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

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I don’t think I’m complicating things. I think I’m talking about real life.

So basically the retailer is stuck. If the manufacturer doesn’t credit them, oh well?

Or is the end user stuck because the retailer won’t refund?

You may be talking about YOUR version of real life. You are not talking about real retailing.
No the retailer is not stuck
No the end used is not stuck
Go back and re-read my post.

Let’s imagine something more expensive. Say a house. If someone builds a defective house & sells it, are you saying that there should be no 3rd party involved in the transaction any where along the way. No community standards, no safety standards on the builder, no recourse for the buyer when the house burns down because the electrical sytem was faulty.

Sally, let’s say you bought a new home that met or exceeded all community standards, all building codes and all safety codes…would you also buy homeowner’s insurance?

I’ll bet you would. Because compliance with ALL the building codes, community standards and safety codes do not guarantee that your new home will not burn down, flood, collapse or fall into a “sink hole”. So what good are all the building codes, community standards, and safety codes ???

A complete free-market system is a Utopian myth that is not practicable.

It worked quite well for the Pilgrims, It is totally practicable and will work whenever it is tried.

I like some regulations (building codes come to mind). I like knowing that if someone cheats, there are ways to recoup the money and punish them.

There are laws against cheating (Fraud)

No need to saddle an entire industry with regulations while laws exist to punish those who cheat.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

My understanding of laissez-faire capitalism is low tax, no government interference - the market regulates itself, no minimum wage, no welfare.

Very good.

In a free economy (Capitalistic) , where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade.

In a free market, all prices, wages, and profits are determined—not by the arbitrary whim of the rich or of the poor, not by anyone’s “greed” or by anyone’s need—but by the law of supply and demand.

The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgment. A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer.

In a true Capitalistic society, the only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the military, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.—Ayn Rand

 

[freeRadical]

Maybe you shouldn’t presume to know how much research I have done on him.

It’s obvious you didn’t do enough research on him. Milton Friedman was not against social welfare, he was against the current welfare programs in the US.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

lol, okay. Here you go:

econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html

Here’s some news articles on it:

businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-08/its-time-for-a-negative-income-tax
nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html

And here’s a youtube video of the man himself talking about it:

youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

 

[freeRadical]

I know for a fact you don’t know how much research I have done. I know for a fact I have not assumed anything, nor have I stated anything without providing a source.

You have assumed a lot.

Because I don’t share your views.

What does sharing views with me have to do with anything? You have claimed many times, albeit implicitly, that people who are for free markets are against social welfare.

I did not claim this.

You have many times, implicitly.

You are entitled to your opinion.

As are you. I don’t care about opinions, I care about facts.

And what makes you think I have not read this?

I can state one thing with certainty. I know what a free radical is.

If you have, maybe you should go back and reread it.

 

[freeRadical]

A lot more research on what? What research have you done on anything other than opinions you agree with? Note: unlike you I do not presume to know what research you have done. I am asking a question.

What assumptions am I making? What assumptions have I made without backing them up with evidence? In my posts to you I stated my position. No more no less. It was not a ‘here is the evidence post.’

Basic economics for starters. I am a trained economist, I have done research on many aspects of economics, both things I agree with and disagree with, that’s how I’ve formulated why I agree or disagree with them.

You have assumed that lassiez-faire means no government intervention in the market, it does not. You have assumed if someone is for the free market, the are against social welfare. That is a false dichotomy. I think Obi-Wan said it best, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”

I don’t presume anything. I can infer from your posts and your definitions of economic terms and your views on economic concepts that you have a flawed understanding of economic theory.

 

[freeRadical]

Do you understand Irish nationalism? Do you understand consociationalism? Do you understand liberal left? Do you understand democratic socialism or democratic equality? Do you understand luck egalitarianism? Do you understand Rawls theory of justice? I could mention many more things but the point of my argument is, you are not as well read as I am. It is fair to say that is an assumption, but your posts have led me to that conclusion.

Why throw out all those terms? Other then trying to sound smart, I see no reason to bring up things we are not even talking about. I love that you have concluded that I am not as well read as you. Yes, I understand all those things. Do you? Do you understand basic economics? Because that is what we are talking about here.

