Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

And of course the people that are sending you private messages are not wealthy and impartial. From what I remember many things Jesus said didn’t go down well with his audience. Does that mean he was wrong?

Oh, please, Murph…don’t compare me to Jesus.

Not so. One of Thatchers cabinet ministers, a British Tory MP was highly critical of her treatment of the poor and left her cabinet as a consequence. Many capitalist economists were critical of her management of the economy and in the end her own cabinet ousted her because of her handling of the economy. Capitalist economists warned a serious recession would occur 8 years ago because of recklessness. They were laughed at. No one is laughing now.

Assuming that one critical member of Thatcher’s cabinet didn’t like the way she treated the poor. WHAT’S THE POINT?

Margret Thatcher was the Prime Minister…not a corporate President…not a Capitalist.
If she really did treat the poor…poorly—then what we have is a perfect example of GOVERNMENT abuse of the poor.

Then explain to me why unemployment in the UK was at an all time high under Thatcher and the UK has yet to fully recover.

I really don’t know. And I don’t see what that has to do with slavery.

My first inclination would be to blame Parliament or the opposition she faced. Perhaps if she was able to privatize a few more industries things would have been different.

But the fact remains that even under Thatcher, Britain remained a socialist democracy.

The Free Market did not exist.

 

[minkymurph]

Oh, please, Murph…don’t compare me to Jesus.

I’m not.

Assuming that one critical member of Thatcher’s cabinet didn’t like the way she treated the poor. WHAT’S THE POINT?

It’s not an assumption. He wrote it in his autobiography.

It wasn’t one member. Her own cabinet ousted her because of her handling of the economy.

Margret Thatcher was the Prime Minister…not a corporate President…not a Capitalist.

Really? Was she a socialist? Let’s assume she personally was not. What of her policies? Did she not concur completely with Ronald Reagan on the Free Market? Did she not take Britain into the EU for this reason?

If she really did treat the poor…poorly—then what we have is a perfect example of GOVERNMENT abuse of the poor.

Indeed. A Tory government.

I really don’t know. And I don’t see what that has to do with slavery.

It has nothing to do with slavery. We have moved on from that. What it has to do with is your statement capitalism creates jobs. Thatcher was all for the Free Market, yet unemployment reached and all time high in the UK under Thatcher.

My first inclination would be to blame Parliament or the opposition she faced. Perhaps if she was able to privatize a few more industries things would have been different.

Thatcher privatized just about everything. Industries? She didn’t privatize industry. She shut them all down and didn’t invest public money in new ones.

But the fact remains that even under Thatcher, Britain remained a socialist democracy.

The Free Market did not exist.

How can it be a socialist democracy if it has a monarchy, a peerage, a House of Lords and an established Church?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I would disagree. The lot of the working class was improved not by capitalism but government legislation and the Trade Unions played a significant role in bringing about changes in legislation.

There are arguments the reason a person was unable to make a living in agriculture was a consequence of private ownership. Reason being there reached a point when there were too many owners. The tragedy of the commons was avoided for many years in the UK as a consequence of collectivism. I can’t copy and paste the link for some reason but you can look up the tragedy of the commons on youtube.

**The “sweatshops and child labor” of the Industrial Revolution were better than the alternatives of malnutrition, starvation, prostitution, begging, and stealing. **

It was the increased productivity per adult worker brought about by Capitalism that eliminated the need for child labor.

I will look up your link, but I will ask you to consider no regulation on the number of hours one could work, no restriction on age - child labor, industrial accidents and no duty of care until Parliament stepped in, and the fact the factory owner owned the houses workers lived in and did not pay them. They were given food stamps they had to spend in a shop of the factory owners choice.

I am not saying capitalism is altogether evil, but it has a dark side. That dark side is regulated by government.

The “dark side” IS government regulation.

Early-19th-century Britain had two forms of child labor: free-labor children; and, parish or “pauper” children, who came under government auspices.

Free-labor children lived with their parents or guardians and worked during the day at wages agreeable to those adults. But parents often refused to send their children into unusually harsh or dangerous work situations. Private factory owners could not forcibly subjugate “free labour” children; they could not compel them to work in conditions their parents found unacceptable.

