WHAT TO THINK ABOUT THE UNITED STATES. - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-19-2002, 11:24 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
But do you realize the effects of a more rigid workforce?
I'm not even going to go further, because you've missed my point. I'm not requiring a "rigid workforce." My point is that I believe that "people," not business, should come first. And in economics, it is the opposite.

Quote:
Again, in an effort to focus on the immediate results on the individual labor, you've failed to consider the long-term effects for all involved.
The long-term effects of laissez-faire capitalism was the late 19th century: monopolies, low wages, poor labor treatment, and concentrated wealth. Regulations were put in to stop this from happening again, but, as they slowly get deregulated under false promises of "more competition" and "lower consumer prices," we just see fewer, but larger corporations and higher prices. And, without this competition, we have business complacency, whereas business refuses to innovate, preferring to sell consumers the same old product because it is dependable.

Quote:
Rather than require industries to keep employing workers they genuinely no longer need, I do think that re-education and other assistance in finding a new job is the better solution. That's not to suggest that blue-collar workers are "stupid and lazy", but to remind you that a fluid job market is better for both employers AND employees.
And, pray tell, who is going to foot the bill for "re-education"? Labor cannot afford it on their lowered wages, and the expense of college is overly burdensome for lots of people.

Quote:
As far as I can tell, you haven't been recognizing "supply and demand" in either case - simplistic or with provisos. You've continued to focus on JUST the direct effects on JUST the person most obviously involved, utterly ignoring the long-term effects on all.
I can't wait 50 years for a few pennies to trickle-down off of Bill Gates' bloated stomach. And the problems I bring about are long-term problems. Wage suppression has lasted two decades with no end in sight. Over 45 million people without health insurance with no end in sight. These problems aren't just going to go away if you ignore them.

Quote:
I believe that you *were* implying that your beliefs were at least more Christian.
If the shoe fits...

Quote:
1. Those who did believe that poverty is the will of God were indeed wrong, though I'm not sure it was "Christianity" en masse.
The noble exception was Roman Catholic social service institutions.

Quote:
2. I'm not suggesting the improper mixture of church and state. I'm suggesting that taking care of the poor may be the job of private orginizations (churches and others) solely. Taking the job back from the government isn't a First Amendment infringement - at least, it's no more an infringement than the government seizing the role in the first place.
If you send it to private organizations, you run into the problem of power and profit motivation. If you hand it to religion, you have the problem of discrimination and judgmentalism.

Quote:
3. The United States is the most giving country in the world, by dollars.
And it still isn't enough.

Quote:
You know, it's none of your business what I do in my private life, asshole.
It was a rhetorical question, dumb fuck.

Quote:
How many times did you give?
Since you've asked, I am forbidden from giving, thanks to homophobic stereotypes.

Quote:
Moreover, if government knows best, how much money have you given to government above and beyond your tax burden? How many times have you looked at your wallet, decided you have too much money, and given it to Washington?
What a stupid question. They have taxes, because they know people won't freely give, but things need to be done. The war on terrorism, for instance, can't pay for itself.

Quote:
Beyond that, while it *is* true that government can more completely guarantee charity, it's ALSO true that government-run programs are easily abused and difficult to reform.
Well, when you have a stubborn legislature, it is hard to reform anything, now isn't it?

Quote:
(I value freedom over security, you apparently don't)
Boy...we certainly have the wrong president for that. Ashcroft virtually ordered suspended the Freedom of Information Act. Bush signed an executive order that reversed a 1978 executive order that required the release of presidential papers 12 years after a president leaves office--only funny, considering Reagan's papers were due to be released. Anyone who questions is now "aiding terrorism." Such freedom we have...

Quote:
but I would only give government those jobs that the private sector clearly cannot handle, and I'm not convinced charity is one of them.
If the private sector could handle it, then why are there still homeless? Those without insurance? If it can't handle it now with the government doing most of the job, then I don't expect it to handle it doing 100% of the job.

Quote:
They either reinvest it in themselves, hiring more, buying more machinery, etc.; or give larger profits to stockholders.
It will certainly be option #2.

Quote:
Those stockholders, at least, now have a greater income to also invest in other companies or simply "buy stuff". The economy improves, prices of products drop, and the BUYING POWER of those with the same take-home wages INCREASES.
Oh yes. Those old people can now get $9 dividend checks coming in, instead of the $2 ones they currently have. The amount of sizeable stockholders out there aren't enough to make a substantial dent in the price of anything.

