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

[Boatswain2PA]

The roots of the last recession can be found in the government’s “American Dream” campaign that wanted people to own their own homes, thus encouraging banks to issue mortgages to people with poor credit rating. The government spurred GNMA and FHMLC to sell issue large number of mortgages to people whose credit history was questionable. Then a home-buying frenzy began driving prices of homes upward, thus resulting in a bubble that finally burst in 2008.

In addition, banking regulations were relaxed so that banks could introduce into their portfolios high risk instruments in addition to their main loan businesses. This meant that certain banks were more susceptible to failing.

So the market became flooded with junk mortgages that needed to be sold to investors. In order to sell them, quality mortgages began to be bundled with junk mortgages into packages called mortgage-backed securities, which tended to hide the high risk mortgages contained therein. There were so many mortgages issued to people with poor credit that it became an assembly line of signers who would OK the mortgages without even examining the credit histories of the borrowers.

Relaxation of traditional banking rules causing many poor securities to be sold to unsuspecting investors caused this debacle. This is unfettered capitalism against which Pope Francis has been speaking.

Absolutely correct description. However you forget the political pressure put on the banks. The legislators/regulators pushed for these banks to give more loans to the poor. it was not just capitalism, but crony capitalism.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Absolutely correct description. However you forget the political pressure put on the banks. The legislators/regulators pushed for these banks to give more loans to the poor. it was not just capitalism, but crony capitalism.

Actually that’s a strange twist on the reality of it all. Frankly, I’m surprised to see anyone still trying to sell this constructed excuse for the failure of the “market” driven economy. I guess you thought enough water had flown under the bridge?

Predatory lending, along with bundling “toxic” loans for resale. Coupled with the deconstruction of Glass-Steagall is the acknowledged cause of our troubles. While some people who sought home loans were reckless, and the government had a hand in setting the table. The walls that had been in place would have protected the banks. If you were really willing to start an honest recovery. The first step would involve rebuilding the walls of the original US Banking act of 1933. If you recall, or have read in your studies. This resulted in an unprecedented time of financial peace.

Gramm, Leach, Bliley is still causing trouble and some believe another even worse failure is in the offing. Chiefly because of this 1999 mistake.

ATB

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Actually that’s a strange twist on the reality of it all. Frankly, I’m surprised to see anyone still trying to sell this constructed excuse for the failure of the “market” driven economy. I guess you thought enough water had flown under the bridge?

The truth keeps rising to the surface Mickey. I’m not saying this was the only reason, but it was part of it. Throughout the Bush/Clinton years there were legislative/regulatory changes that pushed banks to find ways to offer mortgages to people who were less and less financially secure. Even to the point of accepting welfare benefits and food stamps as sources of income.

And then there is Jessie Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition who coerced banks into lending to more minorities in poverty-stricken areas, threatening to draw national attention to these “racist” banks because they hadn’t made enough mortgages to “people of color.”

It’s all multi-factorial Mickey.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am talking about the public sector. It also happens in the private sector but I would have less of a problem with that. There is no doubt that people who do not have a mom or dad who owns their own business are disadvantaged, but I would not like to see a law passed preventing parents from giving their kids a job - that’s what parents do. If I had my own business - which I don’t:crying: I would do the same. I would not want the government telling me I had to employ someone else.

Good!

I can’t say I disagree with your reasoning. I worked in the public sector and there is a lot of ‘dead weight.’ I was a union rep and it was my job and duty to defend them if needed, but that does not mean I liked it or agreed with it all the time. Some people were just keeping a good man/woman out of job and it caused a lot of resentment among other employees because they had to carry them. I do have to fall on a certain side of principles I believe in, but that does not mean I am ignorant of the weaknesses.

Good!

Can you enlarge on what you mean by lowering the standard of education? I’m interested in that.

Glad to…

To provide a “fair and equitable” education to all, educational standards would have to be lowered to the lowest common denominator. (the dullest student)
If educational standards were maintained at the highest level, only the best and brightest would benefit…and that would not be “fair” to the dull.

I agree, and there is any amount of evidence centralized planning doesn’t work, but I don’t agree with unfettered capitalism.