By contrast, parish children were under the direct authority of** government officials**. Nearly every parish in Britain had a “stockpile” of abandoned workhouse children who were virtually bought and sold to factories; they experienced the deepest horrors of child labor.

 

[minkymurph]

The “dark side” IS government regulation.

Only in your opinion - and others in your camp.

Early-19th-century Britain had two forms of child labor: free-labor children; and, parish or “pauper” children, who came under government auspices.

Free-labor children lived with their parents or guardians and worked during the day at wages agreeable to those adults. But parents often refused to send their children into unusually harsh or dangerous work situations. Private factory owners could not forcibly subjugate “free labour” children; they could not compel them to work in conditions their parents found unacceptable.

By contrast, parish children were under the direct authority of** government officials**. Nearly every parish in Britain had a “stockpile” of abandoned workhouse children who were virtually bought and sold to factories; they experienced the deepest horrors of child labor.

And are you under the impression this ceased with industrialization? Workhouses were around until the 1960’s. Parents refused to send their children into unusually harsh or dangerous work conditions? What about the Magdalene laundries in Ireland? There are cases coming to court now concerning the treatment of the poor in Ireland.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It has nothing to do with slavery. We have moved on from that.

B I N G O!

So does that mean it is settled? Are we going to hear anymore about Capitalism “Enslaving” workers? Are we now in agreement that slavery cannot exist in a Capitalist society?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Only in your opinion - and others in your camp.

And are you under the impression this ceased with industrialization? Workhouses were around until the 1960’s. Parents refused to send their children into unusually harsh or dangerous work conditions? What about the Magdalene laundries in Ireland? There are cases coming to court now concerning the treatment of the poor in Ireland.

Hmmmm, a lot of good all that regulation from back in the 1800’s did.

What is it with Brits? All these government regulations…and still the problems exist…???

 

[minkymurph]

B I N G O!

So does that mean it is settled? Are we going to hear anymore about Capitalism “Enslaving” workers? Are we now in agreement that slavery cannot exist in a Capitalist society?

No. Irrespective of what label one puts on it, the equivalent of slavery can exist in any society - capitalist, socialist or mixed, just for different reasons and it manifests itself in different ways. The motive in a capitalist society is profit and the effect is abuse of power and restrictions on individual freedom. If someone takes your passport off you, doesn’t pay you and gives you the food they think you have earned I would say that is a severe restriction on individual liberty. Surely you can agree on that and agree it’s oppressive and not humanitarian even if you don’t want to label it slavery?

Back to the point in question which was NOT about slavery.

You said capitalism creates jobs. I asked if that is the case, how come unemployment reached an all time high under Thatcher who believed in the Free Market and privatized much of the public sector and nationalized industries?

Another point - I am having difficulty understanding your argument for full employment given this is a socialist ideal. As I understand it capitalists favor a degree of unemployment because it creates competition for jobs.

 

[minkymurph]

Hmmmm, a lot of good all that regulation from back in the 1800’s did.

What is it with Brits? All these government regulations…and still the problems exist…???

The Magdalene laundries were instituted under De Valera when Ireland became a Free State and eventually a Republic. They were run by the Church and the motive was profit.

What good regulation in the 1800’s?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If someone takes your passport off you, doesn’t pay you and gives you the food they think you have earned I would say that is a severe restriction on individual liberty. Surely you can agree on that and agree it’s oppressive and not humanitarian even if you don’t want to label it slavery?

I agree that is not only a severe restriction on individual liberty, but also theft and probably illegal serving of food…All illegal actions that any decent Capitalistic society would consider a gross violation of individual rights. Since individual rights are the foundation of a Capitalist society, the limited government would be empowered to prevent such violations.

Back to the point in question which was NOT about slavery.

You said capitalism creates jobs.

What else, pray tell creates jobs?

I asked if that is the case, how come unemployment reached an all time high under Thatcher who believed in the Free Market and privatized much of the public sector and nationalized industries?

