Enough "Common Sense" -- how about "Common Decency" ?
Class
trimming some fat, breaking some big union power, standardising education,
and doing some major reorganising for long-term efficiency.
But like most extreme groups (right-wing in this case), they're going too
far. Too much benefit and privilege for the already advantaged. Too much
at the expense of the poor and middle class majority.
Mike's vision is that of the libertarian American right, with a government
there to promote and protect the individual's right to satisfy his/her greed
at the expense of everyone else. To the winners go the spoils, and the rest
can rot. A mean, nasty Darwinian society. Not my kind of nation, and not
that of the majority of Canadians, I hope and think.
From the right wing we hear "no more taxes" and "taxation is theft". Great
slogans from the rich "victims" who pay a lot of tax, unless they live in
tax havens like the Caymen Islands. Now we hear it from almost everybody --
a testament to the effectiveness of the media that the rich control. Well,
an extra $100 is a lot more valuable to a family making $20,000 per year
than to one making $200,000 per year. But the drive of the Progressive
Conservatives is for less and less progressiveness in the tax rate. Merge
Reform with Progressive Conservative and you get Regressive Conservative, a
better name.
The right-wing naturally changes the rules to their own favour. A big one
is the wage and price control policy, cleverly called a "low inflation
policy". (Yes, it's a federal not provincial responsibility, but it's the
right wing in control.) The wage control effect keeps earned incomes
stagnant at best. Watch the central banks: when wages start rising too
fast, they increase interest rates to increase unemployment. Profits and
stock prices, however, can rise without limit. Hurrah.
Where the price control effect harms profits, mergers and acquisitions are
used to reduce competition in the product and service marketplace and
restore profits. Such corporate concentration also reduces competition for
workers in the employment marketplace, and helps keep wages stagnant.
People are doing the work that used to be done by 1-1/2 or 2 people before,
for the same real wages. Sure, we have to be efficient and competitive.
But notice that all that extra work for no extra pay is what boosted profits
and stock prices to phenomenal levels. So much for the "trickle down
effect". More like a "gush up" effect. It's not fair that the majority
(workers) should sacrifice so much, while the minority (shareholders) gain
so much. That's the right wing agenda in action. Do you wonder why there
are so many new billionaires in North America and around the world, and
still so much poverty, and a stagnant or declining middle class? Paul
Martin, millionaire owner of a foreign-registered shipping fleet, wrung his
hands over that paradox. Some of these people might still actually believe
that this globalised market paradise will eventually make everyone well off.
Another big rule change that almost made it this time was the MAI, Mutual
Agreement Investment. An irreversible conversion of a so-called democratic
system to one of corporate control. Its coverage in the
corporate-controlled media was virtually non-existent until it was almost
too late. They probably won't fail next time.
In a decent, effective, democratic society, media ownership would not be
concentrated in the hands of a few, rich, selfish, greedy people. The
media's role in informing society is too important, and its ability to
influence and fool society is too great. Media ownership should be at the
very least be dispersed among many different (rich, selfish, greedy) people.
I think there are similar rules about ownership of bank stocks: 10 or 20% to
any one entity. At best, there should be wide public ownership to allow for
a much wider variety of bias. It's absurd that one group can own most
newspapers, TV and radio in a given area (or country). Look at the Irvings
in New Brunswick as an extreme example. Without a wide variety of opinions
in the media, we fall into the mindset of the media
owners -without- -being- -able- -to- -see- -it-. Who attacks the CBC, as
corporate as it already is? Conrad Black for one. Who is trying to sell
TVO to business? Mike.
We don't easily read or hear about many of these issues in the current
media. Can we change the wage and price control (low inflation) policy by
democratic means? Just enough to let a fair share of that huge amount of
new shareholder wealth trickle down to the workers. Apparently not. Can we
vote to limit mergers and acquisitions to maintain a high level of
competition in the marketplace? Apparently not. Can we vote on the MAI?
Even the widely reviled Brian Muldoon (BM the PM) had the courage and
decency to run an election on NAFTA. Apparently we are too irrelevant now,
however, to even be properly told about the MAI, much less asked to vote on
it. Thanks to the Council of Canadians for helping to save us this time.
There is a lot of scary, undemocratic activity by the right wing. I was
fooled for a long time by the propaganda. Reading about the Bilderburgers,
Skull and Crossbones Society, and other quiet but pervasive right-wing
groups gradually opened my eyes. See, e.g., the CTRL mail list at
http://www.parascope.com/other/lists/ctrl.htm . Although there is a lot of
volume, and much to delete unread, there is priceless information often
enough. There are probably better sources, but it's a good start.
bad...@cow-net.com
at 07:21 PM, "Class" <NoSp...@nospam.iname.com> said:
Good post, excellant analogy btw.
>The right-wing naturally changes the rules to their own favour. A big
>one is the wage and price control policy, cleverly called a "low
>inflation policy". (Yes, it's a federal not provincial responsibility,
>but it's the right wing in control.) The wage control effect keeps
>earned incomes stagnant at best. Watch the central banks: when wages
>start rising too fast, they increase interest rates to increase
>unemployment. Profits and stock prices, however, can rise without limit.
>Hurrah.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
SecureCom for OS2 and 95/NT support Page (formally NetChat)
http://cud.cow-net.com/badams/index.htm
Barry Adams
Vancouver Island,B.C.,Canada
---
-----------------------------------------------------------
emerico
europaen post-communist dictators. just look mike harris when he speaking
he so ignorent that this feeling come out to his face. like he saying:
'who cares, they are just a bunch of shit" - i hope this bunch of 'shit' can
hit him and his party just as hard as happened at the federal level when
mulrouney was try to do the same with us.
Chris J Delanoy
> Mike's vision is that of the libertarian American right,
I wish. Frankly, his pre-election budget was somewhat of a betrayal of
this vision.
> with a government there to promote and protect the individual's right
This is the ideal, yes, but unfortunately is not what is being entirely
pursued by Mike Harris.
> To the winners go the spoils,
No, to the producers go the spoils. _Their_ spoils - not someone else's.
> From the right wing we hear "no more taxes" and "taxation is theft".
If I put a gun to your head and demanded "Your money or your life", would
you think that I was providing you a voluntary choice? Certainly not! And
taxes are no different.
Surely some taxation is necessary to provide for the essential functions
of government: police, military, courts, and public works. As P.J. O'Rourke
coined, however, the question to ask yourself in all matters of government
spending is "Would I kill my kindly, gray-haired mother for this?" Because
that's precisely what the coercive force of taxation represents.
> Great slogans from the rich "victims" who pay a lot of tax, unless they
> live in tax havens like the Caymen Islands.
If Canada didn't have an oppressive tax regime, there would be no such
thing as a "tax haven".
> The right-wing naturally changes the rules to their own favour. A big one
> is the wage and price control policy, cleverly called a "low inflation
> policy". (Yes, it's a federal not provincial responsibility, but it's the
> right wing in control.) The wage control effect keeps earned incomes
> stagnant at best. Watch the central banks: when wages start rising too
> fast, they increase interest rates to increase unemployment. Profits and
> stock prices, however, can rise without limit. Hurrah.
If you want ideal monetary control without the arbitrary decisions of a
central government bank, then we should be moving toward the abandonment
of the central policy-making body. We all know, after all, that it was
the ineptness of the American government's Federal Reserve Board that
induced the crisis that became the Great Depression. Before the establishment
of the central government authority, recessionary pressures throughout the
nineteenth century had always been effectively checked on a private level.
> Where the price control effect harms profits,
In a free market, prices are determined by cost, not profit.
> mergers and acquisitions are used to reduce competition
Mergers and acquisitions do not necessarily "reduce competition".
Competition is not a function of some arbitrary number of businesses
existing.
> Paul Martin, millionaire owner of a foreign-registered shipping fleet,
Paul Martin's wealth is secured at the government tit. He is a millionaire
of pull, not a millionaire of ability. Chronyism like this is a hallmark
of socialistic or facistic economies - not of a free markets.
> In a decent, effective, democratic society, media ownership would not be
> concentrated in the hands of a few, rich, selfish, greedy people.
This is false (and irrelevent even if true).
> Media ownership should be at the very least be dispersed among many
> different (rich, selfish, greedy) people.
Who decides how many and who they should be? And by what standard?
> At best, there should be wide public ownership to allow for a much wider
> variety of bias.
There is. ("public" meaning, of course, individual citizens)
> Can we change the wage and price control (low inflation) policy by
> democratic means?
Inflation does not increase wages. It lowers them.
> Just enough to let a fair share of that huge amount of new shareholder
> wealth trickle down to the workers.
40% of American citizens are now stockholders - up from less than 20% only
ten years ago. The numbers in Canada probably aren't lagging very far
behind.
> Can we vote to limit mergers and acquisitions
If you are a stockholder of either of the companies in question, then
certainly.
> to maintain a high level of competition in the marketplace?
Your equation of "number of businesses" to "level of competition" is
completely false.
> Even the widely reviled Brian Muldoon (BM the PM) had the courage and
> decency to run an election on NAFTA.
And won. Don't ever forget that: the people of Canada sided with economic
freedom - not with your narrow view that would see us all enslaved to the
will of an omnipotent state.
Chris J Delanoy
--
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cdelanoy/
Supporting a principled Alternative, not a United one.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Barry Bruyea
<cdel...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
> "Class" <NoSp...@nospam.iname.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike's vision is that of the libertarian American right,
>
>I wish. Frankly, his pre-election budget was somewhat of a betrayal of
>this vision.
>
>> with a government there to promote and protect the individual's right
>
>This is the ideal, yes, but unfortunately is not what is being entirely
>pursued by Mike Harris.
>
>> To the winners go the spoils,
>
>No, to the producers go the spoils. _Their_ spoils - not someone else's.
>
>> From the right wing we hear "no more taxes" and "taxation is theft".
>
>If I put a gun to your head and demanded "Your money or your life", would
>you think that I was providing you a voluntary choice? Certainly not! And
>taxes are no different.
>
>Surely some taxation is necessary to provide for the essential functions
>of government: police, military, courts, and public works. As P.J. O'Rourke
>coined, however, the question to ask yourself in all matters of government
>spending is "Would I kill my kindly, gray-haired mother for this?" Because
>that's precisely what the coercive force of taxation represents.
>
>> Great slogans from the rich "victims" who pay a lot of tax, unless they
>> live in tax havens like the Caymen Islands.
>
>If Canada didn't have an oppressive tax regime, there would be no such
>thing as a "tax haven".
>
>> The right-wing naturally changes the rules to their own favour. A big one
>> is the wage and price control policy, cleverly called a "low inflation
>> policy". (Yes, it's a federal not provincial responsibility, but it's the
>> right wing in control.) The wage control effect keeps earned incomes
>> stagnant at best. Watch the central banks: when wages start rising too
>> fast, they increase interest rates to increase unemployment. Profits and
>> stock prices, however, can rise without limit. Hurrah.
>
>If you want ideal monetary control without the arbitrary decisions of a
>central government bank, then we should be moving toward the abandonment
>of the central policy-making body. We all know, after all, that it was
>the ineptness of the American government's Federal Reserve Board that
>induced the crisis that became the Great Depression. Before the establishment
>of the central government authority, recessionary pressures throughout the
>nineteenth century had always been effectively checked on a private level.
>
>> Where the price control effect harms profits,
>
>In a free market, prices are determined by cost, not profit.
Correction: yes, initial price is determined by cost: actual price is
determined by demand; which is why large companies sometimes lose
money, because of low demand they are unable to charge enough to
recover cost.
>
>> mergers and acquisitions are used to reduce competition
>
>Mergers and acquisitions do not necessarily "reduce competition".
>Competition is not a function of some arbitrary number of businesses
>existing.
>
>> Paul Martin, millionaire owner of a foreign-registered shipping fleet,
>
>Paul Martin's wealth is secured at the government tit. He is a millionaire
>of pull, not a millionaire of ability. Chronyism like this is a hallmark
>of socialistic or facistic economies - not of a free markets.
>
>> In a decent, effective, democratic society, media ownership would not be
>> concentrated in the hands of a few, rich, selfish, greedy people.
>
>This is false (and irrelevent even if true).
>
>> Media ownership should be at the very least be dispersed among many
>> different (rich, selfish, greedy) people.
>
>Who decides how many and who they should be? And by what standard?
>
>> At best, there should be wide public ownership to allow for a much wider
>> variety of bias.
>
>There is. ("public" meaning, of course, individual citizens)
>
>> Can we change the wage and price control (low inflation) policy by
>> democratic means?
>
>Inflation does not increase wages. It lowers them.
>
>> Just enough to let a fair share of that huge amount of new shareholder
>> wealth trickle down to the workers.
>
>40% of American citizens are now stockholders - up from less than 20% only
>ten years ago. The numbers in Canada probably aren't lagging very far
>behind.
>
>> Can we vote to limit mergers and acquisitions
>
>If you are a stockholder of either of the companies in question, then
>certainly.
>
>> to maintain a high level of competition in the marketplace?
>
>Your equation of "number of businesses" to "level of competition" is
>completely false.
>
>> Even the widely reviled Brian Muldoon (BM the PM) had the courage and
>> decency to run an election on NAFTA.
>
Robert Leslie Radford
teachers' union and their employer, institute course standards, and
propose mandatory testing of teachers. This is a long way from providing
privilege for the advantaged at the expense of the poor and middle class.
He has even kept the public school system monopoly in the face of
demands for charter schools. Radical, he is not and hardly libertarian.
Class
> "Class" <NoSp...@nospam.iname.com> wrote:
>> Mike's vision is that of the libertarian American right,
>I wish. Frankly, his pre-election budget was somewhat of a betrayal of
>this vision.
Yes, he's temporarily selling out his libertarian principles to get
re-elected by otherwise largely liberal democratic voters. Then it's back
to the insidious Americanisation of Ontario. Greed, concentration of
wealth, deterioration of the environment.
>> Can we change the wage and price control (low inflation) policy by
>> democratic means?
>
>Inflation does not increase wages. It lowers them.
Not necesssarily so. It depends whether nominal wage increases are greater
or less than inflation. The current wage and price controls have been
spectacularly effective in keeping real wage increases lower than inflation.
As soon as wages rise faster, the central banks raise interest rates, lower
business activity, and increase unemployment. This keeps workers in line.
At times through the 1970s, -real- interest rates were generally lower than
they are now. Wage increases were sometimes -higher- than inflation. These
effects benefited workers and debtors at the expense of shareholders and
lenders. Once inflation psychology was broken starting with 19% interest
rates in 1979/1980, workers have generally been too cowed to demand more.
Continual threats and implementation of downsizing, reorganization,
outsourcing, merging, and acquiring all contribute to worker powerlessness.
***
The point remains: the majority of people, the voters, the workers, can't
touch the wage and price control (low inflation) policy. It is being kept
off the democratic agenda here and worldwide. The rich own the media and
control the government. The rich benefit from wage and price controls. The
rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
***
>> Just enough to let a fair share of that huge amount of new shareholder
>> wealth trickle down to the workers.
>
>40% of American citizens are now stockholders - up from less than 20% only
>ten years ago. The numbers in Canada probably aren't lagging very far
>behind.
What is it exactly? Something like the top 5% (the wealthy) own 60%+ of the
capital? The bottom 40% (the poor) own 5%. You get the idea. And
it -continually- -gets- -more- -concentrated-. Redistributing the wealth,
and changing the rules to allow greater equity through the market are now
beyond the reach of democracy.
>> Can we vote to limit mergers and acquisitions
>
>If you are a stockholder of either of the companies in question, then
>certainly.