I don’t agree with “unfettered” Capitalism because it is not Capitalism, It is a government controlled market.

To an extent I agree with you. I am from Belfast and as a nationalist, we can never have autonomy if we are financially depended on the English. So yes, capitalism cannot exist because we are dependent on hand outs. We need to grow our own economy and support ourselves, but I cannot agree with unfettered capitalism.

You cannot agree because you have never seen true, pure, unregulated Capitalism at work.

The evils, popularly ascribed to Free Market/Capitalism, were not the result of an unregulated economy, but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not free enterprise, but government controls.

Remember that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies. The element of freedom, however, was dominant; it was as close to a century of capitalism as mankind has come. Europe and America prospered. But the element of “statism” kept growing throughout the nineteenth century, and by WWI, the governments involved were dominated by statist policies.

No we can’t dump the social bonds! Everyone working and prospering yes, but if everyone is to work and be prosperous they need jobs. You can’t expect people to get out to work if employment is incredibly limited and nowhere near enough jobs to go around. Don’t say there is work out there. There is. But you can’t say the potential for full employment exists in a capitalist society. If it did, it would not be capitalist. Does capitalism not bank on a pool of unemployed?

Not at all. Capitalism it strongly dependent on full employment because, in principle, it does not support the unemployed.
True, in a down economy with high employment, a business can hire at low wages. But when the economy grows, business must pay more to keep and attract the best workers. During a strong economy, hiring more workers and paying higher wages is not a negative for business.
Profits are up, demand is high and the potential for expansion is a reality.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

And a justice system motivated by profit is a good thing?

A justice system motivated by “profit” is a perfect example of injustice.

Read the post I made to free radical on the sacrifice of individual rights and come back to me on it.

I did…and here is my take.

Adam and Eve were “created free”. They had every conceivable liberty…total freedom. Except for one little thing…they did not have the right to eat one particular apple.
Typical human nature…they ate it and it has been downhill since. Freedom, liberty and rights infringed…more rules and regulations both secular and spiritual…on and on up to the present time and more to come.

Your outlook on individual rights and freedom is typical European.

The film “Master and Commander” is a favorite of mine. At one point, Captain “Lucky” Jack Aubrey, played by Russell Crow argues with the ship’s doctor about discipline. Crow states: “People must be governed.” He does not say his men must be governed…he says PEOPLE. This is the typical understanding of the British and European monarchal systems.
It holds on today.

Governed people of Europe do nothing unless the government gives an OK or blessing.

The foundation of the United States is the exact opposite…and is what makes us exceptional.
We do whatever we want until and unless a law prevents it. Basic Freedom. Individual rights are sacrosanct . Our Constitution does not grant us rights…it defends rights FROM government infringement. (Although lately the government seems to be overstepping its bounds)

When individual rights are recognized as inalienable by government and other individuals…life is good. Of course the freedom (or right) of free speech does not mean one can falsely call out “FIRE” in a theater. That could cause harm and violate the rights of others. Likewise, I have the right to wave my arms about…but that right ends at my neighbor’s nose. I have no right to violate his rights.

I have to say, your great to debate with but one minor point, I’m not a Sir, I’m a madam.

OOOPS!

My apologies, M’Lady

II have enjoyed our discussion very much. I am sorry that it must now end. You see I have been married to a beautiful, strong willed lass from Donegal for 48 years now. I credit our lasting relationship with the fact that I constantly use the five little words of love…“Yes, Dear, you are right.”

Therefore if you are anything like her…I capitulate. :irish3:

 

[nmgauss]

I don’t agree with “unfettered” Capitalism because it is not Capitalism, It is a government controlled market.

The evils, popularly ascribed to Free Market/Capitalism, were not the result of an unregulated economy, but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not free enterprise, but government controls.

Remember that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies. The element of freedom, however, was dominant; it was as close to a century of capitalism as mankind has come. Europe and America prospered. But the element of “statism” kept growing throughout the nineteenth century, and by WWI, the governments involved were dominated by statist policies.

It can be argued that “unfettered” capitalism assumes that every company has an equal chance to sell its product and every customer has an equal chance to be able to evaluate each of his choices based on complete information on each choice.