It is because you people depend on a government to do everything for you. Thatcher was a Conservative not a Capitalist. She could hire a staff…but she couldn’t build a manufacturing plant and staff it. I don’t know why unemployment was high under her and our economy soared under Reagan. Reagan reduced government regulations and taxes maybe Thatcher’s opposition wouldn’t let her get away with that…who knows? But don’t blame Capitalism…unless Britain was a total pure laissez faire Capitalist economy under Thatcher.

Another point - I am having difficulty understanding your argument for full employment given this is a socialist ideal. As I understand it capitalists favor a degree of unemployment because it creates competition for jobs.

Exactly the opposite.

Capitalism favors** full employment** because that enables more people to prosper and be able to buy more…therefore making more Capitalists rich.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wouldn’t profess to know the answers. I would also say the answer changes according to circumstances.

On actual laws, yes, the judiciary enforces the law, but they don’t make law. In the UK that is Parliaments role because Parliament is sovereign and there is a principle one Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. Many argue this is a good thing because it allows Parliament to be flexible and they are not bound by a Constitution. The Republic of Ireland has a written Constitution. American also has a written Constitution which to me is a check on power.

If individuals rely on the courts alone for justice there is a problem. If a bad law is passed courts must still uphold it because they have no power to do otherwise. Not that this is a bad thing because judicial activism is problematic as judges are not elected. But, you have highlighted a problem and I appreciate you highlighting it. ‘The Secretary shall, the Secretary shall determine’ does sound somewhat dictatorial. If it is a mystery that is not good. Justice should be transparent and what concerns lawyers above all is legal certainty.

The problem for the poor is they should not have to rely solely on the courts for justice because of the limitations of the courts in delivering justice. In addition, I have often said justice is only available to those who can afford it. It is true lawyers take pro-bono work and in the UK some qualify for legal aid, but it is also the case some cannot avail of justice because they cannot afford it and there is only so far lawyers can go in using the public purse.

My position is this - regulated capitalism. Regulating the markets cannot be left solely to the courts but I appreciate there is a problem with government as they are more interested in what is popular and what will ensure they stay in power than the soundness of law. The reason I say regulated capitalism is we know from history many a capitalist is unscrupulous. Many a capitalist will exploit resources for their own profit to the detriment of others and future generations. (destruction of the rain forest, fishing) In the UK the government had to step in in the case of industrial injuries and mesothelioma caused by asbestos. Also consider tragedies like the Bhopol disaster, the Esso oil spillage, Shell and destruction of marine life, the Ashbourne case in the UK (see Office of Fair Trading site Ashbourne case) to mention but a few.

Another problem of unregulated capitalism is parasitic capitalism, ‘get rich quick’ schemes as was the case in the Wall St Crash, dumping toxic waste and the sale of goods and services not of merchantable quality which has the knock on effect of inefficiency and accumulation of waste.

I mentioned both the Uniform Commercial Code and Obamacare because the first is the product of long experience and excellent thinking, (and biblical principles, interestingly enough, though it’s not acknowledged any more) while the second is an ad hoc imprecise mess that nobody understood and that few understand four years later. It is of interest that many non-lawyer business people I know have a very good command of those parts of the Commercial Code that affect what they do, while nobody can truly understand Obamacare because it’s a perpetual “work in process” determined largely by executive fiat. Even an ordinary person like myself, whose work often involves secured transactions, can work with those portions of the Code successfully.

Some legislation is good and some isn’t. I’m sure that’s just as true in the UK as it is in the U.S. But my point is that excellent legislation can be passed; legislation that is comprehensible to the legal system and by the people who utilize it in their daily lives, while terrible legislation can also be passed.

I will agree with you about the high cost of litigation. There are, in the U.S. (probably also in the U.K.) almost two tiers of litigation. One is incredibly expensive and is usually the playing field of large corporations combatting each other. Ordinary people cannot compete in that arena other than in “class action” suits or in some innovative lawsuit in which the law firm sees such rich fees at the end that they’ll finance it. The other is the “individual versus individual” kind of litigation, which is largely affordable.

