PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on Free Market Capitalism



PlasmaSnake101
7th Aug 2010, 00:21
I know I've carried this conversation before, but I guess I just want to make a thread devoted to it, considering the economic system will probably be brought up in the game to a degree.

First question for you folks: How do you think the concept of Capitalism will be depicted in Deus Ex 3? In positive or negative light? Do you think corporate greed will be the reason for many of the in game world's problems?

My take on it, I think the rich poor divide will be exaggerated, as it always is, and the main culprit will be Capitalism. I think the only bad light government will be depicted in will occur through corporate corruption, showing that the State is pure until corrupted by greed brought on the system of oppression.

Second question: How do you feel about the topic in general? Do you think private ownership of capital is a bad idea, do you prefer the mixed economy? Are there any outright Marxists on the forum?

If you know me then you probably know I support free market Capitalism and only support extremely small forms of government regulation. I oppose minimum wage laws but support environmentally led things such as cap and trade, which I consider the most effective at combating pollution. I'm just worried I might have to sit through a game that from time to time bashed my ideological position on economics. Should I be worried?

TrickyVein
7th Aug 2010, 01:08
Yes.

PlasmaSnake101
7th Aug 2010, 01:34
Yes.

Shame, the message will make multiple playthroughs tiresome.

SquidPirate
7th Aug 2010, 03:21
Hi Plasma,
I'm a capitalist, but I believe firmly in a mixed system. After all, public education is technically socialist, but it is absolutely required to a functioning republic. And frankly, I support national healthcare too.

I think DX3 will be about power itself, in the framework of corporations (that's a cyberpunk mainstay) and personal greed... we will see the rise of Bob Page, whose ambition fueled the break from the Illuminati.

Philosophically, I think a healthy fusion of the two systems is possible. Call it compassionate capitalism.

PlasmaSnake101
7th Aug 2010, 03:45
Hi Plasma,
I'm a capitalist, but I believe firmly in a mixed system. After all, public education is technically socialist, but it is absolutely required to a functioning republic. And frankly, I support national healthcare too.

I think DX3 will be about power itself, in the framework of corporations (that's a cyberpunk mainstay) and personal greed... we will see the rise of Bob Page, whose ambition fueled the break from the Illuminati.

Philosophically, I think a healthy fusion of the two systems is possible. Call it compassionate capitalism.

I support public alternatives, but I feel that the public option should always be second to privately offered goods and services. And for your compassionate capitalism, I feel that if the State isn't restricted it will eventually overtake private industry. A health fusion cannot exist in my opinion, one is arguably parasitic. The relationship will always be at odds and the State will constantly have to be scaled back, which is why small government proponents are so favorable after a few years of vast government expansion. See the Tea Party, although they aren't very bright, their heart is in the right place.

Irate_Iguana
7th Aug 2010, 10:44
A mix between capitalism and government is my preferred system. There are simply some systems that capitalism isn't built to handle and some systems that the government shouldn't want to handle. I've seen a few industries in my country get privatized and as a result go completely down the crapper. The government might not be ideal, but there are areas where a total absence of needing to make a profit benefits the situation.

Also the stock market in general is having a poor influence on capitalism in my opinion. Creating money where there is none in hope for vast returns can't be sustainable. Corporations are being pressured into generating huge profits over incredibly short terms as opposed to creating long term stable companies with good profits. A bad quarter could kill a company.

Got a question for you PlasmaSnake101. You are obviously in favor of complete capitalism. How do you feel about all the protectionist measures countries put in place to fend off foreign products? What do you think of the mentality of (especially Americans) buying only products from your country?

PlasmaSnake101
7th Aug 2010, 17:39
A mix between capitalism and government is my preferred system. There are simply some systems that capitalism isn't built to handle and some systems that the government shouldn't want to handle. I've seen a few industries in my country get privatized and as a result go completely down the crapper. The government might not be ideal, but there are areas where a total absence of needing to make a profit benefits the situation.

Also the stock market in general is having a poor influence on capitalism in my opinion. Creating money where there is none in hope for vast returns can't be sustainable. Corporations are being pressured into generating huge profits over incredibly short terms as opposed to creating long term stable companies with good profits. A bad quarter could kill a company.

Got a question for you PlasmaSnake101. You are obviously in favor of complete capitalism. How do you feel about all the protectionist measures countries put in place to fend off foreign products? What do you think of the mentality of (especially Americans) buying only products from your country?

I oppose protectionist policies for a variety of reasons, my main reason however is that isolating ones self from trade results in an inefficient situation as far as economic production goes. Trade benefits all parties involved. With that said, I occasionally get concerned with the amount of imbalances seen in American trade. However, this imbalance is justified since Americans don't want to behave in a competitive manner as far as nation production is concerned. While we complain about the exportation of jobs we see an outcry for more worker benefits and higher pay. When a singe union job costs a company over $60 an hour, factoring in benefits and entitlement programs, it is of no shock that companies go abroad. India, for example, can offer extremely well educated people who will take $15 an hour. A high school graduate in America is reluctant to take that deal.

I think many Americans don't really understand the point of trade, it's about giving as little as you can and taking as much while still remaining above the red. And, as I said above, they want to be exporters but are not willing to create. And then the government doesn't really help to provide incentives to workers. Instead we tax corporations a lot and we tax the top 50% of wage earners for 97% of tax revenue, thus taking money from the hands of those who wish to invest.

Also, on your bit about Wall Street and instant returns, there are many companies out there. The good companies, the ones that thrive and last, plan ahead. They are long term investments and attract more attention because they've been around so long. Of course the stock brokers want returns, but that's why companies need disciplined CEO's who are willing to ensure the company is run properly to ensure a long market stay. The dime a dozen company that goes under the second it surfaces is not a negative thing either, most small businesses and business endeavors fail pathetically, due to problems brought on by bad decisions in management as well as difficulty cause by the state.

And as far as privatization harming industry that was once managed by governments, it is impossible for anyone to guarantee a successful firm. The way capitalism works is by sorting out the good from the bad, the bad goes out of business and the good stays on the playing field longer while there is a constant inflow of new investors, businesses, etc. You can hand over a business to the private sector, but that's not going to produce a good result automatically. Only through the trials supplied by market forces will you end up with the best of the best. I cannot stress this enough, privatization does not equal economic efficiency. Competition is what results in economic efficiency, the problem with government run programs is that they usually block entry into the business, creating a monopoly.

Monopolies are inherently inefficient in time, but many are brought about by government action. Would you prefer a monopoly that provided services to a level in which no other company could compete, one that satisfied all the customers in the market, or one created by the state? They are both bad, but one is clearly preferable.

Jobs I believe the state should handle involves:

Roads, however, I believe buses should be privately run and that a private alternative to the public road should be offered. Toll roads often allow people to escape traffic for a price, if you value the time saved more then the cost you can make a positive decision that improves your day.

Schools, however, I believe the government should make a conscience effort to provide incentives to parents as far as private schooling is concerned.

Relief to the poor and sick, however, this has to be run incredibly strictly and incredibly efficiently. Private healthcare must be preferable over the public option.

My biggest issue is with big government, all of this has to be conducted at the State level, or even more locally. When institutions get too large they get inefficient. I want government to operate on a scale where individuals feel they can make a difference in what is done. Hell, I would find functioning in a local commune more appealing then the problems brought into the equation by a large federal government. However, the world is not simple enough for communal organization of production, therefore I feel Capitalism is an alternative that benefits everyone more so then a centrally based system or a divided system of commune like government and production. Community is important, but trade is good. Let's keep the government local and the interactions and trading abilities of individuals global.

Long post, sorry, I started to rant and one thought led to another.

Irate_Iguana
7th Aug 2010, 22:03
My biggest issue is with big government, all of this has to be conducted at the State level, or even more locally. When institutions get too large they get inefficient.

My biggest issue with the government is that as an institute it seems to be designed only to keep itself in business. Figure heads such as ministers can resign and take blame for a disaster, but in the end the entire machine doesn't feel it. There is zero accountability. The private sector works much more on accountability. Somewhere along the line the governmental apparatus lost sight of its intended purpose and started to function mostly to keep itself alive. The top, the elected officials, in a way still operate as designed. The army of civil servants however operate outside of it. That needs to change.

mad_red
9th Aug 2010, 00:09
Technically, I am all for free market capitalism and all against government.

However, a free market only works with selfless, responsible people. It fails miserably when it claims to use mutual greed and rationality to create a stable and fair society. Rather, it seems to create a balance of opportunity and oppression that is different for each person.

On the same token, government only works with selfless, responsible people. It fails miserably when it claims to fight poverty and danger, and create a stable and fair society. Rather, it seems to create a balance of stability and oppression that is different for each person.

Really, the problem isn't with the systems but with the people. Although modern governments have mutated into corporations (de facto AND de jure), and the free market has been carved up into into more-or-less controlled terrorities, but there's nothing so intrinsically wrong about them as to create the injustice seen today, irrespective of what sentient species adopts them.

So even if I contend that decent people don't need government and already have freedom, that doesn't mean I'm against social policies and in favor of liberal policies. In our current state of affairs, being in favor of regulation amounts to condoning exploitation and environmental destruction, while regulation means getting robbed and saying thank you afterwards.

I think that a lot of people are going to die because our generation, and the one's before that, have been greedy and stupid. Then a whole lot of people are going to die because people have are so desperate to stop the end that they come up with hare-brained schemes to save the world. Then a whole lot of people are going to die, even though everyone has realized we've been greedy and stupid, but at least we're now working together and reducing their individual demands upon the world. And after that, people just die for no particular reason, because they're tired, or because they aesthetically value the motion of drinking water more than their own lives. Or maybe out of curiosity. Or maybe we stop dying.