This never happens in reality. During the robber baron years of the nineteenth century, trusts conspired to squeeze out competition by ruinous pricing policies. Also, goods were sold with false and misleading claims. Whoever could hornswoggle people enough would make the sale. Just look at the claims of snake oil salesmen, Coca Cola, Kellogg’s Cereals, General Mills Cereals, etc. Wheaties was never the “Breakfast of Champions” but enough people believed it to make it a very successful product. Also, signing on the dotted line of a defective contract without “reading the fine print”, was a common ploy. It still is.

So the government started clamping down on the robber barons with their “Trust Busting” campaigns, the Food and Drug Administration was established to minimize false and misleading labels. However, failing to “read the fine print” is still common. Truth in lending laws have been enacted, and that helps.

However, Caveat Emptor still applies. In the end, the burden has remained on the consumer to make wise choices. If he is hornswoggled, it is his own gullibility that is at fault. As long as being “born again” is being touted, and believing that God’s will is being followed, people will not be skeptical enough to make wise choices.

 

[minkymurph]

OOOPS!

My apologies, M’Lady

II have enjoyed our discussion very much. I am sorry that it must now end. You see I have been married to a beautiful, strong willed lass from Donegal for 48 years now. I credit our lasting relationship with the fact that I constantly use the five little words of love…“Yes, Dear, you are right.”

Therefore if you are anything like her…I capitulate. :irish3:

Aw no! You can’t stop now you’ve only whetted my appetite! It’s like putting a big bowl of cherries in front of me and telling me I am only allowed to eat one!

But I see your point - I bought my husband a t-shirt that says, ‘the key to a happy marriage is five little words - yes dear, you are right.’

Hoping you want to continue -

It is true my outlook on individual rights and freedom is typically European as our understanding of rights and freedom initially came from French philosophers. I appreciate yours would be different. However I don’t like the way things have gone in Europe because to me, it is not about individual rights but rather making the rich richer. No one here has any great problem with freedom of movement of goods, particularly because you can now get lots of nice beers. Freedom of movement of persons is a seriously contentious issue because it drives wages down and leads to exploitation. But, when I hear of twenty eight judges in the Grand Chamber deciding if someone can play for a football team and the European Parliament debating whether Jaffa Cakes are Cakes or biscuits - you may have a point about government control.

The reason why I think government regulation of markets is necessary is I don’t have a lot of confidence wealthy individuals will act justly and fairly and not out of pure self-interest to the detriment of society as a whole. That is not to say governments will as they are also self-serving, but they have the electorate to answer to. I read some of Milton Friedman’s writings and to be honest I was horrified at some of the things he said.

Having said that, I have a healthy respect for the self-made man as many of them (not all) I have come across are willing to give the small man a hand up the ladder. I’m a fan of Dragon’s Den and I also believe in the principle, ‘Give a man a fish and he will feed his family for a week. Give him a boat and he can feed a village for a year.’ The point being, while I actively support charities at the end of the day a hand out is a hand out whether it comes from the state via the taxpayer or the ‘trickle down’ effect. I can understand the ‘trickle down’ effect permits individuals to give to charities of their choice, but then the less popular charities loose out and money does not necessarily go where it is most needed. The charity that receives the most in terms of donations in my part of the world is Guide Dogs for the Blind - cute Labrador puppies making it attractive. The charities that have difficulty attracting support from celebrities are those that support people with mental health problems.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It can be argued that “unfettered” capitalism assumes that every company has an equal chance to sell its product and every customer has an equal chance to be able to evaluate each of his choices based on complete information on each choice.

This never happens in reality. During the robber baron years of the nineteenth century, trusts conspired to squeeze out competition by ruinous pricing policies. Also, goods were sold with false and misleading claims. Whoever could hornswoggle people enough would make the sale. Just look at the claims of snake oil salesmen, Coca Cola, Kellogg’s Cereals, General Mills Cereals, etc. Wheaties was never the “Breakfast of Champions” but enough people believed it to make it a very successful product. Also, signing on the dotted line of a defective contract without “reading the fine print”, was a common ploy. It still is.

So the government started clamping down on the robber barons with their “Trust Busting” campaigns, the Food and Drug Administration was established to minimize false and misleading labels. However, failing to “read the fine print” is still common. Truth in lending laws have been enacted, and that helps.