Interestingly, at least in my state, there are “small claims courts” in which sometimes people will take on GM or Walmart or some other giant. The range of play for high-cost law firms in those is so limited that a person can do it. But they are also for small stakes.

But in my mind, at least, the rule of law is the least worst way to regulate an economy, despite its flaws. As the descendant of a long line of peasants, I am profoundly distrustful of rule by regulation, because regulation is simply the reflection of the mind of the ruler and/or his myrmidons.

 

[minkymurph]

I agree that is not only a severe restriction on individual liberty, but also theft and probably illegal serving of food…All illegal actions that any decent Capitalistic society would consider a gross violation of individual rights. Since individual rights are the foundation of a Capitalist society, the limited government would be empowered to prevent such violations.

But I thought laissez-faire was against the government interfering in trade/business? Under laissez-faire would prostitution not only be permitted but unregulated? Would they not be permitted to pay people very low wages, or pay them with food and a caravan to live in? That is what is currently happening here with farm trafficking.

I also read an article in the paper yesterday in which an economist argued the minimum wage, which is below the poverty line, is preventing economic recovery because people have no money to spend. Most of the employment here at the minute is low paid jobs in the service industries. Interestingly there are currently lots of opportunities for lawyers in China, but as I have two children they might reject me.

In my view the government protects the vulnerable from being exploited by unscrupulous capitalists and the nation from reckless capitalists. I cannot accept your argument in a real laissez-faire society there would not be any unscrupulous or reckless capitalists. We need government regulations to curtail them.

What else, pray tell creates jobs?

The public sector and nationalized industry. I have to say though you have me on this one. No society can totally rely on the public sector and nationalized industry. The North of Ireland is a prime example of that. We are crying out for private investment here and being honest, I would much prefer to work in the private sector so long as I had a good employer.

It is because you people depend on a government to do everything for you.

You may have a point there. We do have a dependency culture but to a large extent Thatcher started that. I have to say we could do with some of the American ‘can do’ spirit.

Thatcher was a Conservative not a Capitalist.

You have a point there as well.

She could hire a staff…but she couldn’t build a manufacturing plant and staff it.

Yes she could have! France, Germany, Sweden and Japan have done it. France and Germany are the economic power houses of the EU.

I don’t know why unemployment was high under her and our economy soared under Reagan. Reagan reduced government regulations and taxes maybe Thatcher’s opposition wouldn’t let her get away with that…who knows? But don’t blame Capitalism…unless Britain was a total pure laissez faire Capitalist economy under Thatcher.

One thing she did was encourage people to become home owners. People bought there council houses and for a while things were good, until Thatcher decided to use interest rates to control inflation. At one point interest rates were 16%. My own mortgage repayments doubled. Thousands of people lost their homes.

She shut down a lot of industries but didn’t develop any new ones. The result was a ‘brain drain’ - young, single people moving abroad for work.

Exactly the opposite.

Capitalism favors** full employment** because that enables more people to prosper and be able to buy more…therefore making more Capitalists rich.

I don’t know how to respond to this at present because it’s the first time I have ever heard a capitalist say that.

 

[minkymurph]

But in my mind, at least, the rule of law is the least worst way to regulate an economy, despite its flaws. As the descendant of a long line of peasants, I am profoundly distrustful of rule by regulation, because regulation is simply the reflection of the mind of the ruler and/or his myrmidons.

I could run with that, but as you say we need good law and the courts can have too much power as they are not elected.

I can’t blame you for being distrustful. I have always found good things happen coming up to the election and bad things after.

When I talk about regulating the market I mean things like regulating things like fishing to ensure resources are not irreparably depleted. Fair Trade goods is another example. I don’t think the government needs to micro-manage. They should only step in when need to prevent recklessness, oppression, exploitation that kind of thing.

 

[minkymurph]

I agree that is not only a severe restriction on individual liberty, but also theft and probably illegal serving of food…All illegal actions that any decent Capitalistic society would consider a gross violation of individual rights. Since individual rights are the foundation of a Capitalist society, the limited government would be empowered to prevent such violations.

