for socialism to function.

Personally, I think one of the biggest barriers in moving towards a greater degree of government control some sectors of the economy is political corruption (which is fairly endmic in the US). This is why scandanavian societies are able to acheive a greater degree than is impossible elsewhere without the usual problems.

That said, I believe there will always be a place for a free market. It just does some things better than 100% command economies. I believe a mixed system is ideal.

One doesn't have to earn more to have an increased standard of living.
If you sum monetary and non-monetary compensation, and you measure in real dollars, yes you do. By definition.

Personally, I think one of the biggest barriers in moving towards a greater degree of government control some sectors of the economy is political corruption (which is fairly endmic in the US). This is why scandanavian societies are able to acheive a greater degree than is impossible elsewhere without the usual problems.

That said, I believe there will always be a place for a free market. It just does some things better than 100% command economies. I believe a mixed system is ideal.

Well, I tend to see it not so much as an extension of government control as a change in the methods of production; a lot of technologies are starting to become more decentralized to the point where individuals or communities can provide some of their own needs on site without the extensive infrastructure necessary to transmit them via conventional means.

In other words, technology will make it possible for individuals to have extensive control over providing their own needs, and in order to manage that people will need to rely far more on collective decisionmaking and a greater degree of equality. Whether this progresses to socialism or retains market elements is entirely speculative, but I do think socialism will definitely have some major roles in the 21st century and beyond. It won't be top-down, but rather bottom up.

If you sum monetary and non-monetary compensation, and you measure in real dollars, yes you do. By definition.Well, yeah, if you're going to measure it in money, then yes, having more money means a higher standard of living. However, you could measure standard of living in pita bread and having more pita bread means a higher standard of living.
The point of this is that standard of living isn't necessarily measured in dollars, or money of any kind.

Like with this oil dilemma. I can’t stand it when someone says that “the market” will take care of the problem. It will be people that solve the problem. The market is just the means to distribute the solution.
It sure is a convenient way to avoid doing anything to change an unjust state of affairs, isn't it?

Somebody says, "My god, look at how fucked up this shit is!"

And the capitalist oil billionaire says, "Never fear, for this fucked up shit will be un-fucked through the grace and power of The Market! All we need do is stand aside, and The Market shall cure what ails us!"

After a time, the somebody says, "My god, look at how fucked up this shit STILL is! Why don't we do something?!"

And the capitalist oil billionaire says, "Wait for it...wait for it..." And fills his pockets until the seams split.

It seems everybody on this forum who expresses any sort of opinion on the matter of welfare or economics is either a socialist or libertarian.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.


We can't be bothered to state the obvious.
The utter lack of succesful States that don't follow these precepts speaks for itself.

Quite the opposite, the gilded age had some of the most abhorrent examples of government intervention in economy that had ever existed. The federal government provided funds, seized land, and even sent troops to see to the corporatists demands. It was anything but Laissez-Faire.

Re-read your histories, Montcanos. While some states did involve themselves, the Federal Government stayed scrupulously out of the economy, with only a very few exceptions (of course, some of them were doozys - notably the break-up of Standard Oil, and the elimination of backed bills).

For a fifty year period, business wise the law was "Do as you please." Price fixing? Trusts? No problem. Usurious loan rates? Company stores? Standard business practice. Not to mention every kind of product dumping, undercutting and raw materials denial strategy under the sun.

The end result was rolling depressions and spikes, culminating in the Great Depression of the '30s. Even then, Government didn't act to control th economy until FDR brought in the New Deal.

Well, yeah, if you're going to measure it in money, then yes, having more money means a higher standard of living. However, you could measure standard of living in pita bread and having more pita bread means a higher standard of living.
The point of this is that standard of living isn't necessarily measured in dollars, or money of any kind.
But that's basically the same thing. Everything has a de facto monetary value. Whether you like it or not.

It sure is a convenient way to avoid doing anything to change an unjust state of affairs, isn't it?

Somebody says, "My god, look at how fucked up this shit is!"