That does not make me right and you wrong. What it means is I have a better capacity to put myself in someone else’s position than you do. I base this assumption, and yes I am happy to admit it is an assumption, on the fact you call yourself free radical. You have also implied from your posts I have not read what you think I should. Just because I do not agree with you does not mean I have not read something. I may not have read it, but I also may have read it but just disagree.

What does putting yourself in someone else’s shoes have to do with anything? I care about facts, data, evidence, and economic theory. All I said was that you obviously have not read much Adam Smith, or if you have you don’t understand it, because you have a flawed understanding of what laissez-faire means and what a free market is. If you disagree with Adam Smith fine, do you have any evidence to back up your theory that he was wrong?

Have you read the latest publication on Thatcher? I would guess not, but I would also guess you would be happy to forward an opinion on Thatcher. I could be wrong, and you may have the prudence to say I do not know enough to make an informed decision, but in your mind I guess, and I could be wrong, you have an opinion on Thatcher you think is right.

Opinions on public figures is not the same thing. You are comparing apples and oranges. Your opinion on Adam Smith and his economic theory are two different things. It isn’t about whether I think you are right or wrong, or you think I am right or wrong, it’s about economic theory, facts, data, and evidence. So, how is Adam Smith’s economic theory wrong? I do not care about your opinion on him as a person.

I may not agree with others, but I argue I do have the capacity to put myself in their shoes irrespective of that. Can you say the same?

What does that have to do with anything we are talking about. You claim lassiez-faire means this, free market means that, etc. But you’re wrong. If you would just take the time to research it more, you would see that. They do not mean no government intervention in the market and they do not mean no social welfare programs. Why are you so keen on absolutes? They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[minkymurph]

Why throw out all those terms? Other then trying to sound smart, I see no reason to bring up things we are not even talking about. I love that you have concluded that I am not as well read as you. Yes, I understand all those things. Do you? Do you understand basic economics? Because that is what we are talking about here.

What does putting yourself in someone else’s shoes have to do with anything? I care about facts, data, evidence, and economic theory. All I said was that you obviously have not read much Adam Smith, or if you have you don’t understand it, because you have a flawed understanding of what laissez-faire means and what a free market is. If you disagree with Adam Smith fine, do you have any evidence to back up your theory that he was wrong?

Opinions on public figures is not the same thing. You are comparing apples and oranges. Your opinion on Adam Smith and his economic theory are two different things. It isn’t about whether I think you are right or wrong, or you think I am right or wrong, it’s about economic theory, facts, data, and evidence. So, how is Adam Smith’s economic theory wrong? I do not care about your opinion on him as a person.

What does that have to do with anything we are talking about. You claim lassiez-faire means this, free market means that, etc. But you’re wrong. If you would just take the time to research it more, you would see that. They do not mean no government intervention in the market and they do not mean no social welfare programs. Why are you so keen on absolutes? They are not mutually exclusive.

Free Radicals
Free radicals form when weak bonds split. They are unstable and highly reactive and attempt to attract the nearest stable molecule and turn them into free radicals which begins a chain reaction. Pollution can spawn from free radicals and if their production becomes excessive damage occurs. Free radicals are found in abundance when the body enters a pathological state.

What effect would a person who fits these characteristics have one society?

 

[minkymurph]

Very good.

Thank you Zoltan. Free radical appears to think I do not understand laissez-faire.

I would also like to commend on the fact that while assertive, your manners have not once left you in our intense debate.

 

[minkymurph]

Did someone say Milton Friedman and welfare…???

Everything Milton Friedman said about welfare is absolutely right.

However, I think** Ben Franklin** summed it up better and a little softer:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

I can’t say I disagree with this, but I wouldn’t use the terms ‘leading or driving.’ ‘Facilitating’ would be better for me. By ‘facilitating’ I mean creating means and methods for them to help themselves. Jobs would be a good start. We are desperate for more well paid jobs here.

There is no doubt the benefits system created a dependency culture in the UK, but abandoning people altogether and giving them nothing other than by an act of charity on the part of a wealthy individual? One individual does not have enough information and they will have their selected charities meaning others who may be in greater need loose out.