Before: One person -- One vote
Now: One share -- One vote
We used to have politicians and beaurocrats who limited M&As to maintain
competition for the benefit of the common people. This largely and quietly
disappeared with the right-wing revolution. Now the wealthy control M&A,
and guess what -- they are in favour. To their benefit, not the benefit of
the majority. Whither democracy? Time was when the selfish majority of
workers could vote for a bigger share of the pie for themselves. Victory
for the right wing propaganda machine.
>> Even the widely reviled Brian Muldoon (BM the PM) had the courage and
>> decency to run an election on NAFTA.
>
>And won. Don't ever forget that: the people of Canada sided with economic
>freedom - not with your narrow view that would see us all enslaved to the
>will of an omnipotent state.
I was and remain in favour of the FTA/NAFTA. Free trade generally increases
weath for both traders. The problem is that the wealthy shareholders are
getting all the new wealth, while the workers aren't.
bad...@cow-net.com
>The point remains: the majority of people, the voters, the workers,
>can't touch the wage and price control (low inflation) policy. It is
>being kept off the democratic agenda here and worldwide. The rich own
>the media and control the government. The rich benefit from wage and
>price controls. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Very well said!
bad...@cow-net.com
>Surely some taxation is necessary to provide for the essential functions
>of government: police, military, courts, and public works. As P.J.
>O'Rourke coined, however, the question to ask yourself in all matters of
>government spending is "Would I kill my kindly, gray-haired mother for
>this?" Because that's precisely what the coercive force of taxation
>represents.
Taxation is now akin to matricide? Man you guys are getting nuttier.
Honest John
>In <7gvso7$5o2$1...@news.interlog.com>, on 05/07/99
> at 07:21 PM, "Class" <NoSp...@nospam.iname.com> said:
>
>Good post, excellant analogy btw.
>
>>The right-wing naturally changes the rules to their own favour. A big
>>one is the wage and price control policy,
Didn't Pierre Trudeau run an election based on the idea that he would
not introduce "wage and price controls" only to do just that once he
was elected. Just like Chretien and the famous election promise to get
rid of the GST and take us out of NAFTA!
Len McL
Honest John wrote in message <3734b47a...@news.eagle.ca>...
>On Sat, 08 May 1999 00:50:10 -0700, bad...@cow-net.com wrote:
>
>>In <7gvso7$5o2$1...@news.interlog.com>, on 05/07/99
>> at 07:21 PM, "Class" <NoSp...@nospam.iname.com> said:
>>
>>Good post, excellant analogy btw.
>>
>>>one is the wage and price control policy,
>
>not introduce "wage and price controls" only to do just that once he
>was elected. Just like Chretien and the famous election promise to get
>rid of the GST and take us out of NAFTA!
I've just tuned in again so I'm not exactly sure what brought on the above.
However,it sounds a little like someone was trying to rewrite a bit of
history. P.E.T. sure did lie about W&P controls just as surely as Chretien
lied to get elected.
In my lifetime the Liberals have lied every time to get back into power.
The record is there if anyone is interested. The scary part is that
"liberal" voters will support, unconditionally, Liberal politicians who lie
to get elected. These hard core liberal voters will vote "liberal" (NDP
incl.) every election no matter what. Another part of the electorate,
who are not politically challenged, are the main reason there is ever a
change in government. Their swing vote is really the only reason we have
elections and can still pretend we have a democracy.
If voters were smart enough to immediately turf out any politician who
lied to get elected we could count on some honesty at election time but for
the Liberals this has never been a problem because of the sheep-like
attitude of "lieberal" voters.
In the Ont election we see the liberals in action. First you see them
trying to disrupt the election process. When confronted their leaders cry
about their rights to free speech, something like the crook being concerned
about his rights when he is caught violating somebody's else's rights.
Liberals secretly don't believe in the democratic process.
The double standard shown by "liberal" supporters in their position on
cut-backs is blatant. It's Chretien who has made the big cuts in funding
but the "people" love him and hate Harris?? As the result of these cuts,
all the provinces have seen drastic cuts to their health care systems and
that includes all parties. But who comes under fire---- a conservative,
Mike Harris, a man who didn't lie to get elected. Do you see or have you
ever seen "conservatives" out there trying to block the election process?
Chretien would know how to handle these demos...tear gas them.
An elder statesman once said that "true" democracies would fail because of
the "liberals"( or something like that) and we have seen that in countries
all around the world as democracies come and go.
As for Harris supposedly borrowing money to give tax cuts, it seems that
Ronald Reagan did the same thing
and now the American economy is breaking records.
A true liberal hates the words "common sense" ;-)
Chris J Delanoy
> >I wish. Frankly, his pre-election budget was somewhat of a betrayal of
> >this vision.
> Yes, he's temporarily selling out his libertarian principles to get
> re-elected by otherwise largely liberal democratic voters. Then it's back
> to the insidious Americanisation of Ontario.
Define "Americanisation". And then detail the objective standard by which
the process you so define is "insidious".
> ***
> The point remains: the majority of people, the voters, the workers, can't
> touch the wage and price control (low inflation) policy. It is being kept
> off the democratic agenda here and worldwide. The rich own the media and
> control the government. The rich benefit from wage and price controls. The
> rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
> ***
Who, precisely, are "the rich"?
Who, precisely, are "the workers"?
Define your terms.
> >40% of American citizens are now stockholders - up from less than 20% only
> >ten years ago. The numbers in Canada probably aren't lagging very far
> >behind.
> What is it exactly?
I don't know. 30% maybe? Again - it would certainly be lower than the
US level due to our lower overall standard of living caused by our lower
degree of economic freedom.
> Redistributing the wealth, and changing the rules to allow greater equity
> through the market are now beyond the reach of democracy.
Precisely who should the wealth be distributed from? And what, in that
event, is their incentive to keep creating that wealth? And by what right
do you lay claim to the products of somebody else's work and intelligence?
Again, "Class", you need to be more specific here. Don't talk about
"wealth distribution" generically - give us specific numbers. Precisely
how much unearned wealth do you desire?
> >If you are a stockholder of either of the companies in question, then
> >certainly.
> Before: One person -- One vote
> Now: One share -- One vote
If you disagree with the direction that a company and it's owners take,
then don't use that company. Drive them out of business.
That aside, precisely when was "before"? And precisely how was it
different from "now"?
> We used to have politicians and beaurocrats who limited M&As to maintain
> competition for the benefit of the common people.
Define "the common people", and explain precisely why you believe they
benefit from being slaves to your ideal state.
For the rest of your "logic": competition is not something that can be
decreed by politicians and bureaucrats. And it is not a function of the
number of businesses that happen to occupy a given sector. It is a natural
consequence of a free market economy and is naturally governed by the price
system. Government interference and regulation necessarily _decreases_
competition by erecting barriers to voluntary exchange and innovation on
a free market.
> This largely and quietly disappeared with the right-wing revolution.
> Now the wealthy control M&A, and guess what -- they are in favour.
> To their benefit, not the benefit of the majority.
Who, precisely, are "the wealthy"?
Who, precisely, are "the majority" who would be better off if no wealth
existed at all?
Define your terms.
> Time was when the selfish majority of workers could vote for a bigger
> share of the pie for themselves.
A free market economy is not a finite "pie". I know this is a difficult
concept to grasp for somebody whose ideal place is one where an economic
system causes 35 million+ people to starve in a nation with more arable
land than any other on Earth, but I'll be patient.
> >And won. Don't ever forget that: the people of Canada sided with economic
> >freedom - not with your narrow view that would see us all enslaved to the
> >will of an omnipotent state.
> I was and remain in favour of the FTA/NAFTA. Free trade generally increases
> weath for both traders.
A stunning (and correct) admission from a socialist who would prefer to
reduce humanity to the status of mindless animals enslaved to an omnipotent
state. I'll give you a modicrum of credit, therefore.
Chris J Delanoy
> >Surely some taxation is necessary to provide for the essential functions
> >of government: police, military, courts, and public works. As P.J.
> >O'Rourke coined, however, the question to ask yourself in all matters of
> >government spending is "Would I kill my kindly, gray-haired mother for
> >this?" Because that's precisely what the coercive force of taxation
> >represents.
> Taxation is now akin to matricide?
Taxation is a derivative of coercive force. Like the petty thug who offers
you a 'choice' of "your money or your life", taxation is given "voluntarily"
only at the point of a gun.
The useless statists like yourself who desire nothing more than to spend
somebody else's wealth asuage your guilt by assigning taxation only to the
the disembodied "public". That's where your kindly, gray-haired mother
comes in: because it is _individual people_ - and not some faceless mass
of humanity - who are coerced to pay for your statist designs. _They_
are the ones you are enslaving so that you can feel good about what a
wonderful humanitarian you are.
bad...@cow-net.com
>Who, precisely, are "the rich"?
>Who, precisely, are "the workers"?
>Define your terms.
Why bother you would reject the definitions in any case. Then you would
post the bogus study that purports to show unbelievable income mobility to
support you case that it doesn't matter anyways.
>> >40% of American citizens are now stockholders - up from less than 20% only
>> >ten years ago. The numbers in Canada probably aren't lagging very far
>> >behind.
>> What is it exactly?
>I don't know. 30% maybe? Again - it would certainly be lower than the
>US level due to our lower overall standard of living caused by our lower
>degree of economic freedom.
More red herrings. All of the research shows that the majority of assets
including stocks bonds, mutual funds ect are owned by the richest 20 per
cent and the overwhelming majority of that by the richest 1 per cent.
>> Redistributing the wealth, and changing the rules to allow greater equity
>> through the market are now beyond the reach of democracy.
>Precisely who should the wealth be distributed from? And what, in that
>event, is their incentive to keep creating that wealth? And by what
>right do you lay claim to the products of somebody else's work and
>intelligence?
Pretty funny stuff. Considering that the rich are so eager to embrace
monetary and fiscal policies that use punitive levels of unemployment to
create price stability. This is the same group that recommends welfare
cuts, no minimum wages, and if possible "right to work" legislation.
>Again, "Class", you need to be more specific here. Don't talk about
>"wealth distribution" generically - give us specific numbers. Precisely
>how much unearned wealth do you desire?
Another giant red herring. According to you guys, the only real
determinant is the market, and its just too bad that the market makes you
poor and us rich! What a scam.
>> Before: One person -- One vote
>> Now: One share -- One vote
>If you disagree with the direction that a company and it's owners take,
>then don't use that company. Drive them out of business.
Lets start with Monsanto! Now exactly how would we go about driving them
out of business? Now heres a company that has persuaded the US govenment
to threaten sanctions against countries that bring in labeling laws for
geneticly modified agricultural products. Scientists working for the Cdn
government maintain that Monsanto attempted to bribe them to support BGH.
And on and on it goes.
So tell me Chris, even if people are aware of these practices, how could
even begin to drive them out of business.
>That aside, precisely when was "before"? And precisely how was it
>different from "now"?
Before of course was between 1948 and 1971. And if you don't know how it
was different you should perhaps do a little research.
>> We used to have politicians and beaurocrats who limited M&As to maintain
>> competition for the benefit of the common people.
>Define "the common people", and explain precisely why you believe they
>benefit from being slaves to your ideal state.
What garbage Chris! Is this how you manage to avoid all arguments?
>For the rest of your "logic": competition is not something that can be
>decreed by politicians and bureaucrats. And it is not a function of the
>number of businesses that happen to occupy a given sector. It is a
>natural consequence of a free market economy and is naturally governed by
>the price system. Government interference and regulation necessarily
>_decreases_ competition by erecting barriers to voluntary exchange and
>innovation on a free market.
Ah here we go. The "natural" consequence of the "free market system". As
if economics were somehow a natural system, subject to natural laws. Its
just an unfortunate fact of natural economic systems that the poor will
always be with us. Although full of good will and all other human
qualities, we're just poor supplicants before the forces of "the free
market system". We're far to frail to alter the functioning of such
terrifying natural forces. Mind you we can tinker with the basic stuff of
the universe, and we sure as hell can destroy the planet with our bombs,
but economics .... beware, meddle with that and the Gods will become
angry. We even have an especially anoited priesthood that will be glad to
tell you exactly why economics is the "dismal" science.
>> This largely and quietly disappeared with the right-wing revolution.
>> Now the wealthy control M&A, and guess what -- they are in favour.
>> To their benefit, not the benefit of the majority.
>Who, precisely, are "the wealthy"?
Oh I don't know Chris. I thought Fortune magazine published a definitive
list every year?
>Who, precisely, are "the majority" who would be better off if no wealth
>existed at all?
Look it up in the dictionary.
>Define your terms.
>> Time was when the selfish majority of workers could vote for a bigger
>> share of the pie for themselves.
>A free market economy is not a finite "pie". I know this is a difficult
>concept to grasp for somebody whose ideal place is one where an economic
>system causes 35 million+ people to starve in a nation with more arable
>land than any other on Earth, but I'll be patient.
Ah back to the infinite pie again. Still if the pie is growing by say 4
per cent per year, and 20 per cent of the population are increasing their
share of the pie by 10 per cent per year (being very conservative here),
what do you think it means for the rest of the pie share holders?
>> >And won. Don't ever forget that: the people of Canada sided with economic
>> >freedom - not with your narrow view that would see us all enslaved to the
>> >will of an omnipotent state.
>> I was and remain in favour of the FTA/NAFTA. Free trade generally increases
>> weath for both traders.
>A stunning (and correct) admission from a socialist who would prefer to
>reduce humanity to the status of mindless animals enslaved to an
>omnipotent state. I'll give you a modicrum of credit, therefore.
Thats funny coming from someone who would have humanity reduced to mere
slaves of the impersonal forces of the "market". Has an eerie resemblence
to fundamentalist religious thought doesn't it? Its actually the
proponents of the market view of humanity that live in a fictional
clockwork universe.
bad...@cow-net.com
> bad...@cow-net.com wrote:
>> >Surely some taxation is necessary to provide for the essential functions
>> >of government: police, military, courts, and public works. As P.J.
>> >O'Rourke coined, however, the question to ask yourself in all matters of
>> >government spending is "Would I kill my kindly, gray-haired mother for
>> >this?" Because that's precisely what the coercive force of taxation
>> >represents.
>> Taxation is now akin to matricide?
>Taxation is a derivative of coercive force. Like the petty thug who
>offers you a 'choice' of "your money or your life", taxation is given
>"voluntarily" only at the point of a gun.
Ah you guys are weird. Taxation is how we pay for our governments,
period.
>The useless statists like yourself who desire nothing more than to spend
>somebody else's wealth asuage your guilt by assigning taxation only to
>the the disembodied "public". That's where your kindly, gray-haired
>mother comes in: because it is _individual people_ - and not some
>faceless mass of humanity - who are coerced to pay for your statist
>designs. _They_ are the ones you are enslaving so that you can feel good
>about what a wonderful humanitarian you are.
Its interesting how you manage to hide behind your rhetoric Chris.
Heavily influenced by Ayn Rand were we? The noble individual fettered by
the forces of the evil collective and especially by the unctious agents of
the evil parisitic state!
Man I love this stuff.
I guess the 35 million children under 5 who die every year from
preventable or treatable diseases, due to lack of effective economic
demand are somehow less worthy than my kindly gray-haired mother?
Afterall its not taxation, but the impersonal operation of economic
"forces" that sealed their fate.
If taxation would prevent even 10 per cent of those deaths Chris, would
you think it was a lesser evil? If "socialist" regulation of capital
flows and interest rates would prevent 10 per cent of those deaths, would
you think they were a lesser evil?
Chris J Delanoy
> >Who, precisely, are "the rich"?
> >Who, precisely, are "the workers"?
> >Define your terms.
