OT: Our Economy (US)

[Kinboat]

wr8th said: "Make no mistake, returning to an agrarian society of gentlemen farmers would not be a turn in the right direction. It's one thing to keep a family plot to augment your caloric intake, quite another to farm for a living in this day and age (unless you're Amish). No unemployment? How about starvation or losing your farm when there's too little or not enough rain. Can anyone say "sharecropper", or worse yet, "serf". Not too many true Jeffersonians left, except for the re-enactors.

On the contrary, it's mass production and the economies of scale that have made this hemisphere the breadbasket of the world."

I'm not saying that pre-industrial life was a rosy wonderland, but in some of my darker moments I think the Amish might have the right idea (toss out this bLasted computer and go back to my family farm). But I do believe we could at least make it available as an option, but in today's world an independant samll scale farmer cannot compete with the mass-production farming of today. But the farming practices of today don't yeild any more food per acre then those methods of yester-year. They may do it with less man power (and they use 4 times more water) and therefore cheaper for those that can afford massive expensive Combines and the like.

"For the average Joe/Jane busy going about their lives seeking to better their lot in life and that of their kin, capitalism, with it's emphasis on incentive and reward is more attractive than socialism and it's attention to the lowest common denominator which rewards stagnation and sloth."

But Capitalism really doesn't reward the average Joe/Jane, it only appears to... It rewards the large businessman who can produce items cheaper than any small scale operator. Thus money tends to flow upwards towards to richest people who control all their many conglomerates buying out the common man. Sure some people get lucky and provide just the right service at the right time and make it rich. They then go on to buy up competetor's and form another conglomerate. And Socialism in practice is a different creature than Socialism in theory. I believe that a true Communist or Socialist government doesn't reward 'sloth' it gives everyone a fair deal, an even playing field and lets everyone stop worrying about whether the steel plant is cutting back. Now keep in mind that I don't agree with the Communism that has actually been put in practice because they have been Dictatorships claiming Communism. Every attempt at true Communism on a large scale (can't speak for any small tries, Kibbutz, Communes etc) has been ruined by the greed of those in power, similar to what is happening now. To really work you need people willing to sacrifice that second car so the Jones' down the street can afford to pay their gas bill... and sadly that seems to be lacking in America. Can you really argue with Health Care for everyone, food for everyone? I believe these to be a part of our human rights (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) And somewhat as a responsiblity we have to help all human beings. All the current system does is deprive the majority of people in the world of the products of their labor so a few can live in luxury. It has been estimated that if everyone in the world lived in the same style as American's are accustomed to, we would need 4 planet Earths to provide the resources.

Wardad... I guess I'm going to have to start brushing up on my Japanese if I wanna live longer huh...

[wr8th]

I'm not saying that pre-industrial life was a rosy wonderland, but in some of my darker moments I think the Amish might have the right idea (toss out this bLasted computer and go back to my family farm). But I do believe we could at least make it available as an option, but in today's world an independant samll scale farmer cannot compete with the mass-production farming of today. But the farming practices of today don't yeild any more food per acre then those methods of yester-year. They may do it with less man power (and they use 4 times more water) and therefore cheaper for those that can afford massive expensive Combines and the like.

I like the bucolic backgound of where I live compared to the slum I grew up in. I'll take the smell of manure over a garbage strewn street anyday. I'm also happy I don't have to live off the land like my forbears did back in the "old country" and that a sytem of combines and distribution systems allow me to take the fruits of my labor (paycheck) and trade it in for a decent life (no mini-mansion or Lexus' for me, thanks). Anecdotal info: the Amish produce more food per acre than any modern mechanized farming process. I've visited them and I prefer electricity and the computer I play SE4 on.


But Capitalism really doesn't reward the average Joe/Jane, it only appears to... It rewards the large businessman who can produce items cheaper than any small scale operator. Thus money tends to flow upwards towards to richest people who control all their many conglomerates buying out the common man. Sure some people get lucky and provide just the right service at the right time and make it rich. They then go on to buy up competetor's and form another conglomerate. And Socialism in practice is a different creature than Socialism in theory. I believe that a true Communist or Socialist government doesn't reward 'sloth' it gives everyone a fair deal, an even playing field and lets everyone stop worrying about whether the steel plant is cutting back.

Except that Socialism and communism in theory is just that.. theory, just like pure capitalism. Human "frailties" (human nature) will prevent that proposed ideal from ever becoming reality. In even the most stringent Marxist construct, hierarchies will arise complete with elites calling themselves the "proletarian intelligentsia" or the "politburo". When it does level the playing field, the net effect is to appeal to the dullard which eventually becomes the supportable standard which over time deteriorates from the weight of the masses the state is to support at a roughly equal level. Capitalism is not fair as it will not transfer that which those who work diligently have attained to those who are not as diligent, thus eliminating any incentive to achieve. Obviously we don't live in a purely capitalistic constuct any more than we do in caves.