PlasmaSnake101
12th Aug 2010, 03:38
The selfish behavior of individuals is what makes markets so efficient. The equilibrium found between two greedy individuals ensures both will walk away from a deal satisfied, both having profited.

Don't really know where you were going with that final paragraph.

pringlepower
12th Aug 2010, 04:24
The selfish behavior of individuals is what makes markets so efficient. The equilibrium found between two greedy individuals ensures both will walk away from a deal satisfied, both having profited.

Don't really know where you were going with that final paragraph.

Personally, Capitalism and Communism as the best system only work in an ideal world where everyone is nice and rainbows spew out their ass.

There are many many examples where a company's greed completely screws people over.

And there's my two worthless cents.

jtr7
12th Aug 2010, 06:15
The selfish behavior of individuals is what makes markets so efficient. The equilibrium found between two greedy individuals ensures both will walk away from a deal satisfied, both having profited.

Don't really know where you were going with that final paragraph.

Yeah, nevermind the thousands of people who aren't seeing much payoff for all their work that those two individuals are very satisfied pocketing for themselves. You aren't making the free-market sound like a good thing at all.

Pretentious Old Man.
12th Aug 2010, 11:14
Keynes all the way. I'll probably come back later to write a wall of text, but that's the gist.

mad_red
13th Aug 2010, 00:59
The selfish behavior of individuals is what makes markets so efficient. The equilibrium found between two greedy individuals ensures both will walk away from a deal satisfied, both having profited.

You have forgotten certain proviso: First of all, two people do not equal a society. Furthermore, market efficiency is a utilitarian concept - it justifies certain forms of child-labor and the like. Furthermore, the markets are not efficient, because people do not make rational decisions. Furthermore, it is in the interest of some parties to have other parties make irrational decisions, and they can do so effectively, with or without government or market demand. Furthermore, there is and will always be a time delay in which the market balances out fluctuations in supply and demand - one that can only be circumvented through the combination of generosity and foresight.

The system only works when individuals behave in a way that profits themselves AND the group. You don't need to be a John Nash, or even know game theory to understand that. Yet here you are, reciting dogma. Offer us your diligent consideration instead. Remember, I believe in the same thing as you - a free and unregulated market - and it took me a while to realize that because it seems we arrive at the same conclusion for different reasons. I'm just trying to fathom how people can expect the free market to be some kind of panacea rather than a far-off goal.

Edit: That part about dying, the point is that on one hand people are greedy and essentially murderous, and on the other hand there's a lot of opposition to that sort of thing. Because of the opposition, people will try to come up with funny schemes (like free market capitalism or communism) to try to fix their impulses, or to soften or personally avoid some of the deadly consequences. Finally, once people start to realize that problem is killing on an empty stomach and the solution begins with bearing an empty stomach, things slowly start to change. But the funny thing is - by the time people gain control of themselves, there's no pressing need for change anymore. The problem with certain forms of spirituality is that it detaches you a little too much from the body - one might just as easily appreciate the movement of a wheat field in the wind more than its nutritional value.

Balance
13th Aug 2010, 14:33
The fundamental function of "money" is to afford power over reality in the form of goods and services.
And whoever has capital also has the ability to shape reality - to some practical and legal extent.
Which in itelf is neither good nor bad - although many rich people tend to use this power in a solely self-centered way.


Capitalism in the context of corporations and business is essentially played by similar rules as survival of the fittest.
It's anything goes to the fullest extent the law permits and then some. Very different from our personal, usually civil day-to-day monetary trade transactions that we almost experience daily when we buy stuff or services.

While corporations are made up of individuals, the setting gives rise to a very unique group psychology. Its a bit like you were living in the third reich: No one really feels responsible for breaking morals, everyone just points up the hierarchy and surrenders responsibility to the people above. While simultaneously rationalizing away the guilt: "We do produce parts for landmines but hey if we weren't, then someone else would take our place anyway so it might as well be us."



Here's what Thomas Jefferson once said:
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

I think only once we reach this gold standard for big corporations (as well as fr government), along with a great deal of transparency, we can hope for a real change. There are multiple ways how this goal might be reached - one might be tightened international laws to make it difficult or -better yet- impossible for worldwide corporations to use double standards in first, second and third world countries.

Another complementary approach might be a grassroots-approach: If employees of big corporations felt more loyal towards the law and basic morality instead of being scared *****less about losing their job and livelihood, then they would be much more likely to report moral transgressions and unlawful actions of their business.
But in order for this to work, the government needs to provide protection of job loss as a consequence and high incentives for informants of corporate transgressions (like some percentage of or more likely simply a fixed rate of the fine imposed on the naughty corporation).

With tough laws in place and every employee a potentially well-paid informer for the judicial branch of the government or even some international entity, crime and grossly immoral behavior among corporations might become a thing of the past. But only at the lower levels of the hierarchy, high-level fraud might still be as troublesome as ever.







Now let's switch topics to another question:

How long can captialism in its current form remain functional?

My prognosis, despite being seemingly a long shot, is maybe less than 50 years but surely less than 100 years.

The reason is that robots will eventually have replaced virtually all production workers by then and due to ever improving AI they will also slowly but steadily make their way into "intellectually challenging" jobs that nowadays we absolutely cannot imagine being done by a machine.

The question for me isn't as much whether capitalism in its current form will eventually fail but when and how.
You see, unlike "capitalists" who let their money or their companies work for them, classic employees (who obviously make up the vast majority of people) will have absolutely no chance of getting a job or for that matter money, because whatever the cost of human labor (read life expenses) is, robots will sooner or later be more economic and productive.

This is not a bad thing at all, robots taking over tedious, repetetive and unchallenging work is awesome.
But capitalism simply cannot function without a worker base, because workers aren't just workers but also consumers. And if the employees don't get paid, they cannot afford consumption and then there is no reason for a factory or production robots in the first place. The government subsidizing human labor is not a long-term solution and barely a short-term one. What has to change is society at large to accomodate fort this change.


And I am willing to bet that we surely won't end up in a world where a few multibillionaires start producing absurdly intricate luxury goods in their almost completely autonomously functioning factories to sell to their other billionaire pals. Eventually the money will have to trickle down from the top one way or another - and if not through paid work, then through taxes on the rich, while the workless masses will get some sort of standard rate to cover their living expenses.

Since I'm living in Germany, I can see this scenario playing out right now. If you can't get work despite trying, the government will pay your living expenses. It's lousy pay and you only get it under certain conditions but it works.
The "welfare payments" will have to get more in the future to eventually cover virtually everybody. But once robots and new technologies drastically improve living standards and as prices drop further as a result, eventually every person can get payed monthly by the government.


So my prognosis is that we will go through a transition from our current "capitalist social democracy" to a full-blown "capitalist-socialist hybrid". And in some distant future once the human race has altered itself -in other words has become less stupid and more social- we will eventually see some form of functioning, fair, social and intelligent allocation of money/resources.

Capitalism can only meet the first of these four critera really well - but only because there is no better alternative yet.

One thing is blatantly clear to me: pure capitalism and republicans will go the way of the dinosaurs eventually.

PlasmaSnake101
13th Aug 2010, 16:53
When I said a market functions on selfishness I was attempting to illustrate market equilibrium. An example, Person A works in Industry A and refuses to sell his product for less than $50. Person B for Industry B produces the same product and is willing to sell for $40. Customer A is willing to spend up to 45$ and therefore buys product B and is $5 richer, and he profited from his physical purchase to boot. Salesman B profited when he received $40 since he values the item he parted with at less than $40. But it is clear that these individual have personal profit on their minds. Person A also must find a way to reduce his price or change industries.

Someone posted about how humans don't make rational decisions, I disagree with this. First of all, based off what an individual values, they can see any decision as rational or irrational. If I value a piece of cake at $50 and buy that cake, many people will say I behaved irrationally, but at the time I was clear thinking and profited from my exchange. To understand rational decisions on an individual scale you need an understanding of someone else's thought processes and values. Secondly, you're clearly mistaken, the strong companies that last make rational decisions at all times, however based off value criteria people may see these decisions as foolish. The famous Ford Pinto case comes to mind, making a car a fraction of a percentage less safe to forgo an additional $13 cost. Milton Friedman did a good job at justifying this deed under his own economically rational ideas. If someone is more inclined to moral arguments than they would think Friedman as well as Ford were irrational.

The bit on robots, I've heard that argument before. We've seen labor get less labor intensive as machinery entered the scene, as a result costs go down, employment occasionally increases and people generally benefit. To be honest I can't really speak of such a far fetched notion, however I really don't believe robotic technology will advance to that point in less than a century.

Also, funny you think me a republican, a bit presumptuous of you. Always find it humorous that foreigners are so keen on our political parties, but don't know a damn thing about third parties and constantly side with the democrats. This has nothing to do with markets, but I'll have you know the democrat White House and Congress are doing a lot of things just like the Bush Administration. Hell, Obama's whole Iraq policy was one George Bush approved before he left office, being withdrawn by 2012 I believe. He also expanded executive authority, hasn't done anything to restore habeas corpus for suspected terrorists, green lights assassinations and still hasn't done a damn thing about the PATRIOT ACT. As Wesker would say, "poor performance indeed." Shows how much people really know about the poor state of affairs concerning the differences in parties. Not to mention the Republicans are going to devastate the democrats when it comes to the governors elections, as well as put a dent in the majority in the House and Senate possessed by the democrats. The way I see it they're to sides of the same coin, however the democrats have been much more aggressive in terms of government expansion.

jtr7 thinks it's sad that people get paid low wages that they contractually agreed to, forgive me if I don't shed too many tears. Pretentious Old Man thinks I don't like Keynes when I actually do think he's a cool dude, however his cures to recessions are still held in question by many including myself. pringlepower thinks people aren't nice enough for society to function without government intrusion, I'd like to make my point that the vast majority of people are nice, or at least "good" in a moral sense. If not good then neutral. mad_red thinks I support child labor and believes I think the world is composed of two people. Next time I attempt to illustrate market exchange I'll attempt to bring in the conflicting interests of 10,000 individual, 1,000 companies and 50 big corporations. Sorry if I seem offended, but you are making a judgement towards my knowledge based off of
an example I provided. I think I am perfectly justified in being offended to a degree. But, now that I remember my time here, you always tried to talk down to me. Go to hell.