> Why bother you would reject the definitions in any case.
You don't have any definitions. And insofar as you do, they are very
surely preposterous: namely, you would consider a small business owner
struggling to break into a new market to be "the rich", but assembly line
workers making $70k+ would be "the workers" who are being oppressed.
> >I don't know. 30% maybe? Again - it would certainly be lower than the
> >US level due to our lower overall standard of living caused by our lower
> >degree of economic freedom.
> More red herrings. All of the research shows that the majority of assets
> including stocks bonds, mutual funds ect are owned by the richest 20 per
> cent and the overwhelming majority of that by the richest 1 per cent.
And why is there anything wrong with that? Precisely define the standard
by which you judge it to be so.
> >Again, "Class", you need to be more specific here. Don't talk about
> >"wealth distribution" generically - give us specific numbers. Precisely
> >how much unearned wealth do you desire?
> Another giant red herring.
Give us a number, Barry. Precisely what level of "redistributed" income
do you find desirable?
> >If you disagree with the direction that a company and it's owners take,
> >then don't use that company. Drive them out of business.
> Lets start with Monsanto! Now exactly how would we go about driving them
> out of business? Now heres a company that has persuaded the US govenment
> to threaten sanctions against countries that bring in labeling laws for
> geneticly modified agricultural products.
You just proved my point! Here we have _the government_ interfering with
the market on behalf of a specific company. This is a tacit admission by
that company that they _could not survive_ without the protection of the
government; that they _could not compete_ on a free market! Stopping this
sort of chronyism by the government is _precisely_ why a free market
economy is desirable!
> Scientists working for the Cdn government maintain that Monsanto attempted
> to bribe them to support BGH. And on and on it goes.
On a free market, there would be no Canadian government scientists to bribe,
and Monsanto's shoddy chronyism would be punished, not rewarded as it is in
our mixed economy! You've proven why a free market economy is the best,
Barry - because as long as people like you insist that the government have
the ultimate authority in choosing the winners and losers on the mixed
market, they will continue to select uncompetitive parasites that can
survive by no means other than bribery and corruption of the controlling
government!
> So tell me Chris, even if people are aware of these practices, how could
> even begin to drive them out of business.
You're quite right, Barry. As long as we have the government "protecting"
us and using it's powers to drive new innovators out of the market (with the
complete blessing of parasites like Monsanto, of course), we can do nothing.
> >That aside, precisely when was "before"? And precisely how was it
> >different from "now"?
> Before of course was between 1948 and 1971.
The bills from 1948 - 1971 are still being called in today. That's another
method you statists use to asuage the guilt of stealing productive wealth
at gunpoint - you put the gun to the head of unborn generations.
> Ah here we go. The "natural" consequence of the "free market system". As
> if economics were somehow a natural system, subject to natural laws.
No, economics can have a very perverse effect on natural laws, actually.
Like how a nations (like Soviet Russia and sub-Saharan Africa) with more
than enough arable land to feed their populations undergo mass starvation
while nations like Hong Kong that don't have a square inch of agricultural
land can feed their population in abundance. Like how oil producing nations
like Canada and the United States were crippled by an "energy crisis" in the
1970s that lead to mass rationing and near-riotous lineups, while nations
like Japan that don't produce a single drop of oil weren't hurt at all.
> Its just an unfortunate fact of natural economic systems that the poor
> will always be with us.
"the poor" is a dynamic term, Barry. The bottom 10% (or 20% or whatever
arbitrary, meaningless dividing line you choose) is always "poor", even
though their quality of life would be vastly better than any average citizen
fifty or even just thirty years ago.
> We're far to frail to alter the functioning of such terrifying natural
> forces.
If you don't like "natural" consequence, then substitute "inevitable".
> >Who, precisely, are "the wealthy"?
> Oh I don't know Chris. I thought Fortune magazine published a definitive
> list every year?
And they're the only ones? -This- is your definition?
> >A stunning (and correct) admission from a socialist who would prefer to
> >reduce humanity to the status of mindless animals enslaved to an
> >omnipotent state. I'll give you a modicrum of credit, therefore.
> Thats funny coming from someone who would have humanity reduced to mere
> slaves of the impersonal forces of the "market".
A free market is characterized by voluntary trade - something that occurs
only the benefit of both parties. I agree entirely with you that this
process is perverted and distorted under the bureaucracy and regulation
of our mixed economy. Your solution is to drop the charade and just go
for complete slavery and statism.
Chris J Delanoy
> >The useless statists like yourself who desire nothing more than to spend
> >somebody else's wealth asuage your guilt by assigning taxation only to
> >the the disembodied "public". That's where your kindly, gray-haired
> >mother comes in: because it is _individual people_ - and not some
> >faceless mass of humanity - who are coerced to pay for your statist
> >designs. _They_ are the ones you are enslaving so that you can feel good
> >about what a wonderful humanitarian you are.
> Its interesting how you manage to hide behind your rhetoric Chris.
This coming from somebody who can't even define the slogans he bases his
entire argument on.
> I guess the 35 million children under 5 who die every year from
> preventable or treatable diseases, due to lack of effective economic
> demand are somehow less worthy than my kindly gray-haired mother?
You tell me. Would you shoot your kindly, gray-haired mother for that?
> Afterall its not taxation, but the impersonal operation of economic
> "forces" that sealed their fate.
No nation that has had a near-market and even a mixed economy has
undergone mass starvation. It is a characteristic _exclusive_ of
socialistic or anarchistic states.
> If taxation would prevent even 10 per cent of those deaths Chris, would
> you think it was a lesser evil?
Taxation of Canadians would not prevent even 10 per cent of those
deaths, Barry. But it would drive more Canadians out of productive
jobs and into dependence on the state. Which in turn would require
more taxation. Which in turn... ad infinitum.
Pierre Bastien
>consequence of a free market economy and is naturally governed by the price
>system. Government interference and regulation necessarily _decreases_
>competition by erecting barriers to voluntary exchange and innovation on
>a free market.
You might get some insight on how competition works in the real world ,
compared to a U. of Chicago classroom, in checking the following text:
http://iisd.ca/pcdf/corprule/betrayal.htm
Hope you don't find these concepts too difficult to grasp ;-)
Pierre
"Arguments against new ideas generally pass through three distinct stages,
from 'It's not true', to 'Well, it may be true, but it's not important', to
'It's true and it'important, but it's not new-we knew it all along.'
UNPOPULAR WISDOM, reported by John D.Barrow in 'The artful universe'
Pierre Bastien
>A free market economy is not a finite "pie". I know this is a difficult
>concept to grasp for somebody whose ideal place is one where an economic
>system causes 35 million+ people to starve in a nation with more arable
>land than any other on Earth, but I'll be patient.
Interesting remark from someone living in Alberta. Ever wonder how Alberta
economy will manage when oil starts to run out (20-25% of government
revenues are hydrocarbons royalties if I remember correctly) in 20-25 years?
Maybe earlier, with all those gas guzzling RVs and pick-ups that keep
multiplying.
The Athabasca sands maybe, seriously?
(I'm running for my asbestos suit .. )
Pierre
"Arguments against new ideas generally pass through three distinct stages,
from 'It's not true', to 'Well, it may be true, but it's not important', to
'It's true and it's important, but it's not new-we knew it all along.'
Pierre Bastien
Chris J Delanoy wrote in message <7h4a26$eqp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> bad...@cow-net.com wrote:
>> More red herrings. All of the research shows that the majority of assets
>> including stocks bonds, mutual funds ect are owned by the richest 20 per
>> cent and the overwhelming majority of that by the richest 1 per cent.
>
>And why is there anything wrong with that? Precisely define the standard
>by which you judge it to be so.
Ever heard of a feodal society? If yes, assume you are not on top.
Now, do you find it acceptable?
Pierre
Chris J Delanoy
> >And why is there anything wrong with that? Precisely define the standard
> >by which you judge it to be so.
> Ever heard of a feodal society? If yes, assume you are not on top.
> Now, do you find it acceptable?
The free market is the enemy of feudalism - just as it is of all other forms
of statism.
Chris J Delanoy
> >A free market economy is not a finite "pie". I know this is a difficult
> >concept to grasp for somebody whose ideal place is one where an economic
> >system causes 35 million+ people to starve in a nation with more arable
> >land than any other on Earth, but I'll be patient.
> Interesting remark from someone living in Alberta. Ever wonder how Alberta
> economy will manage when oil starts to run out (20-25% of government
> revenues are hydrocarbons royalties if I remember correctly) in 20-25 years?
With respect to government revenues, I would prefer that they weren't being
taken in at all _now_. Alberta's government is as intrusive and statist as
any other in Canada.
And no, I don't wonder "how we'll manage", because the funny thing about
innovation in a free market is that _nobody can predict what form it will
take_. The availability of natural resources has no bearing whatsoever on
the prosperity of an economy. If a postage-stamp-sized nation like Hong
Kong can be as prosperous and have as high a standard a living as it does
without ever exploiting a single natural resource, I have no worries about
the possibilities for Alberta or any other place under the free market.
Where I would worry is if the present trend of increasing government
interference continues. Getting the government out of the business of
"protecting" the economy is the single most important step in truly
protecting it.
Chris J Delanoy
> Hope you don't find these concepts too difficult to grasp ;-)
They aren't difficult, because they are painfully typical of the faulty
context used to defend statism: namely, it sets up and establishes
capitalism as something that _it is not_, and then proceeds to attack
that false characterization. It attempts to classify the struggle as
being between government controls that "benefit the poor" and government
controls that "benefit the rich", when in fact _both_ of these scenarios
are the enemies of a free market economy which is characterized by _no
government constraints_ on the economy.
The argument is not controls that benefit "the right" versus controls
that benefit "the poor". The argument is between capitalism and statism -
and _both_ of the above are statist. You are in fact attacking statism
but pretending that it is capitalism.
The author's summary is typical of this intellectual fraud:
> When the necessary conditions are met the market is a powerful and
> efficient mechanisms for allocating resources.
He's right. And the "necessary conditions" set by Adam Smith and the
defenders of capitalism is _the absense of government interference_.
> What we now have is not a market economy.
He right again. We live in mixed economies heavily regulated by the
government.
> If the corporate libertarians were to bear serious allegiance to market
> principles and human rights, they would be calling for policies aimed at
> achieving the conditions in which markets function
The "policies" under which conditions of a free market are achieved are
_no policies_!
> in a democratic fashion in the public interest.
Define both terms.
> They would be calling for measures to end subsidies and preferential
> treatment for large corporations,
Every defender of the free market _does_ call for an end to government
subsidies and preferential treatment of selected industries and companies
by governments. Nobody who advocates these things is a defender of the
free market, and you are intellectually fraudulent to try to attack the
free market on the basis of their _statist_ objectives.
> to break up corporate monopolies, encourage the distribution of property
> ownership, internalize social and environmental costs, root capital in
> place, secure the rights of workers to the just fruits of their labor, and
> limit opportunities to obtain extravagant individual incomes far greater
> than their productive contribution.
All of these things are consequences of capitalism - namely, an economic
system characterized by the _lack_ of government control and by the absence
of the gang warfare among competing varieties of statists that it promotes.
That's what you're doing here, Pierre. Both you and those who support
welfare policies for parasitic corporations or individuals are just different
types of statist thugs - free markets and individual rights are the enemies
of _both_ varieties.
The above indictments are not failures of capitalism, Pierre. They are all
failures of statism. Every "corporate monopoly" - insofar as such a thing
exists - is the result of government "protection" or regulation which
prevents genuine competition from occuring. The solution is _not_ to attempt
to replace one gang with another or one control with another, but to
_abolish them_ entirely.
bad...@cow-net.com
> bad...@cow-net.com wrote:
>> >Who, precisely, are "the rich"?
>> >Who, precisely, are "the workers"?
>> >Define your terms.
>> Why bother you would reject the definitions in any case.
>You don't have any definitions. And insofar as you do, they are very
>surely preposterous: namely, you would consider a small business owner
>struggling to break into a new market to be "the rich", but assembly line
>workers making $70k+ would be "the workers" who are being oppressed.
Actually there are working definition, but they are all as you point out
relative. Lets be serious Chris, when we talk about the rich, we're not
talking about a few million in assets.
>> >I don't know. 30% maybe? Again - it would certainly be lower than the
>> >US level due to our lower overall standard of living caused by our lower
>> >degree of economic freedom.
>> More red herrings. All of the research shows that the majority of assets
>> including stocks bonds, mutual funds ect are owned by the richest 20 per
>> cent and the overwhelming majority of that by the richest 1 per cent.
>And why is there anything wrong with that? Precisely define the standard
>by which you judge it to be so.
First you attempt to muddy the waters by asking for a definition of the
rich. Then you defend the reality. Why do you bother Chris. Just come
out and admit that a rich "class" exists and the extent of thier incomes
and assets.
From my POV there is nothing wrong with having a "rich" class. I think
income is a good motivator. I do oppose the rich having greater influence
over political, economic or monetary policy.
>> >Again, "Class", you need to be more specific here. Don't talk about
>> >"wealth distribution" generically - give us specific numbers. Precisely
>> >how much unearned wealth do you desire?
>> Another giant red herring.
>Give us a number, Barry. Precisely what level of "redistributed" income
>do you find desirable?
As I've said before Chris, I favour economic and monetary policies that
create full employment. I favour democratic governments. I favour
whatever level of income distribution the people choose to attempt to
implement.
>> >If you disagree with the direction that a company and it's owners take,
>> >then don't use that company. Drive them out of business.
>> Lets start with Monsanto! Now exactly how would we go about driving them
>> out of business? Now heres a company that has persuaded the US govenment
>> to threaten sanctions against countries that bring in labeling laws for
>> geneticly modified agricultural products.
>You just proved my point! Here we have _the government_ interfering with
>the market on behalf of a specific company. This is a tacit admission by
>that company that they _could not survive_ without the protection of the
>government; that they _could not compete_ on a free market! Stopping
>this sort of chronyism by the government is _precisely_ why a free market
>economy is desirable!
This doesn't prove your point! This proves how unrestricted neoliberal
economic systems end up ursurping the powers of government. You support
all measures that weaken governments then claim that governments are bad,
because governments become controlled by powerful economic agents.
<sheesh>
You're so blinded by libertarian ideology that you can't see that the
results of your preferred policies are exactly the opposite of what you
purport to believe in.
>> Scientists working for the Cdn government maintain that Monsanto attempted
>> to bribe them to support BGH. And on and on it goes.
>On a free market, there would be no Canadian government scientists to
>bribe, and Monsanto's shoddy chronyism would be punished, not rewarded as
>it is in our mixed economy! You've proven why a free market economy is
>the best, Barry - because as long as people like you insist that the
>government have the ultimate authority in choosing the winners and losers
>on the mixed market, they will continue to select uncompetitive parasites
>that can survive by no means other than bribery and corruption of the
>controlling government!
There would be no scientists paid to represent the disinterested interests
of the people you mean. There would only be scientists to represent the
interests of the powerful. You're so in love with the theory of the "free
market" that you are unable to comprehend the simple truth that the
"freeer" the market becomes, the more tyranical the interests of private
enterprise become. And of course the we "the people" don't even gain
better economies in exchange for our freedom!
>> So tell me Chris, even if people are aware of these practices, how could
>> even begin to drive them out of business.
>You're quite right, Barry. As long as we have the government
>"protecting" us and using it's powers to drive new innovators out of the
>market (with the complete blessing of parasites like Monsanto, of
>course), we can do nothing.
Monsanto doesn't drive them out of business, it buys them.