And the capitalist oil billionaire says, "Never fear, for this fucked up shit will be un-fucked through the grace and power of The Market! All we need do is stand aside, and The Market shall cure what ails us!"

After a time, the somebody says, "My god, look at how fucked up this shit STILL is! Why don't we do something?!"

And the capitalist oil billionaire says, "Wait for it...wait for it..." And fills his pockets until the seams split.
Spontaneous generation of technology! The Market will make it so!

Spontaneous generation of technology! The Market will make it so!
No, but the market provides the incentives to develop that technology.

No, but the market provides the incentives to develop that technology.
No doubt, but it can also be just as effective at removing those incentives. It all depends on whose running things and how they're doing it.

No doubt, but it can also be just as effective at removing those incentives. It all depends on whose running things and how they're doing it.
In a free market, no one's really running things. There's not supposed to be any interference.

If you sum monetary and non-monetary compensation, and you measure in real dollars, yes you do. By definition.

What's the negative monetary value of being hit by a shovel by your supervisor, then?

What's the negative monetary value of being hit by a shovel by your supervisor, then?
I don't think I have enough data to calculate an exact figure.

And it will differ from worker to worker. Though I suspect it would be nearly infinite in most cases.

I don't think I have enough data to calculate an exact figure.

And it will differ from worker to worker. Though I suspect it would be nearly infinite in most cases.

Hence why not everything can be given a concrete monetary value. Some people have higher tolerances for working in jobs they hate than other people.

Hence why not everything can be given a concrete monetary value. Some people have higher tolerances for working in jobs they hate than other people.
That just means no one value is universally applicable. The values are still there, but only the workers really know what they are.

In a free market, no one's really running things. There's not supposed to be any interference.
What's "supposed to be" and what actually is are two very different things. Certain corporations are a bigger threat to the free market than any government.

What's "supposed to be" and what actually is are two very different things.
Then the market isn't free.

But that's basically the same thing. Everything has a de facto monetary value. Whether you like it or not.Which is simply one way of measuring things; I would argue that money has a de facto time value, and that standard of living is highest when a person can live comfortably but have a maximum amount of free time.

Which is simply one way of measuring things; I would argue that money has a de facto time value, and that standard of living is highest when a person can live comfortably but have a maximum amount of free time.
That's exactly what I'm saying. There is some exchange rate between pretty much everything and money, and that allows us to use money to measure things like standard of living.

Having free time has value to you.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There is some exchange rate between pretty much everything and money, and that allows us to use money to measure things like standard of living.

Having free time has value to you.Which is fine, except that money isn't the sole measure of standard of living that can be used.

Are you saying you don't like having free time? You'd prefer to work 24/7?

Which is fine, except that money isn't the sole measure of standard of living that can be used.
That was never really in dispute. This all started when it was asserted, "One doesn't have to earn more to have an increased standard of living." I disputed that on the grounds that anything that contibutes to standard of living necessarily counts as earnings - it's just not all monetary earnings, and we need to adjust for the purchasing power of our unit of measure (I suggested real dollars).

Are you saying you don't like having free time? You'd prefer to work 24/7?
Nice inference. And like all inferences, entirely baseless.

That was never really in dispute. This all started when it was asserted, "One doesn't have to earn more to have an increased standard of living." I disputed that on the grounds that anything that contibutes to standard of living necessarily counts as earnings - it's just not all monetary earnings, and we need to adjust for the purchasing power of our unit of measure (I suggested real dollars).Oh, well then that's fine.

Nice inference. And like all inferences, entirely baseless.It may be a wrong inference, but it's not a baseless one. Saying 'having free time has value to you' as a separate sentence and in a separate paragraph implies that this isn't the case for you. If that wasn't what you meant, then I apologize.

It may be a wrong inference, but it's not a baseless one. Saying 'having free time has value to you' as a separate sentence and in a separate paragraph implies that this isn't the case for you. If that wasn't what you meant, then I apologize.
I don't think implication is possible, and thus all inferences are the fault of the inferrer.

