Whats your big idea?

Gary L

Its fun to be against things. But there comes a time when you have to start being for things aswell.

I've been sickened about the way the world works for years. Poverty and exploitation, Capitalism as a hindrance to human development academically, Governments run for business. I've considered Capitalism the worlds biggest problem. I think Capitalism is inherrently a-moral. The economic force of the world is the multi-national company.

It exists with the sole objective of profit maximization.

Make as much money as possible at the least cost- profits go to the shareholders.

If profits drop, the guys running the business get sacked.

It all works very impersonaly, through the stock market. No room for ethics, its all mathematics. If a company were to behave ethically when such behaviour reduced profits it would lose out to competition. Companies today are a-moral money making machines. They act within the law only because it adds up financially. They behave in a moral way only in so far as it affects profits through public perception, in areas like global warming or social justice. We live in a mixed economy. Capitalism didn’t come up with labour law or health and safety regulation. If you want to see capitalism unhinged you need to look at the third world.

The reality of life in the third world honestly deeply disturbs me. It is an utter epidemic of human horror. Whole countries are dispossesed of their natural resources through 'privatization'. This is usually a pre-condition of aid from our countries here in the west. Please try to let this idea in to your head: All the means of production in a poor country owned by foreign companies and used solely in their interest. How is that good for a country? The products they make generate gigantic profits in the west. Why can’t they have it? All they get is workers wages that are barely enough to live on but their generating huge wealth. It's not fair.

Capitalism is a system. It isn’t capable of good or evil. It strives to maximize profit and it considers labour a cost. In the absence of law it will tear a country to pieces and sell its parts to the highest bidder. This doesn’t imply evil nature of those running the company; all companies are obliged to seek maximum profits. Capitalism has no mechanism in and of itself to avoid exploitation. Similarly it is obliged to try to influence government on economic policy, where such efforts prove to be profitable. Globalization and privatization are ideas backed by most western governments. These policies only favour business and doom the third world to poverty and misery.

The only option that makes sense to me is that the government of the poor country should own and operate the factories and farms, or at least the ownership should stay internal. With the wealth from their labour staying in the society instead of going to western businessmen their wealth could actually grow. The potential for their goods to be profitable in western markets would still be huge. Is this not the way to end world poverty? Our industrial revolution has been hijacked by private money makers from day one. Democratic control of our productive capacity is what’s needed.

We should use our incredible engineering and production knowledge in such a way as seems best to us and for our own common benefit. This is the way of the future, not the profit motive, which has so clearly f*cked the world. The majority of human beings alive today live in utter misery! Barely able to sustain their own existence. Visit http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats for the statistics. We owe it to ourselves as a species to sort this out. Don’t fool yourselves either; we only have a slightly less shi*ty end of the stick. Things would be better for all but the billionaires if we used our combined labour and intellect for the public good instead of for individual profit. The capitalist system is only a system it’s not an absolute. We can change it. We can make the world a much much better place for everyone in it. This is the ideal of socialism. If you disagree speak up! Let’s have it! What’s your big idea?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ANarcho-Munk

Here we go again....

An epidemic of human horror largely brought to us by tin-pot socialist dictators, it should be noted.

Pinochet, Suharto, Jorge Rafael Videla Redondo, the National Party of South Africa.
Do any of these names ring a bell with you? In contrast to your "tin-pot socialist dictators" these are the leaders of countries that have been held up as shining examples of Friedmanite and Free-market economcs, yet they have left each country savaged in it's wake. Is there any relationship there?


It's also worthwhile pointing economic atrocities carried out by the IMF and the World Bank against poorer countries in their "aid" and "re-adjustment" programmes, whereby a slew of essential public resources are privatised and price controls, on food amongst other things, are lifted. These combine to greatly worsen the hardship of the average man.

Can you point to a case where collectivist agriculture and nationalized industry have ever benefitted anyone?

There are numerous examples, let me point you in the direction of them:

Republican Spain during the Civil War Period would be the most concrete example of where workers took control of their industry and collectivisation flourished. It would be worth reading up on.

The current Zapatista movement in Mexico has been making significant gains since their uprising but they are based largely in rural communities.

Villa El Salvador in Peru (a city of 370,000 people) has grown extremely well out of collectivist roots and policies, and would have been doomed from day one if they had gone down the individualist capitalist path so vocally advocated by yourself.

No. It is quite obvious that socialism and communism only perpetuate global poverty.

This statement is not axiomatic.It's quite well documented that the lower strata of society greatly benefit where sound, decent socialist policies are introduced. Venezuela is an undeniable example of where this has happened.

Where did this "incredible engineering and production knowledge" come from, pray tell? From socialists and communists? Or from individuals and companies competing freely under a capitalist system?

It comes from neither. Being an individualist I thought you would understand that it comes from an inner desire and curioisty based upon needs and self betterment.
Money does not necessarily have to come into the equation anywhere.
Take it from Einstein:

"I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. The example of great and pure characters is the only thing that can produce fine ideas and noble deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and always tempts its owners irresistibly to abuse it."


And as a side note, do patents, a blatant by-product of capitalism, not stunt this "incredible engineering and production knowledge" from proliferating freely throughout society? How do you reconcile this with your views?