Balance
13th Aug 2010, 19:03
But, now that I remember my time here, you always tried to talk down to me. Go to hell.

Hahaha :poke:


So anyway, at the risk of sounding condescending I want to point out that my last sentence was totally not adressing you. But as it happens you are totally right with your prejudice about us liberal wuss foreigners:


Always find it humorous that foreigners are so keen on our political parties, but don't know a damn thing about third parties and constantly side with the democrats.

Third parties in the States? Give me a break the third US candidate in 2008 had like half a percent of the votes.
Hardly a candidate worth voting for when you are given a choice between Democrats and biblepounding nutjobs along with a 1/3 chance that McCain drops dead and Sarah becomes the next Covergirl of the "Free World". The last US election felt more like you were asked to save the world with your vote, or else you end up in a ludicrous parallel universe where everything is made out of bibles, guns and the body of Christ.

Its not that we Europeans really love the US Democrats all that much, it's just that the alternative is completely unbearable. Almost every European I ever met loathes the Republicans. It's not even their economic ideas but their crazyness about abortion, stem cells, immigration, evolution, gays, guns, god, sex and especially the annoying thing all of it is connected to: religion. And boy do we hate fox news.

At the off chance that this might sound anti-American, I want to point out that I am actually a huge fan of American Ideals and the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particularly. Poor guy would be spinning in his grave if he found out how the separation of church and state worked out. The US seems to be a failed state with respect to secularism and I am sure he would agree.

But I digress! We were talking economy, not "politics" so let me steer back on course and walk all over this remark:



The selfish behavior of individuals is what makes markets so efficient. The equilibrium found between two greedy individuals ensures both will walk away from a deal satisfied, both having profited.

I agree, selfish behavior is what makes the market efficient and keeps it running. But that two "greedy" individuals always walk away satisfied... you serious?
I doubt you would see it that way if you were some Asian kid making my shoes. There is a difference between "getting" money and "earning" money.
Capitalism isn't about earning money in the sense of providing a fair ammount of goods or services in exchange - its all about getting money and making money.

PlasmaSnake101
14th Aug 2010, 00:48
To continue the politics part of this go here:

PlasmaSnake101 Destroys Balance In A Modest Amount of Posts (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=1471572#post1471572)

Just kidding about the title, but then again a lot of truth can be said in jest.

mad_red
16th Aug 2010, 21:34
mad_red thinks I support child labor and believes I think the world is composed of two people. Next time I attempt to illustrate market exchange I'll attempt to bring in the conflicting interests of 10,000 individual, 1,000 companies and 50 big corporations. Sorry if I seem offended, but you are making a judgement towards my knowledge based off of
an example I provided. I think I am perfectly justified in being offended to a degree. But, now that I remember my time here, you always tried to talk down to me. Go to hell.

Whoa, please explain to me how you draw these conclusions. If you feel offended, it looks to me like it's because you assign an interpretation to my words that is uncalled for. I'm sad to see you being so defensive despite the fact that we both prefer a minimal government and a maximally free market. Maybe I put you on the defensive by saying that you recite dogma, but that is really to be expected when you make a claim and neglect to illustrate its veracity. How can I even begin to make a judgement when your claims lack explanation? Although I classified your thinking as utilitarian, that does not mean I'm prejudiced towards you. Prejudice here would mean that I assume you've considered the argument the same way I have, have come to the same conclusion, and that with a satisfied smile you concluded that child labor can be justified. I'm simply stating a well-known criticism of utilitarian and I'm observing that your justification was utilitarian in nature. Just because a utilitarianism could theoretically justify child labor doesn't mean that you are a utilitarian, or that you find child labor justified. Please explain how you make that leap in logic, and more importantly why you make such a leap. I would not like to be demonized in your head, but your words imply that this is exactly what you just did. I'm asking you to reconsider your words.


And about the world being made up of two people? I'm not sure I follow you there.




As for people making rational decisions, you're cherry-picking your examples. If that's what you're going to do, then don't bother with 10.000 people, 50 corporations, etc.

Let me give you my two favourite examples of mine: That of British gunboat diplomacy, used to break down trade barriers in imperial China. Originally, the British wanted to trade, but the chinese happened to value their own silver more than whatever the British were offering. So they abandoned free trade and resorted to violence once they figured out that the Chinese weren't willing to supply. The moral of the story is that a free and fair market cannot be maintained when the motivation of a powerful group of people, whether they were merchants to begin with or not, is greed.

How about the slave-laborers of present-day Dubai? Foreign laborers were deceived into coming to the Emirates for fair and decent construction jobs in Dubai. Instead, as soon as they arrived their passports got taken away and they were shipped into the desert with nowhere to escape to except dessication, with little or no amenities such as airconditioning. No fair exchange took place here, no offer and appreciation for value, only deception on the basis of greed.

These examples illustrate the flip-face of the coin: while greed can certainly improve efficiency at the margin, at the same time it drives people into abandoning free market principles entirely. In this sense, the combination of free market capitalism and greed is self-destructive, and thus a dangerous - if industrious - system for our times.

The fact that free market capitalism encourages greed almost as much as rational thinking, means that it shares some of the responsibility to make sure that greed is guided into proper channels. Unfortunately, I've don't think I've ever heard anyone advocate 'greed' and 'restraint' in the same sentence, probably because are mistaken for irreconcilable modes of behaviour, while behaviourism might not be the best paradigm to apply in the case. The net result is that the issue is not addressed and immoral behaviour is not discouraged, while it may be encouraged when people think they can get away with it.

In your example of buying cake, what you propose as a 'rational' decision is in fact completely arbitrary, because no 'reason' has been given for its starting point: the unreasonable craving for cake (greedy for cake). Another example may be that fast food may taste good, but too much leads to obesity. So long as irrational people can be depended on to crave hamburgers, fast food chains can continue their exploitation. No doubt everyone gets exactly what they deserve, but that does not make any of it fair, just, or even rational. The problem is that rationality and greed are not necessary extensions of one another, and rarely move along the same continuum for a social creature like man. Greed and high reason don't get along very well, but neither are they an either-or proposition.

Free markets don't turn Hitlers into white bunny rabits, but a bunch of boys from Brazil can mess up any free market just fine. Markets do not fail. People fail. And there isn't a damn thing markets can do about that. Another thing that free markets don't do is give you freedom. Greed won't set you free either. They just fetch you the best price. You set yourself free whether you are fat or hungry, anarchic or oppressed. Markets can't help you, so the best thing you can hope to get from a a free market is to use it to help humanity. Finally, all this talk of regulation and deregulation is at best a self-conscious, devil's advocate style, cooperative balancing act among all parties to educate ourselves, or at worst a free-for-all competition not unbefitting of a free marketplace.

That's my say. Have at it.

pringlepower
16th Aug 2010, 22:11
There's a nice story about how a town in Argentina privatised it's water works, putting a foreign company in charge. After some time the water prices were rather high, and the sewer system started to overflow, filling the town with delicious bodily waste, because the company, seeing no profit in the venture, did not bother to maintain the sewers. Yum.

Gordon_Shea
16th Aug 2010, 22:28
Did you know? Socialism rules and Capitalism drools. It's a fact!

For serious, the free market tends to lead to bloated, inefficient solutions to what should be relatively simple problems it's most glaring in natural monopolies like utilities and in the health insurance industry. This is because in Capitalism solving existent problems is a means towards an end, accruing more capital, and so is secondary or incidental.

mad_red
16th Aug 2010, 22:44
Socialism is just a safety net for large communities of retarded people who just can't seem to work together without strong and oppressive leadership to make them work together.

Socialism sucks balls! :rasp:

I figure I should post again, because if I say that free market capitalism as part of an utilitarian ethic justifies child labor, I should explain.

When the fat turkey comes to a disaster area and finds a starved gerbil, he can say: I'm a fat turkey, and you're dying. Do you want to live?
Gerbil: Yeah!
Turkey: Want me to give you some food?
Gerbil: Yeah!
Turkey: Okay, I'll feed you, but in exchange you have to be my slave and satisfy my sadistic pleasures.
Gerbil: Sure! Anything! I'm dying.

And so the Gerbil, while he could have had peace in death, is now a whipping boy receiving torture for the rest of his life. Think child prostitution in Thailand. Think sweatshops.

I'm not saying that a person dead is worth more than a person alive. What I'm saying is that reasoned from a utilitarian ethic, people simply aren't anything more than their capacity to provide consideration for a contract. The problem of human suffering doesn't even enter into the equation as such: suffering is either irrelevant, an annoyance or liability, or even an asset that sees very little demand. Improvement of the human condition is circumstantial - it could just as easily be too much in supply as too much in demand. Therefore free market capitalism can make no guarantees. This critique of liberalism is part of the reason why political theorists (for example in the UN) have seen it necessary to adopt a new approach: Human security. My personal issue with that is that any top-down approach is necessarily disempowering at its basis. For example, the outlawing of burka's simply replaces patriarchal oppression with state oppression.