But come on you're the one that said we acting as free consumers could
drive "bad" companies out of business. Now you're saying that due to the
unholy alliance of government with business it isn't possible. Seems like
a dilemma to me. Without the power of government we can't control large
enterprises, but large enterprises end up controlling governments.
I know, I know, according to you the solution is to minimize governments.
Problem is the as governments have grown smaller, they've been
increasingly taken over by the neoliberal big business agenda. Hmm seems
to run contrary to your theory. Why am I not surprised?
>> >That aside, precisely when was "before"? And precisely how was it
>> >different from "now"?
>> Before of course was between 1948 and 1971.
>The bills from 1948 - 1971 are still being called in today. That's
>another method you statists use to asuage the guilt of stealing
>productive wealth at gunpoint - you put the gun to the head of unborn
>generations.
There are no bills from that period. The bills have all amounted since
capital freed itself from interest rate control. Its been a pretty nice
time for "capital" though. The people will pay a nice tidy safe carrying
charge in perpeturity. For the people though, its been rather worse. Our
taxes are higher yet our services at the Federal Level have shrunk by one
third. We have many more unemployed, and poorer institutions with which
to deal with them. Our incomes have been nearly frozen for 20 years,
except for the poor who have seen their incomes drop and of course the
"rich" who have been cleaning up.
It is your system that has put a gun to the head of the present and future
generations. And you've pulled the trigger time and time again.
>> Ah here we go. The "natural" consequence of the "free market system". As
>> if economics were somehow a natural system, subject to natural laws.
>No, economics can have a very perverse effect on natural laws, actually.
>Like how a nations (like Soviet Russia and sub-Saharan Africa) with more
>than enough arable land to feed their populations undergo mass starvation
>while nations like Hong Kong that don't have a square inch of
>agricultural land can feed their population in abundance. Like how oil
>producing nations like Canada and the United States were crippled by an
>"energy crisis" in the 1970s that lead to mass rationing and near-riotous
>lineups, while nations like Japan that don't produce a single drop of oil
>weren't hurt at all.
Ah yes change the subject, always a good tactic Chris.
>> Its just an unfortunate fact of natural economic systems that the poor
>> will always be with us.
>"the poor" is a dynamic term, Barry. The bottom 10% (or 20% or whatever
>arbitrary, meaningless dividing line you choose) is always "poor", even
>though their quality of life would be vastly better than any average
>citizen fifty or even just thirty years ago.
You're funny Chris. Take a good look at the effects of your policies on
income distribution. The reality is that the poor are worse off than they
were 20 years ago, nearly everywhere. The truth is there are more of them
now than 20 years ago, nearly everywhere. The other truth is that there
are many more (numericaly speaking) rich than there were 20 years ago, and
they are much much richer.
>> We're far to frail to alter the functioning of such terrifying natural
>> forces.
>If you don't like "natural" consequence, then substitute "inevitable".
Well of course you could substitue one for the other Chris. The meaning
is very similar. We can build the bomb, go to moon, genetically alter
nature, but we dare not, and cannot alter the economic system. We just
have to put up with its unpleasent aspects, because, well because its
"inevitiable".
>> >Who, precisely, are "the wealthy"?
>> Oh I don't know Chris. I thought Fortune magazine published a definitive
>> list every year?
>And they're the only ones? -This- is your definition?
Not lets see if we can find someway to get this discussion off into little
technical corners eh Chris?
>> >A stunning (and correct) admission from a socialist who would prefer to
>> >reduce humanity to the status of mindless animals enslaved to an
>> >omnipotent state. I'll give you a modicrum of credit, therefore.
>> Thats funny coming from someone who would have humanity reduced to mere
>> slaves of the impersonal forces of the "market".
>A free market is characterized by voluntary trade - something that occurs
>only the benefit of both parties. I agree entirely with you that this
>process is perverted and distorted under the bureaucracy and regulation
>of our mixed economy. Your solution is to drop the charade and just go
>for complete slavery and statism.
Whats funny is that you appear to believe this nonsense. Its like a
childrens story Chris. The real world effects are all around us. There
is NO evidence that shows your system, does even as good a job of
promoting economic growth. We have 30 years of results and they're all
negative, unless you're rich, then of course the system works very well
indeed.
Thats the definition of an ideologue Chris. When reality contradicts
theory, deny reality.
bad...@cow-net.com
>> Its interesting how you manage to hide behind your rhetoric Chris.
>This coming from somebody who can't even define the slogans he bases his
>entire argument on.
Geez, I feel like I'm back in University. Define your terms, the standard
response when there you have no other.
>> I guess the 35 million children under 5 who die every year from
>> preventable or treatable diseases, due to lack of effective economic
>> demand are somehow less worthy than my kindly gray-haired mother?
>You tell me. Would you shoot your kindly, gray-haired mother for that?
I don't recall many people being shot for failing to pay taxes in Canada
Chris. Perhaps you could fill me in.
>> Afterall its not taxation, but the impersonal operation of economic
>> "forces" that sealed their fate.
>No nation that has had a near-market and even a mixed economy has
>undergone mass starvation. It is a characteristic _exclusive_ of
>socialistic or anarchistic states.
Who's talking about anything but forms of capitalism Chris? Standard for
you guys though, a little inflation means hyper inflation, a little
control means command economies.
>> If taxation would prevent even 10 per cent of those deaths Chris, would
>> you think it was a lesser evil?
>Taxation of Canadians would not prevent even 10 per cent of those deaths,
>Barry. But it would drive more Canadians out of productive jobs and into
>dependence on the state. Which in turn would require more taxation.
>Which in turn... ad infinitum.
You'll discuss taxation, but you won't discuss control of capital.
Barry Bruyea
In the latter half of the 20th Century, wealth has begun to
'redistribute' itself. If you looked at a list of the richest people
in America in 1950, many, if not most of the names on the list would
have been on the list in 1920. That no longer holds true. In most
cases, 'old money' has been dissapated completely. There are few
Mellons, Rockefellers, Duponts et al on the list today. A few months
ago I read the results of a study that indicated that 80% of
millionairs in the U.S. are first generation and not benefiting from
inherited wealth. There are also 6 times as many millionairs today
per capita in the U.S. than there was just 30 years ago. And as to
the speculation that 1% of the people control 'most' of the wealth, I
hardly think that's realistic when one ponders the impact of 50% of
the American population now participate in the economy in the form of
stockholdings either directly, in mutual funds and private pension
programs; the latter two having the most power on Wall Street. Fifty
years ago, it would have been a dozen or so families weilding that
power.
Barry Bruyea
Steven C. Britton
>Actually there are working definition, but they are all as you point out
>relative. Lets be serious Chris, when we talk about the rich, we're not
>talking about a few million in assets.
Then what ARE we talking about, Barry?
The term "rich" is completely ludicrous, because it lacks any solid
definition. Someone with three cars, a large house, and a $5,000,000
mortgage could be defined as "rich" in one breath, but when you factor in
his/her loan payments and tax bill, that definition fizzles pretty damn
quickly.
By the same token, someone who is cash-poor, living in low-rent housing, but
earning just enough to survive, feed, clothe and shelter his/her family
could consider themselves "rich" because they're satisfied with their life.
The lunatic left likes to pigeonhole people; a rich person is defined as
"someone with more than me."
It's the politics of jealousy; covetry.
Last time I checked, coveting is against one of the commandments.
>First you attempt to muddy the waters by asking for a definition of the
>rich. Then you defend the reality. Why do you bother Chris. Just come
>out and admit that a rich "class" exists and the extent of thier incomes
>and assets.
The rich "class" does NOT exist, just like the poor "class" does not exist.
>From my POV there is nothing wrong with having a "rich" class. I think
>income is a good motivator. I do oppose the rich having greater influence
>over political, economic or monetary policy.
"They" don't, Barry.
>As I've said before Chris, I favour economic and monetary policies that
>create full employment.
Will NEVER happen.
>I favour democratic governments.
Will never completely happen.
>I favour whatever level of income distribution the people choose to attempt
to
>implement.
Ever heard of CREATING wealth rather than redistributing it (stealing it
from those who work hard to obtain it and giving it to those who don't)?
----------------------------------------------------
DEFEAT ORGANIZED LABOUR:
RE-ELECT MIKE HARRIS!
Steven C. Britton
Calgary
"Trust the computer industry to shorten Year 2000 to Y2K.
It was this kind of thinking that caused the problem in the first place."
-- Tony Poldrugovac
Chris J Delanoy
> > This coming from somebody who can't even define the slogans he
> > bases his entire argument on.
> Geez, I feel like I'm back in University.
Really? Is the pot really that heavy in the air here?
> Define your terms, the standard response when there you have
> no other.
I'd just like to know what you mean (and whether you know what
you mean), that's all. You talk about "fair distribution of
wealth" but then refuse to say precisely where the dividing line
exists between "fair" and "unfair". Surely the line has to exist
somewhere.
> > You tell me. Would you shoot your kindly, gray-haired mother
> > for that?
> I don't recall many people being shot for failing to pay taxes
> in Canada Chris. Perhaps you could fill me in.
If you don't pay your taxes, you'll be fined. If you don't pay
the fine, you'll be jailed. If you try to escape from jail, you'll
be shot.
> > Taxation of Canadians would not prevent even 10 per cent of those
> > deaths, Barry. But it would drive more Canadians out of
> > productive jobs and into dependence on the state. Which in turn
> > would require more taxation. Which in turn... ad infinitum.
> You'll discuss taxation, but you won't discuss control of capital.
"control of capital"? Go ask the farmers who are shackled and
thrown in prison without bail for --selling their wheat-- what the
benefits of "collective control" are!
Chris J Delanoy
--
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cdelanoy/
Supporting a principled Alternative, not a United one.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Chris J Delanoy
> > And why is there anything wrong with that? Precisely define the
> > standard by which you judge it to be so.
> First you attempt to muddy the waters by asking for a definition of
> the rich. Then you defend the reality. Why do you bother Chris.
> Just come out and admit that a rich "class" exists and the extent
> of thier incomes and assets.
I don't deny that there are rich people that have earned enormous
incomes and assets. In fact I congratulate it.
The point of contention is on your view that there is some amorphous,
undefined (but nonetheless very evil) blob called "the rich" who are
out to oppress another amorphous, undefined blob called "the workers".
The fact that you're incapable or unwilling to define what either
of these blobs are demonstrates just how hollow you believe your
own bizarre view to be.
> > Give us a number, Barry. Precisely what level of "redistributed"
> > income do you find desirable?
> As I've said before Chris, I favour economic and monetary policies
> that create full employment.
Which policies are those, precisely?
> I favour democratic governments.
But not one that recognizes individual rights.
> I favour whatever level of income distribution the people choose
> to attempt to implement.
A convenient cop-out. All right, pretend I'm the bureaucrat in
charge of your great Ministry Of Benevolent Distribution, and I
come to consult you, Barry Adams, revered citizen of utmost standing
with the state, on precisely what level this would be. What level
do _you_ choose? And _from whom_ will it be taken?
> > You just proved my point! Here we have _the government_
> > interfering with the market on behalf of a specific company.
> > This is a tacit admission by that company that they _could not
> > survive_ without the protection of the government; that they
> > _could not compete_ on a free market! Stopping this sort of
> > chronyism by the government is _precisely_ why a free market
> > economy is desirable!
> This doesn't prove your point! This proves how unrestricted
> neoliberal economic systems end up ursurping the powers of
> government.
But we don't live in an unrestricted economic system! We live in
a mixed economy where - by your express wishes - the government has
the final authority in deciding precisely who deserves how much of
what is produced. This chronyism is a consequence of the statism
you so love, Barry. Capitalism and free markets _are it's enemy_.
> You support all measures that weaken governments then claim that
> governments are bad, because governments become controlled by
> powerful economic agents. <sheesh>
If the government did not have the powers that you insist that they
have, then there would be nothing to usurp or control.
> You're so blinded by libertarian ideology that you can't see that
> the results of your preferred policies are exactly the opposite of
> what you purport to believe in.
Corporate welfare is the consequence of statism, Barry. It's what
happens when you decide that government discretion, rather than
innovation and ability free of government interference, should govern
the distribution of wealth. That's why companies which are unable
to compete on a free market spend their resources instead on bribing
and influence peddling the government to erect barriers to legitimate
competition.
> > On a free market, there would be no Canadian government scientists
> > to bribe, and Monsanto's shoddy chronyism would be punished, not
> > rewarded as it is in our mixed economy! You've proven why a free
> > market economy is the best, Barry - because as long as people like
> > you insist that the government have the ultimate authority in
> > choosing the winners and losers on the mixed market, they will
> > continue to select uncompetitive parasites that can survive by no
> > means other than bribery and corruption of the controlling
> > government!
> There would be no scientists paid to represent the disinterested
> interests of the people you mean.
There is no such thing as "the disinterested interests of the people".
There are only parasitic individuals who fancy themselves "the voice
of the people". Saying it's so does not make it so, Barry.
> You're so in love with the theory of the "free market" that you are
> unable to comprehend the simple truth that the "freeer" the market
> becomes, the more tyranical the interests of private enterprise
> become.
This is completely fraudulent. Your belief that businessmen would
gleefully hurt or poison people at the first available chance is
_sick_, Barry. But it does much to confirm your belief that human
beings are mindless animals who need to be enslaved by the state
"for their own good".
> Monsanto doesn't drive them out of business, it buys them.
Egads!
> But come on you're the one that said we acting as free consumers
> could drive "bad" companies out of business. Now you're saying that
> due to the unholy alliance of government with business it isn't
> possible.
It's not an unholy alliance of government with business. It's an
alliance of government with parasites who know that they would not
be able to compete in a free market.
> I know, I know, according to you the solution is to minimize
> governments. Problem is the as governments have grown smaller,
> they've been increasingly taken over by the neoliberal big business
> agenda.
Again, if the government did not have the power to expropriate your
money at gunpoint to "redistribute" it by any arbitrary standard -
a power you fiercely endorse and defend - then there would be zero
possibility of then "redistributing" it in a manner that you don't
like.
> > No, economics can have a very perverse effect on natural laws,
> > actually. Like how a nations (like Soviet Russia and sub-Saharan
> > Africa) with more than enough arable land to feed their populations
> > undergo mass starvation while nations like Hong Kong that don't
> > have a square inch of agricultural land can feed their population
> > in abundance. Like how oil producing nations like Canada and the
> > United States were crippled by an "energy crisis" in the 1970s that
> > lead to mass rationing and near-riotous lineups, while nations
> > like Japan that don't produce a single drop of oil weren't hurt at
> > all.
> Ah yes change the subject, always a good tactic Chris.
It's not changing the subject - it's demonstrating the profound effect
that economic freedom really has. The "energy crisis" in the US and
Canada - countries with abundant oil reserves of their own besides -
was caused by the very price controls enacted to "protect" the
consumers. In Japan - a nation which relies 100% on oil imports -
there was no shortage and no crisis, because prices were set on the
free market.
The same goes for agriculture. Statism and central control led to
the starvation of more than 35 million people in a nation with more
arable land than any other on Earth. It's not the oft-cited "uneven
distribution of resources" that is responsible for starvation and
suffering throughout the world - it's the uneven distribution of
capitalism.
> > "the poor" is a dynamic term, Barry. The bottom 10% (or 20% or
> > whatever arbitrary, meaningless dividing line you choose) is
> > always "poor", even though their quality of life would be vastly
> > better than any average >citizen fifty or even just thirty years
> > ago.
> You're funny Chris. Take a good look at the effects of your
> policies on income distribution.
"my policies"? There hasn't been a capitalist government elected in
the history of Canada! -Nobody- is implementing my policies, because
my policies are _no_ policies.