Now keep in mind that I don't agree with the Communism that has actually been put in practice because they have been Dictatorships claiming Communism. Every attempt at true Communism on a large scale (can't speak for any small tries, Kibbutz, Communes etc) has been ruined by the greed of those in power, similar to what is happening now. To really work you need people willing to sacrifice that second car so the Jones' down the street can afford to pay their gas bill... and sadly that seems to be lacking in America. Can you really argue with Health Care for everyone, food for everyone?

It depends on why they can't pay the gas bill. Is it because they lost their job? Or didn't have one? Were they living beyond their means and fell on bad times? Did they gamble and lose?
Yes I can argue it when it's viewed as an entitlement that everyone has a god-given right too without the reasonable expectation that they contribute positively to society themselves. Personally, my family and I tend to live frugally and have passed up opportunities for more money, bigger house etc. in favor of a more fiscal security. And yet I'd have to pay more to support someone who didn't care enough to plan responsibly.... and that's where the crux of the matter is: accountability for one's actions, seemingly an anachronism.

I believe these to be a part of our human rights (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) And somewhat as a responsiblity we have to help all human beings. All the current system does is deprive the majority of people in the world of the products of their labor so a few can live in luxury. It has been estimated that if everyone in the world lived in the same style as American's are accustomed to, we would need 4 planet Earths to provide the resources.

Provide a good example for the rest of us to follow and surrender the technological gizmos you're using to type your response on and play SE4...
Rather than receding towards the level of those whom we blithely "steal" from, perhaps the evolution of technology spurred by consumerism will eventually provide the resources of those 4 earths of your example so that eventually everyone will be as well fed and educated as they'd like to be. The metaphor is there everytime you play SE4. Do you honestly believe that doling out resources evenly to all we'd ever have a hope of getting off this rock in less than a millenium?

Can you tell I didn't have my coffee?

[ 09 April 2002: Message edited by: wr8th ]

[Krsqk]

quote:

---

I'm not saying that pre-industrial life was a rosy wonderland, but in some of my darker moments I think the Amish might have the right idea (toss out this bLasted computer and go back to my family farm).

---

Well, I don't think you could pick any era and hold it up as a utopia. Problems have existed since the beginning of time, and they'll exist as long as mankind does. That said, no era has made technology and luxury as widely available as the current one. Don't believe me? You're reading this, for one example. Almost no one had computers twenty-five years ago. Walk over and flip that light switch on the wall. Go outside and get in your car. Open your refrigerator--wouldn't you rather go cut a block of ice out of your local iceberg to keep your food cold? Mankind can cure diseases today that were fatal twenty years ago. No other time in man's history has provided such things on such a wide scale.

As far as communism/socialism/capitalism goes, there are and always will be men who take advantage of the system they are found in. That goes for any area of life, though. The mere existence of fakes/frauds is not sufficient reason to discard any system. If a system fails to account for and deal with their existence, then it is faulty.

I prefer the free market as a system superior to both communism and socialism. A "purist" communist/socialist state will never exist. Men will seek power for their own benefit; others will not want to work as hard--after all, they still get all the benefits; still others will not want to fund their fellow-man's delinquence. The only means to ensure compliance is governmental intervention--loss of freedom.

In a free-market system, men are free to give--or not give--to others as their conscience dictates. They are free to choose who they give to--whether the truly needy, or the freeloader. In short, the free market means more individual freedom.

I'm not a libertarian who believes that government=bad and freedom from restrictions=good every time. I wear seatbelts and have a driver's license. The government (who else?) should punish those who abuse the system. Freedom does not mean freedom to pollute, or freedom to clear-cut, or freedom to underpay employees. However, the institutions created to protest these abuses have gone too far in their own interests (another example of power-seeking men). Unions which originally were to protect their members now extort corporations. Low wages? The vast majority of the world lives far below our poverty level. The industrialized world lives in what the rest of the world would consider luxury. The selfishness on the part of employers has, in many cases, been replaced with selfishness on the part of the employees. Environmental Groups ask for tight restrictions on human development, giving more importance to plants and animals than to mankind. Whatever happened to balance? Whatever happened to stewardship of our natural resources? They're resources--they're here to be used wisely for our good. Enslavement to nature is just as bad as waste of nature. [/rabbit trail rant]

The free market system which used to exist in America has been turned into a half-breed of capitalism and socialism. Such a system loses out. Attempting to avoid abuses of the free market, we have restricted the freedom upon which it operates. On the other hand, while not preventing its abuses, we have added to them the abuses of the socialist system--power-seeking and freeloading.

People do not always win in the free market. Their product may not be marketable, or someone else may do it better. But the free market gives one the freedom to choose how to earn (i.e., it takes work) one's living and better themselves.