Then a rumor hits the stock market, and all their investment is worthless.

Quote:
I agree that the current health care system is screwed up, but that isn't an indictment of capitalism. If anything, a system where prices are set almost entirely separated from the effects on the consumers' pocketbook is about as far as an American gets from supply-and-demand.
We aren't getting "supply and demand" on medical prices. Pharmaceutical companies jack up American medical prices to make up for nations that were smart enough to regulate the prices. And, since most medicines we currently use are under patents still, they are monopolies. Almost amusing how, in India, they could sell AIDS drugs for less than $10 that American pharmaceuticals were charging $10,000 for. And who ultimately suffers? The American public.

Quote:
Further, I question the stats about the low-paying jobs, specifically: does it include teenagers and college kids who aren't trying to raise enough money to feed a family? And does it also account for the fact that low-paying jobs are also very transient - that most people don't keep those jobs for any extended period of time? If it doesn't (and I suspect it doesn't), the statistic is meaningless.
What you state is irrelevant. My point is that most jobs created now are low-paying. When people talk about all the "jobs created" under Reagan, they neglected to mention that they were mostly low paying. Unfortunately, that's most of the fun of politics--the word play.

Quote:
And when your family is working half the year to write a check to the IRS, how can it function properly?
Are you sick in the head? We aren't paying 50% in income taxes. And, not that it is any of your business, but we get sizeable refund checks.

Quote:
1. If businesses lower wages, the Fed won't see the added income.
The Fed's concern is not about added income, it is inflation curbing.

Quote:
2. If the Fed's reaction is what hurts individuals, you're still not indicting capitalism. It may just indicate that government has too much control over the economy, not too little.
The Fed's reaction was legislated under a conservative president.

Quote:
The federal government has spent something near a TRILLION dollars since 1930 in its unsuccessful effort to defeat poverty. It's created a welfare state and supressed the economy. Dismantling those programs will be difficult, but I think it's necessary.
It was pretty damn successful until the 1980s. And a trillion over 60 years is nothing compared to $7 trillion spent on the military in the 1980s.

Quote:
No, "progressive", punitive taxes are nothing new, but they do provide a huge disincentive to create wealth.
Is Bill Gates going to get so depressed that he'll just stop wanting to make money?

Quote:
And you also deal with generally mediocre services, a stagnant economy, and, most importantly, drastically less economic freedom. It's not all roses.
I'll let the Europeans comment on this.

Quote:
See, this is the big difference between you and me. You see the rich paying less than they are now, and say that's not fair. I see that, under Forbes' plan, the rich is STILL paying more as a percentage, still paying more in absolute numbers, and is less likely to find loopholes to pay less.
So, somehow, in reducing the rate from 36% to 17%, the rich are going to pay more? I'm not even going to comment on the ridiculousness of that.

Quote:
I find that more than fair for the poor.
What part of the 2% increase in taxes didn't you understand?

Quote:
So it's not only the U.S. vs. Mexico, it's the North vs. the South? Are you honestly suggesting that companies should be unable to move their plants to ANOTHER PART OF THE UNITED STATES?
No, I'm saying that they think of the South as "cheap." I'll make sure to put that on my city's billboard.

Quote:
I suppose that if you lived in City X, and a company moved to the suburbs because of lower taxes, you'd ask the federal government to prevent that too.
Sounds correct to me.

Quote:
...or, are you suggesting that the federal government should make all economic decesions, including tax laws and labor laws that have traditionally been the states' domain?
Not really.

Quote:
Why even have a Tenth Amendment?
In case you haven't read it, it is terribly broad.

Quote:
Wasn't there a recession between the glorious early Seventies and the early Eighties? What caused that, hmm?
And weren't there two recessions in the "glorious" 80s?

Quote:
And which decade do you think was the most prosperous since WWII? The Seventies, or the Eighties?
Prosperous for business, the 80s. Prosperous for labor, the 60s.

Quote:
To use your analogy, you're still ignoring the basic physics rather than acknowledge the basic phyisics THEN recognizing the provisos.
I see you've fully ignored the point of what I wrote. Not a complete surprise, though.

Quote:
And the "deregulated" companies can't build more plants, despite the HUGE increase in demand, thanks to environmental regulations. In this case, limits on production directly lower supply, creating the same damn shortage.
What part of "cut production" and "higher prices" didn't you understand? The shortages magically disappeared after the utility commission uncovered the utilities were often operating at 75% capacity during the so-called "shortages."