However, Caveat Emptor still applies. In the end, the burden has remained on the consumer to make wise choices. If he is hornswoggled, it is his own gullibility that is at fault. As long as being “born again” is being touted, and believing that God’s will is being followed, people will not be skeptical enough to make wise choices.

You are misinformed about the history of Capitalism in America.

“Robber Barons” were heroes!

They improved the lives of millions of consumers, employed thousands of people, created entire cities, pioneered efficient management techniques, and donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charities.

They were “Market Entrepreneurs”. They succeeded by pleasing their customers.

The “crooks” of the day were the "Political Entrepreneurs. They succeeded by influencing the government.

Trusts were not evil monopolies that restricted output to drive up prices. The late-nineteenth-century trusts actually expanded production and lowered prices. The Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) was in reality designed to protect incompetent businesses from superior competition, not to protect consumers from monopoly.

Why then did many businesses support the Sherman Act? The same reason that many corporations today support interventionist and anti-capitalist policies: They wanted to use the power of government to hurt their competitors. This is Crony Capitalism…the worst kind.

Two more things…

No one believed that Wheaties was really the “Breakfast of Champions”. People buy Wheaties because it tastes good, is healthy and nutritious and is affordable.

You hold people in low esteem, if you think they are not skeptical enough to make wise choices. God’s will has nothing to do with it. People today are well informed enough to leave most skepticism in the corner.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Aw no! You can’t stop now you’ve only whetted my appetite! It’s like putting a big bowl of cherries in front of me and telling me I am only allowed to eat one!

But I see your point - I bought my husband a t-shirt that says, ‘the key to a happy marriage is five little words - yes dear, you are right.’

Hoping you want to continue -

It is true my outlook on individual rights and freedom is typically European as our understanding of rights and freedom initially came from French philosophers. I appreciate yours would be different. However I don’t like the way things have gone in Europe because to me, it is not about individual rights but rather making the rich richer. No one here has any great problem with freedom of movement of goods, particularly because you can now get lots of nice beers. Freedom of movement of persons is a seriously contentious issue because it drives wages down and leads to exploitation. But, when I hear of twenty eight judges in the Grand Chamber deciding if someone can play for a football team and the European Parliament debating whether Jaffa Cakes are Cakes or biscuits - you may have a point about government control.

I’m not sure I understand the “Freedom of Movement of Persons”.

I agree with you about your “Grand Chamber”. Our government is currently very concerned with the use of the “N” word by professional football players…while our economy languishes on.

The reason why I think government regulation of markets is necessary is I don’t have a lot of confidence wealthy individuals will act justly and fairly and not out of pure self-interest to the detriment of society as a whole. That is not to say governments will as they are also self-serving, but they have the electorate to answer to. I read some of Milton Friedman’s writings and to be honest I was horrified at some of the things he said.

Murph, there will always be rich and poor. Sometimes a rich person makes a mistake, looses his wealth and becomes poor. Sometimes a poor person works himself out of poverty and becomes rich. The important thing is that the means and opportunity remain available for the poor person to become rich and the former rich person to regain his status. This works best with less government intervention.

Yes, there are greedy people in the world, Some are rich and some are poor. A greedy rich person will take all he can and keep it to himself. He dies rich. A poor person who expects support from others just because he has less than others…is just as greedy.

Don’t dislike me…but I am a big fan of Milton Freidman

Having said that, I have a healthy respect for the self-made man as many of them (not all) I have come across are willing to give the small man a hand up the ladder. I’m a fan of Dragon’s Den and I also believe in the principle, ‘Give a man a fish and he will feed his family for a week. Give him a boat and he can feed a village for a year.’ The point being, while I actively support charities at the end of the day a hand out is a hand out whether it comes from the state via the taxpayer or the ‘trickle down’ effect. I can understand the ‘trickle down’ effect permits individuals to give to charities of their choice, but then the less popular charities loose out and money does not necessarily go where it is most needed. The charity that receives the most in terms of donations in my part of the world is Guide Dogs for the Blind - cute Labrador puppies making it attractive. The charities that have difficulty attracting support from celebrities are those that support people with mental health problems.