PlasmaSnake101
17th Aug 2010, 00:40
There's a nice story about how a town in Argentina privatised it's water works, putting a foreign company in charge. After some time the water prices were rather high, and the sewer system started to overflow, filling the town with delicious bodily waste, because the company, seeing no profit in the venture, did not bother to maintain the sewers. Yum.

A degree of fraud probably occurred in this example, and the state has a right to punish companies that harm individuals.

On to the Capitalism v.s. Socialism, socialism goes hand in hand with the aggressive expansion of the state. For people who oppose large institutions, due to a decrease in efficiency, this is not a desired way of arranging things. The health industry barely resembles a free market and most natural utilities are regulated by the State.

Gordon_Shea
17th Aug 2010, 01:30
A degree of fraud probably occurred in this example, and the state has a right to punish companies that harm individuals.

On to the Capitalism v.s. Socialism, socialism goes hand in hand with the aggressive expansion of the state. For people who oppose large institutions, due to a decrease in efficiency, this is not a desired way of arranging things. The health industry barely resembles a free market and most natural utilities are regulated by the State.

You're right, it's that dadgum regulation that's led to inefficiency, not the fact that the existence of multiple insurers and an entrepreneurial model for care necessitate the existence of intermediaries who in turn require additional intermediaries. That's why pubic insurance programs spend more money for a lower quality of care! :rolleyes:

Oh wait, the average private-sector billing in medical insurance involves four to six entities, most of which are intermediary firms, and public-sector billing in medical insurance involves zero to two entities, none of which are, which is why a dollar spent on public insurance goes farther than one spent on private insurance.

Natural monopolies like utilities, especially ones that involve interlocking infrastructure, are much the same. :wave:

KSingh77
17th Aug 2010, 04:53
Socialism does suck balls

PlasmaSnake101
18th Aug 2010, 01:06
You're right, it's that dadgum regulation that's led to inefficiency, not the fact that the existence of multiple insurers and an entrepreneurial model for care necessitate the existence of intermediaries who in turn require additional intermediaries. That's why pubic insurance programs spend more money for a lower quality of care! :rolleyes:

Oh wait, the average private-sector billing in medical insurance involves four to six entities, most of which are intermediary firms, and public-sector billing in medical insurance involves zero to two entities, none of which are, which is why a dollar spent on public insurance goes farther than one spent on private insurance.

Natural monopolies like utilities, especially ones that involve interlocking infrastructure, are much the same. :wave:

I oppose the use of health insurance and think the practice should be outlawed, insurance distorts market prices. Of course a singe payer would be more efficient, insurance makes healthcare absurdly complicated. I just made a thread on this in another political forum:

http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=47036351&f=119

A safety net for the poor and perhaps a push for Health Savings Accounts can be more beneficial. It could replace the use of employee health coverage, plus the worker can take the savings to boot and have more control over the services they receive.

Please elaborate on your points concerning natural monopolies. And tell me, what alternative do we have besides public ownership, which generally results in over harvesting and shortages.

PlasmaSnake101
28th Aug 2010, 21:28
There's a nice story about how a town in Argentina privatised it's water works, putting a foreign company in charge. After some time the water prices were rather high, and the sewer system started to overflow, filling the town with delicious bodily waste, because the company, seeing no profit in the venture, did not bother to maintain the sewers. Yum.

Jesus, you're truly a fool. I'm familiar with these kinds of examples though, extremely weak upon further analysis. You take a handful of examples from a pool of billions of situations and use these fringe events, that rarely ever occur, and use it as justification to restrict human action and free will. Also, the price of water was most likely increased to combat over consumption and preserve resources. Considering the sewage system was overflowing with water it seems like a modest idea to try and implement a degree of conservation. You've no idea what you're talking about. A problem with the sewage system, which can be categorized as infrastructure, is a difficult thing to combat, time consuming and more likely than not out of the jurisdiction of the company in question. Most likely under the authority of local governments which must be negotiated with in order to revise these things. I grow tired of arguing with intellectual lightweights such as you.



For serious, the free market tends to lead to bloated, inefficient solutions to what should be relatively simple problems it's most glaring in natural monopolies like utilities and in the health insurance industry.

Wow, what a foolish thing to say. Considering a competitive market ensures you'll want to run the most efficient operation to get ahead of one's competitors. And you're bit on health care was a terrible idea and I'm about to destroy your way of thinking and make you look like a dolt in front of the entire community right now.

You say health insurance is is a cumbersome thing, and you also say it arose from the market. What your little mind fails to realize is that health insurance eliminate market forces in the health care industry. Over 80% of Americans have health insurance, and when all health costs are covered through a separate institution no one ever hunts for low prices, thus rendering the price decreasing effects of market competition. The higher prices, not being controlled by market forces, ensure higher premiums on health insurance. Already high now, people with preexisting conditions increase the costs of health insurance companies, which results in higher premiums all around unless they are charged more. Also, working with the separate industry, rather than the pure patient-receptionist interaction when paying for services which would be a trait of a world with no health insurance, causes doctors and hospitals and health centers to hire additional staff to work with the health insurance industry, driving up costs further. In no way, shape or form can the current health care industry be categorized as a free market institution.



Also, I'm bumping this thread to discuss how Deus Ex 3 will most likely feature emotional liberal appeals when discussing capitalism and politics in general, and the notion of liberty and free rights and will of individual will take a back seat concerning the political message that will be pushed in this game. I got a bad feeling, and everything I've seen only makes it worse. I believe the game will, more likely than not, feature a philosophy that only values the collective and says to hell to the individual..

P.S.

Don't take my insults seriously, a troll's gonna troll.

atLaNt1s
28th Aug 2010, 23:58
What do i think of capitalism? The system itself doesnt work anymore and more importantly, the people who run it are corrupted. What should we do then? Implement a resource based economy. We need to realize we are all together in this and every single resource that appears to be in the universe is not ours, but we may use it and its usage corresponds to every single human being.

PlasmaSnake101
29th Aug 2010, 00:50
What do i think of capitalism? The system itself doesnt work anymore and more importantly, the people who run it are corrupted. What should we do then? Implement a resource based economy. We need to realize we are all together in this and every single resource that appears to be in the universe is not ours, but we may use it and its usage corresponds to every single human being.

People have been saying the system doesn't work anymore since it got it's name. I'm going to need to see a lot of sources to believe this.

Every system of anything can fall prey to corruption. Unions are corrupt, political parties are corrupt and some companies are corrupt. It is an inherent trait in many institutions fall victim to.

So, you favor the collective over the individual. No philosophy is more repulsive, and no philosophy would lead to more restrictions on human rights and the will of individual. What is it about Capitalism that says we are not all in it together? Exchange and trade are great, benefiting all involved. Please go into a little more detail when you post, otherwise you'll look like a no-nothing. Not meant to be offensive, but spouting the anti-capitalist line won't get you anywhere unless you go into depth.

Also, on the anti-capitalists, I'll post this quote again.

"Regarding the efficiency of market mechanisms, however, the anti-capitalists used mostly to confine themselves to cautious sniping, for a full frontal attack was awkward to mount while this system was delivering unprecedented material progress for the last half-century and was lifting a billion and a half people out of abject poverty."

-Anthony de Jasay

RandomJunkie
3rd Sep 2010, 21:35
My main issue with neoliberalism is it's incapacity to deal with the upcoming world issues : overpopulation but more importantly environmental issues. I feel that only strong government can possibly turn the world economy towards a more environmental friendly economy, a world of sustainable growth.

RandomJunkie
3rd Sep 2010, 21:40
I might be diverting the topic here, but I think another one of the main issue is the great power of the financial industry and more precisely the credit industry. As we speak, the United States is stucked in an akward position. Growth is heavily dependent on consumption which is fueled by credit. But the Americans cannot go on living on credit, so it would be best for them to start paying their debts and saving up money. But that would provoke a recession, because the economy is dependent on consumption. This is in my opinion their biggest issue, since there is no clear solution for this.

PlasmaSnake101
4th Sep 2010, 01:55
I might be diverting the topic here, but I think another one of the main issue is the great power of the financial industry and more precisely the credit industry. As we speak, the United States is stucked in an akward position. Growth is heavily dependent on consumption which is fueled by credit. But the Americans cannot go on living on credit, so it would be best for them to start paying their debts and saving up money. But that would provoke a recession, because the economy is dependent on consumption. This is in my opinion their biggest issue, since there is no clear solution for this.

I think a recession promotes saving and investment, rather then borrowing and over consumption. The problem with this is the involvement of government in this respect can result in sending the wrong signals to the market. That over consumption you speak of sets of a recession, and the best ways to combat a recession are sound strong investments and an increase in savings. The recession is already hear, now the expansion of credit must be halted in order for economic realities to set it.

About the environmental thing, a government needs not be large to handle such a problem. It only needs to be efficient in it's policies and the enforcement of said policies.

Invictus Sol
4th Sep 2010, 05:02
I know I've carried this conversation before, but I guess I just want to make a thread devoted to it, considering the economic system will probably be brought up in the game to a degree.

Yes, it's quite apparent that defending capitalism is a hobby for you... despite the fact that it's under attack by no-one.



First question for you folks: How do you think the concept of Capitalism will be depicted in Deus Ex 3? In positive or negative light? Do you think corporate greed will be the reason for many of the in game world's problems?

I like this cheap bit. Like how you pretend to care about the Deus Ex part. Like you're just so concerned about how the concept of "Capitalism" (that could be copy/pasted from Wikipedia) is going to be portrayed in a videogame. Who gives a ****?



My take on it, I think the rich poor divide will be exaggerated, as it always is, and the main culprit will be Capitalism. I think the only bad light government will be depicted in will occur through corporate corruption, showing that the State is pure until corrupted by greed brought on the system of oppression.