If capitalism has "clearly f*cked the world," things must have been pretty good before capitalism came along. Do you want to tell us what things were like before the evil profit seekers took over?

Moot point based on a logical fallacy. I am not going to engage with this until you put forth a more logical and rational argument.

That's right; we'd all be better off if people like William Shakespeare, Ludwig van Beethoven, and Pablo Picasso had altruistically pursued the public good, rather than greedily making money for their own selfish ends.

Shakespeare, Beethoven and Picasso were all billionaires at the heads of industry?
I'm sorry but you've outdone yourself mate, this is just a malicious strawman.

The vaunted ideal of socialism only amounts in practice to deprivation, tyranny, and slaughter—as demonstrated countless times around the world over the course of the past century. It's folly to keep on advocating a system that demonstrably does not work.

But the truth of the matter is that the burden of blame should lay on the megalomaniac individuals who pull the strings of power whether they do it under the guise of capitalism, socialism, communism or fascism.
Pointing to repressive Stalinist regimes as examples of 'socialism' in action also isn't very constructive as I (as a Libertarian Socialist) and many others wouldn't even dream of labelling it as progressive, socialist or anyway whatsoever involved with the ideas of particapatory democracy.

In short, I don't think anyone would disagree with you that repressive totalitarian regimes shouldn't be supported. But you have to face up to the fact that they haven't all been led by 'communist' or 'socialist' mongrels...

Eliot Rosewater

This isn't the first time Ive heard the Spanish Civil War used as a defense of socialism. Bearing in mind that Ive only read Homage To Catalonia, I'm not convinced that the Civil War is a good example at all. A country is a completely different place during war time. Orwell reported that the quality of life was continually on the decrease. But the thing that struck me from the book was that the peoples happiness didnt come from the economics, it came from the fraternal attitude towards the war against Franco. Orwell admits that food was hard to come by, etc. And sure at the end didn't they try and arrest him and put him in one of those communist prisons.

Fundamentally theres too many factors to use it as an example, imo.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

simplistic

We do not live nor does anybody else live in a capitalist society. We live in a fascist government controlled economy. To say that its the businesses that are causing the problem and looking for the government to fix it is suicide.

The free market is like a healthy living body its you and I engaging in peaceful exchange and the government is like a cancer living on the body using violence to control it.

So when the free market goes pop its because the cancer is eating it away. And as the healthy body dies people unable to come to terms with the fact that their beloved governments are criminal organisations start chanting " we need more cancer"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Iwasfrozen

simplistic wrote: »

We do not live nor does anybody else live in a capitalist society. We live in a fascist government controlled economy. To say that its the businesses that are causing the problem and looking for the government to fix it is suicide.

The free market is like a healthy living body its you and I engaging in peaceful exchange and the government is like a cancer living on the body using violence to control it.

So when the free market goes pop its because the cancer is eating it away. And as the healthy body dies people unable to come to terms with the fact that their beloved governments are criminal organisations start chanting " we need more cancer"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

You haven't given us any proof of these claims, simply saying it doesn't make it so. The simple truth is that if we allowed Firms to run unregulated Cartels and Monopolies will occur. And that isn't good for anyone.

Soldie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You haven't given us any proof of these claims, simply saying it doesn't make it so. The simple truth is that if we allowed Firms to run unregulated Cartels and Monopolies will occur. And that isn't good for anyone.

You just did the exact same thing you accused simplistic of doing.

Iwasfrozen

Soldie wrote: »

You just did the exact same thing you accused simplistic of doing.

Nope, because my statement is self evident in relation to the op's post. Coroperations are money making machines with no morals or ethics. It is obvious that, if allowed to, they would form cartels and monopolies.

simplistic

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope, because my statement is self evident in relation to the op's post. Coroperations are money making machines with no morals or ethics. It is obvious that, if allowed to, they would form cartels and monopolies.

Thats a pretty broad statement can you clear it up a little? What corporations are you talking about exactly? And where does your belief that businesses would form cartels?

One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics—propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen—is that the development of monopolies is an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible.

It is imperative that one be clear and specific in one’s understanding of the meaning of “monopoly.” When people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly, what they mean is a coercive monopoly—that is; exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand. Such a monopoly, it is important to note, entails more than the absence of competition; it entails the impossibility of competition. That is a coercive monopoly’s characteristic attribute-and is essential to any condemnation of such a monopoly.

In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government: by special franchises, licenses, subsidies, by legislative actions which granted special privileges (not obtainable on a free market) to a man or a group of men, and forbade all others to enter that particular field.

A coercive monopoly is not the result of laissez-faire; it can result only from the abrogation of laissez-faire and from the introduction of the opposite principle—the principle of statism.

In this country, a utility company is a coercive monopoly: the government grants it a franchise for an exclusive territory, and no one else is allowed to engage in that service in that territory; a would-be competitor, attempting to sell electric power, would be stopped by law. A telephone company is a coercive monopoly. As recently as World War II, the government ordered the two then existing telegraph companies, Western Union and Postal Telegraph, to merge into one monopoly.