[Wardad]

What are the real benifits of free open markets?

Smart capable people are allowed to succeed. Their heirs are allowed to lose it. This system benifits the most people via trickle down. It also avoids the problem of frustrated smart capable people leading revolts.

Yes, there can be too much success. Monopolies, pollution, and resource exhaustion violate the "We the People, By the People, For the People" context of the constitution.


----------------------------------------

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

[TerranC]

Free Market Economy is the most brilliant idea ever concieved:

--------------------------------------------------

It lets the Government worry about other things than Economic progress as the people living in it are already doing it.

It generates many capitals and revenues for the people, by the people, and to the people.

It creates jobs, and jobs, and jobs.

--------------------------------------------------

And yet: so was Command Economy.

--------------------------------------------------

In a switch the country can turn into a brimming war machine.

What Unemployment?

--------------------------------------------------

If you think about it: Both are outdated.

Both damage the environment.

CCE: Less for the many but everybody has equal amounts.

FME: The bigger they come: Monopolies are a definite possiblity.

FME: The harder they fall: Widespread depression can spread VERY quickly and with surprising responce and quonsequences.

FME: The richer gets richer but the poorer gets poorer.

FME: Rampant destruction of Resources and Cultures and Ways of life for money.

CCE: What goes around, Comes around: If they government doesn't keep checking it everyday, every second, it will collapse.

So there is really not much to talk about the advantages of Economic models. Equilibrium is the only way to go, and that is hard to achieve as figuring out the Missing Link.

[Kinboat]

Wr8th said: 'Yes I can argue it when it's viewed as an entitlement that everyone has a god-given right too without the reasonable expectation that they contribute positively to society themselves'

It's exactly this attitude that some people are more entitled to the basics of human existence that propagates discrimination and hatred in the world. I can only hope if you ever find yourself without food that someone with more compassion will be nearby. Who gets to decide what a 'positive contribution' is? You? Me? Whoever it is won't be fair, everyone has their own biases that they lug around. I have already devoted two years of my life volunteering for others, and I didn't even ask them if they 'earned' my help... I did it because all human life is precious, regardless of their value in the eyes of this government.

[wr8th]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kinboat:
Wr8th said: 'Yes I can argue it when it's viewed as an entitlement that everyone has a god-given right too without the reasonable expectation that they contribute positively to society themselves'

It's exactly this attitude that some people are more entitled to the basics of human existence that propagates discrimination and hatred in the world. I can only hope if you ever find yourself without food that someone with more compassion will be nearby. Who gets to decide what a 'positive contribution' is? You? Me? Whoever it is won't be fair, everyone has their own biases that they lug around. I have already devoted two years of my life volunteering for others, and I didn't even ask them if they 'earned' my help... I did it because all human life is precious, regardless of their value in the eyes of this government.

---

Spare me the sanctimony. As if your personal stint at volunteerism gives you special priviledged insight or that you're the only one to do so.... Please.

Who are you to presume what I've been through?
I'm for giving people a hand-up, not a hand-out. Like helping those who've exhibited the strength of character to try and help themselves and their family (an example of a positive contribution) but have fallen short and are too proud to ask for assistance. A silent, sometimes anonymous hand-up leaves them with more than just the immediate tangible benefit, it also leaves them their integrity. I know. Too many (not all) expect hand-outs simply because they've found it expedient and have been socialized to feel it's their right.

[dmm]

Well, I know one example of what is NOT a positive contribution: lying around doing nothing but getting drunk or high. Can we all agree on that? It seems to me that the only kind response to that is to forcibly take away the addict's freedom long enough to dry him/her out. But some people don't like depriving addicts of their right of self-determination. OK, if that isn't allowed, then the only kind thing to do is to let them get so hungry that they are willing to commit themselves to a detox center. To give an addict free food and shelter is extremely cruel in the long run.
And I submit that the same argument applies to lazy good-for-nothings; it is just not so obvious.
And Lastly, I say why do these extra rights stop at food and shelter? What about clothing, education, transportation, entertainment, recreation, etc.? And it has to be good stuff, because surely dignity is also a basic human right. Would you deny another man dignity, you cold-hearted SOB?

[edit: everyone recognizes the sarcasm at the end there, right?]

[ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: dmm ]

[Krsqk]

Is that something like the idea that the best expression of parental love is not to give a child everything he wants? *gasp* And I thought a five-year old was the most qualified individual to determine exactly what's best for himself.

Bottom line: Best is not synonymous with warm, fuzzy feelings. In fact, warm fuzzy feelings aren't indicative of anything (except sitting with your leg crossed for so long it fell asleep).

[ 11 April 2002: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[tesco samoa]

Link...

Not my view point or endorced. Just an interesting read.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5208
http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/raskinsigners.htm

[ 11 April 2002: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]