Disagree. "Capitalism" per se, as a concept, will be neither here nor there (i.e., just like now, certain disparities are just accepted, since there is no solution that is obviously better than what exists already). I honestly can't imagine that there will be any sort of 'hidden' message that capitalism is bad, any more than there was in Deus Ex. Why would this even occur to you? You're really stretching.



Second question: How do you feel about the topic in general? Do you think private ownership of capital is a bad idea, do you prefer the mixed economy? Are there any outright Marxists on the forum?

Finally, your real purpose for starting this conversation (and one sadly that far too many people have indulged). It's really rather pointless and besides the point, honestly.



If you know me then you probably know I support free market Capitalism and only support extremely small forms of government regulation. I oppose minimum wage laws but support environmentally led things such as cap and trade, which I consider the most effective at combating pollution.

Don't care.



I'm just worried I might have to sit through a game that from time to time bashed my ideological position on economics. Should I be worried?

Are you kidding? :'(

I really don't have a problem with you wanting to bloviate about "Capitalism", but it shouldn't be here. Your cheap attempt to relate it to Deus Ex is pathetic. Hopefully it gets moved soon (fine with my post being deleted if that's the case).

RandomJunkie
4th Sep 2010, 07:00
I think a recession promotes saving and investment, rather then borrowing and over consumption. The problem with this is the involvement of government in this respect can result in sending the wrong signals to the market. That over consumption you speak of sets of a recession, and the best ways to combat a recession are sound strong investments and an increase in savings. The recession is already hear, now the expansion of credit must be halted in order for economic realities to set it.

About the environmental thing, a government needs not be large to handle such a problem. It only needs to be efficient in it's policies and the enforcement of said policies.

But if the private sector does not invest as much as it could, as it seems to be the case right now ? Indeed, strong investments are a good way to get out of a recession. But investments would come from private companies, and they might decide to limit their investments due to an unstable economy. As of right now, many large companies rather sit on cash than invest it back in their own company because they have low confidence in the market. My point is, if you want growth, you need everybody to trade, to play the game and as of right now, everybody is scared. Because they have been playing the game with credit for too long and that game doesn't work anymore.




You say government shouldn't handle such a problem like those related to the environment, but I have yet to be convinced that a free market approach is going to handle it. And what do you mean by "efficient in it's policies" ? What policies are you talking about ?

I do believe the government has some role to play in these issues. Governments have been in the past an important player in R&D (the American government is a great exemple of it, the Internet was created by public funds). They might try thing that private companies would not risk, since their main role is to gain profits on a short term basis. The government can also force companies to invest in R&D by creating incentives. This is clearly a distortion of the market, but if it can reduce man's negative impact on the Earth, I think it's an option that we should consider. It's a case by case thing.

RandomJunkie
4th Sep 2010, 07:33
Hey maybe we'll have another australian bartender who has found true economy freedom in HR :P

jd10013
4th Sep 2010, 11:03
What do i think of capitalism? The system itself doesnt work anymore and more importantly, the people who run it are corrupted.

as Churchill said, the problem with capitalism is capitalists. the problem with socialism is socialism.

jd10013
4th Sep 2010, 11:18
I oppose the use of health insurance and think the practice should be outlawed, insurance distorts market prices. Of course a singe payer would be more efficient, insurance makes healthcare absurdly complicated. I just made a thread on this in another political forum:



the only problem with insurance is that it has been morphed into something it was never meant to be. When insurance first started, it was primarily a financial instrument. it was meant to protect someone form massive, total financial loss due to a severe illness or injury. much like car insurance. For most of your healthcare needs, you would simply pay the doctor a reasonable amount and that would be it. much as you don't expect your car insurance company to pay for repairs, or oil changes. in the past, if you were sick you'd go to the doctor, give him $50 and receive care. but then people started (and government forced through regulation) insurance companies to pay for more and more services and treatments. and now we've actually reached the point where many states (and probably the country under obamacare) has to cover such elective stuff as Botox treatments and sex change operations. and somebody has to pay for it. And on the other extreme, you have a good chunk of the people running off to a doctor every time they sneeze. cause in their mind, why not, insurance will pay for it.

And that is whats causing most of the problems now. the person receiving treatment has been almost completely removed from payment. the patient doesn't care what it costs, in their mind they're not even paying it. and obamacare will exasperate this problem exponentially.

capitalism has its faults, but government control never works. simple supply and demand and market forces will always push capital into far more productive endeavors than the state will. And the prof is in the pudding. there is not a single government program that is performing its intended function properly, and under budget. Social security, medicare, education (I could go on forever) are all miserable failures. yet for some reason, when a government program fails, we don't demand it be killed, we either throw a ton more money at it, or create another program to do what the original program is not doing. and then wonder why the problem still exists, and why we're broke.

jd10013
4th Sep 2010, 11:38
I do believe the government has some role to play in these issues. Governments have been in the past an important player in R&D (the American government is a great exemple of it, the Internet was created by public funds). They might try thing that private companies would not risk, since their main role is to gain profits on a short term basis. The government can also force companies to invest in R&D by creating incentives. This is clearly a distortion of the market, but if it can reduce man's negative impact on the Earth, I think it's an option that we should consider. It's a case by case thing.

necessity is the mother of invention, not the government. the internet was only created with public funds because that was where the necessity for such a thing first appeared. much the same way the space program has provided many commercial applications. it's not just people out doing random R&D, its people solving problems. its just public people instead of private people.

stem cells are a good example here. there's a reason people are hell bent on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and its a simple one. It's because the private sector will not feed it much money. the reason they wont is because to date, not a single treatment or cure has come from embryonic stem cell research. not one. despite all the promises, there have been no tangible results. just more promises. adult stems cell however, have led to 100's treatments. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf and that's why the private sector chooses to fund adult stem cell research and not embryonic. so the people who want embryonic research go to that great cash cow we call the government, which never has any qualms about giving out money, and usually could care less about results.
If embryonic stem cell research ever showed any potential to create any kind of cure or treatment for anything, venture capitalist would be all over it.

and no, short term profit is not their main role. speculators fill that role. and despite the negative connotation, it's an important role.

hem dazon 90
4th Sep 2010, 17:13
It's a terrible idea

RandomJunkie
4th Sep 2010, 20:30
necessity is the mother of invention, not the government. the internet was only created with public funds because that was where the necessity for such a thing first appeared. much the same way the space program has provided many commercial applications. it's not just people out doing random R&D, its people solving problems. its just public people instead of private people.

stem cells are a good example here. there's a reason people are hell bent on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and its a simple one. It's because the private sector will not feed it much money. the reason they wont is because to date, not a single treatment or cure has come from embryonic stem cell research. not one. despite all the promises, there have been no tangible results. just more promises. adult stems cell however, have led to 100's treatments. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf and that's why the private sector chooses to fund adult stem cell research and not embryonic. so the people who want embryonic research go to that great cash cow we call the government, which never has any qualms about giving out money, and usually could care less about results.
If embryonic stem cell research ever showed any potential to create any kind of cure or treatment for anything, venture capitalist would be all over it.

and no, short term profit is not their main role. speculators fill that role. and despite the negative connotation, it's an important role.

You say necessity is the mother of invention. But public necessity is not the same than private necessity. Would a private company have created the Internet ? Maybe not, because it came from a public necessity.

If you want to say govenment doesn't care about results as far as embryonich research, I'll say that's your opinion but I can't say you are right, it's a statement that you are not backing up. If public funded embryonic reserarch were ever to give any interesting results, private funding would jump in. Both private and public funding are necessary because they dont come from the same necessity, the first is private necessityt and the second public necessity.

Short term may or may not be their main role, but there is no doubt that ultimately, their goal is to raise profits for their shareholders. These people may have short or long term vision of their own finances. In a world where pension funds have so much people, I would say that these people tend to have a short vision of things.

PlasmaSnake101
4th Sep 2010, 23:29
Yes, it's quite apparent that defending capitalism is a hobby for you... despite the fact that it's under attack by no-one.

Every ideology is constantly being attacked by someone, it just varies in how widespread the criticism is and how much it gets reported. I think you ought to pay a little more attention to the world around you.

Capitalism: A Love Story (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_A_Love_Story)

The Story of Stuf (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Stuff) With a recent article recently put out concerning it's content. Critique of The Story of Stuff. (http://http://mises.org/daily/4626)

The various ideologies created just in opposition of the system, most notably Communism and Socialism also can be brought into play. Additionally, many films have anti-capitalist undertones, they're not difficult to come across.


I like this cheap bit. Like how you pretend to care about the Deus Ex part. Like you're just so concerned about how the concept of "Capitalism" (that could be copy/pasted from Wikipedia) is going to be portrayed in a videogame. Who gives a ****?

I don't know how often you've played Deus Ex, but it often touched on government, corporate and even religious conspiracies. Since the evils of Capitalism are at the forefront of media, being discussed and debate on various levels, it seems that the particular criticisms will be referred to. The rich poor divides are often used to call out the crimes of capitalism, and this took a pretty noticeable presence in Deus Ex. The theme is one constantly touched on in cyberpunk literature, don't act like it won't be brought up.


Finally, your real purpose for starting this conversation (and one sadly that far too many people have indulged). It's really rather pointless and besides the point, honestly.

I really don't have a problem with you wanting to bloviate about "Capitalism", but it shouldn't be here. Your cheap attempt to relate it to Deus Ex is pathetic. Hopefully it gets moved soon (fine with my post being deleted if that's the case).

This was posted in The Hive, the General Discussion sub-forum, so it was a legitimate thread. It was moved when that sub-forum was eliminated, get mad kid.