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/question_of_monopolies.html

Gary L

According to UNICEF, 25,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”

What are we gonna do about this?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gary L

I disagree but thats not to say I don't want to hear it. Does privatization benefit the poor? Their unattractive as consumers so its likely that production wont be done with their interests in mind and will be exported. Am i wrong in thinking that companies always pay the lowest wages they can get away with?

Iwasfrozen

simplistic wrote: »

Thats a pretty broad statement can you clear it up a little? What corporations are you talking about exactly? And where does your belief that businesses would form cartels?

I'm not talking about any because fortunately we don't live in a Laissez-faire capitalist society.

simplistic wrote:

It is imperative that one be clear and specific in one’s understanding of the meaning of “monopoly.” When people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly, what they mean is a coercive monopoly—that is; exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand. Such a monopoly, it is important to note, entails more than the absence of competition; it entails the impossibility of competition. That is a coercive monopoly’s characteristic attribute-and is essential to any condemnation of such a monopoly.

Yes that is what the term monopoly means.

simplistic wrote:

In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government: by special franchises, licenses, subsidies, by legislative actions which granted special privileges (not obtainable on a free market) to a man or a group of men, and forbade all others to enter that particular field.

Not true, the reason why we don't have monopolies is because of the Governments intervention. Take Ryanair as an example: If our government allowed Ryanair to take over Air Lingus then it would create a vitual monopoly and would really be allowed to charge what ever the hell it wants because it would know there is no real competition.
In our country the State provids Small and medium sized businesses with grants to help them stay in business and create competition, thus driving down prices. At the same time we prevent monopolies by bringing competition laws.
We should never forget that the state exists to protect people from large companies, not the other way around.

simplistic wrote:

A coercive monopoly is not the result of laissez-faire; it can result only from the abrogation of laissez-faire and from the introduction of the opposite principle—the principle of statism.

Again these are opinions. You say Statism = Doom, I say Laissez-Faire = Doom. Unless you provide me with something more substantial, it's your word against mine.

simplistic wrote:

In this country, a utility company is a coercive monopoly: the government grants it a franchise for an exclusive territory, and no one else is allowed to engage in that service in that territory; a would-be competitor, attempting to sell electric power, would be stopped by law. A telephone company is a coercive monopoly. As recently as World War II, the government ordered the two then existing telegraph companies, Western Union and Postal Telegraph, to merge into one monopoly.

And I'm glad that our Utility companies are Statutory corporations. Could you imagine if they where not ?
The companies would refuse to provide the rural areas of Ireland with their services because the cost of laying down the infrastructure would be too high compared with the profit the company is likely to make.
The thing is Government bodies can make un-profitable decisions, private companies won't.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I did a little google search on Freedom House, went onto their website and looked for the criteria of that listing. I found this:

The survey measures political rights and civil liberties, or the opportunity for individuals to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and other centers of potential domination. As such, the survey is primarily concerned with freedom from restrictions or impositions on individuals' life pursuits.

While the survey considers restrictions on freedom imposed by governments, it does not measure government performance per se. Rather, it measures the wider state of freedom in a country or territory, reflecting both governmental and non-governmental constraints.

Similarly, the survey does not explicitly measure democracy or democratic performance. Rather, it measures rights and freedoms integral to democratic institutions.

So it measures countries based on the the amount of Government intervention with little government intervention being labeled as "good" while government intervention is labeled as "bad".
Ass well and good, you may say untill of course you realise that little government intervention = Right Wing while government intervention = Left wing.
So really the only thing your little picture says is that Right Wing = Good, Left Wing = Bad. All this coming from a semi-private group of notoriously Right wing American nationalists funded by the U.S government.
I remain unconvinced.

Haha, I just noticed the Palestine is labeled as "free" !

simplistic

What to do about the poor?? Just give the poor a chance! Giving people handouts increases poverty as soon as a welfare state is installed. An example of this is in the U.S rates of poverty were dropping by 1% per year until the welfare state was introduced and then their was a huge rise. Why?

1,Your incentivising poverty.

2, The government is stealing money and capital from the other classes that would be used to create functional businesses that need employees therefore giving the lower classes a chance to get out of poverty. Opportunity eliminates poverty , handouts increase poverty. Entrepreneurs create these chances and the more capital available to them the better.

3, I care about the poor , you care about the poor about 99% of people care about the poor. The free market response to this demand is efficient private charities. Private charities in the U.S raise about 250 billion a year , thats the same as the total welfare bill. If this money was allowed to work its way throughout the economy can you imagine how many jobs it would create?


A thriving economy and higher test scores for students this is what happens when the government takes its claws of the economy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8446994.stm

AHH but wait its the Ivory coast I cant compare that to Ireland. If an impoverished uneducated society can thrive without government intervention then surely a wealthy civilized society can figure out things for themselves.

When people talk of grants for this , and subsidies for that where do you think that money comes from????

Well its stolen from the population put through a bureaucratic cheese grater and fed back to the population as grants and subsidies.

When the government intervenes it just becomes a middle man steals a percentage of the top and feeds you the illusion that your getting a better deal like a travel agent.

simplistic

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again these are opinions. You say Statism = Doom, I say Laissez-Faire = Doom. Unless you provide me with something more substantial, it's your word against mine.