I don’t like to have a government handling my charitable donations. I also do not care for “charities” that seem to keep 50% or more for "administrative purposes. Essentially, what government considers “charity” and what I consider charity are worlds apart.

I’m a generous guy. I give what I can afford to charities that appeal to me. I don’t like a “Guilt Trip” forced on me. I give to whom I want and what I want.

 

[minkymurph]

I 'm not sure I understand the "Freedom of Movement of Persons". :confused:

I am so glad we are continuing our discussion.

We may never agree but I firmly believe you will never learn anything if you only dialogue with people who agree with you.

Freedom of movement of persons is the most contentious issue in the European Union. I hate it because I think it is designed to enable the rich to get richer and the poor poorer.

I do not want to bore you with the details so I will try and explain it simply. From the institution of the European Union, everyone in every state in the European Union has citizenship of the European Union. What that means is you can move to any country in Europe for work. I have no problem with that. The Irish moved everywhere for work and I have no problem with people moving to another country for a better standard of living.

The problem is it was done to give employers more people to choose from. Do they need more people? It has resulted in 500 people applying for 3 jobs. (simplistically) That puts a burden on the employer. They don’t want to interview 500 people. They don’t need 500 applicants to choose from. Some of these jobs are for a caretaker in a school. Now don’t get me wrong. I would not look down on someone because they are a caretaker in a school. I see them as valuable. But, I recall the story of one guy who had been unemployed for years. He applied for a job as a caretaker in a school. He got a letter back saying because they had so many applicants they were only going to interview people who had certain exams. Exams are an easy way to shortlist but just because you have an exam, does not mean you are dependable, hardworking and will stay. People with degrees are working in supermarkets and delivering pizzas. Is that good? But hey, employers have LOADS of people to choose from.

Murph, there will always be rich and poor.

This is true. I have no problem with disparity of wealth. If someone is a brain surgeon I have no problem with them being paid more than a cleaner, but I would guess neither does the cleaner. I have no problem with people earning more money than others when more responsibility for society is on their shoulders. I am not an envious person and I have no problem with people having more money than me, or more things as I am not materialistic. But, I hate unfairness. I pride myself on being a realist in life will never be completely fair. No matter how fair things are it will always be unfair to someone. But calculating it to be that way - no. Injustice - no.

Don’t dislike me…but I am a big fan of Milton Freidman

Oh no!!! And we were getting on so well! Please don’t tell me you think it’s OK not to employ a black man because it will affect you profits? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Sorry but No!

I don’t like to have a government handling my charitable donations. I also do not care for “charities” that seem to keep 50% or more for "administrative purposes…

Now on that point we sing from the same hymn sheet. Giving to charity so people can drive big cars, lift a big salary and stand in the street trying to persuade people to sign up to a direct debit with their fancy ‘hoodies’ and no bucket for a donation? Forget it.

Essentially, what government considers “charity” and what I consider charity are worlds apart.

I’m a generous guy. I give what I can afford to charities that appeal to me. I don’t like a “Guilt Trip” forced on me. I give to whom I want and what I want.

Well I hate that. I am a student so I don’t have a lot of money. I give to three charities by direct debit. I am not going to give to any more. I can’t. I picked my charities. I give to Dogs Trust because I have had a dog all my life. I love dogs but being a student and a mother of two young kids who have special needs I can no longer look after a dog. My kids beg me for a puppy but guess who would look after it? I give to NSPCC - prevention for cruelty to children and Trocaire, they support the Catholic Missions. I also donate furniture and clothes to St. Vincent De Paul who help people with nothing. I also work as a volunteer in what is called here the Citizens Advice Bureau. I am a Law student which you may know and lots of law students work there for experience. It’s the only job I can get. I have applied for jobs in shops and serving chips and turned down, but I love it. Maybe because so many people there are volunteers so they want to be there. Know what? I want to be a criminal defense/ tort lawyer but I would quite happily sacrifice the big salary to do what I want to do. You know what I want to do? Fight for the underdog in the trenches!

 

[nmgauss]

Oh no!!! And we were getting on so well! Please don’t tell me you think it’s OK not to employ a black man because it will affect you profits? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Sorry but No!