And, FYI, they are building more plants over there. They don't magically appear overnight.

Quote:
And you still haven't shown the basic understanding from which you can begin factoring, which is why I suggested "Economics in One Lesson."


More theory. I've had enough theory driven into me to last a lifetime, and I haven't liked what I read.

Quote:
But if you want to stop debating, great. I'm not going to reply again. If you want to follow suit, please do.
Is that a promise or yet another idle threat?

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 12:44 AM   #32
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Is that a promise or yet another idle threat?

A promise, with the exception of a comment on rhetorical questions:

You asked, "How often do you give to charities, Bubba?"

A question like that seems far less rhetorical than your quetion of "When your 'family' is working most of the day, how can it function properly?" And less rhetorical than my reply, "And when your family is working half the year to write a check to the IRS, how can it function properly?"

Your question about how much I donate seems FAR less rhetorical because it addressed me personally. It was a personal question, not a hypothetical one. It asked me a question that I have a quantitative answer to ("how much I give" compared to "how can a family function properly under X conditions"). It asked a question that not only CAN be answered, but one that people shouldn't have to answer. And, above all that, it asked a question in which a non-answer would have been used against me.

Had I simply said, "I refuse to answer," you could have VERY easily insinuated that I gave nothing, thus making be to look like a hypocrite.

It is for these reasons that I responded so harshly, reminded you that it was't your business, and still answered the question.

And it is for those reasons that I suggest you don't ask questions like that.


I am now closing this useless discussion.

I will continue to post my commentaries on the world at large, as I'm sure you will also do.

I won't reply to your posts, and I expect you to follow suit. That is, I will ignore you as long as you do likewise.
__________________

__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 03:30 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I apologize for the language. Again, it appears that you did not READ what I WROTE, that you're replying to someone else's posts and inexplicably quoting mine.
It is almost interesting how all of our arguments inevitably come to this.

Quote:
Anyway, I never said nor implied that everyone can become rich - as far as I know, neither has Rush. I *do* believe that most Americans are able-bodied and able-minded enough to provide for themselves and their families, but that's beside the point.
Rush has said so actually. And it is a noble fancy, but one that is impossible. And, honestly, I have no problem that some people are wealthy. My problem is that those who are wealthy often do it at the expense of making others poor. As much as we need CEOs and executives, they are nothing without the labor force behind them. We need to keep that in mind.

Quote:
My comment ("they earned it") was in response to your sarcastic comment that "we still worship that non-living entity we call 'business' with that hollow promise that someday its wealth will 'trickle-down' to us, so we can look disdainfully at our lazy blue-collar neighbors and go to church and praise God for all the wealth He thrust upon me."
"They"? Business is not a living entity. You think I am ignorant of economics, as you state with such a derogatory grin. However, did you ever critically analyze what they teach you in economics? First of all, the independent variable is always "business," which implicitly means that everything else should be molded to fit business. I was not bemused when I found that labor was lumped in the same category as machinery, because people should not be so easily expendable like an obsolete machine. Hence, this is why I disagree with economics, because I think that the independent variable should be "people."

Very banally, you continue to mention "supply and demand." Once again, I do not disagree, but certain conditions are required to allow for true "supply and demand," which, most simply, is sufficient competition. But that is what America has always--and continues to--lack in most key industries. With gasoline, for instance, you don't have true competition. The price that gas stations set reflect only have 3-4 cents per gallon going to the station itself. The rest goes back to the parent oil company (minus taxes). The mega mergers of the last decade, which reflected Clinton's more conservative approach to economics, certainly did not help, and Dubya has continued with the same approach.

Quote:
And I find it quite sad (but no less predictable) that you apparently honestly believe that employees are always "exploited", never hired.
My concern is for the blue-collar laborers, not myself. Whereas their high school and associate degrees were more than sufficient 25 years ago to make a damn great living, the climate shifted so dramatically that now they are left behind. Now, just imagine yourself, Bubba. Let's say that you finish your education with a degree you believe is kick ass to make a great living. You settle down, get a job that you've worked 20 years at, and start a family. You're living the American Dream, right?