Ok all around right here in Ireland you are witnessing what happens when the state creates a monopoly on the currency. Massive dumping of a fiat currency and the destruction of an entire society.

In a free market the consumer would have a choice of currency meaning that only the strongest and most solid one will rise to the top.

Wörgl

Worgl was a small town that had grown rapidly in the early 1900’s. Then came the crash of 1929, which quickly spread, into Europe. Michael was town councilor, he soon became deputy mayor. In 1931 he was elected mayor of Worgl. As mayor he had a long list of projects he wanted to accomplish. Projects like repaving roads, street lighting, extending water distribution across the entire town and planting trees along the streets. But in the midst of the depression out of the towns population of 4,500, 1,500 were without a job and 200 families were penniless.


Silvio Gesell

Michael read and re-read “The Natural Order” by Silvio Gesell. He talked with people in the town and convinced the members of the Worgl Welfare Committee to hold a session on July 5, 1932. In this session he gave a short summary and then proposed a “Distress Relief Program”. He stated that slow circulation of money is the principal cause of the faltering economy. Money as a medium of exchange increasingly vanished out of working people’s hands and accumulates into the hands of the few who collect interest and do not return it back to the market. He proposed that in Worgl the slow-circulating National Bank currency would be replaced by “Certified Compensation Bills”. The council would issue the Bills and the public would accept the Bills for their full nominal value. Bills would be issued in the denominations of 1, 5 and 10 shillings. A total issue of 32,000 Worgl “Money Bills” was printed and put into circulation.

Worgl Money

On July 31, 1932 the town administrator purchased the first lot of Bills from the Welfare Committee for a total face value of 1,800 Schillings and used it to pay wages. These first wages paid out were returned to the community on almost the same day as tax payments. By the third day it was thought that the Bills had been counterfeited because the 1000 Schillings issued had already accounted for 5,100 Schillings in unpaid taxes. Michael Unterguggenberger knew better, the velocity of money had increased and his Worgl money was working.

Worgl money was a stamp script money. The Worgl Bills would depreciate 1% of their nominal value monthly. To prevent this devaluation the owner of the Bill must affix a stamp the value of which is the devaluation on the last day of the month. Stamps were purchased at the parish hall. Because nobody wanted to pay a devaluation (hoarding) fee the Bills were spent as fast as possible.

The reverse side of the Bills were printed with the following declaration: “To all whom it may concern ! Sluggishly circulating money has provoked an unprecedented trade depression and plunged millions into utter misery. Economically considered, the destruction of the world has started. - It is time, through determined and intelligent action, to endeavour to arrest the downward plunge of the trade machine and thereby to save mankind from fratricidal wars, chaos, and dissolution. Human beings live by exchanging their services. Sluggish circulation has largely stopped this exchange and thrown millions of willing workers out of employment. - We must therefore revive this exchange of services and by its means bring the unemployed back to the ranks of the producers. Such is the object of the labour certificate issued by the market town of Wörgl : it softens sufferings dread; it offers work and bread.”

Worgl Success

Over the 13-month period the Worgl money was in circulation, the mayor carried out all the intended works projects. The council also built new houses, a reservoir, a ski jump, and a bridge. The people also used scrip to replant forests, in anticipation of the future cash flow they would receive from the trees.

Six neighboring villages copied the system successfully. The French Prime Minister, Eduoard Dalladier, made a special visit to see the 'miracle of Wörgl'. In January 1933, the project was replicated in the neighboring city of Kirchbuhl, and in June 1933, Unterguggenburger addressed a meeting with representatives from 170 different towns and villages. Two hundred Austrian townships were interested in adopting the idea.


One eyewitness report was written by Claude Bourdet, master engineer from the Zürich Polytechnic. "I visited Wörgl in August 1933, exactly one year after the launch of the experiment. One has to acknowledge that the result borders on the miraculous. The roads, notorious for their dreadful state, match now the Italian Autostrade. The Mayor's office complex has been beautifully restored as a charming chalet with blossoming gladioli. A new concrete bridge carries the proud plaque: "Built with Free Money in the year 1933." Everywhere one sees new streetlights, as well as one street named after Silvio Gesell. The workers at the many building sites are all zealous supporters of the Free Money system. I was in the stores: the Bills are being accepted everywhere alongside with the official money. Prices have not gone up. Some people maintained that the system being experimented in Wörgl prevents the formation of equity, acting as a hidden new way of exploiting the taxpayer. There seems to be a little error in that view. Never before one saw taxpayers not protesting at the top of their voices when parting with their money. In Wörgl no one was protesting. On the contrary, taxes are paid in advance; people are enthusiastic about the experiment and complain bitterly at the National Bank's opposing the issuing of new notes. It is impossible to dub it only a "new form of tax" for the general improvement of Wörgl. One cannot but agree with the Mayor that the new money performs its function far better than the old one. I leave it to the experts to establish if there is inflation despite the 100% cover. Incidentally price increases, the first sign of inflation, do not occur. As far as saving is concerned one can say that the new money favors saving properly so-called rather than hoarding money. As money lost value by keeping it at home, one could avoid the depreciation by depositing in the savings bank.