Also, to RandomJunkie, I believe the State has the authority to oversee pollution controls, polluted environments can be viewed as vandalism of the commons and the government has the authority to pursuit the protection of the commons. Well within the government's jurisdiction, however I feel the best way to combat is to privatize land, however this is impractical. I also believe the state is the only institution that one can rely on for roads, army and policing. Most other services I feel the private sector can provide at lower costs and higher quality.

Also, on the willingness, or lack thereof, to invest, investments must be strong and credit must be expensive. Business expansion can occur, but industries that cannot afford more expensive credit will think twice before getting in over there heads. If you study the brief Recession of 1919-1921 you'll see that the state hardly acted and the economy quickly recovered, although the liquidation of assets, labor, etc, resulted in a deal of short term suffering. Hoover's Memoirs contains a discussion he had with Andrew Mellon.


Mellon became unpopular with the onset of the Great Depression. He advised Herbert Hoover to "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estateā€¦ it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."

He goes on to discuss the 1920 recession, and Hoover remarks "A Great Deal of suffering occurred that could have been avoided." He enacted somewhat of a mini-new deal, one of which Norman Thomas approved of, a 6 time Candidate for the Socialist Party of America. Just throwing that last part in encase anyone want's to claim Hoover was laissez-faire.

Big Orange
5th Sep 2010, 01:19
Here's an interesting documentary on a second bubble that's going to burst:

Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECi6WJpbzE)

I personally see the current Depressions to be a terrible mix of free market rhetoric and Big Government trying to prop it up, at ultimately everyone's expense (except the plutocrats). It's frightening that the bailouts have been more costly than all the earlier Big Government and Big Business endevours that have had appreciable results (like the moonlandings and winning World War Two), but for propping up an economic model that really has to be scrapped and rebooted.

jd10013
5th Sep 2010, 13:06
You say necessity is the mother of invention. But public necessity is not the same than private necessity. Would a private company have created the Internet ? Maybe not, because it came from a public necessity.

If you want to say govenment doesn't care about results as far as embryonich research, I'll say that's your opinion but I can't say you are right, it's a statement that you are not backing up. If public funded embryonic reserarch were ever to give any interesting results, private funding would jump in. Both private and public funding are necessary because they dont come from the same necessity, the first is private necessityt and the second public necessity.



yes, because a private company would have developed the same need to transmit data between two computers located at different places.

your talking in circles and over complicating stem cell research. and put it however you want, the unavoidable facts of the matter are that no shortage of funding exists for adult stem cells, while funding is very difficult to find for the embryonic variety. and the undeniable truth is because adult stem cells have led to hundreds of treatments while embryonic stems cells have led to zero. I don't know hat you mean by not backing it up. the only reason the pro embryonic crowd is so hell bent on government funding is cause nowhere, no university (or more accurately a scant few) will. and it's not cause it's illegal or anything. the only ban on embryonic stem cell research if with the use of taxpayer money. money is going to adult stem cell research, and its also going into embryonic. its just that much more is going into adult because its getting results. the whole notion that the government should start pouring money into research that basically going nowhere and therefore not attracting private capital is almost a cliche for government waste. fund in not because it's so promising or accomplishing so much, fund it (with taxpayer money) because nobody else will.

this probably sounds strange and new to you, cause its seldom reported this way.

jd10013
5th Sep 2010, 16:05
Here's an interesting documentary on a second bubble that's going to burst:

Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECi6WJpbzE)

I personally see the current Depressions to be a terrible mix of free market rhetoric and Big Government trying to prop it up, at ultimately everyone's expense (except the plutocrats). It's frightening that the bailouts have been more costly than all the earlier Big Government and Big Business endevours that have had appreciable results (like the moonlandings and winning World War Two), but for propping up an economic model that really has to be scrapped and rebooted.

the current mess is the direct result of government intervention. It started in the housing market. its undeniable that the bulk of the reason for the current recession was due the sup-prime mortgage business. and that was more or less forced on banks by such notable legislation as the American dream act, and various urban renewal programs in which the government through Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac (which are still hemorrhaging money) forced banks to essentially loan money to people who couldn't afford it. they did it by removing income requirements, down payment requirement and so forth. from that point, the various banks holding the paper that they knew was worthless either insured it through companies like AIG, or started creating extremely complex investment products (made possible by Bush administration deregulation) that allowed them to sell that worthless paper to people without them really knowing what they had. . that's how it spread to the investment banking community. It's also why the downturn, and stock market fall were so bad. because of the very complex derivatives and securities that were sold, nobody really knew (and to an extent still don't) just how much bad paper was out there.

as for bailouts, they probably just make the problem worse. capitalism works so well because its self correcting. companies that can't compete or make a profit go out of business. people who can't afford their home loose them. capital is taken out of failing enterprises and directed to successful ones. It's sometimes cruel, but it's efficient. by bailing out, and propping up, your simply throwing good money at bad. as long as we prevent the economy from cutting out the rotten parts, it will continue to struggle.

Big Orange
7th Sep 2010, 18:50
the current mess is the direct result of government intervention.

No, it's mainly the banks. The governments at fault because they chose to serve the banks instead of the common good. You've heard of corporate lobbying and the Federal Reserve actually be a private consortium of banks, right?


capitalism works so well because its self correcting. companies that can't compete or make a profit go out of business. people who can't afford their home loose them. capital is taken out of failing enterprises and directed to successful ones. It's sometimes cruel, but it's efficient.

Like a sociopathic serial killer. Are you nuts? I can see that the current crop of failing companies and a fundamentally broken economic model need to be dispensed with like gangrene to save the global economy, an economic reboot if you will, but we still need a socialist safety net that should protect the populace. People and free market forces do not mix. It's not so bad if you leave a failed company and sell your talents to a more successful one, but during a deep Depression and also losing your overpriced home as well?

Anyway that Overdose documentary was talen down and can be found here instead. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6FNYvC4uyM)

PlasmaSnake101
7th Sep 2010, 19:29
Like a sociopathic serial killer. Are you nuts? I can see that the current crop of failing companies and a fundamentally broken economic model need to be dispensed with like gangrene to save the global economy, an economic reboot if you will, but we still need a socialist safety net that should protect the populace. People and free market forces do not mix. It's not so bad if you leave a failed company and sell your talents to a more successful one, but during a deep Depression and also losing your overpriced home as well?

Anyway that Overdose documentary was talen down and can be found here instead. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6FNYvC4uyM)

I agree with the safety net bit, but I disagree with the market forces bit. I don't believe there is a better way to distribute resources.

nathanj
7th Sep 2010, 19:47
I support public alternatives, but I feel that the public option should always be second to privately offered goods and services. And for your compassionate capitalism, I feel that if the State isn't restricted it will eventually overtake private industry. A health fusion cannot exist in my opinion, one is arguably parasitic. The relationship will always be at odds and the State will constantly have to be scaled back, which is why small government proponents are so favorable after a few years of vast government expansion. See the Tea Party, although they aren't very bright, their heart is in the right place.

tea party members have higher levels of education, employment level and income than other people. my only fault with them is that they like Sarah Palin. outside of that i wish them the best of luck, hopefully they will get more headway than my fellow libertarians. :) given the choice between those people and the the alternative which consists of lazy people who want everything done for them..........ill side with the ones that actually work and pay taxes.

there is a fine line as to where private and public should meet. im on the side of mostly private with a smattering of public (such as schools) here and there. however, i think that all the government entities need to be heavily scrutinized more than they have been. if a company makes stupid decisions they should go out of business ie general motors. the system gets messed up when government steps in and screws around. now tax dollars from people making less money at other jobs are going to subsidize a bunch of greedy union *******s at GM.

there was a depression in 1920 that no one ever heard of cause coolidge cut the tax rate and reduced government and the economony recovered within a year and led to the roaring 20s. similarly there was no 1946 depression despite the government reducing spending to a fraction of prewar spending and most americans going from government employment to private sector jobs. you dont hear of it cause it never happened despite what some stupid keynsian will tell you. we went through a decade of malaise in the 70s only to have it turn around with in 2 years when reaganomics took hold and government revenue doubled between 81 and 88. there are other examples as well.........when the russians went to a flat tax they experienced increased revenue as well.......something else impossible in the mind of a keynsian. you might notice a trend in that i think most keynsians are butt ****s. :) even the guy partly responsible for the new deal admitted in the end they had spent a whole bunch of money and didnt accomplish anything....something that those morons in washington are repeating today.

in short........id say 70% to 80% private and the rest being government ie military, interstate infrastructure and education.

RandomJunkie
7th Sep 2010, 20:26
yes, because a private company would have developed the same need to transmit data between two computers located at different places.

your talking in circles and over complicating stem cell research. and put it however you want, the unavoidable facts of the matter are that no shortage of funding exists for adult stem cells, while funding is very difficult to find for the embryonic variety. and the undeniable truth is because adult stem cells have led to hundreds of treatments while embryonic stems cells have led to zero. I don't know hat you mean by not backing it up. the only reason the pro embryonic crowd is so hell bent on government funding is cause nowhere, no university (or more accurately a scant few) will. and it's not cause it's illegal or anything. the only ban on embryonic stem cell research if with the use of taxpayer money. money is going to adult stem cell research, and its also going into embryonic. its just that much more is going into adult because its getting results. the whole notion that the government should start pouring money into research that basically going nowhere and therefore not attracting private capital is almost a cliche for government waste. fund in not because it's so promising or accomplishing so much, fund it (with taxpayer money) because nobody else will.

this probably sounds strange and new to you, cause its seldom reported this way.


"yes, because a private company would have developed the same need to transmit data between two computers located at different places. "

That's an assumption. Also it might have developed something completely different. I'm saying Internet was created by public funds for a public need, you say a company would have done the same. But it hasn't.