Then, almost instantaneously, employers now want a degree higher than what you've attained. The price to get that degree then becomes 5x higher than what it was a year ago. But you have bills, you have a family, and what you need is work. Almost immediately, "to become more competitive," your wages are slashed about 25% and frozen for three years at that rate. You could quit, but to start out elsewhere, you'd be forced to take on entry-level wages, which are 50% lower than what you are used to making. So you stay...you have no choice, and the bills keep coming in. Consumer prices, as usual, continue to skyrocket, but we are told by our government that that isn't inflation.

Later in the year, your plant closes. "To become more competitive," your job is being sent to Mexico. Almost snidely, the government tells you that you are just lazy and stupid, and that you should go back to college. But you can't afford it. College isn't going to pay your immediately due bills. So you do get a new job finally at about 50% lower than what you are used to. You do get health insurance, but you have to co-pay $45 a week to have it. Hence, there goes more of your pay check. And now imagine, twenty years afterwards, you finally are a bit back on your feet, but not even remotely where you were in terms of the salary or benefits you used to make at your old plant twenty years prior.

So, tell me, Bubba, if you lived in such a situation, like millions were forced to live in the 1980s, like I, as the son of a factory worker, had to live then, would you be touting the glory of capitalism then? It's "supply and demand," and it is you that is expendable, but, unlike a decommissioned piece of machinery, you are still alive.

Quote:
Well, I apologize if I mischaracterized you, but you've clearly shown a lack of understanding when it comes to even elementary economics, an ignorance of capitalism that I've most often seen in Marxists and closet Marxists.
I fully well know theoretical capitalism, perhaps more so than you. While you've simply regurgitated every line fed to you in your economics curriculum, I've applied it to reality. With theoretic communism, it was obviously very different in practice. It is the same way with theoretical capitalism, and the simplistic "supply and demand" argument shows real ignorance to all the factors that shape a capitalist marketplace.

Quote:
"A slave to your Christian beliefs"? If I'm wrong for trying to associate you and Karl Marx, your much more mistaken to attempt to disassociate me and Christ.
Hoo-ray. Now I can do my own "I never said, nor implied" statement.

I never said, nor implied that your beliefs are anti-Christian. I was talking about my Christian beliefs.

Quote:
Capitalism doesn't demand that individuals act selfishly, it simply recognizes that most people do most of the time - and it recognizes that self-interest is often quite helpful in generating wealth for the entire society.
Exactly. Hence, I believe that there must be sufficient regulation to curtail such behavior. Without the regulation of the early 20th century, you and I would likely very exploited laborers that have been working in factories since we were 5 years old.

Quote:
If capitalism suggests anything about taking care of the poor, etc., it suggests perhaps that government is not the one to do it - the taxes required to do so may needlessly hamper the free flow of capital.
Let's look back at history. When it wasn't the government taking care of people, no one else did.

Quote:
Personally, I believe that capitalism (and democracy) need to tempered with Christian morality - not that the government needs to provide a welfare state, but that individuals should give to charities.
In the 1920s, during the last fundamentalist revival before the present, it was Christianity that disdainfully evoked predestination to state that the poor are poor because it is God's will and the rich are rich because of God's will. Hence, they felt that aiding the poor was going contrary to God's will. How quickly that all changed when the nouveau riche fell flat on their ass during the Great Depression.

I would not trust the welfare of our nations on the highly judgmental and highly discriminatory Christian religions. If anything, you should learn that the mixing of politics and religion is a dangerous combination, whereas morality is often compromised in favor of power and money. Hence, you see why the Reformation happened in the 1500s.

Quote:
IN FACT, between the two (welfare and charities), charities appear to be the more attractive, Christianity-wise, because it involves the free will of the person giving, as opposed to the confiscatory taxation of the "donor".
How often do you give to charities, Bubba? How often do most people you know give to charities? Even with 9-11, a lot of people pledged blood donation, but not even half actually went through with it. The only way you can assure the welfare of our citizens is through government, and the only way government can run is through taxation.

But let's say that taxation ended tomorrow. Business would see this, and likely lower your wages proportionately in due time. Hence, we'd really be no greater off, now would we?

Quote:
Those desires of yours ("until... I won't be happy") sound quite noble, but we should carefully consider the suggested solutions to see if they actually work. As far as I know, you've given very few solutions, and - given your ignorance in basic economics - I would be very suspect of any quick fix you suggest.
Well, considering that over 45 million Americans are without health insurance and that the most jobs created in America in the last twenty years were low paying (stuff like McDonald's, etc.), I would say that our current system is not working.