Wörgl has become a kind of pilgrim shrine for macro-economists from a variety of countries. One can recognize them right away by their learned expressions when discussing the beautifully maintained streets of Wörgl while sitting at restaurant tables. Wörgl's population, proud of their fame, welcomes them warmly."

The Central Bank

The Central Bank panicked, and decided to assert its monopoly rights by banning complimentary currencies. The case was brought in front of the Austrian Supreme Court, which upheld the Central Banks monopoly over issuing currency. It then became a criminal offence to issue “emergency currency”. Worgl quickly returned to 30% unemployment. Social unrest spread rapidly across Austria. In 1938 Hitler annexed Austria and many people welcomed Hitler as their economic and political savior.

Germany was headed towards WWII and with the aftermath of the war much of what happened in pre war Germany just like what happened during the war was suppressed by the world. Germany was being rebuilt in the West’s image. The Worgl experiment was relegated to history.

Iwasfrozen

Who was your post directed at ?

And I have no idea what you are even trying to say in your 2nd post, it doesn't even make sense, can you summerise it ?

Cannibal Ox

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What's that dot in the Middle East? The green one, amongst the swathe of red states? Is that, yes, I think it is Israel, shining bastion of freedom that it is. But wait, what's that yellow state in the Middle East? Oh. Afghanistan. Almost, but not quite, green with freedom.

India, of course, is obviously a bastion of freedom, what with having disestablished the caste system, and obviously the Dalits are no longer seriously discriminated against by people within India because they're considered 'untouchable'. And there's obviously not 300 million people living in poverty. And there sure as hell ain't still widespread violence in Kashmir.

The only reason you're using that map is because it's been published by a think tank that, in an awful lot of respects, acts like extension of US foreign policy, and more to the point, is affiliated with a particular strand within the American conservatism. It's supports your view, it isn't objective, and it certiantly isn't without bias. So why you're flagging as some of kind of objective, factual, piece of colour coded map, that can point the world to the end of world poverty, I think only you could explain.

I mean for Christ's sake, as if, as IF, you could simplify the relative freedom of each country in the world to THREE colours. What in the great **** is that about? Did someone in Freedom House say, HEY! Do you know what'd be a great idea? Do you know what'd really, really, crystalise the relative freedom of people on this planet? A map, but with colours. Not just any colours, three colours. Green for Good, Yellow for neutral, and Red for Communi...I mean, bad. Yeah! High five! Come on. It's Dora the Explorer's Colouring Map of World Freedom. Barney the Dinosaur does Human Rights. Sesame Street's Atlas of Torture.

I have a vague memory of you being a libertarian? I ain't no Commie, but I don't think we're going to agree on any of the other issues, but I do find that map intensely irritating, and I couldn't really help not commenting on it.

EDIT 2 (better map):
In the interest of fairness, I decided I'd provide a map too, the relative growth in wealth from 1975 to 2002:

Two thirds of the territories in the world have experienced a growth in their wealth from 1975 to 2002. The biggest absolute wealth increase has been in China. Eastern Asia has experienced the largest proportional increases in wealth, averaging a growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 8% a year.

Unfortunately those territories with the smallest GDPs have, at best, only experienced a very small proportion of worldwide increases in wealth. Although distributions of wealth do change, the map shows wealth growth in places that are already relatively wealthy. The territories with the largest increases in GDP, when taking local prices into account, were China, the United States, Japan, India and Germany.

Wonder if it has anything to do with poverty, and I wonder if it has anything to do with historical, political, social, and economic events that have occured over the past hundred and fifty years rather then to the relative amount of freedom that these countries have.

simplistic

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Who was your post directed at ?

And I have no idea what you are even trying to say in your 2nd post, it doesn't even make sense, can you summerise it ?

Sorry Ill try to clear it up. You asked for an example of why statism = doom .

And I pointed out that the reason Ireland is in a recession is because of state regulation and of the money supply. Then I provided the example of what happens when a secondary currency was introduced in worgol giving the people choice and causing a boom in the economy.

Soldie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not true, the reason why we don't have monopolies is because of the Governments intervention. Take Ryanair as an example: If our government allowed Ryanair to take over Air Lingus then it would create a vitual monopoly and would really be allowed to charge what ever the hell it wants because it would know there is no real competition.
In our country the State provids Small and medium sized businesses with grants to help them stay in business and create competition, thus driving down prices. At the same time we prevent monopolies by bringing competition laws.
We should never forget that the state exists to protect people from large companies, not the other way around.

How do you explain Ryanair not "charg[ing] whatever the hell it wants" for its flights operating out of Knock airport? It effectively has a monopoly there. While you're at it, you might also explain, more precisely, how Ryanair buying Aer Lingus would create a monopoly.

And I'm glad that our Utility companies are Statutory corporations. Could you imagine if they where not ?
The companies would refuse to provide the rural areas of Ireland with their services because the cost of laying down the infrastructure would be too high compared with the profit the company is likely to make.
The thing is Government bodies can make un-profitable decisions, private companies won't.

Yes, I'd imagine we might actually get some value for our money. Ireland currently has some of the highest electricity and gas prices in Europe thanks to the benevolence of our state. Companies such as Perlico now offer broadband for €20 a month--do you think broadband would have been so cheap if Telecom Éireann hadn't been privatised?