I don't think implication is possible, and thus all inferences are the fault of the inferrer.Well, I disagree, I believe implication is entirely possible. Of course, we can't prove it either way, and so debating it would get us nowhere. I suggest we drop this particular subject.

There's a whole thread about it, already, anyway.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481918

There's a whole thread about it, already, anyway.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481918Oh, that was you who started that thread. I'm in it there. :)

Then the market isn't free.
Then communism has never been tried.
pwnd

It's all the same blather.

I'm a moderate capitalist. I beleive capitalism is a great wealth creator, but its not perfect. I believe in regulations(good ones), a proggressive income tax, a safety net(mostly in a the form of a negative income tax and some tax credits), investment in public infrastructure, Research grants, public education, ect. I also think intellectual property laws need an extensive overhaul.

Oh, that was you who started that thread.
Yep. I promote logic in all its excesses.

Then communism has never been tried.
pwnd

It's all the same blather.
Well, communism hasn't really been tried. That's true.

But we can look as the behaviour of people in relevant situations to determine how well it might work. We can do the same with a free market.

I'm a moderate capitalist. I beleive capitalism is a great wealth creator, but its not perfect. I believe in regulations(good ones), a proggressive income tax, a safety net(mostly in a the form of a negative income tax and some tax credits), investment in public infrastructure, Research grants, public education, ect. I also think intellectual property laws need an extensive overhaul.
When you say overhaul, do mean a movement toward a more progressive system ?

Well, communism hasn't really been tried. That's true.

But we can look as the behaviour of people in relevant situations to determine how well it might work. We can do the same with a free market.Fair enough. Looking at people where the market is freer than it is now tells us something; let's say we compare the Gilded Age to now?

Well, communism hasn't really been tried. That's true.

But we can look as the behaviour of people in relevant situations to determine how well it might work. We can do the same with a free market.
Fair enough. Looking at people where the market is freer than it is now tells us something; let's say we compare the Gilded Age to now?Don't forget Soviet Russia now, not that I imagine you types ever would.

The thing is, both of you want me and a whole bunch of other non-idealists to try something that has a distinct possibility of lowering our standard of living and actual freedom.

The thing is, both of you want me and a whole bunch of other non-idealists to try something that has a distinct possibility of lowering our standard of living and actual freedom.Yes, because I believe that the something has a distinct possibility of raising our standard of living and actual freedom. Certainly, if you believe your standard of living and freedom are high enough, then you might not want to try something new.

I agree. Some pure Market capitalists sound just as fanatical as diehard Marxists. Disagreeing with them means you haven't been properly 'educated'.
Hell, even as fanatical as diehard Muslims, Christians, etc.

Hell, even as fanatical as diehard Muslims, Christians, etc.
*nods*

Fair enough. Looking at people where the market is freer than it is now tells us something; let's say we compare the Gilded Age to now?

1. I refuse to accept a time when political corruption was at its worst, where information technology was at a point where money and not any sort of personal campaigning got you votes, and where politicians routinely stepped into to impede the burgeoning labor union movement as being a freer market.

2. Massive immigration to urban areas of uneducated workers swamped the labor markets, creating a large portion of undereducated, underpriveleged workers, who worked for virtually nothing. You don't see anything like that in this modern day of ours do you? We can gloss it over now because we don't count our immigrants.

3. Many people ignore the fact that the massive wealth disparities of the time (the lowest rungs didn't particularly get worse off, but the wealthy did get much wealthier) were a result of the greatest economic boom in American history. That boom is largely responsible for the world power America is today, for the high standard of living that American's have today. Those that got rich were those that advanced transportation, manufacturing, and communication technologies at incredible rates.

2. Massive immigration to urban areas of uneducated workers swamped the labor markets, creating a large portion of undereducated, underpriveleged workers, who worked for virtually nothing. You don't see anything like that in this modern day of ours do you? We can gloss it over now because we don't count our immigrants.

I'm sorry, which modern day of ours are you living in again? Which country do you live in where undereducated and underpriveleged workers aren't working for virtually nothing?