Quote:
Further, the desire to see "everyone make a living wage" (a favorite phrase of Clinton, if I recall correctly) seems unnecessary, especially because most teenagers at supermarkets don't need to make enough to feed a household of four.
See, now you are being silly. Thirty years ago, the average family could survive on one income, usually from the father figure. The average family now uses two incomes, and it is not that the second income is just for luxury and greed factor. It is just to survive. And then, here we had all this "family values" talk from Republicans. But, when your "family" is working most of the day, how can it function properly?

And it can't. In the last twenty years, you can proportionately see a change in the behavior of children between those that grew up with a parent at home and those who grew up with day care and babysitters. But capitalism doesn't give a shit about that.

Quote:
(And, instead of forcing wages up, we could lower taxes - the individual would still see more money come home.)
Business would likely lower wages proportionately. The Federal Reserve would see the added income, signal the "inflation" flag (remember, the primary indicator of inflation over the last twenty years is wages), and drive down wages.

And, once again, there is that issue of who is going to pay for the government functioning? Who is going to pay for all those hundreds of billions in new military toys Dubya wanted? Who is going to pay for when that hurricane comes and destroys whole areas of land? You think that all government does is waste money, but I'm sure if that disaster ever comes, you'd decry for the government to help you.

Quote:
And as a final observation, your desires seem very difficult to attain - and certainly not something that government can achieve, regardless of how much money it spends.
It's funny how the Scandinavians could do this, and America, with all its power and wealth, cannot.

Quote:
Most people would be furious paying 70% of their income to the government, regardless of the amount they made. Why? Well, it's a pretty big reason, one you should take to heart: IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY.
Of course, the wealthiest only pay about 36% in taxes in America. But, in France, it is about 70% for the wealthiest, with the less you make the dramatically less you pay in taxes. A novel concept, isn't it? But think of all that you get with taxes over there--health care, efficient public transportation, etc. Hence, you would require fewer expenses, and not have to worry about your health care system or transportation declaring bankruptcy due to a worthless stock that plunged over a rumor.

Quote:
I also think it isn't good when the tax code has so many loopholes as to allow companies to, in the end, pay so little. The obvious solution would be a simpler code.
"Simpler codes" lead to the common man paying more in taxes, with the wealthy getting off big time. Steve Forbes' flat tax plan, for instance, actually had the poorest paying 2% more of a tax rate and the wealthiest paying a rate that was 19% less. How fair is that?

Quote:
Taking those two paragraphs at one time, I can see that you're at LEAST no better. You apparently believe that everyone in corporate America is pure evil. Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise, but I do believe you're talking out of your ass.
Either that or you are living in a fantasy world and refuse to pay attention to reality, clinging, instead, to theory. So, let me remind you of it.

According to the corporate world, the South--where you live--is a bastion of cheap labor in America. No unions and lots of right-to-work states. So, what happens is that every time there is a "recession," they close plants in the North and send them South, where they can pay you fools much less. Maybe it is because it is cheaper to live there, or maybe it is because you just take more corporate bullshit down there.

Quote:
No, I wouldn't be a tyrant. I know you find it hard to believe, but I would be a reasonable man; I just don't want government telling me what to do, what they find reasonable.
If it weren't for that big-bad "government," you would be working 14 hour days, seven days a week, just like they did in the late 19th century.

Quote:
We're also propping up a bloated government. Slash taxes in half, and you wouldn't have people working for "half a salary".
That's bull. Do you need a course in mathematics now too?

Salary X: $60,000
Tax Rate: 25%

Taxes, before all legal deductions and refunds: $15,000

Now let's slash taxes in half.

Tax Rate: 12.5%

Taxes, before all legal deductions and refunds: $7,500

Shouldn't I now have twice as much to work with, according to what you have stated?

The prime buying power of the American working class was around 1970, where many auto workers could actually afford Cadillacs and country clubs like the wealthy. The prime tax burden was on corporations, rather than individuals (like now). Prices were regulated to prevent going too excessive. Excessive corporate profits were discouraged under the windfall profit tax; hence, it was more advantageous to give higher salaries to your labor to avoid that government penalty. Workers were happy, America was prosperous, and the world didn't implode.