Iwasfrozen

simplistic wrote: »

Sorry Ill try to clear it up. You asked for an example of why statism = doom.

And I pointed out that the reason Ireland is in a recession is because of state regulation and of the money supply. Then I provided the example of what happens when a secondary currency was introduced in worgol giving the people choice and causing a boom in the economy.[/quote]
I know very little if anyhting about the science behind flat rate currency so I'm not qualified to make a statement in regards to the Worgl experiment but I can talk about the depression.

The current Depression we are in at the moment was an indirect result of the collapse of The subprime mortgage industry in March 2007, this bubble was engineered by Alan Greenspan the chairman of the Federal Reserve he was also a well known Objectivist and a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. This was the guy who championed the de-regulation which resulted in a property boom.

Iwasfrozen

Soldie wrote: »

How do you explain Ryanair not "charg[ing] whatever the hell it wants" for its flights operating out of Knock airport? It effectively has a monopoly there. While you're at it, you might also explain, more precisely, how Ryanair buying Aer Lingus would create a monopoly.

Because then nobody would use Knock airport. As for your other point you'll notice I didn't say monopoly, I said virtual monopoly.

Soldie wrote:

Yes, I'd imagine we might actually get some value for our money. Ireland currently has some of the highest electricity and gas prices in Europe thanks to the benevolence of our state. Companies such as Perlico now offer broadband for €20 a month--do you think broadband would have been so cheap if Telecom Éireann hadn't been privatised?

You haven't told me why you believe that private companies wouldn't abandon non-profitable rural areas.
Nevertheless, maybe our prices would not have been cheaper but Telecom Éireann, being a government body would have employed more people and pay better wages then the current broadband providers.

Valmont

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The current Depression we are in at the moment was an indirect result of the collapse of The subprime mortgage industry in March 2007, this bubble was engineered by Alan Greenspan the chairman of the Federal Reserve he was also a well known Objectivist and a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. This was the guy who championed the de-regulation which resulted in a property boom.

Any newspaper articles I could read on this? I'm not completely denying it outright but these things are almost always more complicated and it does seem a little too convenient that evil objectivism is the cause.

Soldie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because then nobody would use Knock airport. As for your other point you'll notice I didn't say monopoly, I said virtual monopoly.

And if Ryanair bought Aer Lingus and started "charg[ing] whatever the hell it wants" then people would stop using Ryanair, too, right?

You haven't told me why you believe that private companies wouldn't abandon non-profitable rural areas.

And you haven't told me why people should be entitled to certain amenities by virtue of their geographic location. Would it be reasonable for me to move to the summit of Carrauntoohil and expect broadband funded by the Irish taxpayer?

Nevertheless, maybe our prices would not have been cheaper but Telecom Éireann, being a government body would have employed more people and pay better wages then the current broadband providers.

Have you ever heard of "the parable of the broken window"? Where do you think the government gets the money to employ those people, and to pay them high wages? You may be happy keeping overpaid workers in jobs by paying extortionate electricity and gas bills each month, but I'm certainly not.

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

Any newspaper articles I could read on this? I'm not completely denying it outright but these things are almost always more complicated and it does seem a little too convenient that evil objectivism is the cause.

I saw it on a BBC documentory but for the life of me I can't find it on youtube. Anyway you can more or less read the whole thing on Alan Greenspans wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_greenspan#Late_2000s_recession

Valmont

"In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan acknowledged that he was "partially" wrong in opposing regulation and stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief."[23] Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) then pressed him to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Waxman said. “Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”[64] Greenspan admitted fault[65] in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected."

Sobering words for any free market proponents.

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

"In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan acknowledged that he was "partially" wrong in opposing regulation and stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief."[23] Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) then pressed him to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Waxman said. “Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”[64] Greenspan admitted fault[65] in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected."

Sobering words for any free market proponents.

How? He has just admited that Objectivism is not workable.

silverharp

Valmont wrote: »

"In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan acknowledged that he was "partially" wrong in opposing regulation and stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief."[23] Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) then pressed him to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Waxman said. “Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”[64] Greenspan admitted fault[65] in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected."

Sobering words for any free market proponents.

Not really, he was probably deluded that he could carve out some limited deregulation within the context of a highly regulated or government controlled market. There was a term in the market known as the "Greenspan put" which was a tip of the hat to the idea that Greenspans Fed would always come to the rescue of the market.

Valmont

Valmont wrote:

Sobering words for any free market proponents.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How? He has just admited that Objectivism is not workable.

Now I'm confused.

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

Now I'm confused.

Objectivists are in favour of the Free market.
Alan Greenspan was an Objectivist.
As an Objectivist and Chairman of the fed he lead the way towards de-regulation.

silverharp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Objectivists are in favour of the Free market.
Alan Greenspan was an Objectivist.
As an Objectivist and Chairman of the fed he lead the way towards de-regulation.