But shouldn't we be funding embryonic stem cell research for the sake of knowledge ? Scientific research should be conducted regardless of future profits/uses, it is a public necessity. It shouldn't be discriminatory. Some results can take longer to achieve, some results are not material but mostly knowledge, that, combined with other knowledge, can bring new results in other fields. I'm not sure why you say embryonic stem cell research is going nowhere. I guess early studies about atoms were going nowhere too since they didn't have the a-bomb in 1799.

Also think of NASA. Think of the satellites we built and send in Space for the main purpose of monitoring asteroids. There is no profit in this. There is no "private" need. But there is a public one : to be aware if one of them could possibly crash on Earth. That information could be crucial.

jd10013
7th Sep 2010, 21:27
[QUOTE=PlasmaSnake101;1489707]I agree with the safety net bit, but I disagree with the market forces bit. I don't believe there is a better way to distribute resources.

I think your overlooking the 3 trillion dollar safety net we already have. and considering 30% of the poor in the US own a home, 70% a car..............I'd call it more of a hammock than a net last time I looked it up, we've redistributed about 12 trillion dollars from those that produce to those that don't since Lyndon Johnson's "great society". and guess what's happened to the poverty rate during that time. It's largely remained the same.

jd10013
7th Sep 2010, 22:00
No, it's mainly the banks. The governments at fault because they chose to serve the banks instead of the common good. You've heard of corporate lobbying and the Federal Reserve actually be a private consortium of banks, right?

I'm going to assume you live in another country, cause in the US the banking industry is one of the most heavily, if not the most heavily regulated business in the country. without direct involvement from the Government during the clinton administration, none of the sub prime crisis that brought down the economy would have been possible. The reason is, beofe those banking changes, you couldn't do things like get loans for more than the house was worth, or get two loans if you couldn't qualify for the loan at the homes price, or have a payment that exceeded 28% of your monthly net income or buy a home without equity or a down payment. Banks did not do it because they were not allowed to. those changes were made buy the government, not the banks. and the government did it under the feel good notion that everybody should be able to own a house. they did this by regulatory changes, and laws that forced banks to make a certain percentage of their loans to minorities, inner cities, under-served areas and so forth. the Federal Reserve had nothing to do with it.

I'm not absolving banks of all guilt. that was just the origin of the problem. from there, the Bush administration made more changes. the biggest was allowing a single bank to do both commercial and investment banking. Before his administration made those changes, that was prohibited. that allowed banks to make these sub prime loans, and then turn around and sell them off. and banks did it knowing full well what they were doing. they knew exactly what was going to happen.




Like a sociopathic serial killer. Are you nuts? I can see that the current crop of failing companies and a fundamentally broken economic model need to be dispensed with like gangrene to save the global economy, an economic reboot if you will, but we still need a socialist safety net that should protect the populace. People and free market forces do not mix. It's not so bad if you leave a failed company and sell your talents to a more successful one, but during a deep Depression and also losing your overpriced home as well?

look, it's not complicated. if you keep propping up failing companies you get what japan went through durring the 90's. as for the safety net, we spend trillions on it already. are you suggesting we spend even more? we have food stamps, we have welfare, we have public housing, and we have medicaid. how much more do you want? perhaps a program to provide cars to the poor also?

and yes, nothing wrong with loosing your overpriced house that you can not afford. there is nothing wrong with renting. owning a home is not a right.

jd10013
7th Sep 2010, 22:12
"yes, because a private company would have developed the same need to transmit data between two computers located at different places. "

That's an assumption. Also it might have developed something completely different. I'm saying Internet was created by public funds for a public need, you say a company would have done the same. But it hasn't.

it wasn't created for a pubic need, it was created for a military one. computer to computer transmission of data existed at that time. but the military need a way that would not be compromised if the computer on the other end was destroyed in an attack. centrally storing the data with accessibility from any other computer was the solution. it wasn't just random R&D, there was a necessity for it. that's what drove its creation. necessity was what created the internet.


But shouldn't we be funding embryonic stem cell research for the sake of knowledge ? Scientific research should be conducted regardless of future profits/uses, it is a public necessity. It shouldn't be discriminatory. Some results can take longer to achieve, some results are not material but mostly knowledge, that, combined with other knowledge, can bring new results in other fields. I'm not sure why you say embryonic stem cell research is going nowhere. I guess early studies about atoms were going nowhere too since they didn't have the a-bomb in 1799.

once again, IT IS FUNDED. just not with taxpayer money. and I say it isn't going anywhere cause it isn't. while HUNDREDS of treatments have been developed from adult stem cell research, not a single one has come from an embryonic stem cell. what your saying is almost akin to if you and I were invent the wheel. you come up with a square design, me a round one. why in the name of god would you want to keep pouring money into the square design that has been demonstrated to be inferior, and after years of trials, hasn't been able to roll?

and quite contrary to what you say, we continued to study the atom because it was going somewhere.

TrickyVein
7th Sep 2010, 22:25
it wasn't created for a pubic need, it was created for a military one.

Hehehehhehe

Big Orange
7th Sep 2010, 22:39
and yes, nothing wrong with loosing your overpriced house that you can not afford. there is nothing wrong with renting. owning a home is not a right.

That's what should've happened in the first place, we should rent houses instead of owning them, since owning houses in Britain and America has led to our houses ultimately owning us.

And isn't the military pretty much public, I mean it provides mutual protection? And the Teabaggers largely come across as quite a stupid, hysterical lot if they're suposed to represent the cream of Middle America.

RandomJunkie
7th Sep 2010, 22:53
it wasn't created for a pubic need, it was created for a military one. computer to computer transmission of data existed at that time. but the military need a way that would not be compromised if the computer on the other end was destroyed in an attack. centrally storing the data with accessibility from any other computer was the solution. it wasn't just random R&D, there was a necessity for it. that's what drove its creation. necessity was what created the internet.



once again, IT IS FUNDED. just not with taxpayer money. and I say it isn't going anywhere cause it isn't. while HUNDREDS of treatments have been developed from adult stem cell research, not a single one has come from an embryonic stem cell. what your saying is almost akin to if you and I were invent the wheel. you come up with a square design, me a round one. why in the name of god would you want to keep pouring money into the square design that has been demonstrated to be inferior, and after years of trials, hasn't been able to roll?

and quite contrary to what you say, we continued to study the atom because it was going somewhere.

"once again, IT IS FUNDED. "

I know, but that's not what I'm arguing about. It's an example, about public necessity vs private necessity.

"while HUNDREDS of treatments have been developed from adult stem cell research, not a single one has come from an embryonic stem cell. "

That doesn't mean you shouldn't invest in embryonic stem cell research.

"you come up with a square design, me a round one. why in the name of god would you want to keep pouring money into the square design that has been demonstrated to be inferior, and after years of trials, hasn't been able to roll? "

Not a proper analogy.

Also, scientific research, as I mentionned, is not only about results, but also about knowledge.

Which also can bring new results, in time.

"and quite contrary to what you say, we continued to study the atom because it was going somewhere."

But at the time, it didn't bring actual, concrete results. It was merely knowledge.

"it wasn't created for a pubic need, it was created for a military one. "

Military need = public need.

"computer to computer transmission of data existed at that time. but the military need a way that would not be compromised if the computer on the other end was destroyed in an attack. centrally storing the data with accessibility from any other computer was the solution. it wasn't just random R&D, there was a necessity for it. that's what drove its creation. necessity was what created the internet."

Military necessity created a new technology. Yes.

RandomJunkie
7th Sep 2010, 23:02
I'm going to assume you live in another country, cause in the US the banking industry is one of the most heavily, if not the most heavily regulated business in the country. without direct involvement from the Government during the clinton administration, none of the sub prime crisis that brought down the economy would have been possible. The reason is, beofe those banking changes, you couldn't do things like get loans for more than the house was worth, or get two loans if you couldn't qualify for the loan at the homes price, or have a payment that exceeded 28% of your monthly net income or buy a home without equity or a down payment. Banks did not do it because they were not allowed to. those changes were made buy the government, not the banks. and the government did it under the feel good notion that everybody should be able to own a house. they did this by regulatory changes, and laws that forced banks to make a certain percentage of their loans to minorities, inner cities, under-served areas and so forth. the Federal Reserve had nothing to do with it.

I'm not absolving banks of all guilt. that was just the origin of the problem. from there, the Bush administration made more changes. the biggest was allowing a single bank to do both commercial and investment banking. Before his administration made those changes, that was prohibited. that allowed banks to make these sub prime loans, and then turn around and sell them off. and banks did it knowing full well what they were doing. they knew exactly what was going to happen.





look, it's not complicated. if you keep propping up failing companies you get what japan went through durring the 90's. as for the safety net, we spend trillions on it already. are you suggesting we spend even more? we have food stamps, we have welfare, we have public housing, and we have medicaid. how much more do you want? perhaps a program to provide cars to the poor also?

and yes, nothing wrong with loosing your overpriced house that you can not afford. there is nothing wrong with renting. owning a home is not a right.

So you're saying the banking industry should be more regulated ?

lithos
8th Sep 2010, 06:22
It's incredibly naive to think that you can just implement System X and everything'll be all right forever. It's a balancing act.

RandomJunkie
8th Sep 2010, 06:28
I agree.

hem dazon 90
8th Sep 2010, 07:25
the Teabaggers largely come across as quite a stupid, hysterical lot if they're suposed to represent the cream of Middle America.

Key word being middle America;)

bryt
8th Sep 2010, 18:03
i always thought it would be cool if we could enact a policy that leadership and power comes with the constant threat of death.

i would prefer a system that made it so politicians could be sentenced to death by popular vote if their disapproval ratings go too high. We could force them to reconsider everything they do. same should go for ceo's and other major player's... since they are pretty much the real rulers of our time.