> The reality is that the poor are worse off than they were 20 years
> ago, nearly everywhere.
Today's standard of life is vastly superior to what it was thirty
years ago. In Britain, the poorest citizens often didn't have indoor
plumbing or a telephone as late as the 1970s - there is no comparison
between the quality of life now or then.
> The truth is there are more of them now than 20 years ago, nearly
> everywhere.
This is not the truth. It's completely false.
> The other truth is that there are many more (numericaly speaking)
> rich than there were 20 years ago,
Good!
> and they are much much richer.
Good!
> We can build the bomb, go to moon, genetically alter nature, but we
> dare not, and cannot alter the economic system. We just have to put
> up with its unpleasent aspects, because, well because its
> "inevitiable".
I know of no "unpleasant aspects" of a free market economy. The
evidence we have from the period of greatest economic freedom in
history in the 19th century paints an incredible portrait of the
power of capitalism and the free price system governed by voluntary
exchange has in improving the quality of life of all humanity.
> > And they're the only ones? -This- is your definition?
> Not lets see if we can find someway to get this discussion off into
> little technical corners eh Chris?
Well if that's the definition to which you subscribe, then your
contention that "there are more rich than ever before" could
not possible be true - because there are always precisely 500 rich
people, by your definition.
> There is NO evidence that shows your system, does even as good a
> job of promoting economic growth.
The 19th century - the only time in human history where we came close -
is a shining example of incredible growth, prosperity and progress.
> We have 30 years of results and they're all negative,
We have not lived in a market economy for nearly a century, nevermind
the last 30 years.
> Thats the definition of an ideologue Chris. When reality contradicts
> theory, deny reality.
The one who is denying reality would be the one who thinks the answer
to preventing rival gangs from buying influence and power from the
government is to give that government more influence and power to
sell.
Chris J Delanoy
--
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cdelanoy/
Supporting a principled Alternative, not a United one.
Pierre Bastien
Chris J Delanoy wrote in message <7h4lpl$n0f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>With respect to government revenues, I would prefer that they weren't being
>taken in at all _now_. Alberta's government is as intrusive and statist as
>any other in Canada.
>
>And no, I don't wonder "how we'll manage", because the funny thing about
>innovation in a free market is that _nobody can predict what form it will
>take_. The availability of natural resources has no bearing whatsoever on
>the prosperity of an economy.
Interesting statement, some usual indicators of an economy's prosperity is
the sales of cars and housing start-up. Ever tried digging fundations with
a shovel, or work on a farm with horses? The economy might be prosperous
(preposterous?), but people will find it difficult to go to work, might not
have comfortable housing and might even go hungry.
I wish I had your confidence in technical progress. That's quite a gamble,
to bet the future of billions, of your children (if you have any) on the
hope that something will always turn up to save the day. Being an engineer
myself, I'd say it's a foolish way of thinking. Innovations have turned up
in the past, that doen't make it a law that it'll always be so. But since
capitalists only care about the next quarter return ...
If a postage-stamp-sized nation like Hong
>Kong can be as prosperous and have as high a standard a living as it does
>without ever exploiting a single natural resource, I have no worries about
>the possibilities for Alberta or any other place under the free market.
>
Look like a big difference in our view points is that you think an economy
dominated by corporations, oligopolistic markets (5-10 big world players in
each industry, oil, cars, planes, food, electronics, banking,etc., which is
what we have now) is a free, efficient market, with perfect competition: I
don't and never will. If you read Korten's text, you obviously didn't
understand it.
The constant joint ventures, mergers, disinformation of the public,
manipulation of markets and governments, demonstrate that they (the
corporations) are always out to decrease uncertainty and real competition,
to promote their growth and returns on investments at the expense of the
rest of society. The stockholders and financiers, with the help of their
hired hands (the private and governmental technocrats, managers) block any
public policy that they don't like and will keep profits going their way.
They even become so big that they cannot be allowed to go bankcrupt
(Chrysler, Lockheed, Wall Street stockbrokers, etc.). Not much of a free,
competitive and efficient market, I would say, more like a feodal society.
It's in the nature of capitalism that the winner will gobble the losers,
becoming gradually bigger, till we get into oligopolistic or monopolistic
situations. The individual, by himself, doesn't have a prayer to change
things that he doesn't like in such a system. Are you against democracy
too?
>Where I would worry is if the present trend of increasing government
>interference continues. Getting the government out of the business of
>"protecting" the economy is the single most important step in truly
>protecting it.
Governments are almost the only organizations big enough that can stand up
to transnational corporations (TNCs), protect the public good from their
excesses and force some real competition to develop (ever heard of
anti-trust laws?). Unfortunatelly, most of the time, governments work for
them (do some research on "corporate welfare"), and people of your opinion
are working hard to emasculate them further.
There is no and never has been, in the history of the world, a society with
perfect free markets like the one you wish for. It's a mythic beast, a
propaganda tool to further the Corporate agenda. So even its benefices are
entirely theoretical (I hope you don't believe the US has a free market).
Removing the little amount of control that governments can exercise will
only make things worst, farther away from the real free markets you want.
Unless you want to dismantle governments AND corporations, are you an
anarchist?
Pierre
" ... Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the
wages of labour ..." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
"The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst
of all governments for any country whatsoever." -Adam Smith, from The Wealth
of Nations
Pierre Bastien
Pierre Bastien wrote in message <7h58hb$4k6$1...@iceman.tac.net>...
Look like I got confused and I tried to answer 2 of your postings at the
same time and missed a lot from one.
Sorry for the confusion.
Pierre
Pierre Bastien
Chris J Delanoy wrote in message <7h4obl$om1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> "Pierre Bastien" <pbastie...@spots.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>The above indictments are not failures of capitalism, Pierre. They are all
>failures of statism. Every "corporate monopoly" - insofar as such a thing
>exists - is the result of government "protection" or regulation which
>prevents genuine competition from occuring. The solution is _not_ to
attempt
>to replace one gang with another or one control with another, but to
>_abolish them_ entirely.
>
Sorry, look like I tried to answer or confused 2 of your posts at the same
time, below this one and missed the above comment.
I just don't see how you propose to abolish both governments and
corporations, and why governments first. And replace them with what?
That's a pretty big revolution you're proposing. Better start your
political party now ;-)
Governments have been around for at least 10 000 years, it's fair to say
that they fulfill some useful functions. Corporations too have their use,
there are some tasks (building a city, a dam, a bridge, building and running
a manufacturing plant) where you need to organize thousands of people. Till
now, this have been done by corporations either public (ancient Egypt, Rome,
communist countries) or privately owned. And once your have corporations ,
with the resources they control, they will follow the corporative logic that
we know (to grow and control their society: the USSR system was a just big
corporation). To say that the free market will take care of things is not
practical. My faith in the market creed is not that strong.
You still need to propose an alternative way for people to organize
themselves and live in society, to replace everything with the logic of free
markets sound very nebulous to me.
And I don't want to return to the state of war of all against all, before
the invention of society, that Hobbes describes in his "Leviathan". :-)
Governments, corporations, money, those are only tools, ways to organize a
group of people to work together and allocate resources for the greatest
good. Problems occur when some player thinks that increasing his own power
is all important or confuses money (a symbol of goods and resources) with
real wealth (when we get into the problem of speculation, "making money with
money" considered as a productive activity, an oxymoron in my opinion).
Regards,
Pierre
"I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its
birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to
challenge our Government to trial and bid defiance to the laws of our
country." - Thomas Jefferson
Pierre Bastien
Chris J Delanoy wrote in message <7h57d2$2jf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> bad...@cow-net.com wrote:
>
>I know of no "unpleasant aspects" of a free market economy. The
>evidence we have from the period of greatest economic freedom in
>history in the 19th century paints an incredible portrait of the
>power of capitalism and the free price system governed by voluntary
>exchange has in improving the quality of life of all humanity.
>
>is a shining example of incredible growth, prosperity and progress.
>
Have to go but cannot let this go by unanswered:
Ever read Dickens, "Les miserables", Malthus?
I also doubt that the British were in India to spread capitalism. They
actually shut down the local textile industry, it was too good (in quality
and price) and was "stealing" markets from England factories. The 19th
century version of British Capitalism and free trade, I gather. ;-)
Pierre
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do
the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John
Maynard Keynes
john monteith
"Steven C. Britton" wrote:
>
>
> The term "rich" is completely ludicrous, because it lacks any solid
> definition. Someone with three cars, a large house, and a $5,000,000
> mortgage could be defined as "rich" in one breath, but when you factor in
> his/her loan payments and tax bill, that definition fizzles pretty damn
> quickly.
wealth factors in an accumulation of income and assets. banks determine
lending on the ability of the borrower to pay it back, in other words wealth.
I think we can agree that a person with a 5 million home has more wealth
than someone living from check to check unless you are in denial.
if you want to discuss the happiness t between the 2 that would be a
philosophical or perhaps a spiritual discussion.
.
the simple fact is beyond the argument about the definitions of rich and poor
and such other irrelevancy. The spending power of society is widening
and the percentage of those whose spending power is diminishing is growing.
these facts aren't argued by most neoclassicals, and libertarians
don`t seem to care they simply feel that over
time that those whose spending power is diminished well eventually reap the
benefits of this rather limited financial boom.
that hasn't played out yet and it appears it
won't.
we have seen the effects of this
thinking prior to the depression but somehow decided to try it again
but give it a slightly different spin. lets control inflation with price
stability
let employment suffer to curb inflation. Trumpet statistics that
simply don`t factor underemployment and diminished expectations.
and let money traders have at it ( talk about a non-productive sector).
even putting aside the moral implications of such a policy it is
eventual economic suicide. To believe the market is the answer
to all problems and is self sustaining is probably the
the best way to bring about the tyranny you so fear.
If you believe government intervention is the cause of
all problems than you should argue for a society
where government plays no part. democracy
as a cumbersome and inefficient curtailment of freedom.
On the other hand some view all sectors of society
as members of a bigger picture. one where individuals
and organizations play by the rules set forth in a democratic
frame work. In this context corporations as well of individuals
and government must exist according to the norms and values
set forth by the society.
John M
.
>
>
Chris J Delanoy
> Interesting statement, some usual indicators of an economy's
> prosperity is the sales of cars and housing start-up. Ever tried
> digging fundations with a shovel, or work on a farm with horses?
We will never have to do that again, so I don't see the relevance
to a discussion on economic systems.
> I wish I had your confidence in technical progress. That's quite
> a gamble, to bet the future of billions, of your children (if you
> have any) on the hope that something will always turn up to save
> the day.
There's nothing to be "saved" from. But that aside, yes, capitalism
is the only system that recognizes the unlimited potential of
human innovation and intelligence. It rewards and promotes these
virtues - quite unlike statism which attacks and paralyzes them.
> Being an engineer myself, I'd say it's a foolish way of thinking.
> Innovations have turned up in the past, that doen't make it a law
> that it'll always be so. But since capitalists only care about
> the next quarter return ...
Hardly. Capitalism more than any other system has an eye toward
long-term growth and prosperity. It has that luxury because, quite
unlike statist economies of the 20th century, millions of its
citizens are starving to death in an immediate timeframe.
> > If a postage-stamp-sized nation like Hong Kong can be as
> > prosperous and have as high a standard a living as it does
> > without ever exploiting a single natural resource, I have no
> > worries about the possibilities for Alberta or any other place
> > under the free market.
> Look like a big difference in our view points is that you think an
> economy dominated by corporations, oligopolistic markets (5-10 big
> world players in each industry, oil, cars, planes, food, electronics,
> banking,etc., which is what we have now) is a free, efficient market,
> with perfect competition:
History demonstrates that you are completely wrong. Take planes,
for example. The US federal government turned down more than
_3000_ applications for new airlines during the term of government
regulation of the industry. After deregulation, the number of
airline companies in the United States grew by 60% in _less than
a year_.
Food? You're probably referring to ADM - a company which has been
fattened on the largesse of _government_ contracts, and which is
generally recognized as one of the most poorly managed and operated
in the United States. As presently run, _it would not survive in
a free market_. It is precisely the "protection" of the government
that is responsible for it's mammoth status.
Banking? In Canada, banking is controlled by the federal government.
By law, only five chartered banks may exist (six in Quebec). There
have been _repeated_ attempts to break into this market, but it is
_government regulation_ which prevents it.
Electronics? On this one I think you're just plain nuts. There
is no better example in the world today on an industry that exhibits
such incredible growth and diversity. Thousands of companies have
sprouted up in the span of the past twenty years and before.
The list goes on and on. If you were to objectively examine the
situation, Pierre, you would see that every alleged abuse of
capitalism you can cite is a _direct_ result of government protection
or regulation. Such protection and regulation are representative
of _statism_, not capitalism.
> I don't and never will. If you read Korten's text, you obviously
> didn't understand it.
I did read the text, and I gave a detailed response to it's thrust.
Since you've ignored it, I will repeat: the representation of
capitalism that Korten (and you) set up and subsequently attack is
_not_ a true representation of capitalism. He (and you) think - quite
wrongly - that we are engaged in a contest to see which statist
gang controls the government. But the entire premise of capitalism
is that _no_ statist gang controls the government.
Parasitic corporations (a good Canadian example would be Bombardier)
are a consequence of _statist_ economic policy, and would be entirely
unprotected in a free market economy.
> They even become so big that they cannot be allowed to go bankcrupt
> (Chrysler, Lockheed, Wall Street stockbrokers, etc.). Not much of a
> free, competitive and efficient market,
You're right: we _don't_ live in a free, competitive and efficient
market. The massive government intrusion in the market "for our own
good" is _precisely_ what is responsible for the indictments you
cite. Everything you're saying _builds the case_ of capitalism
against statism!
> Governments are almost the only organizations big enough that can
> stand up to transnational corporations (TNCs), protect the public
> good from their excesses and force some real competition to develop
> (ever heard of anti-trust laws?).
The anti-trust laws are the biggest attack on competitive markets
in the history of mankind, and represent the precise moment when
statism replaced capitalism as the dominant economic force in the
United States. This statism is precisely what is responsible for
the evils that you (rightly) condemn throughout this thread.
> Unfortunatelly, most of the time, governments work for them (do
> some research on "corporate welfare"),
Corporate welfare is _statism_! It represents the government
exercising the power to arbitrarily "redistribute" wealth that
you are so insistent that they have. It is completely incompatiable
with capitalism - and no supporter of the free market thinks _any_
company or any corporation should ever receive a cent in grants or
benefits extorted at gunpoint! Free markets are the _enemy_ of
corporate welfare.
> There is no and never has been, in the history of the world, a
> society with perfect free markets like the one you wish for.
No, but there are a number of "close enough" cases that allow us
to clearly compare them to the failing statist and mixed models.
Most notably this would be the United States in the nineteenth
century, Japan during the Meiji Restoration, and Hong Kong after
WWII.
> It's a mythic beast,
If capitalism does not presently exist (and it doesn't), then how
could you possibly use contemporary examples as "evidence" of its
failure? Surely your assessment of capitalism as a "mythic beast"
would mean that present failures are in fact failures of statism.
Indeed, _every_ example you have cited is so.
Chris J Delanoy
> I just don't see how you propose to abolish both governments and
> corporations, and why governments first.
I didn't say either of the above. I said that government regulation
should be abolished.
> Governments have been around for at least 10 000 years, it's fair
> to say that they fulfill some useful functions.
Absolutely. Since you're apparently such a fan of Adam Smith,
you would know that he (properly) states that government must
be strictly limited to four functions: the protection of
individuals against the initiation of force by other individuals
(ie - police and criminal law), the protection of the nation
against the initiation of force by another nation (ie - the military),
the voluntary adjudication of disputes between individuals (ie -
civil courts), and the erection of public works.