When you say overhaul, do mean a movement toward a more progressive system ?

I guess its what meant by progressive. I want an information property system that maximizes innovation and benefits many people. I think coprights last far too long. In the US they last the author's life plus 70 years. Way too long I think. Copyrights should serve as incentives to create new value and enrich the public domain. The current length of time is perversely long and keeps getting longer. It hampers innovation rather than helps it.

w00t controlled capitalism!

Kinda rondom thought here but capitalism was the original working man's economic system. It replaced the "if you don't have money now then you never will so get over it" system of economics.

There are virtually no moderate opinions expressed on this forum- or any that I frequent- because opinions are just words; unless you are a seriously role-player, (something I dont personally have the time or patience for) there is never a need for moderation in an ideological sense. Being pragmatic, reasonable, and cooperatively-moderate aren't beneficial unless there is a real-world application that calls for it.

In theory, most people believe that their packaged ideology is pinpoint. It is only when one takes into account the real-world application of such an ideology that moderation need be taken into account. NationStates is not real-life enough for compromise.

I'm sorry, which modern day of ours are you living in again? Which country do you live in where undereducated and underpriveleged workers aren't working for virtually nothing?

That was sarcasm.

That was sarcasm.

Oh? My sarcasm detector normally works just fine. Sorry!

That was sarcasm.I take it the whole post was sarcasm?

I take it the whole post was sarcasm?

(Yeah, I don't get it.)

Oh? My sarcasm detector normally works just fine. Sorry!

I take it the whole post was sarcasm?

(Yeah, I don't get it.)

The part that he was bolded was a rhetorical sarcastic question implying that we have just as big a problem today with undereducated/underpriveleged immigrant workers working for terrible wages as we did in the gilded age. However, as I stated in the next sentence, we don't really recognize the problem today because those laborers are not counted.

Generally if a post of mine has more than one sentence, they are related to eachother and work in unison to provide a central point.

What about the people who recognize that capitalism, private property and free trade are great things along with regulation, progressive income taxation and programs designed to help the people who fall through the cracks? Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention, or maybe those with that opinion just don't frequently post in those types of threads.
I just checked off in favour of all those things, so I guess I'll sheepishly raise my hand and be forgotten amongst the masses.

Ah, I see. Yeah, there's someone else on here who had a similar problem.
That was me.

And most (if not all) of them are illegal; without regulation, those things could happen and companies could be unfairly ruined by speculation that shouldn't be possible in a functioning, efficient market.
I agree; I wonder how a person who believes the market should be unregulated would respond to this.
Theoretically, the fact that people know such a lag in information exists should allow them to compensate their pricing to prevent abnormal returns. For example, if insider trading were not illegal, it would be expected that the CEO of a company trying to sell off his stock at a low price would be a sign that consumers should expect bad things to come and stockholders would respond accordingly. Under the current system, the government guarantees that a stock dump like that cannot happen, so investors do not factor it into their dealings, which is why people can get burned so badly by insider trading. There is certainly a school of thought that would say that such market inefficiencies only exist because the government makes the guarantee that no one will use them. If such use of what currently appear to be inefficiencies were widely expected, the markets would adjust to such practices before they could garner abnormal profits for any individual. Part of the beauty of market economics is that the market theoretically closes arbitrage opportunities like these on its own.

That said, I'm not willing to take that risk on theoretical grounds.

I
Theoretically, the fact that people know such a lag in information exists should allow them to compensate their pricing to prevent abnormal returns. For example, if insider trading were not illegal, it would be expected that the CEO of a company trying to sell off his stock at a low price would be a sign that consumers should expect bad things to come and stockholders would respond accordingly. Under the current system, the government guarantees that a stock dump like that cannot happen, so investors do not factor it into their dealings, which is why people can get burned so badly by insider trading. There is certainly a school of thought that would say that such market inefficiencies only exist because the government makes the guarantee that no one will use them. If such use of what currently appear to be inefficiencies were widely expected, the markets would adjust to such practices before they could garner abnormal profits for any individual. Part of the beauty of market economics is that the market theoretically closes arbitrage opportunities like these on its own.