Are you saying that ugly women aspiring to be models should be hired at the same rate as beautiful women. Will people buy clothes modeled by unattractive women at the same rate as clothes modeled by attractive women?

How about a female movie star? When a director is faced with hiring a woman who he believes will increase movie attendance, why not hire a beautiful woman in place of one not so blessed?

Years ago flight attendants were almost exclusively attractive women. Were the airlines guilty of discrimination? Surely they thought that airline passengers would have more pleasant trips when attended to by attractive women? Why is this wrong?

 

[nmgauss]

No one believed that Wheaties was really the “Breakfast of Champions”. People buy Wheaties because it tastes good, is healthy and nutritious and is affordable.

You hold people in low esteem, if you think they are not skeptical enough to make wise choices. God’s will has nothing to do with it. People today are well informed enough to leave most skepticism in the corner.

How do you know how people make choices? When I was a stupid kid, I believed Breakfast of Champions might help me be a champion, and asked my mother to buy it. Breakfast cereals are primarily carbohydrates. How can that make them Breakfasts of Champions. Does “Snap, Crackle, and Pop” make Rice Krispies a better cereal?

I agree with people who recognize that first impressions without subsequent analysis is the modus operandi of the vast majority of consumers. How can anyone believe that Coca Cola is better than Pepsi Cola? For that matter why do people drink any of that stuff, or beer, or scotch whiskey? They don’t stop to analyze which product is better. They go with their gut feelings.

The same goes for religion. How many people analyze the catechism to decide if they want to be Catholics? They like how they feel in mass, and whether the church has pretty stained windows, and whether the music appeals to them. It’s pure esthetics.

That is why there was so much opposition to the Scholastic Movement in the history of Christianity. People wanted to feel their religion, not analyze it to death.

 

[nmgauss]

“Robber Barons” were heroes!

They improved the lives of millions of consumers, employed thousands of people, created entire cities, pioneered efficient management techniques, and donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charities.

They were “Market Entrepreneurs”. They succeeded by pleasing their customers.

The “crooks” of the day were the "Political Entrepreneurs. They succeeded by influencing the government.

I did some reading of what appear to be non-biased sources, and I found that you are right. Here all this time I was believing the distortions being propagated by liberals.

I think that even though the tycoons of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries amassed huge amounts of wealth, they ultimately endowed many universities, libraries, and museums, and gave huge amounts away.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No one believed that Wheaties was really the “Breakfast of Champions”. People buy Wheaties because it tastes good, is healthy and nutritious and is affordable.

You hold people in low esteem, if you think they are not skeptical enough to make wise choices. God’s will has nothing to do with it. People today are well informed enough to leave most skepticism in the corner.

How do you know how people make choices?

Simple…I’m a people and I make choices everyday. I am getting better with age. I make better choices.

When I was a stupid kid, I believed Breakfast of Champions might help me be a champion, and asked my mother to buy it.

Here is where you and I differ. I never considered myself stupid. I ate Cheerios.

I agree with people who recognize that first impressions without subsequent analysis is the modus operandi of the vast majority of consumers. How can anyone believe that Coca Cola is better than Pepsi Cola?

Who really cares…? Unless you are a Mormon.

For that matter why do people drink any of that stuff, or beer, or scotch whiskey? They don’t stop to analyze which product is better. They go with their gut feelings.

I’m not that much of a beer drinker, but i know what I like (Millions agree with me)
I know a lot of serious Scotch Whisky fans who are very particular about what they like.
Believe me, their gut feeling is only secondary.

The same goes for religion. How many people analyze the catechism to decide if they want to be Catholics? They like how they feel in mass, and whether the church has pretty stained windows, and whether the music appeals to them. It’s pure esthetics.

No one analyzes the Catechism to decide if they want to be Catholic. Catholics don’t participate at Mass for their “feelings” nor does the decor of the church or the music have any bearing on their faith.

That is why there was so much opposition to the Scholastic Movement in the history of Christianity. People wanted to feel their religion, not analyze it to death.

I don’t know what the “Scholastic Movement” was.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

“Robber Barons” were heroes!