> Corporations too have their use, there are some tasks (building a
> city, a dam, a bridge, building and running a manufacturing plant)
> where you need to organize thousands of people. Till now, this have
> been done by corporations either public (ancient Egypt, Rome,
> communist countries) or privately owned.
Citing the enslavement of individuals by the government that
characterized the "corporations" of ancient Egypt, Rome, and
communist countries is hardly an indictment of capitalism.
> And once your have corporations, with the resources they control,
> they will follow the corporative logic that we know (to grow and
> control their society: the USSR system was a just big corporation).
> To say that the free market will take care of things is not
> practical. My faith in the market creed is not that strong.
The moral and economic superiority of the free market over all
other systems is not based on faith: it is based on the fact that
it is the _only_ system that recognizes and rewards rationality,
intelligence and innovation. Every other system represents the
enslavement of some people to the cause of others.
> You still need to propose an alternative way for people to organize
> themselves and live in society, to replace everything with the logic
> of free markets sound very nebulous to me.
The price system is what organizes people in a free market economy.
The most stunningly simple yet powerful example of this would be the
the case of "I, Pencil" cited frequently by Milton Freidman (and
which I'll attach at the end of this post). It vividly represents
the power of the market in organizing the voluntary cooperation of
millions of people.
Chris J Delanoy
-----
"Cooperation Through Voluntary Exchange"
(From _Free To Choose_ by Rose and Milton Freidman)
A delightful story called "I, Pencil: My Family Tree as Told to
Leonard E. Read" dramatized vividly how voluntary exchange enables
millions of people to cooperate with one another. Mr. Read, in
the voice of the "Lead Pencil - the ordinary wooden pencil familiar
to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write," starts
his story with the fantastic statement that "not a single person
knows how to make me." Then he proceeds to tell about all the
things that go into the making of a pencil. First, the wood comes
from a tree, "a cedar of straight grain that grows in Northern
California and Oregon." To cut down the tree and cart the logs
to the railroad siding requires "saws and trucks and rope and ...
countless other gear." Many persons and numberless skills are
involved in their fabrication: in "the mining of ore, the making
of steel and its refinement into saws, axes, motors; the growing
of hemp and bringing it through all the stages to heavy and strong
rope; the logging camps with their beds and mess halls ... untold
thousands of persons had a hand in every cup of coffee the loggers
drink!"
And so Mr. Read goes on to the bringing of the logs to the mill,
the millwork involved in converting the logs to slats, and the
transportation of the slats from California to Wilkes-Barre, where
that particular pencil that tells the story was manufactured.
And so far we have only the outside wood of the pencil. The
"lead" center is not really lead at all. It starts as graphite
mined in Ceylon. After many complicated processes it ends up as
the lead in the center of the pencil.
The bit of metal - the ferrule - near the top of the pencil is
brass. "Think of all the persons," he says "who mine zinc and
copper and those who have skills to make shiny sheet brass from
these products of nature."
What we call the eraser is known in the trade as "the plug." It
is thought to be rubber. But Mr. Read tells us the rubber is only
for binding purposes. The erasing is actually done by "Factice,"
a rubberlike product made by reacting rape seed oil from
the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) with sulfur chloride.
After all of this, says the pencil, "Does anyone wish to challenge
my earlier assertion that no single person on the face of the earth
knows how to make me?"
None of the thousands of persons involved in producing the pencil
performed his task because he wanted to a pencil. Some among them
never saw a pencil and would not know what it is for. Each saw
his work as a way to get the goods and services he wanted - goods
and services we produced in order to get the pencil we wanted.
Every time we go to the store and buy a pencil, we are exchanging
a little bit of our services for the infinitesimal amount of
services that each of the thousands contributed toward producing
the pencil.
It is even more astounding that the pencil was ever produced. No
one sitting in a central office gave orders to these thousands of
people. No military police enforced the orders that were not given.
There people live in many lands, speak different languages, practice
different religions, may even hate one another - yet none of these
differences prevented them from cooperating to produce a pencil.
How did it happen? Adam Smith gave us the answer two hundred years
ago.
-----
Chris J Delanoy
> >I know of no "unpleasant aspects" of a free market economy. The
> >evidence we have from the period of greatest economic freedom in
> >history in the 19th century paints an incredible portrait of the
> >power of capitalism and the free price system governed by voluntary
> >exchange has in improving the quality of life of all humanity.
> >The 19th century - the only time in human history where we came
> >close - is a shining example of incredible growth, prosperity and
> >progress.
> Ever read Dickens, "Les miserables", Malthus?
Dickens' condemnations of the industrial revolution in Britain
were based on an idyllic (and grossly false) view of life before
the industrial revolution. Even today, statists like to paint a
nice little picture of children playing in the streets and mothers
making artistic handicrafts in the comfort of their well-appointed
cottages before the big belching factories came along. This view is
such a grotesque distortion that it need barely be considered. From
your well-appointed perch of the late 20th century, certainly
conditions in industrial Britain seem dismal and miserable - but that
doesn't change the fact that they were vast improvements over what
preceeded them.
> I also doubt that the British were in India to spread capitalism.
They weren't.
> They actually shut down the local textile industry, it was too good
> (in quality and price) and was "stealing" markets from England
> factories.
More government interference. Britain's direct control of India was
certainly a problem. On the other hand, though, we could look to
post-WWII Hong Kong - a tiny, cramped nation without a single natural
resource that prospered beyond almost any other standard precisely
because their British governors _ignored and disregarded_ them.
> The 19th century version of British Capitalism and free trade, I
> gather. ;-)
Quite. And if you were to read objective histories of the period,
you would see the many conclusive studies of the fact that many of
the Dickensian "evils" were in fact caused by the initial Factory
Acts. But that aside, working in the factories (which were certainly
dismal and dirty through the lens of our 20th century perspective)
was an infinitely more beneficial life than the periods of monarchistic
oppression, bubonic plague, etc., which preceeded it.
> "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men
> will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of
> everyone." - John Maynard Keynes
I know it's just a tagline, but this is again a false representation
of capitalism. The moral justification for capitalism is _not_ that
it does "the greatest good" (even though we know that that _is_ an
unintended consequence). The moral and economic justification of
capitalism is that it is the only system consistent with man's
rationality and intelligence.
As our pal Adam Smith so correctly said:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or
the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to
their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity
but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own
necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses
to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens."
bad...@cow-net.com
at 04:11 PM, "Steven C. Britton" <sbri...@cadvision.com> said:
Sure Steve, keep on stirring. If you muddy the waters perhaps the point
will get lost.
>Barry Adams wrote:
>>Actually there are working definition, but they are all as you point out
>>relative. Lets be serious Chris, when we talk about the rich, we're not
>>talking about a few million in assets.
>Then what ARE we talking about, Barry?
Oh I don't know Chris, the mega rich I suppose. With that do?
>The term "rich" is completely ludicrous, because it lacks any solid
>definition. Someone with three cars, a large house, and a $5,000,000
>mortgage could be defined as "rich" in one breath, but when you factor in
>his/her loan payments and tax bill, that definition fizzles pretty damn
>quickly.
Really Chris. All of this twisting and turning. Do you deny the results
of income and asset studies? Do you deny that the holders and managers of
large assets tend to have more power than a numerically equal number of
janitors or factory workers?
>By the same token, someone who is cash-poor, living in low-rent housing,
>but earning just enough to survive, feed, clothe and shelter his/her
>family could consider themselves "rich" because they're satisfied with
>their life.
Metaphysics now! Way to go Chris. Hide the reality of the system you
promote with bromides.
>The lunatic left likes to pigeonhole people; a rich person is defined as
>"someone with more than me."
Perhaps, though I'm unclear on who you are referring to. IIRC you think
anyone left of Harris or Klein are members of the lunitic left.
>It's the politics of jealousy; covetry.
Actually its the politics of disinterest. Its the politics of people that
realize that our current system is a failure in economic, social and moral
terms.
>Last time I checked, coveting is against one of the commandments.
Really. I though neoclassical economics was big on greed and selfishness?
But of course you're referring to the Bible. I though Christ threw the
money lenders out of the temple? Sure seems like a plan to me. Don't
forget even Adam Smith warned us against the advice of the "masters".
>The rich "class" does NOT exist, just like the poor "class" does not
>exist.
Chris it would help the discussion if you attempted to lay off the humour.
>>From my POV there is nothing wrong with having a "rich" class. I think
>>income is a good motivator. I do oppose the rich having greater influence
>>over political, economic or monetary policy.
>"They" don't, Barry.
Really Chris? Who exactly determines political, economic and monetary
policy then Chris? I know the laws of economics came into being just
after the big bang.
>>As I've said before Chris, I favour economic and monetary policies that
>>create full employment.
>Will NEVER happen.
Never is a very long time, but I agree its not very likely unless we can
somehow free our governments of the overpowering influence of capital.
>>I favour whatever level of income distribution the people choose to attempt
>to
>>implement.
>Ever heard of CREATING wealth rather than redistributing it (stealing it
>from those who work hard to obtain it and giving it to those who don't)?
Your system has a much harder time with wealth creation than my system
does Steven. And even when you system creates wealth, it fails to
distribute it. Pretty good system for the rich though. They get most of
whatever growth occurrs and they keep the uppity common people from
thinking they have any right to influence their societies.
bad...@cow-net.com
>>As I've said before Chris, I favour economic and monetary policies that
>>create full employment. I favour democratic governments. I favour
>>whatever level of income distribution the people choose to attempt to
>>implement.
>In the latter half of the 20th Century, wealth has begun to
>'redistribute' itself. If you looked at a list of the richest people in
>America in 1950, many, if not most of the names on the list would have
>been on the list in 1920. That no longer holds true. In most cases, 'old
>money' has been dissapated completely. There are few Mellons,
>Rockefellers, Duponts et al on the list today. A few months ago I read
>the results of a study that indicated that 80% of millionairs in the U.S.
>are first generation and not benefiting from inherited wealth. There are
>also 6 times as many millionairs today per capita in the U.S. than there
>was just 30 years ago. And as to the speculation that 1% of the people
>control 'most' of the wealth, I hardly think that's realistic when one
>ponders the impact of 50% of the American population now participate in
>the economy in the form of stockholdings either directly, in mutual funds
>and private pension programs; the latter two having the most power on
>Wall Street. Fifty years ago, it would have been a dozen or so families
>weilding that power.
Barry you should season what you think with a little information. Please
take the time to examine income and asset distribution and pay attention
to trends over the last 20 years or so.
bad...@cow-net.com
>> Define your terms, the standard response when there you have
>> no other.
>I'd just like to know what you mean (and whether you know what you mean),
>that's all. You talk about "fair distribution of wealth" but then refuse
>to say precisely where the dividing line exists between "fair" and
>"unfair". Surely the line has to exist somewhere.
You live in such a complete idiological cage that you are completly unable
to hear what anyone who doesn't agree with you is saying. In order to
disguise this you quibble about terms. As if fair and unfair had any
significance in this discussion. I talk about a full employment, low
interest rate, high growth rate economy, that existed and you quibble
about whats rich mean, whats fair mean?
>> > You tell me. Would you shoot your kindly, gray-haired mother
>> > for that?
>> I don't recall many people being shot for failing to pay taxes
>> in Canada Chris. Perhaps you could fill me in.
>If you don't pay your taxes, you'll be fined. If you don't pay the fine,
>you'll be jailed. If you try to escape from jail, you'll be shot.
Waiting for the list of all those poor beleaguered taxpayers shot by
prison guards Chris. Of course with a little work I suppose I could come
up with a list of people who died of exposures on our streets this winter.
>> > Taxation of Canadians would not prevent even 10 per cent of those
>> > deaths, Barry. But it would drive more Canadians out of
>> > productive jobs and into dependence on the state. Which in turn
>> > would require more taxation. Which in turn... ad infinitum.
>> You'll discuss taxation, but you won't discuss control of capital.
>"control of capital"? Go ask the farmers who are shackled and thrown in
>prison without bail for --selling their wheat-- what the benefits of
>"collective control" are!
And off we go again eh Chris. Anything to get away from the reality that
the system you believe in is less effective than the system it replaced.
bad...@cow-net.com
>> First you attempt to muddy the waters by asking for a definition of
>> the rich. Then you defend the reality. Why do you bother Chris.
>> Just come out and admit that a rich "class" exists and the extent
>> of thier incomes and assets.
>I don't deny that there are rich people that have earned enormous incomes
>and assets. In fact I congratulate it.
Ah thank you at last.
>The point of contention is on your view that there is some amorphous,
>undefined (but nonetheless very evil) blob called "the rich" who are out
>to oppress another amorphous, undefined blob called "the workers".
Did I say they set out to oppress Chris? The result of the economic
system they logically choose out of self interest does in fact oppress the
great majority of us, but its not a conspiracy.
>The fact that you're incapable or unwilling to define what either of
>these blobs are demonstrates just how hollow you believe your own bizarre
>view to be.
Ah Chris. Back to quibbleing. Come on Chris don't get stuck in the
details. Defend your system. Prove the advantages of your system.
>> > Give us a number, Barry. Precisely what level of "redistributed"
>> > income do you find desirable?
>> As I've said before Chris, I favour economic and monetary policies
>> that create full employment.
>Which policies are those, precisely?
International control of capital flows. International agreements to
thwart capital flight. International agreements to keep interest rates at
around 1 per cent. In fact a return to Bretton Woods. A return to
Keynsianism.
>> I favour democratic governments.
>But not one that recognizes individual rights.
A libertarian in Reform clothing how quaint.
>> I favour whatever level of income distribution the people choose
>> to attempt to implement.
>A convenient cop-out. All right, pretend I'm the bureaucrat in charge of
>your great Ministry Of Benevolent Distribution, and I come to consult
>you, Barry Adams, revered citizen of utmost standing with the state, on
>precisely what level this would be. What level do _you_ choose? And
>_from whom_ will it be taken?
Not a cop out at all. If you care to examine the diversity of government
policies and platforms of political parties in the advanced industrial
states during Keynsianism, you'll see a remarkably diverse landscape.
That is what I support.
>> > You just proved my point! Here we have _the government_
>> > interfering with the market on behalf of a specific company.
>> > This is a tacit admission by that company that they _could not
>> > survive_ without the protection of the government; that they
>> > _could not compete_ on a free market! Stopping this sort of
>> > chronyism by the government is _precisely_ why a free market
>> > economy is desirable!
>> This doesn't prove your point! This proves how unrestricted
>> neoliberal economic systems end up ursurping the powers of
>> government.
>But we don't live in an unrestricted economic system! We live in a mixed
>economy where - by your express wishes - the government has the final
>authority in deciding precisely who deserves how much of what is
>produced. This chronyism is a consequence of the statism you so love,
>Barry. Capitalism and free markets _are it's enemy_.
Less mixed every year. And if you get your way government would become
very very small. But then of course you're a Libertarian, what else
should I expect. You guys are as bad as the communist. You think there
is some "utopian" set of principles. Talk about ideology!
>> You're so blinded by libertarian ideology that you can't see that
>> the results of your preferred policies are exactly the opposite of
>> what you purport to believe in.
>Corporate welfare is the consequence of statism, Barry. It's what
>happens when you decide that government discretion, rather than
>innovation and ability free of government interference, should govern the
>distribution of wealth. That's why companies which are unable to compete
>on a free market spend their resources instead on bribing and influence
>peddling the government to erect barriers to legitimate competition.
Really Chris. Then please explain why smaller governments and liberalized
free markets have created more Cronyism not less? Please explain why our
economies have performed so pathetically.