The other thing I cannot reconcile with you on is welfare. If it wasn’t for welfare I would not have been able to go to university.

You say it would be replaced by charity. Charity is still a hand-out. No one should be dependent on another for their daily bread. Being autonomous means economic autonomy and deciding your own needs for yourself, not waiting for the crumbs from the rich man’s table. I told you I work in the CAB and people come in asking for food vouchers which they take to food banks in Church’s. People are benevolent and I give my son tinned food to take to school for the food banks. I drop stuff into the trolley’s they have in supermarkets but to be honest I would rather give money. I know with welfare people are dependent on the state, but at least they have paid into state welfare so they are only getting what they are entitled to. Unless your own of those people who have never worked.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I could run with that, but as you say we need good law and the courts can have too much power as they are not elected.

I can’t blame you for being distrustful. I have always found good things happen coming up to the election and bad things after.

When I talk about regulating the market I mean things like regulating things like fishing to ensure resources are not irreparably depleted. Fair Trade goods is another example. I don’t think the government needs to micro-manage. They should only step in when need to prevent recklessness, oppression, exploitation that kind of thing.

Possibly we would disagree about nothing; perhaps only at the margins. I realize it’s possible for economies to have serious flaws, flaws that keep people poor. But I am not persuaded that poverty necessarily calls for increased regulation and increased welfare. I guess I (though no economist) am inclined to think more in terms of “demand pull” for labor. If the government does things to frustrate demand for labor, then it is really in where it doesn’t belong. Rather, it should do those things within its (rather limited) power to encourage demand for labor. This is sort of irrelevant, but never will I forget A.S. Solzhenitsyn’s contrast between the Soviet system and the west (and I paraphrase) “The Soviet Union is where capital is dear and labor cheap, unlike the west where it’s the other way around.”

I read where you once paid 16% interest on your home loan. That wasn’t peculiar to the UK. It was true here too in the early 1980s. But that was not really an effect of capitalism, unbridled or otherwise. I think most would agree that, here at least, it was due to regulatory and monetary excess that caused howling inflation requiring a harsh cure. And, after just a couple or so years, it was cured and hasn’t returned since. One might reasonably worry about how monetary and fiscal policies today might cause a return of those conditions. But the “experts” in Washington (probably also in London) assure us that they won’t.

 

[minkymurph]

Possibly we would disagree about nothing; perhaps only at the margins. I realize it’s possible for economies to have serious flaws, flaws that keep people poor. But I am not persuaded that poverty necessarily calls for increased regulation and increased welfare. I guess I (though no economist) am inclined to think more in terms of “demand pull” for labor. If the government does things to frustrate demand for labor, then it is really in where it doesn’t belong.

Then you would hate living here. I’ve never came across such a nation of people who love making other peoples lives difficult with rules. I do think government should regulate markets but should also facilitate them not hinder them just for the sake of it.

Rather, it should do those things within its (rather limited) power to encourage demand for labor. This is sort of irrelevant, but never will I forget A.S. Solzhenitsyn’s contrast between the Soviet system and the west (and I paraphrase) “The Soviet Union is where capital is dear and labor cheap, unlike the west where it’s the other way around.”

I read where you once paid 16% interest on your home loan. That wasn’t peculiar to the UK. It was true here too in the early 1980s. But that was not really an effect of capitalism, unbridled or otherwise. I think most would agree that, here at least, it was due to regulatory and monetary excess that caused howling inflation requiring a harsh cure. And, after just a couple or so years, it was cured and hasn’t returned since. One might reasonably worry about how monetary and fiscal policies today might cause a return of those conditions. But the “experts” in Washington (probably also in London) assure us that they won’t.

Yes and the world is flat.

It’s interesting you say this. I did not agree with governments controlling interests rates but when control was handed over to the Bank of England they messed up.