They improved the lives of millions of consumers, employed thousands of people, created entire cities, pioneered efficient management techniques, and donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charities.

They were “Market Entrepreneurs”. They succeeded by pleasing their customers.

The “crooks” of the day were the "Political Entrepreneurs. They succeeded by influencing the government.

I did some reading of what appear to be non-biased sources, and I found that you are right. Here all this time I was believing the distortions being propagated by liberals.

I think that even though the tycoons of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries amassed huge amounts of wealth, they ultimately endowed many universities, libraries, and museums, and gave huge amounts away.

Excellent! I am proud of you.

Please pass on your new knowledge to all the dopy kids who are being brain washed by liberal anti- American teachers into believing that the American economic system is evil.

You might also read: “How Capitalism Saved America” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo for more historical truth.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am so glad we are continuing our discussion.

We may never agree but I firmly believe you will never learn anything if you only dialogue with people who agree with you.

Freedom of movement of persons is the most contentious issue in the European Union. I hate it because I think it is designed to enable the rich to get richer and the poor poorer.

I do not want to bore you with the details so I will try and explain it simply. From the institution of the European Union, everyone in every state in the European Union has citizenship of the European Union. What that means is you can move to any country in Europe for work. I have no problem with that. The Irish moved everywhere for work and I have no problem with people moving to another country for a better standard of living.

The problem is it was done to give employers more people to choose from. Do they need more people? It has resulted in 500 people applying for 3 jobs. (simplistically) That puts a burden on the employer. They don’t want to interview 500 people. They don’t need 500 applicants to choose from. Some of these jobs are for a caretaker in a school. Now don’t get me wrong. I would not look down on someone because they are a caretaker in a school. I see them as valuable. But, I recall the story of one guy who had been unemployed for years. He applied for a job as a caretaker in a school. He got a letter back saying because they had so many applicants they were only going to interview people who had certain exams. Exams are an easy way to shortlist but just because you have an exam, does not mean you are dependable, hardworking and will stay. People with degrees are working in supermarkets and pizzas. Is that good? But hey, employers have LOADS of people to choose from.

Ahhh, now I remember. Well meaning but not a very good policy.But this is the EU’s (government) policy not an economic policy. A Free Market system would cure that.

This is true. I have no problem with disparity of wealth. If someone is a brain surgeon I have no problem with them being paid more than a cleaner, but I would guess neither does the cleaner. I have no problem with people earning more money than others when more responsibility for society is on their shoulders. I am not an envious person and I have no problem with people having more money than me, or more things as I am not materialistic. But, I hate unfairness. I pride myself on being a realist in life will never be completely fair. No matter how fair things are it will always be unfair to someone. But calculating it to be that way - no. Injustice - no.

I agree…spot on!

Oh no!!! And we were getting on so well! Please don’t tell me you think it’s OK not to employ a black man because it will affect you profits? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Sorry but No!

If Milton Freidmen suggested that it is OK not to employ a black man because it will affect you profits…then I reject that.

I would not hire a black man just because he was a black man. I would have no problem hiring him if he was the best candidate.

Incompetent (not black or white) employees affect profit.

Well I hate that. I am a student so I don’t have a lot of money. I give to three charities by direct debit. I am not going to give to any more. I can’t. I picked my charities. I give to Dogs Trust because I have had a dog all my life. I love dogs but being a student and a mother of two young kids who have special needs I can no longer look after a dog. My kids beg me for a puppy but guess who would look after it? I give to NSPCC - prevention for cruelty to children and Trocaire, they support the Catholic Missions. I also donate furniture and clothes to St. Vincent De Paul who help people with nothing. I also work as a volunteer in what is called here the Citizens Advice Bureau. I am a Law student which you may know and lots of law students work there for experience. It’s the only job I can get. I have applied for jobs in shops and serving chips and turned down, but I love it. Maybe because so many people there are volunteers so they want to be there. Know what? I want to be a criminal defense/ tort lawyer but I would quite happily sacrifice the big salary to do what I want to do. You know what I want to do? Fight for the underdog in the trenches!

You are quite a gal. I wish you the best of luck.

 

[minkymurph]

Ahhh, now I remember. Well meaning but not a very good policy.But this is the EU’s (government) policy not an economic policy. A Free Market system would cure that.