The reason I think welfare should be managed by a public department is because their are so many insurance scams, and because charities can be turned into a business which conflicts with their nature. Instead of little old ladies with a tin I now see people who work for charities driving big cars and standing with matching sweat shirts asking people to sign up to a direct debit and no facility to make a donation. Makes me wonder how much money gets to those who need it.

 

[minkymurph]

Sad song about a factory worker who is out of work because the factory closed down.
Of course he blames the factory owner and society in general for his woes. He is obviously ignorant of the fact that his employment was nothing more than a contractual agreement. He agreed to do work and the factory owner agreed to pay him…nothing more.
One could look at the worker’s current condition and think that maybe if he and his fellow workers put in a little more effort or time, the factory could have survived. Just a thought.

There’s a line in the song that says, ‘I never missed a day or went on strike for better pay.’ The reason a lot of factories closed here and Scotland is because they could pay unskilled workers in places like Sri Lanka much less. There was a shirt factory in Scotland that closed and moved out to Sri Lanka. After a few years the workers became skilled, had more experience, unionized and wanted better pay and conditions. They closed that factory and moved it to India.

On the point of contract - this is why I would argue there is no humanitarian principle in capitalism. A humanitarian principle would incorporate redundancy settlements into contracts and would attempt to save jobs if possible by natural wastage.

 

[minkymurph]

The Financial Crisis that began in September of 2008 was totally the fault of government intervention in the market, government regulations, government manipulations of interest rates, plus massive subsidies and regulations in housing, banking, and mortgages.

forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2013/09/19/the-financial-crisis-was-a-failure-of-government-not-free-markets/

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123414310280561945

c-span.org/video/?c4389999/government-policy-caused-2008-financial-crisis

reason.com/archives/2012/05/17/the-financial-crisis-was-the-result-of-g

Actually the Financial Crisis is the best example of why government should be totally separated from business.

Thank for the links. I will look them up when I have time as I am in the middle of writing an essay.

 

[minkymurph]

I have no idea what “parasitic capitalism” is.

Put simply - taking a cut from a business you contribute virtually nothing to and don’t have an equity stake in it.

“People shop to solve their problems instead of talking”…that’s very odd behavior, But then again you are talking about the UK, right?

My friend, if I was to start about odd behaviour in this part of the world we would be here FOREVER! Ask Richard Hass.

I think people have the false eyelashes, the hair extensions, liposuction on those troublesome areas because they want them. If they did not demand those things…Capitalism would have to find something else to provide.

Of course they do and I am not saying it is wrong to desire these things or sell them - but in moderation and I do think the market should take at least SOME responsibility for the lack of it. It’s not a good thing just to always have what you want. I used to work in Pizza Hut and witnessed a woman in her late twenties running out in tears because she couldn’t have a kids meal.

No one exploits the vulnerable for profit in a capitalist system! There I said it.

I think that is either a very naive, or blinkered perspective. What would your definition of exploitation be?

Capitalism provides the needs and wants of ALL,… rich, poor and vulnerable for a profit.
Remember you DID agree that profit was not a bad thing.

I did agree that and I stand by it. It’s not a bad thing. What is bad is profit from someone else’s disadvantageous circumstances they have no control over, making a profit by cheating others, unfairly making a profit to your advantage and someone else’s detriment - to mention but a few.

Of course the motive is profit. (remember nothing wrong with profit)
If people do not need or want what a rain forest produces,there is no profit.
If people do not need or want what can be produced from natural resources…there is no profit.
Capitalism has to go where there is profit. .

What about the people who live in the rain forest? Those tribes? Do they matter? What about the flora and fauna of the rain forest? Does it matter if they become extinct? Or am I just a tree hugger? What happens when there is no rain forest left? So what? We made a profit while we could and if we hadn’t someone else would have?

You asked me what the ‘tragedy of the commons’ was. This is it. Things owned ‘in common’ destroyed by privatization. There are certain things that should be owned ‘in common’ as then everyone can benefit and not one individual and future generations. Valuable museum pieces is another example of things that its better if they are owned ‘in common.’