All that got deregulated in the early 1980s, and look at the world we have now. The average worker cannot remotely afford those luxury items, there is no incentive to raise wages (the incentive is actually to keep them low now), consumer prices go unchecked, and more wealth is concentrated in the upper 1%. Would you say we are better off now or then? Knowing you, you'll say now, and you are a fool if you believe that.

Quote:
I will ignore the Mien Kamph comment if you will forgive the Das Kapital comment. Again, just because you're ignorant of basic economics doesn't necessarily mean you're a communist, and I wrong to think so.
And just because you are happily in theoretical euphoria, with the theoretical zeal of a brainwashed university student, and ignorant of reality...I guess that doesn't mean you are a Nazi. So I will forgive the "Das Kapital" comment.

Quote:
melon, you think "supply and demand" are mere buzzwords, and you think that price fixes do not cause shortages. You clearly do not have even the most basic understanding of economics. Until you do, there's no sense debating at all.
Bubba, there is more to economics than "supply and demand," and, thus, you clearly do not have an understanding of true economics. Under most basic science, you could say that a bowling ball and a feather will fall to the ground at the same rate. But then you wouldn't have taken into account a whole number of factors, including weight, aerodynamics, etc. That is your problem regarding economics; you don't take everything into account. "Supply and demand" is the same as assuming we live in a vacuum, where a bowling ball and a feather have the same advantages, but, clearly, we don't live in a vacuum and your simplistic "supply and demand" scenarios don't work.

Price fixing always causes shortages? Look at the deregulated electricity of California. The power companies simply cut output and cried "shortage" as an excuse to raise prices. But I'm sure you'd be happy paying 10x as much for your electricity, knowing that your power company is now making a hefty profit for it's stockholders, while outputting less electricity with no government regulation behind it. But I'm sure, like everyone else, you'd bitch. You can't have both ways.

Until you get something called "real life experience," which I was attempting to give you some with "American Dream," so you can get beyond the simplistic pretenses you learn in university, then there is no point debating with you either.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 01-19-2002).]
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 07:53 AM   #34
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
[BAnd you also deal with generally mediocre services, a stagnant economy, and, most importantly, drastically less economic freedom. It's not all roses.[/B]
What ARE you talking about?

Germany and France have some of the best public services in the world, including transportation, Weflare and the Health Service. Have you ever been to France, Achtung Bubba, you will find that their transport services are in fact even better than say New York's. I can't vouch for ALL European countries, but France and Germany certainly have much more than 'mediocre services'. France is certainly the best example of people actually recognising the need to pay for efficiency, as opposed to the British. And while we're at it, France and Germany don't exactly have stagnant economies either, they are one of the strongest and healthiest economies around, simply BECAUSE of economic freedom.

You can't summarise the entirety of Europe like that, countries vary and France and Germany are a complete contradiction to what you just stated; they don't fit your description at all.

And, before you start criticising Europe's economy again and singing the USA's economy's praises, as said before...

'If the countries in Western Europe were even half as large as the USA in capital, labor supply, market structure and enterprise culture they would be just as succesful if not more.

Don't start throwing rocks at something that is totally different from USA's economy, what is so wrong with the socialism adopted in Western Europe? You're assuming that the countries in Western Europe have the same resources as the USA, which they do not, how can you compare success on that basis? If one had to, I would say Germany has been far more succesful than USA in a large number of ways because of their past (and to an extent present) quasi-socialist structure, but it would not be a sound argument, just as your statement about capitalism being far more succesful in a large economy than socialism in a vacuum; its a sweeping statement. It won't do.'

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 10:25 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Ummmmm.... Achtung Bubba:
Do you own a business?
You spend so much time posting here that I doubt it.
Good luck with globalization - you will feel it too ;-)
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 01:36 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony:
And while we're at it, France and Germany don't exactly have stagnant economies either, they are one of the strongest and healthiest economies around, simply BECAUSE of economic freedom.
I will be interested to see how these two nations, along with the rest of the nations of the European Union, do in the next decade or two. I think that it very well could pose a threat to American economic and political dominance, but that all depends on the success of the Euro.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 01:43 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
[i]I am now closing this useless discussion.
It was useless from post #1. You wrote this post to provoke people, and provocation is what you got. Or did you expect people to sing your praises? <-- rhetorical question

Quote:
I will continue to post my commentaries on the world at large, as I'm sure you will also do.
I would expect nothing different.