The problem in the UK was when Thatcher came to power many people rented council houses. She said she wanted to make Britain a nation of homeowners and sold off the houses to people living in them. Not that that in itself was a bad thing, but when interest rates went up to 16% it hit those who were on low incomes having bought their council house and first time buyers the hardest. There are courts cases going on at the minute because many first time buyers were miss sold endownment mortgages at that time. They were also encouraged to borrow more than they could afford, a similar situation to now. Banks encouraged people to borrow money they knew they could not pay back.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then you would hate living here. I’ve never came across such a nation of people who love making other peoples lives difficult with rules. I do think government should regulate markets but should also facilitate them not hinder them just for the sake of it.

Rather, it should do those things within its (rather limited) power to encourage demand for labor. This is sort of irrelevant, but never will I forget A.S. Solzhenitsyn’s contrast between the Soviet system and the west (and I paraphrase) “The Soviet Union is where capital is dear and labor cheap, unlike the west where it’s the other way around.”

Yes and the world is flat.

It’s interesting you say this. I did not agree with governments controlling interests rates but when control was handed over to the Bank of England they messed up.

The problem in the UK was when Thatcher came to power many people rented council houses. She said she wanted to make Britain a nation of homeowners and sold off the houses to people living in them. Not that that in itself was a bad thing, but when interest rates went up to 16% it hit those who were on low incomes having bought their council house and first time buyers the hardest. There are courts cases going on at the minute because many first time buyers were miss sold endownment mortgages at that time. They were also encouraged to borrow more than they could afford, a similar situation to now. Banks encouraged people to borrow money they knew they could not pay back.

I am not too keen on excessive government regulation. Definitely.

I don’t know enough about Thatcher’s government to comment particularly. But it does sometimes seem that governments encourage home ownership, then when the excesses appear due to that encouragement, they cut people off at the knees.

In the U.S., by way of example, housing boomed in the early part of this century. A good part of it was due to programs that forced lenders to make loans they knew were imprudent, and part was due to government’s failure to regulate insanely bad underwriting by mortgage buyers, FNMA and FHLMC. Lots of people did, indeed, get homes because of it, but lots of them lost them again, which drove down the market for everyone. That was all politically motivated. It had nothing to do with any true desire to help anyone. It was vote-buying.

And that all happened in a low interest rate environment. We’ll never know what would have happened had not government intervened so vigorously into the housing marketplace, but we might well get the chance to see it again (albeit on a smaller scale) because the government-guaranteed loan underwriting is really no better than it was before.

And I understand Obama now wants to fully nationalize FNMA and FHLMC which, of course, will mean that home financing will be a totally political thing. One would have thought the experience of bailing out “Fan” and “Fred” would have been enough to dissuade making it even worse. But I guess not.

 

[freeRadical]

Rather, it should do those things within its (rather limited) power to encourage demand for labor. This is sort of irrelevant, but never will I forget A.S. Solzhenitsyn’s contrast between the Soviet system and the west (and I paraphrase) “The Soviet Union is where capital is dear and labor cheap, unlike the west where it’s the other way around.”

How does the government encourage demand for labor? Through saving and investing. But that’s not the playbook they go by. The US government and the Federal Reserve are still following the Keynesian playbook and focusing on aggregate demand and consumer spending. If you want companies to hire more people then you need to focus on production, not consumer spending. You need to focus on supply, not demand.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No. Irrespective of what label one puts on it, the equivalent of slavery can exist in any society - capitalist, socialist or mixed, just for different reasons and it manifests itself in different ways. The motive in a capitalist society is profit and the effect is abuse of power and restrictions on individual freedom. If someone takes your passport off you, doesn’t pay you and gives you the food they think you have earned I would say that is a severe restriction on individual liberty. Surely you can agree on that and agree it’s oppressive and not humanitarian even if you don’t want to label it slavery?

Back to the point in question which was NOT about slavery.

No.

Let us settle this point then move on to the others.

“the **equivalent **of slavery can exist in any society - capitalist, socialist or mixed, just for different reasons and it manifests itself in different ways.”

The term “slavery”, like the term “racist” has been so overused today that it has become watered-down.

“The poor woman down the street works two jobs to make ends meet…she works like a slave.”
“Those government employees work for slave wages…”
“Acme Computer Company works their people like slaves.”

I pointed out that esteemed International Law professors have said that there is no definition of slavery in International Law because the term has become meaningless.