“People such as Nozick…???” He was a philosopher. I don’t think he employed anyone…other than a housekeeper…maybe.

That’s a nice little nugget. Thank you.

It may add to the unemployment of local citizens but it would surely reduce the unemployment of the immigrant population.

I believe the Catholic Church strongly encourages open immigration so people can enjoy a better life.

There is nothing wrong with immigration for a better life. The Irish did it for years. but as you say it creates unemployment on the domestic front. Immigrants will also work for less which admittedly is great if you own the business. Not so good if your a skilled worker with experience.

 

[freeRadical]

Free Radicals
Free radicals form when weak bonds split. They are unstable and highly reactive and attempt to attract the nearest stable molecule and turn them into free radicals which begins a chain reaction. Pollution can spawn from free radicals and if their production becomes excessive damage occurs. Free radicals are found in abundance when the body enters a pathological state.

What effect would a person who fits these characteristics have one society?

What does my choice of username have to do with anything? Why don’t you actually respond to what is in my post?

 

[freeRadical]

Thank you Zoltan. Free radical appears to think I do not understand laissez-faire.

I would also like to commend on the fact that while assertive, your manners have not once left you in our intense debate.

You don’t, and from the looks of it, neither does Zoltan.

 

[freeRadical]

My understanding of laissez-faire capitalism is low tax, no government interference - the market regulates itself, no minimum wage, no welfare.

This is your definition of laissez-faire and the post Zoltan responded “Very good” to. This is not laissez-faire. Laissez-faire does not mean no government intervention or no welfare. It simply means that the market sets wages and prices, the market determines supply and demand, the market determines production levels and employment levels, the market determines were resources are allocated, etc. It does not mean government does not intervene in the case of a market failure and it does not mean that there is no social welfare programs.

 

[minkymurph]

You don’t, and from the looks of it, neither does Zoltan.

If only an elite can understand it it is only of use to them. I rest my case.

 

[freeRadical]

The reason I think welfare should be managed by a public department is because their are so many insurance scams, and because charities can be turned into a business which conflicts with their nature. Instead of little old ladies with a tin I now see people who work for charities driving big cars and standing with matching sweat shirts asking people to sign up to a direct debit and no facility to make a donation. Makes me wonder how much money gets to those who need it.

And you think that doesn’t happen when the government runs welfare programs? The welfare programs in the US are rife with corruption and fraud. Do you know how much of actual tax payer dollars that go toward social welfare actually make it to the recipient?

 

[freeRadical]

If only an elite can understand it it is only of use to them. I rest my case.

How does that “rest the case”. You haven’t proven anything. It still doesn’t change the fact that you don’t understand laissez-faire and you are misrepresenting those who believe in lassiez-faire and free markets as people that are against social welfare.

How is it that only the “elite” can understand it? It seems pretty simple to me.

Do you concede the debate? Are you actually going to respond to what’s in my posts instead of talking about my user name?

 

[minkymurph]

How does that “rest the case”. You haven’t proven anything. It still doesn’t change the fact that you don’t understand laissez-faire and you are misrepresenting those who believe in lassiez-faire and free markets as people that are against social welfare.

How is it that only the “elite” can understand it? It seems pretty simple to me.

Do you concede the debate? Are you actually going to respond to what’s in my posts instead of talking about my user name?

Spotting an internet troll is also simple, and using the name ‘free radical’ in addition to the tone of your posts makes it obvious.

No one with any degree of common sense will engage in a sustained, serious debate with an internet troll.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Thank you Zoltan. Free radical appears to think I do not understand laissez-faire.

I would also like to commend on the fact that while assertive, your manners have not once left you in our intense debate.

My pleasure M’Lady. :flowers:

My French is limited to reading menus and impressing the Maître d’ in French restaurants. “Laissez-faire” means “let alone” or “keep out of it”.

When Ayn Rand and I connect that term with Capitalism or the Free Market we simply mean that GOVERNMENT should “let alone” or “keep out of it”.

I’m sure there are other definitions that broaden the concept of Laissez-faire Capitalism…but mine is simply…“let alone”.