Quote:
I won't reply to your posts, and I expect you to follow suit. That is, I will ignore you as long as you do likewise.
And ruin all this fun? I can't make any promises for the future...but in regards to this specific topic, I'll say it has been argued as much as it can be argued. Let's let others comment on it.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 07:10 PM   #38
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 12:45 AM
(I will clarify: I am closing the futile discussion of talking to you, Melon. Not this thread in general.)
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 07:40 PM   #39
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars:
Ummmmm.... Achtung Bubba:
Do you own a business?
You spend so much time posting here that I doubt it.
Good luck with globalization - you will feel it too ;-)
No, I'm a grad student, if you must know. I do post too much to the forum, but it's all in in the spirit of compassion, specifically compassion towards those that distrust capitalism as much as Marx did and understand aspects of capitalism as poorly as Keynes.

Frankly, I don't fear globalization (particularly if our trade agreements result in a more-or-less even playing field in such things as those regulations that are necessary). As a consumer, it will give me a larger market from which to shop. I will be able to buy more, higher quality goods for less money.

As a producer/employee, I should not fear globalization in general. First of, most jobs aren't threatened; in a service-oriented economy, many only deal with local competition (other plumbers and accountants). Further, while some industries move to other countries, we must remember this: things that the United States does well will become more lucrative. Those in the lucrative markets - and those that can get into lucrative markets - will do just fine.


Besides, on a personal level, I already deal with a degree of globalization. I have met, in my major alone, students from Australia, East Asia, India, Europe, Africa, and Latin America. Certainly, computer science jobs aren't "leaving the country" for the underdeveloped Third World. But people from the rest of the world are coming here to compete. I have faith that, if I apply my God-given abilities and work hard, I will prosper.

Repeat after me:

Capitalism is good. Even on the global level.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 08:01 PM   #40
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I do post too much to the forum, but it's all in in the spirit of compassion, specifically compassion towards those that distrust capitalism as much as Marx did and understand aspects of capitalism as poorly as Keynes.
And thats exactly why the world's economy is in the state that it is. With all due respect Achtung Bubba, I don't want nor need your compassion. Thanks anyway.

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 09:12 PM   #41
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony:
And thats exactly why the world's economy is in the state that it is. With all due respect Achtung Bubba, I don't want nor need your compassion. Thanks anyway.
I was quasi-joking about the compassion bit.

But I must ask, when you say "that's exactly why the economy is in the stat that it is," what are you referring to by "that"?

My posting too much?

The "spirit of compassion" bit?

That there are those who distrust and misunderstand capitalism?

Very confusing.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 09:18 PM   #42
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
But I must ask, when you say "that's exactly why the economy is in the stat that it is," what are you referring to by "that"?
Sorry if I took it the wrong way, though the 'quasi' bit kind of proves my interpretation right. I was referring to the notion that Keynes had a poor concept of economics. Now, you may not agree with the man, but you can't deny that he was influential in his day, perhaps more influential than you or I will ever be. The thing with Keynes is that nearly everybody disagrees with him or has forgotten him, even those who follow his concepts do it under the pseudonym of 'Neo-Keynesians' which I disapprove of.

I'm sorry, but I think a return to Keynesian economics would help the globalized economy far more than the current notions of capitalism, and no, Keynes is not against capitalism and never was, he simply had ideas about how to manage it, that's all.

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-20-2002, 10:17 PM   #43
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Keynes may not have been against capitalism, true enough, but I think he was wrong about "guiding" capitalism, particularly through inflation.

I can't deny his influence on global economics, but I can suggest that he influenced the world badly.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 01-21-2002, 11:22 AM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
(I will clarify: I am closing the futile discussion of talking to you, Melon. Not this thread in general.)
No bother. I'm tired of arguing this topic. I will be curious to see if others can argue an opposing side effectively. But, don't worry, I'll be chucking on the sidelines...

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-21-2002, 04:26 PM   #45
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 06:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Repeat after me:

Capitalism is good. Even on the global level.
Bubba, everytime the world has gotten into an econimic crisis it has been because we got our mind stuck in a sort of economic thinking that worked for a past situation

there is no such thing as "capitalism is good"
it has to evolve with all sorts off other aspects in this world

I believe myself that capitalism is 'the best' of the different economic schools
but I do think while keeping in mind the basics of capitalism we must try to accentuate various social + ecological aspects in life to get the best results for mankind

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
__________________

__________________
Salome is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com