Perhaps a pre-req for being a politician should be contracting a mandatory lethal disease that can only be abated by constant consumption of a special prescribed supplement. or maybe we should simply make political assassination legal.

Sure its brutal... but im pretty sure it would help us separate the men from the boys, so to speak. I'm tired of this world fueled on greed... and i'm tired enough to accept more violence.

Of course, something like this would never get voted into existence... even if it should.

RandomJunkie
8th Sep 2010, 19:07
lol

Big Orange
8th Sep 2010, 21:32
Key word being middle America;)

Huh, either way these idiots (and Sarah Palin) have been the best things that have happened to the Democrats in the last four decades.

RandomJunkie
8th Sep 2010, 22:06
They are a huge force for this November midterms, but watch out for the GOP presidential primaries. There will be blood.

Big Orange
9th Sep 2010, 21:18
They are a huge force for this November midterms, but watch out for the GOP presidential primaries. There will be blood.

Whatever, it seems like the Democrats and Republicans seem to concentrating more on campaigning than on actually running the country, the Democrats seem to be their own worse enemy, and the Republicans seem to be more of an actual threat to Americans than Al-Qaeda ever was.

RandomJunkie
9th Sep 2010, 21:26
But that's a chronic issue with a lot of countries. Every parties, even the one in power, is constantly in "campaign" mode. A good example of this : the Conservative Party of Canada. It's prime minister and many high profile ministers have very liberal views about the economy, but when the financial crisis strucked the economy, they helped GM and created a deficit to suppor the economy, which is interventionism. The same with the Bush administration. Why ? Because they wanted to keep their voters happy in key regions. The Conservative is looking for support in Ontario (where the auto industry is very present in Canada). The Republicans made a move to "save" the economy, they did not want free market to do it's stuff because it could have made them look bad right before the presidential election.

I don't share many views with them about the economy, but if you want to stay true to your principles, you have to apply them even in times of crisis. They have not and mostly because of political reasons. I'm pretty sure it's the same thing in Europe.

Big Orange
9th Sep 2010, 22:33
But that's a chronic issue with a lot of countries. Every parties, even the one in power, is constantly in "campaign" mode. A good example of this : the Conservative Party of Canada. It's prime minister and many high profile ministers have very liberal views about the economy, but when the financial crisis strucked the economy, they helped GM and created a deficit to suppor the economy, which is interventionism. The same with the Bush administration. Why ? Because they wanted to keep their voters happy in key regions. The Conservative is looking for support in Ontario (where the auto industry is very present in Canada). The Republicans made a move to "save" the economy, they did not want free market to do it's stuff because it could have made them look bad right before the presidential election..

Heh, heh, Glenn Beck has done brain gymnastics about the controversial bailouts as well, announcing they were necessary when Bush was recumbent but moaning about it months later.

pringlepower
9th Sep 2010, 23:01
Heh, heh, Glenn Beck has done brain gymnastics about the controversial bailouts as well, announcing they were necessary when Bush was recumbent but moaning about it months later.

That's because Glenn Beck is Jesus, and can thus do anything.

RandomJunkie
9th Sep 2010, 23:11
Glenn Beck flip flops more than most politicians and that is very scary.

mad_red
9th Sep 2010, 23:33
That's what should've happened in the first place, we should rent houses instead of owning them, since owning houses in Britain and America has led to our houses ultimately owning us.

Actually most people don't even own their house, ie. they don't have allodial title.


And isn't the military pretty much public, I mean it provides mutual protection?

No, not even the police has a duty of protection towards citizens.

RandomJunkie
10th Sep 2010, 00:03
Police is public neccesity.

FrankCSIS
10th Sep 2010, 00:47
Police is public neccesity.

I'd tend to say it's private necesity. It was never created to protect anything public, or to defend any public insitution.

Big Orange
10th Sep 2010, 00:50
Um, the Department of DEFENSE?! Also has anybody heard of "To Protect and Serve"?

FrankCSIS
10th Sep 2010, 01:06
Protect and serve private property. Not that it's wrong or anything, but that's the purpose of "public" police or security forces. The army protects the land as a private property of its occupying owners. If the land was public property, there would be no borders, and therefor no army to speak of. Just because it's communial does not make it public.

You will also find that no government investment in a technology or a research has ever truly been public. If it were the case, major governments would be pouring ressources and researches together to be more efficient. Scientists of different countries often work together and share info, but gvt investments are always made for the sake of competition, to provide an edge in a field. When it comes to R and D, the state is, most often than not, a very large, often misguided corporation, with as many shareholders as there are voters. Again, being communial does not make it public.

PlasmaSnake101
10th Sep 2010, 04:01
Whatever, it seems like the Democrats and Republicans seem to concentrating more on campaigning than on actually running the country, the Democrats seem to be their own worse enemy, and the Republicans seem to be more of an actual threat to Americans than Al-Qaeda ever was.

I was hoping you wouldn't be so party minded. I really dislike both parties, but I like the Republicans a bit more since they seem to be smarter. Before you say George W. Bush I want it on the record that Karl Rove is one of the most intelligent politically oriented individual in the nation. I also think the democrats tactics are unfair, blaming Bush for the housing crisis. They say he didn't try to regulate, but in 2004 the republicans had a major push to regulate Fannie and Freddy, which the majority of Democrats opposed, almost strictly party line. Then they turn around and claim they reach across the aisle. Hypocrites, the whole lot of them. I still vote libertarian though.

This is all regardless to my post. The portrayal of the Tea Party Movement has been ridiculed and I feel it has not been fairly represented. However, I still think the image is bad and wish they would either stop or refuse the more fringe groups from entry. But don't you dare for a second doubt the organization as a political force. The Nevada Senate race was in all likelihood going to be Sue Lowden vs Harry Reid, out of no where Sharron Angle was voted as the republican nominee, this was largely credited with a massive out turn of Tea Party voters.

A little more interesting, the republicans are going to devastate the elections when it comes to governor offices. Even in Nevada, where republican incumbent Jim Gibbons is widely disliked, the republican candidate leads in the polls against Rory Reid, Harry Reid's son.

This has nothing to do with Capitalism however.

hem dazon 90
10th Sep 2010, 08:12
Huh, either way these idiots (and Sarah Palin) have been the best things that have happened to the Democrats in the last four decades.

Those idiots are gonna start a war

mad_red
10th Sep 2010, 13:05
It's not common knowledge that there's no duty of protection, which might be something to be concerned about. There's even a wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb3rAglRsqU

It doesn't mean the police are all bad apples. It just means that most of them probably don't even realize that there's no duty to protect. However, there does appear to be an increasing trend in abuse of authority and neglect, and it might very well due to the state of legislation.

TrickyVein
10th Sep 2010, 16:15
I still vote libertarian though.

Yep, you keep voting libertarian. Next year...the year after that...eventually it will amount to something, right?

*scoffs*

lithos
10th Sep 2010, 17:04
Ah, libertarianism: the the belief that every man has the inalienable right to flush his vote down the toilet.

FrankCSIS
10th Sep 2010, 22:56
It doesn't mean the police are all bad apples. It just means that most of them probably don't even realize that there's no duty to protect. However, there does appear to be an increasing trend in abuse of authority and neglect, and it might very well due to the state of legislation.



"Justice?—You get justice in the next world, in this world you have the law."

PlasmaSnake101
11th Sep 2010, 21:28
Ah, libertarianism: the the belief that every man has the inalienable right to flush his vote down the toilet.

Better than walking out of the poll booth with that horrid taste in my mouth.

luminar
12th Sep 2010, 00:36
Better than walking out of the poll booth with that horrid taste in my mouth.

Hell yeah my friend! Why vote for the lesser of two evils? I'll vote for the next best thing to semi decent. Lol.

lithos
12th Sep 2010, 04:18
Better than walking out of the poll booth with that horrid taste in my mouth.

You sure that was a polling booth?

mad_red
12th Sep 2010, 22:47
As they say, rape is democracy in action. Majority wins. The key element in rape, after all, is not the presence of malice but rather the absence of consent.

Big Orange
17th Sep 2010, 01:57
I was hoping you wouldn't be so party minded. I really dislike both parties, but I like the Republicans a bit more since they seem to be smarter. Before you say George W. Bush I want it on the record that Karl Rove is one of the most intelligent politically oriented individual in the nation. I also think the democrats tactics are unfair, blaming Bush for the housing crisis. They say he didn't try to regulate, but in 2004 the republicans had a major push to regulate Fannie and Freddy, which the majority of Democrats opposed, almost strictly party line. Then they turn around and claim they reach across the aisle.

I don't really like either parties either, they've both lost sight of the common good long ago, the Federal Government seems to have fossilised, and Obama has been a grave disappointment, and Rove only seems smart in relative terms (a shining beacon of wisdom in comparison to also rans like Sarah Palin and the even more ludicrous anti-masturbating Griffin O'Donnel).


Hypocrites, the whole lot of them.

Yes, and the Democrats are arguably more cynical and corrupt (and certainly more directionless and fragmented as a poltical movement).



This is all regardless to my post. The portrayal of the Tea Party Movement has been ridiculed and I feel it has not been fairly represented. However, I still think the image is bad and wish they would either stop or refuse the more fringe groups from entry.

The movement, ideologically right or wrong, has taken on a horrible life of its own and the poison of bumpkin bigotry has seeped into it very easily.



This has nothing to do with Capitalism however.

Politics has everything to do with Capitalism, the Federal Government is its guard, and the US Government could get nuttier and more ineffectual with a "Teabaggerized" GOP seizing power.