>> There would be no scientists paid to represent the disinterested
>> interests of the people you mean.
>There is no such thing as "the disinterested interests of the people".
>There are only parasitic individuals who fancy themselves "the voice of
>the people". Saying it's so does not make it so, Barry.
Only a Libertarian could hold such views. Come on Chris come clean admit
your allegiance to the goofs with vision.
>> You're so in love with the theory of the "free market" that you are
>> unable to comprehend the simple truth that the "freeer" the market
>> becomes, the more tyranical the interests of private enterprise
>> become.
>This is completely fraudulent. Your belief that businessmen would
>gleefully hurt or poison people at the first available chance is _sick_,
>Barry. But it does much to confirm your belief that human beings are
>mindless animals who need to be enslaved by the state "for their own
>good".
Who said that Chris? I certainly didn't say that. Tyranical has nothing
to do with poisoning, Chris. Although I'm convinced that Monsanto does
poison us, I'm sure that the majority of Monsanto employee's including
their scientific staff believe in what they are doing. Of course they're
biased.
>> Monsanto doesn't drive them out of business, it buys them.
>Egads!
Monsanto didn't develope "terminator" technology, it bought it. This is
what big companies do. They buy up little companies with great
technology. They attempt to get bigger and bigger.
>> But come on you're the one that said we acting as free consumers
>> could drive "bad" companies out of business. Now you're saying that
>> due to the unholy alliance of government with business it isn't
>> possible.
>It's not an unholy alliance of government with business. It's an
>alliance of government with parasites who know that they would not be
>able to compete in a free market.
Whatever Chris. You're the one that says we can punish them through the
market. How do we go about doing it Chris? By the way a few examples of
large multi nationals being brought down by consumer action would
certainly enhance your credibility.
>> I know, I know, according to you the solution is to minimize
>> governments. Problem is the as governments have grown smaller,
>> they've been increasingly taken over by the neoliberal big business
>> agenda.
>Again, if the government did not have the power to expropriate your money
>at gunpoint to "redistribute" it by any arbitrary standard -
>a power you fiercely endorse and defend - then there would be zero
>possibility of then "redistributing" it in a manner that you don't like.
Right out of the Libertarian Handbook. Do you guys have an equivalent of
the "little red book"?
>> Ah yes change the subject, always a good tactic Chris.
>It's not changing the subject - it's demonstrating the profound effect
>that economic freedom really has. The "energy crisis" in the US and
>Canada - countries with abundant oil reserves of their own besides -
>was caused by the very price controls enacted to "protect" the consumers.
>In Japan - a nation which relies 100% on oil imports -
>there was no shortage and no crisis, because prices were set on the free
>market.
You mean the profound effect of halving economic growth do you Chris? You
mean the profound effect of 1.2 trillion dollars being gambled every day
on currency markets? Guess we should as the peoples of Asia, or Mexico,
or Brazil or Russia about how profound they found the effects of "economic
freedom". For some reason I think they'd say they'd prefer a little less
of that freedom and a lot more of the old economy.
>The same goes for agriculture. Statism and central control led to the
>starvation of more than 35 million people in a nation with more arable
>land than any other on Earth. It's not the oft-cited "uneven
>distribution of resources" that is responsible for starvation and
>suffering throughout the world - it's the uneven distribution of
>capitalism.
Command economies certainly have a very poor record. But I though you
Libs called W. European and N. American governments statist? These
"statist" nations seem to have a very good agricultural record.
>> > "the poor" is a dynamic term, Barry. The bottom 10% (or 20% or
>> > whatever arbitrary, meaningless dividing line you choose) is
>> > always "poor", even though their quality of life would be vastly
>> > better than any average >citizen fifty or even just thirty years
>> > ago.
>> You're funny Chris. Take a good look at the effects of your
>> policies on income distribution.
>"my policies"? There hasn't been a capitalist government elected in the
>history of Canada! -Nobody- is implementing my policies, because my
>policies are _no_ policies.
A true fanatic! And guess what Chris there never will be!
>> The reality is that the poor are worse off than they were 20 years
>> ago, nearly everywhere.
>Today's standard of life is vastly superior to what it was thirty years
>ago. In Britain, the poorest citizens often didn't have indoor plumbing
>or a telephone as late as the 1970s - there is no comparison between the
>quality of life now or then.
I lived and traveled extensively in Britain 30 years ago Chris. The poor
were way better off. They could find work. They had hope. They had
rising incomes, advanced social systems. They had security.
>> The truth is there are more of them now than 20 years ago, nearly
>> everywhere.
>This is not the truth. It's completely false.
Gee how profound. Now you're going to post that bullshit study thats been
totally discredited. Come on Chris, read the studies, don't make it up to
bolster your belief system.
>> The other truth is that there are many more (numericaly speaking)
>> rich than there were 20 years ago,
>Good!
Why is that good Chris? In a low growth economy, more rich people means
many many more poor people.
>> and they are much much richer.
>Good!
Why? Capitalism requires pools of capital, but it doesn't require those
pools to be owned by individuals Chris.
>> We can build the bomb, go to moon, genetically alter nature, but we
>> dare not, and cannot alter the economic system. We just have to put
>> up with its unpleasent aspects, because, well because its
>> "inevitiable".
>I know of no "unpleasant aspects" of a free market economy. The evidence
>we have from the period of greatest economic freedom in history in the
>19th century paints an incredible portrait of the power of capitalism and
>the free price system governed by voluntary exchange has in improving the
>quality of life of all humanity.
History through the lens of ideology Chris. Really such a statement would
be beyond belief, except that its right out of the little libertarian
guide to correct thinking.
>> There is NO evidence that shows your system, does even as good a
>> job of promoting economic growth.
>The 19th century - the only time in human history where we came close -
>is a shining example of incredible growth, prosperity and progress.
The golden age of classical economics. Paradise on earth for the owners,
hell on earth for the children in the factories and mines. Long running
deflation, with the ratcheting down of wages over most of the century,
briefly interrupted by wars. Such a golden age.
Of couse if you could afford "the Grand Tour", travel POSH or ride the
Orient Express, it was pretty bloody good.
>> We have 30 years of results and they're all negative,
>We have not lived in a market economy for nearly a century, nevermind the
>last 30 years.
Thank god. Though I fear that we are returning to one.
>> Thats the definition of an ideologue Chris. When reality contradicts
>> theory, deny reality.
>The one who is denying reality would be the one who thinks the answer to
>preventing rival gangs from buying influence and power from the
>government is to give that government more influence and power to sell.
--
Steven C. Britton
>
>I wish I had your confidence in technical progress. That's quite a gamble,
>to bet the future of billions, of your children (if you have any) on the
>myself, I'd say it's a foolish way of thinking. Innovations have turned up
>in the past, that doen't make it a law that it'll always be so. But since
>capitalists only care about the next quarter return ...
Don't be ridiculous. The point is that people can, and do, adapt. They
_have_ to; and they _will_.
Steven C. Britton
>
>wealth factors in an accumulation of income and assets. banks determine
>lending on the ability of the borrower to pay it back, in other words
wealth.
>I think we can agree that a person with a 5 million home has more wealth
>than someone living from check to check unless you are in denial.
>if you want to discuss the happiness t between the 2 that would be a
>philosophical or perhaps a spiritual discussion.
But you're wrong: The guy in the $5 million home and three cars is living
paycheque to paycheque simply because his debt load is collossal. The bank
owns his home (until he pays off the mortgage), and the bank owns his cars
(until he pays off the car loans).
He's working like a dog at work to make ends meet, because his tax load is
so high that his expenditures for the necessities above the fixed expenses
leave nothing else.
And you say he's "rich"?
Steven C. Britton
>>>Actually there are working definition, but they are all as you point out
>>>relative. Lets be serious Chris, when we talk about the rich, we're not
>>>talking about a few million in assets.
>
>
>>Then what ARE we talking about, Barry?
>
>Oh I don't know Chris, the mega rich I suppose. With that do?
[Chris?]
Who are the "mega" rich, Barry?
>Really Chris.
[Chris?]
>All of this twisting and turning. Do you deny the results of income and
asset studies?
>Do you deny that the holders and managers of large assets tend to have more
power than a
>numerically equal number of janitors or factory workers?
How do you define "power"? A holder of a large asset has power over the
large asset, because it belongs to him. But the asset itself means squat.
I may own a large house -- so what?
>>By the same token, someone who is cash-poor, living in low-rent housing,
>>but earning just enough to survive, feed, clothe and shelter his/her
>>family could consider themselves "rich" because they're satisfied with
>>their life.
>
>Metaphysics now! Way to go Chris.
[Chris?]
>Hide the reality of the system you promote with bromides.
It's true. Happy people consider themselves rich.
>>The lunatic left likes to pigeonhole people; a rich person is defined as
>>"someone with more than me."
>
>Perhaps, though I'm unclear on who you are referring to. IIRC you think
>anyone left of Harris or Klein are members of the lunitic left.
They are.
>>It's the politics of jealousy; covetry.
>
>Actually its the politics of disinterest. Its the politics of people that
>realize that our current system is a failure in economic, social and moral
>terms.
It wants to take what others have rightfully earned and hand it to an
individual who did nothing to earn it.
"Bill Gates has billions. He has too much. We need to take it away from
him."
>>Last time I checked, coveting is against one of the commandments.
>
>Really. I though neoclassical economics was big on greed and selfishness?
>But of course you're referring to the Bible. I though Christ threw the
>money lenders out of the temple? Sure seems like a plan to me. Don't
>forget even Adam Smith warned us against the advice of the "masters".
So, Christ threw the money lenders out of the temple. What's your point?
Coveting what another has is evil.
>>The rich "class" does NOT exist, just like the poor "class" does not
>>exist.
>
>Chris it would help the discussion if you attempted to lay off the humour.
[Chris?]
The "classes" do not exist. They're a creative invention by the looney left
to try to build power. "You have less than what Bill down your street has.
Because of that, he's oppressing you. RISE UP AND TAKE IT FROM HIM!"
>>"They" don't, Barry.
>
>Really Chris?
[Chris?]
>Who exactly determines political, economic and monetary policy then Chris?
The society, through their elected government. People then hold their
government accountable; and the population at-large has far more electoral
power than a few "Big Business"es
>I know the laws of economics came into being just after the big bang.
>
>>>As I've said before Chris, I favour economic and monetary policies that
>>>create full employment.
>
>>Will NEVER happen.
>
>Never is a very long time, but I agree its not very likely unless we can
>somehow free our governments of the overpowering influence of capital.
Full employment is an idealistic impossibility. There will always be an
unemployment rate in a free and democratic society.
It's a reality.
>>Ever heard of CREATING wealth rather than redistributing it (stealing it
>>from those who work hard to obtain it and giving it to those who don't)?
>
>Your system has a much harder time with wealth creation than my system
>does Steven. And even when you system creates wealth, it fails to
>distribute it.
It doesn't need to. Your Robin Hood fantasies would be laughable, if they
weren't so scary.
>Pretty good system for the rich though. They get most of
>whatever growth occurrs and they keep the uppity common people from
>thinking they have any right to influence their societies.
So instead, you favour government oppression of EVERYBODY to ensure that
NOBODY succeeds.
----------------------------------------------------
John Ross
<3736ab04$7$onqnzf$mr2...@news.cow-net.com>...
> In <7h57d2$2jf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, on 05/09/99
> at 11:57 PM, Chris J Delanoy <cdel...@ualberta.ca> said:
>
>
> >> As I've said before Chris, I favour economic and monetary policies
> >> that create full employment.
>
> >Which policies are those, precisely?
>
> International control of capital flows. International agreements to
> thwart capital flight. International agreements to keep interest rates
at
> around 1 per cent. In fact a return to Bretton Woods. A return to
> Keynsianism.
>
>
inflation and high unemployment, stagflation, is a condition that is
*impossible* according to Keynes. Yet just such a condition existed in the
70's. Do you want to return to those days?
john monteith
"Steven C. Britton" wrote:
> john monteith wrote:
> >
> >wealth factors in an accumulation of income and assets. banks determine
> >lending on the ability of the borrower to pay it back, in other words
> wealth.
> >I think we can agree that a person with a 5 million home has more wealth
> >than someone living from check to check unless you are in denial.
> >if you want to discuss the happiness t between the 2 that would be a
> >philosophical or perhaps a spiritual discussion.
>
> But you're wrong: The guy in the $5 million home and three cars is living
> paycheque to paycheque simply because his debt load is collossal. The bank
> owns his home (until he pays off the mortgage), and the bank owns his cars
> (until he pays off the car loans).
>
> He's working like a dog at work to make ends meet, because his tax load is
> so high that his expenditures for the necessities above the fixed expenses
> leave nothing else.
>
Did you just miss my point Steve or are you just piling on the hypotheticals
to make some sort of unmakable point. His work ethic isn`t being questioned
here nor his right to make that money. his debt load may or may not be
high but to assume a high debtt load some equity must be demonstrated
to the lender. I think your ideology is clouding your judgement.
If the guy is having some problems meeting his debt load han maybe he
should consider selling one of his guys and scaling down to maybe a 4
million. I can only fell bad for the hardship this must impose.
John M
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
Chris J Delanoy
> Oh I don't know Chris,
> Really Chris.
> Way to go Chris.
Your entire response was addressed to the wrong person.
> IIRC you think anyone left of Harris or Klein are members of the
> lunitic left.
No, actually - I think Klein _is_ a member of the lunatic left.
> > It's the politics of jealousy; covetry.
> Its the politics of people that realize that our current system
> is a failure in economic, social and moral terms.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amen to that! Our mixed economy is a _miserable_ failure in
economic, social and moral terms.
> >Last time I checked, coveting is against one of the commandments.
> Really. I though neoclassical economics was big on greed and
> selfishness? But of course you're referring to the Bible.
Steven's mystical defense is entirely irrelevent.
> Chris it would help the discussion
> Really Chris? Who exactly determines political, economic and
> monetary policy then Chris?
There are those references again. You really need to pay more
attention here.
John Carrick
>From my POV there is nothing wrong with having a "rich" class. I think
>income is a good motivator. I do oppose the rich having greater influence
>over political, economic or monetary policy.
1. There will always be people who are brighter than others,
harder-working than others, more dishonest than others, or luckier
than others - or some combination of the above - who end up
with more money than most others and with all the things that money
can buy.
2. That is not only unavoidable, but it is sometimes a good thing.
Society ought to reward those who, through greater ability and/or
greater effort improve themselves financially. They might be termed
"the acquisitive class", when they show major interest in
accumulating an ever-increasing amount of wealth.
(At the same time, we ought to discourage theose whoattempt to become
wealthy through sharp practices and criminal activity. I take it that
when you praise the existence of the wealthy, you are not including
illegal drug kingpins, bank robbers, or stock market swindlers; that
is, you don't approve of people getting rich *any* way they can.)
3. Once you have a wealthy segment of the population, the question
arises, "What proportion of their wealth is it reasonable to ask them
to contribute to the general good?" Your answer will determine the
level of taxation to which this group will be subjected.
There are those who argue that any *graduated* tax scheme serves as a
disincentive to the acquisitive classes. They further suggest that
the entire economy will suffer, if the financially ambitious/rapacious
are discouraged from striving to become ever more wealthy.
Another body of opinion suggests that every one of us succeeds or
fails financially within a local, regional, national, and internation-
al economy. Frank Stronach makes millions of dollars a year with
Magma and his other manufacturung endeavours. Yet, he could not
make a dime if there were not an Ontario economy in which to operate.
His company could not exist, if there were no Canadian nation
providing him with infrastructure, a regulated employment regime,
educated and trained workers, etc.