I don't know; even if insider trading were legal, there would still be serious problems because companies do release information at scheduled dates in order to maintain a stable market for their stock; even if insider trading were legal, companies would still have set dates for releasing information or earnings to the markets, and people could still abuse that for profit.

What is legal now is fairly similar to what you describe; stock purchases or sales by insiders are usually a good sign as to where elite investors, corporate executives, and financial firms feel the stock is going to go in the following (usually) quarter. They help to price in bad or good news ahead of time to insulate against sharp spikes or declines even though their access to information is limited; they can use prior data to predict results very close to the real data, but it's not the actual data itself. Quite often, they guess correctly and the stock tanks or soars, making them a lot of money even if ordinary investors get burned. Legal insider trading does provide signals to investors and can adjust prices far before the negative or positive effects happen.

The only way you could really close the gaps in information is if there was a lot less regulation and anyone could gain access to the company's data at any given time; however, the chaos caused by such a lack of structure might outweigh the elimination of insider trading (which really isn't that big of a problem...it's sensationalized far more than its real effects on the markets).

The part that he was bolded was a rhetorical sarcastic question implying that we have just as big a problem today with undereducated/underpriveleged immigrant workers working for terrible wages as we did in the gilded age. However, as I stated in the next sentence, we don't really recognize the problem today because those laborers are not counted.

Generally if a post of mine has more than one sentence, they are related to eachother and work in unison to provide a central point.I figured as much. ;)

That was me.Indeed. I didn't want to name you by name in case Vetalia didn't know who you were.

I don't know; even if insider trading were legal, there would still be serious problems because companies do release information at scheduled dates in order to maintain a stable market for their stock; even if insider trading were legal, companies would still have set dates for releasing information or earnings to the markets, and people could still abuse that for profit.
Right, but if you are an investor on the outside, and someone who you think is on the inside wants to buy 2000 worth of stock from you out of nowhere the day before the profits for this quarter are released, your first instinct is to raise your price up to such a point that they become less willing to buy before you sell, if you sell at all. An enlightened investor would factor in the chance of insider information if if were legal. They don't now because they've been guaranteed that they will stay safe even if they ignore it.

What is legal now is fairly similar to what you describe; stock purchases or sales by insiders are usually a good sign as to where elite investors, corporate executives, and financial firms feel the stock is going to go in the following (usually) quarter. They help to price in bad or good news ahead of time to insulate against sharp spikes or declines even though their access to information is limited; they can use prior data to predict results very close to the real data, but it's not the actual data itself. Quite often, they guess correctly and the stock tanks or soars, making them a lot of money even if ordinary investors get burned. Legal insider trading does provide signals to investors and can adjust prices far before the negative or positive effects happen.
Actually, some of what you describe here is overstated and some of it is not true at all.

The partially true bit is that some people will follow elite investors, corporate executives, etc. The existence of online stock discussion areas like the bull boards give people access to what some people are thinking about stocks. However, only a foolish investor takes this information at face value. For example, at any one time there are numerous people trying to push a stock I am following (Temex) both up and down by leaving messages on these boards as I post. For the most part, however, they are unsuccessful, and even when they meet with some success, the arbitrage opportunity of the stock being under or overvalued is usually cleared almost immediately by more professional investors.

The almost universally untrue part is the claim that investors use prior publicly available data to generate abnormal returns. There have been numerous studies (I can look up some references from my Corporation Finance text if you'd like) that show that prior data cannot produce abnormal returns, or in financial terms, that the market is weak form efficient. Basically, people cannot buy into ice cream at the beginning of the summer and cash out at the end of the summer and make an abnormal gain because the previous data showing an increase in ice cream sales during the summer is factored into the stock at all times. If a trend is perceived at any time, investors immediately take action to take advantage of that trend, and their actions in turn throw off the trend, which is why stock "analysts" who sit in rooms looking at past data as a way of telling where a company is going almost always do no better than a random investor.