I would argue it is part of their economic policy because it drives wages down and employees have no bargaining power. Meaning, they work all the hours God sends for next to nothing. I will be applying for jobs this year and I expect to earn a maximum of 10 000 (sterling) a year which to me is little more than slave labour, but that’s how it is. How would a free market cure that? Not sarcastic - genuine question.

If Milton Freidmen suggested that it is OK not to employ a black man because it will affect you profits…then I reject that.

He makes an argument against laws on discrimination in the book I read - can’t remember the name but I used it in an essay so I probably have the quote somewhere in the depths of my computer - if employing someone who is black puts people off coming into your store because they don’t want to be served by a black man then you are entitled not to employ them.

Incompetent (not black or white) employees affect profit.

It also affect staff moral and it becomes harder to find good employees because people will leave.

You are quite a gal. I wish you the best of luck.

Thank you. I have to go now but I must get back to you on the necessity of government regulation of the economy.

 

[nmgauss]

On Scholasticism in Christianity::

Cultural Dictionary
scholasticism definition
The philosophy and theology, marked by careful argumentation, that flourished among Christian thinkers in Europe during the Middle Ages.

Note : Central to scholastic thought is the idea that reason and faith are compatible. Scholastic thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas tried to show that ancient philosophy, especially that of Aristotle, supported and illuminated Christian faith.

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

 

[nmgauss]

If Milton Freidmen suggested that it is OK not to employ a black man because it will affect you profits…then I reject that.

I would not hire a black man just because he was a black man. I would have no problem hiring him if he was the best candidate.

Incompetent (not black or white) employees affect profit.

If you are a retailer in a neighborhood that is predominantly black, why shouldn’t you hire a black sales person instead of a white one? Of course, if you notice that your sales have plummeted since you hired a white sales person, you are justified in replacing that person with one who is black. Police departments notice that black officers are accepted much better in black neighborhoods than white officers. Why not hire black officers for just that kind of duty?

 

[minkymurph]

If Milton Freidmen suggested that it is OK not to employ a black man because it will affect you profits…then I reject that.

I would not hire a black man just because he was a black man. I would have no problem hiring him if he was the best candidate.

Incompetent (not black or white) employees affect profit.

If you are a retailer in a neighborhood that is predominantly black, why shouldn’t you hire a black sales person instead of a white one? Of course, if you notice that your sales have plummeted since you hired a white sales person, you are justified in replacing that person with one who is black. Police departments notice that black officers are accepted much better in black neighborhoods than white officers. Why not hire black officers for just that kind of duty?

I think there is a difference between working in a grocery store, which is what Milton Friedman was talking about, and being a police officer.

To refuse to hire someone to work in a grocery shop because customers prefer to be served by someone of their own race legitimizes racism. There is no rational reason why a person would prefer to be served groceries by someone of their own race. There is a rational reason in the scenario you mention.

The police department is not profit driven so the rationale in having black officers work black neighbourhoods is not to enhance personal profit, it is to help build community relations with the police. Having said that, to hire ONLY black officers again legitimizes racism. Refusing to hire someone to work in a grocery store because of their race alienates the individual from the community in that they are not accepted even in a low income job.

There are jobs were people are hired on a gender basis and for good reasons. Most midwives are female, male wards tend to have more male nurses than female wards, some people on occasion prefer to see a doctor of the same gender, there are more men than women employed in construction and as firefighters than women. Some regiments in the army don’t accept women.

I heard a really funny story about something like this from a psychiatrist. He went out to see and elderly lady because her family were concerned about her. She asked if they could send a Catholic psychiatrist to see her. None of the psychiatrists were but this one went anyway. In the course of the conversation she asked if he was Catholic. He said no but she could talk to him anyway. She said she could not because what she needed to tell him was something she would say in the confessional. She wouldn’t budge so he asked to phone the priest. She did and the priest said, ‘For goodness sake Mary would you just talk to the man.’ She said, ‘But Father, he’s a Protestant’ and he said, ‘But Mary, your husbands a Protestant!’

One final note, I would say most people wouldn’t care what colour or creed someone was if they were bleeding to death and they were saving their life.