Greenspan was also in favour of a gold standard in the 1960's but there was no evidence that he carried these views into the FED. I think you are underestimating that he was a careerist. Saying that Greenspan was an objectivest is meaningless. anymore then I would try to disprove Socialism by using Bertie as an example

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

Iwasfrozen

silverharp wrote: »

Greenspan was also in favour of a gold standard in the 1960's but there was no evidence that he carried these views into the FED. I think you are underestimating that he was a careerist. Saying that Greenspan was an objectivest is meaningless. anymore then I would try to disprove Socialism by using Bertie as an example

The evidence was the De-regulation that we saw during the Clinton years and the growth of the Sub-prime bubble brought on by the promise of easy money. Had there been more regulation in financial institutions then there would never have been a bubble.
Greenspan may have been a careerist and no doubt that he watered down his true ideologies, but having an Objectivist chairman during a time of massive de-regulation is more then a coincidence.

Valmont

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Objectivists are in favour of the Free market.
Alan Greenspan was an Objectivist.
As an Objectivist and Chairman of the fed he lead the way towards de-regulation.

ok ok. I quoted the wiki article saying that Greenspan confessing his ideals were wrong or whatever were sobering words for free market proponents.
It made no sense whatsoever that you then said this:

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How? He has just admited that Objectivism is not workable.

I even double checked the definition of "sobering" just in case!

Gary L

Valmont wrote: »

I even double checked the definition of "sobering" just in case!

Ha ha It made perfect sense don't worry.

Recessions are only surprising if you think free markets work. Turns out Marx was right after all. Shocker.

silverharp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The evidence was the De-regulation that we saw during the Clinton years and the growth of the Sub-prime bubble brought on by the promise of easy money. Had there been more regulation in financial institutions then there would never have been a bubble.
Greenspan may have been a careerist and no doubt that he watered down his true ideologies, but having an Objectivist chairman during a time of massive de-regulation is more then a coincidence.

Again your are being too selective with the facts. The Fed, SEC had more then enough powers but didnt use them, the ratings agencies were another arm of gov. regulaton that didnt work.
The subprime market was only started when the gov. forced the banks to lend money into poor areas and if you look at Fannie and Feddie they were gov. sponsered agencies that had access to even cheaper money becasue they were backed by the gov.

Gov. regulation will tend to fail as they get co-opted or the regulatees actually dictate the terms of the regulation. If you like your strawmen then sure Greenspan (the Randian) proved that that free markets dont work:D

Joycey

Valmont wrote: »

ok ok. I quoted the wiki article saying that Greenspan confessing his ideals were wrong or whatever were sobering words for free market proponents.
It made no sense whatsoever that you then said this:

I even double checked the definition of "sobering" just in case!

I think (s)he probably misunderstood you to be saying that you were not sobered by this or something .

Silverharp wrote:

Not really, he was probably deluded that he could carve out some limited deregulation within the context of a highly regulated or government controlled market. There was a term in the market known as the "Greenspan put" which was a tip of the hat to the idea that Greenspans Fed would always come to the rescue of the market.

My god. After spending so much time criticising and deriding claims made by socialists on here that socialism in one country is impossible, you'd think you'd recognise when you are making essentially the same claim to back up your own ideology.

Essentially your argument goes something like this:
Regulation=Bad
Deregulation=Good
-> If an ever increasing degree of deregulation eventually spectacularly fails it must be because of whatever regulation is still in place.

Its not quite a falacy but its pretty damn close.
:rolleyes:

At least the socialists have decent arguments that you may or may not agree with

"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries—that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. [...] It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range." – Friedrich Engels, The Principles of Communism, 1847

So its as a result of revolution being performed by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie that bourgeoise national borders, the entirely arbitrary constructions that they are, only serve to detract from the ability to revolt if they are respected.

simplistic

Banking is the one of if not the most regulated industries under any government. The only other one that is as regulated I can think of is law enforcement.

I cannot set up a private police force without being thrown into a cell.

I also cannot set up a stable currency with being thrown into a cell.


Claiming that the banking system is deregulated is non sense. If the Gardai were given a licence to kill and they went on a killing spree you could say that its deregulation. But its only deregulation of a state controlled monopoly and has nothing to do with the free market.

Just think about it if investors had to compete to convince you to use their currency , what types of checks and balances would you demand before you would touch a currency ? Stable ? backed with actual assets?

If the consumers in a free market dont want a fiat based la la land currency and there is nobody to threaten them with violence well then nobody will use it.

Eliot Rosewater

The Ryanair Monopoly claim is ridiculous and conveniently ignores facts about markets, and the airline market in particular.

Firstly Ryanair wont monopolize the whole airline market because it doesn't target the whole airline market. It targets only budget travelers. Do you see business men flying Ryanair often?

Which leads to the central hole in your argument: if Ryanair is going to force everyone out of the market, why it hasn't happened yet? Why are the 20 other airlines in Dublin not pulling out? Given that your making an economic argument, your reasoning has to explain this.

Add to the mix the fact that many Ryanair customers, such as myself, wouldn't buy airline tickets if it weren't for Ryanair. That is to say; Ryanair haven't taken my custom from anyone other provider. Also Ryanair are in competition with Irish Ferries etc in the general international travel market and this has to be examined.