Human trafficking IS Human trafficking
Prostitution IS prostitution

There is no need to dress them as slavery to make them any more evil. That only diminishes the horrors of REAL slavery

So…let us not apply a “meaningless term” to Capitalism and leave REAL slavery to all the great failed socialist experiments of history.

/QUOTE]

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But I thought laissez-faire was against the government interfering in trade/business? Under laissez-faire would prostitution not only be permitted but unregulated? Would they not be permitted to pay people very low wages, or pay them with food and a caravan to live in? That is what is currently happening here with farm trafficking.

This is deja vu all over again.

We covered this several posts back.

If Madame LaToure wanted to open a “Gentlemen’s Sporting Club” in a true Capitalist society…and there was no law against such an establishment it would not only be permitted but also unregulated. Now if Madame LaToure was violating anyone’s individual rights she would be shut down.

“Farm trafficking”…Please stop with the examples of what is going on in Ireland, England and Europe. These are not true Capitalist economies. They are government controlled markets. OF COURSE employers will pay low wages…the government allows it. Sure, they will provide poor living conditions…the government allows it.

In a true Capitalist agriculture community, farmer Jones can pay his workers anything he damn well pleases. He can provide housing or let them sleep in his barn. The beauty is that the workers are not forced to work for farmer Jones. Farmer Smith, down the road, needs workers too. He also knows what Jones is paying. He offers a little more, maybe even some of Mrs Smith’s home cooking…Now Smith has a bunch of happy workers and Jones has an unharvested crop. Now Jones has to “one-up” Smith to get his workers back. In the end who is really benefitting?..If you said the workers…go to the head of the class.

I also read an article in the paper yesterday in which an economist argued the minimum wage, which is below the poverty line, is preventing economic recovery because people have no money to spend. Most of the employment here at the minute is low paid jobs in the service industries. Interestingly there are currently lots of opportunities for lawyers in China, but as I have two children they might reject me.

Hmmmm. two Caucasian children could be a valuable commodity in Communist China.

In my view the government protects the vulnerable from being exploited by unscrupulous capitalists and the nation from reckless capitalists. I cannot accept your argument in a real laissez-faire society there would not be any unscrupulous or reckless capitalists. We need government regulations to curtail them.

I think a more logical concern would be for an unscrupulous government.

The public sector and nationalized industry. **I have to say though you have me on this one. **

**You may have a point there. **

You have a point there as well.

Do you have any idea how many times you have conceded “points” to me since this Never ending adventure began? There are a quite a few “I agree with you” also.

I don’t know how to respond to this at present because it’s the first time I have ever heard a capitalist say that.

It’s true…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The other thing I cannot reconcile with you on is welfare. If it wasn’t for welfare I would not have been able to go to university.

You say it would be replaced by charity. Charity is still a hand-out. No one should be dependent on another for their daily bread. Being autonomous means economic autonomy and deciding your own needs for yourself, not waiting for the crumbs from the rich man’s table. I told you I work in the CAB and people come in asking for food vouchers which they take to food banks in Church’s. People are benevolent and I give my son tinned food to take to school for the food banks. I drop stuff into the trolley’s they have in supermarkets but to be honest I would rather give money. I know with welfare people are dependent on the state, but at least they have paid into state welfare so they are only getting what they are entitled to. Unless your own of those people who have never worked.

Charity is a virtue.

It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

You live in a welfare state.

Morally and economically, the welfare state creates a downward pull.

Morally, the chance to satisfy demands by force spreads the demands wider and wider, with less and less pretense at justification.

Economically, the forced demands of one group create hardships for all others, thus producing a mixture of actual victims and plain parasites.

Since need, not achievement, is held as the criterion of rewards, the government necessarily keeps sacrificing the more productive groups to the less productive, gradually chaining the top level of the economy, then the next level, then the next. (How else are unachieved rewards to be provided?)

There are two kinds of need involved in this process: the need of the group making demands, which is openly proclaimed and serves as cover for another need, which is never mentioned—the need of the power-seekers, who require a group of dependent favor-recipients in order to rise to power.