The Ryanair debate disappoints me greatly. Those against the company will use economic terms such as "monopoly" in their argument, while only taking on as much economics as will suit their case. The result is an argument as porous as a sieve.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't want to dismiss your picture as right-wing American nationalism, but it is right-wing American nationalism. As for why most of the countries in red contin the starving children let me dig up a little Lenin quote I posted in another thread:

Lenin wrote:

Imperialism:
Lenin argued that Capitalism is the highest form of Imperialism, a quick wikipedia search brought up these five features of free market dominance.

1) Concentration of production and capital has led to the creation of national and multinational monopolies - not as understood in liberal economics, but in terms of de facto power over their enormous markets - while the "free competition" remains the domain of increasingly localized and/or niche markets.

2) Industrial capital as the dominant form of capital has been replaced by finance capital (repeating the main points of Rudolf Hilferding's magnum opus, Finance Capital), with the industrial capitalists being ever more reliant on finance capital (provided by financial institutions).

3) The export of the aforementioned finance capital is emphasized over the export of goods (even though the latter would continue to exist).

4) The economic division of the world by multinational enterprises, and the formation of international cartels

And the one that really hits home:

5) The political division of the world by the great powers, in which the export of finance capital by the advanced capitalist industrial nations to their colonial possessions enables them to exploit those colonies for their resources and investment opportunities. This superexploitation of poorer countries allows the advanced capitalist industrial nations to keep at least some of their own workers content, by providing them with slightly higher living standards.

This quote highlights the unfair nature of Capitalism as the higest form of Imperialism and how it concentrates in it's own home market while exploiting those in other countries. It also explains how it keeps the people in their home markets satisfyed by keeping them in a high standered of living at the expense of the poor in the under-privileged countries.

Cannibal Ox

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm still not entirely sure how you think that an organisation which is in part funded by the US government, and several American conservative groups, and which then goes and produces a map whose methodology is not only based upon a wholey subjective and culturally dependant term like freedom but also tries to restrict it to three levels can be in any way an objective indication of how poverty is caused.

Personnaly, I find that not only a ludicrous assertion to make, but also insulting to those states which don't conform to your particular political sway, and are branded as being child starving socialist tin pot dictatorships, while states like India, where child poverty is epidemic, are considered "good". That map has no correlation to poverty.

Unless of course you think there is no poverty in the US, South America, Europe, or India. Which'd be the logical conclusion to draw from your map considering that it has been proven numerous times that starvation is never a lack of access to food, but a lack of entitlement to food.

Eliot Rosewater

Iwasfrozen: just because you can find someone who believes the same thing on you doesn't make it true. That quote offers no explanation for why these things are correct.

So would you like to tell us why capitalism inevitably creates monopolies and cartels, as you have been constantly claiming here? And could you give a few examples of these? And could you also address the fact the the biggest monopolies in Ireland - buses, trains - are run by the government?

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In addition, Leonard Peikoff has lambasted Greenspan's supposed departure from objectivism as laid out by Rand herself. It was in one of his podcasts from 2008 and I can find which one if anyone is interested.

Red Hand

Socialism/communism/capitalism/anarchism are all much the same when it comes down to it. How best to manage the domesticated human's food and resource supply.:pac:

Iwasfrozen

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Iwasfrozen: just because you can find someone who believes the same thing on you doesn't make it true. That quote offers no explanation for why these things are correct.

So would you like to tell us why capitalism inevitably creates monopolies and cartels, as you have been constantly claiming here? And could you give a few examples of these? And could you also address the fact the the biggest monopolies in Ireland - buses, trains - are run by the government?

I never claimed Capitalism causes cartels and monopolies, I said that Laissez-faire Capitalism causes the creation of cartels and monopolies. Since no such Anarcho-Capitalist society exists on earth atm it is impossible to prove or disprove this theory.

However logic dictates that large-scale coroperations, who have no moral and ethical social responsibility save for supplying their shareholders with a good return on their investment. Would not be above the formation of a cartel, or merge themselves into monopolies, were we to remove the checks and balances that currently stops them from doing so at the moment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's it? You won't engage the rest of his post?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

However logic dictates that large-scale coroperations, who have no moral and ethical social responsibility save for supplying their shareholders with a good return on their investment...

Im not sure logic does.

What benefit would there be for a competitive firm to join a monopoly and raise prices, only to be undercut by a new member to the market?

Talking about the whole market, we assume the "iron law of demand" holds true. That is, the price of a good and the quantity demanded of that good are inversely proportional. If a monopoly or cartel forms and the price is raised the quantity demanded goes down. Now the efficient firms will have to share profits with inefficient firms. These profits may well go down as the combined firms will be selling less products. It would seem that joining a monopoly or cartel will not be advantageous for every single firm involved. All it takes is one firm to break the price fixing.

It would also be worth talking about monopolies in general. They seem to be synonymous with evil these days. However I think the negative impact of monopolies are overstated. Firstly many goods are non-essential. If there was a monopoly on computer game consoles and the price was hiked, people simply wouldn't buy consoles. The game console industry is in competition with unrelated products, such as basketball hoops. And talking about computers there is the obvious example of Microsoft. Windows accounts for some 92% of the operating system market? And the alternatives are weak - Apple is expensive and specialist and Linux is seen as highly technical. Why aren't Microsoft abusing their dominant position?