THus, for anyone to suggest that every cent he makes is *his* alone,
and that any taxation which he is legally required to pay to local,
provincial or federal governments is somehow a vicious attack upon his
right to make a living would be ***nonsense***, since without a
context in which to work, he would be reduced to being a blacksmith,
or a farmer, etc.
I tire of right-wingers showing their faces in these forums, claiming
that almost all government is superfluous, and expressing their
resentment against the transfer of income from the wealthy to the
poor.
I particularly object to those who come on here whining about high
taxes, but whose posts *****NEVER***** make any reference to the poor
and the homeless....particularly to needy children.
Such people have become victims of materialism, and have lost any
sense of proportion, when they find nothin alarming in the spectacle
of "haves" and "have nots" existing side by side in their Canadian
communities.
Quite simply, I think that those who choose to ignore the poor,
particularly the children of the poor, are despicable.
And that opinion applies to all, regardless of the party label that
they adopt.
I trust that you concur.
John Carrick
>DEFEAT ORGANIZED LABOUR:
>RE-ELECT MIKE HARRIS!
What sort of garbage is this to append to a post?
Have you any notion how offensive this sort of thing is to decent
people?
Have a sense of proportion for Christ's sake!
And stick your anti-union materialism up your ass!
Chris J Delanoy
> > The point of contention is on your view that there is some
> > amorphous, undefined (but nonetheless very evil) blob called "the
> > rich" who are out to oppress another amorphous, undefined blob
> > called "the workers".
> Did I say they set out to oppress Chris?
Not "set out" - you've simply said that they _do_ oppress. Which
is a strange claim to make against a group _which you can't even
define_.
> Prove the advantages of your system.
Look around yourself, Barry. Look at the incredible advantages
that freedom of human innovation has brought you - the monitor
you're looking at, the keyboard you're typing on, the car you
drive, the flushing toilet down the hall, the hydroponic marijuana
operation in your basement, etc.
> >Which policies are those, precisely?
> International control of capital flows. International agreements to
> thwart capital flight. International agreements to keep interest
> rates at around 1 per cent.
In other words destroy investment, productivity, savings, etc.
> >But not one that recognizes individual rights.
> A libertarian in Reform clothing how quaint.
There was a time when the two weren't incompatible.
> > A convenient cop-out. All right, pretend I'm the bureaucrat in
> > charge of your great Ministry Of Benevolent Distribution, and I
> > come to consult you, Barry Adams, revered citizen of utmost
> > standing with the state, on precisely what level this would be.
> > What level do _you_ choose? And _from whom_ will it be taken?
> Not a cop out at all. If you care to examine the diversity of
> government policies and platforms of political parties in the
> advanced industrial states during Keynsianism, you'll see a
> remarkably diverse landscape.
There was remarkable little difference between, say, British Labour
and the pre-Thatcher Tories. There was little (and still is little)
difference between the Liberals and Tories in Canada. There was
(and still is) little difference between the Democrats and Republicans
in the US. Ditto again for Labour and the Liberals in Australia.
> That is what I support.
As long as everybody mindlessly supports statism, you'll be just
fine? I imagine you would be.
> Less mixed every year.
Agreed.
> Really Chris. Then please explain why smaller governments and
> liberalized free markets have created more Cronyism not less?
Simply because governments _haven't_ gotten smaller. Alberta - the
supposed (and fraudulent) "model" of government restraint - has,
for example, two entirely new Ministries that didn't exist six years
ago. For all the whining and caterwauling about "cutbacks", the
fact remains that most goverments (including Alberta, Ontario,
Saskatchewan, Ottawa, and Washington) did not _cut_ anything at all -
they only reduced the budget with response to _prior projections_.
There has been no rollback of the scope of government size or power
in Canada or the US, Barry. 1979-1990 UK is the only example of a
government which significantly reduced itself - and the unbridled
prosperity that followed speaks for itself.
> Please explain why our economies have performed so pathetically.
Because they're mixed. Because the government strangles them
with taxation and regulation.
> Only a Libertarian could hold such views.
I'm not a member of the party, but certainly I'm a small-l
libertarian. Absolutely. When have I ever denied such?
> >It's not an unholy alliance of government with business. It's an
> >alliance of government with parasites who know that they would not be
> >able to compete in a free market.
> Whatever Chris. You're the one that says we can punish them through
> the market.
If you believe that a majority of a population would democratically
vote to punish Company X, why do you insist that it's impossible
for these same people to do it by _not patronizing_ that company in
the first place?
You're right that it's impossible to punish a company if _one
individual_ has a problem with them. That's because millions of
other _individuals_ don't - and they're exercising their choice.
> Guess we should as the peoples of Asia, or Mexico, or Brazil or
> Russia about how profound they found the effects of "economic
> freedom".
Most of these people don't have economic freedom. Those Asian
nations that do - Hong Kong and Singapore, for example - have had
_growth_ throughout the "Asian flu" period.
> > The same goes for agriculture. Statism and central control led to
> > the starvation of more than 35 million people in a nation with
> > more arable land than any other on Earth. It's not the oft-cited
> > "uneven distribution of resources" that is responsible for
> > starvation and suffering throughout the world - it's the uneven
> > distribution of capitalism.
> Command economies certainly have a very poor record. But I though
> you Libs called W. European and N. American governments statist?
> These "statist" nations seem to have a very good agricultural record.
They're mixed economies, and the market is what drives their
success. Although the controlled portion acts as a deterrent - and
manifests itself, for example, when we see statist thugs locking
farmers in prison for selling their wheat. So much for your "looking
out for the little guy" claim.
> > Today's standard of life is vastly superior to what it was thirty
> > years ago. In Britain, the poorest citizens often didn't have
> > indoor plumbing or a telephone as late as the 1970s - there is no
> > comparison between the quality of life now or then.
> I lived and traveled extensively in Britain 30 years ago Chris.
That might help explain it.
> The poor were way better off.
Not by any objective measure, they weren't.
> They could find work.
Unemployment in 1987 was the lowest it had been in Britain since 1913.
> They had hope.
They _have_ hope, you mean. Which is probably why Margaret Thatcher
become the first Prime Minister in 180 years to be elected to three
successive majorities. The people of Britain knew precisely what
was working for them, in other words.
> They had rising incomes, advanced social systems. They had security.
Gee, all that and the violence and terror of unions, to boot. What
a swell life!
> >Good!
> Why is that good Chris? In a low growth economy, more rich people
> means many many more poor people.
The only way an economy can be a zero-sum game is by decree of
government. In a market where every transaction is voluntary,
no trade can possibly me "my gain, your loss".
> The golden age of classical economics. Paradise on earth for the
> owners, hell on earth for the children in the factories and mines.
The life of children during the industrial revolution may seem
dismal from your perch in front of your computer in 1999 - but the
standard by which is must be judged is not against present conditions,
but rather against what _preceeded_ it. And in that light, working
in a factory was a vast improvement over what came before - and then
lead in turn to the developments that have brought us to today.
Chris J Delanoy
> > The point of contention is on your view that there is some
> > amorphous, undefined (but nonetheless very evil) blob called "the
> > rich" who are out to oppress another amorphous, undefined blob
> > called "the workers".
> Did I say they set out to oppress Chris?
Not "set out" - you've simply said that they _do_ oppress. Which
is a strange claim to make against a group _which you can't even
define_.
> Prove the advantages of your system.
Look around yourself, Barry. Look at the incredible advantages
that freedom of human innovation has brought you - the monitor
you're looking at, the keyboard you're typing on, the car you
drive, the flushing toilet down the hall, the hydroponic marijuana
operation in your basement, etc.
> >Which policies are those, precisely?
> International control of capital flows. International agreements to
> thwart capital flight. International agreements to keep interest
> rates at around 1 per cent.
In other words destroy investment, productivity, savings, etc.
> >But not one that recognizes individual rights.
> A libertarian in Reform clothing how quaint.
There was a time when the two weren't incompatible.
> > A convenient cop-out. All right, pretend I'm the bureaucrat in
> > charge of your great Ministry Of Benevolent Distribution, and I
> > come to consult you, Barry Adams, revered citizen of utmost
> > standing with the state, on precisely what level this would be.
> > What level do _you_ choose? And _from whom_ will it be taken?
> Not a cop out at all. If you care to examine the diversity of
> government policies and platforms of political parties in the
> advanced industrial states during Keynsianism, you'll see a
> remarkably diverse landscape.
There was remarkable little difference between, say, British Labour
and the pre-Thatcher Tories. There was little (and still is little)
difference between the Liberals and Tories in Canada. There was
(and still is) little difference between the Democrats and Republicans
in the US. Ditto again for Labour and the Liberals in Australia.
> That is what I support.
As long as everybody mindlessly supports statism, you'll be just
fine? I imagine you would be.
> Less mixed every year.
Agreed.
> Really Chris. Then please explain why smaller governments and
> liberalized free markets have created more Cronyism not less?
Simply because governments _haven't_ gotten smaller. Alberta - the
supposed (and fraudulent) "model" of government restraint - has,
for example, two entirely new Ministries that didn't exist six years
ago. For all the whining and caterwauling about "cutbacks", the
fact remains that most goverments (including Alberta, Ontario,
Saskatchewan, Ottawa, and Washington) did not _cut_ anything at all -
they only reduced the budget with response to _prior projections_.
There has been no rollback of the scope of government size or power
in Canada or the US, Barry. 1979-1990 UK is the only example of a
government which significantly reduced itself - and the unbridled
prosperity that followed speaks for itself.
> Please explain why our economies have performed so pathetically.
Because they're mixed. Because the government strangles them
with taxation and regulation.
> Only a Libertarian could hold such views.
I'm not a member of the party, but certainly I'm a small-l
libertarian. Absolutely. When have I ever denied such?
> >It's not an unholy alliance of government with business. It's an
> >alliance of government with parasites who know that they would not be
> >able to compete in a free market.
> Whatever Chris. You're the one that says we can punish them through
> the market.
If you believe that a majority of a population would democratically
vote to punish Company X, why do you insist that it's impossible
for these same people to do it by _not patronizing_ that company in
the first place?
You're right that it's impossible to punish a company if _one
individual_ has a problem with them. That's because millions of
other _individuals_ don't - and they're exercising their choice.
> Guess we should as the peoples of Asia, or Mexico, or Brazil or
> Russia about how profound they found the effects of "economic
> freedom".
Most of these people don't have economic freedom. Those Asian
nations that do - Hong Kong and Singapore, for example - have had
_growth_ throughout the "Asian flu" period.
> > The same goes for agriculture. Statism and central control led to
> > the starvation of more than 35 million people in a nation with
> > more arable land than any other on Earth. It's not the oft-cited
> > "uneven distribution of resources" that is responsible for
> > starvation and suffering throughout the world - it's the uneven
> > distribution of capitalism.
> Command economies certainly have a very poor record. But I though
> you Libs called W. European and N. American governments statist?
> These "statist" nations seem to have a very good agricultural record.
They're mixed economies, and the market is what drives their
success. Although the controlled portion acts as a deterrent - and
manifests itself, for example, when we see statist thugs locking
farmers in prison for selling their wheat. So much for your "looking
out for the little guy" claim.
> > Today's standard of life is vastly superior to what it was thirty
> > years ago. In Britain, the poorest citizens often didn't have
> > indoor plumbing or a telephone as late as the 1970s - there is no
> > comparison between the quality of life now or then.
> I lived and traveled extensively in Britain 30 years ago Chris.
That might help explain it.
> The poor were way better off.
Not by any objective measure, they weren't.
> They could find work.
Unemployment in 1987 was the lowest it had been in Britain since 1913.
> They had hope.
They _have_ hope, you mean. Which is probably why Margaret Thatcher
become the first Prime Minister in 180 years to be elected to three
successive majorities. The people of Britain knew precisely what
was working for them, in other words.
> They had rising incomes, advanced social systems. They had security.
Gee, all that and the violence and terror of unions, to boot. What
a swell life!
> >Good!
> Why is that good Chris? In a low growth economy, more rich people
> means many many more poor people.
The only way an economy can be a zero-sum game is by decree of
government. In a market where every transaction is voluntary,
no trade can possibly be "my gain, your loss".
> The golden age of classical economics. Paradise on earth for the
> owners, hell on earth for the children in the factories and mines.
The life of children during the industrial revolution may seem
dismal from your perch in front of your computer in 1999 - but the
standard by which is must be judged is not against present conditions,
but rather against what _preceeded_ it. And in that light, working
in a factory was a vast improvement over what came before - and then
lead in turn to the developments that have brought us to today.
Chris J Delanoy
john monteith
John Ross wrote:
> bad...@cow-net.com wrote in article
> <3736ab04$7$onqnzf$mr2...@news.cow-net.com>...
> > In <7h57d2$2jf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, on 05/09/99
> > at 11:57 PM, Chris J Delanoy <cdel...@ualberta.ca> said:
> >
> >
> > >> As I've said before Chris, I favour economic and monetary policies
> > >> that create full employment.
> >
> > >Which policies are those, precisely?
> >
> > International control of capital flows. International agreements to
> > thwart capital flight. International agreements to keep interest rates
> at
> > around 1 per cent. In fact a return to Bretton Woods. A return to
> > Keynsianism.
> >
> >
> Keynesianism is a discredited system. For example, the existence of high
> inflation and high unemployment, stagflation, is a condition that is
> *impossible* according to Keynes. Yet just such a condition existed in the
> 70's. Do you want to return to those days?
ending fixed exchange rates caused those conditions to exist simple
and the resultant move away from supporting the economy.
keynes surely would have disagreed with that move.
As for discreditied. only by monitarists, and there love of speculators
This change is a long way from playing out and the resultant loss of
spending power by an increasing number will hurt the econonmy badly.
everyone waitng for the monitarist prediction of the trickle down
this is a feeble re working oF the pre depression economy.
JOhn m
>
>
>
bad...@cow-net.com
>Dickens' condemnations of the industrial revolution in Britain were based
>on an idyllic (and grossly false) view of life before the industrial
>revolution. Even today, statists like to paint a nice little picture of
>children playing in the streets and mothers making artistic handicrafts
>in the comfort of their well-appointed cottages before the big belching
>factories came along. This view is such a grotesque distortion that it
>need barely be considered. From your well-appointed perch of the late
>20th century, certainly conditions in industrial Britain seem dismal and
>miserable - but that doesn't change the fact that they were vast
>improvements over what preceeded them.
Nice try. In fact many historical studies have shown an almost 150 year
decline in living standards.
Actual improvement was the result of collective demand. Demands for the
vote. Demands for labour legislation, Demands for sewers and other
social infrastructure.
Unregulated capitalism proved itself totally unable to organize a decent
society or even arrive at a state of balance.
bad...@cow-net.com
>Barry Adams wrote:
>>>>Actually there are working definition, but they are all as you point out
>>>>relative. Lets be serious Chris, when we talk about the rich, we're not
>>>>talking about a few million in assets.
>>
>>
>>>Then what ARE we talking about, Barry?
>>
>>Oh I don't know Chris, the mega rich I suppose. With that do?
>[Chris?]
>Who are the "mega" rich, Barry?
Your argument is limited to questioning definitions Steve?
>>Really Chris.
>[Chris?]
>>All of this twisting and turning. Do you deny the results of income and
>asset studies?
>>Do you deny that the holders and managers of large assets tend to have more
>power than a
>>numerically equal number of janitors or factory workers?
>How do you define "power"? A holder of a large asset has power over the
>large asset, because it belongs to him. But the asset itself means
>squat. I may own a large house -- so what?
Lets pull out the dictionary and define all of these terms exactly. Then
we can have a nice pedantic discussion on the meanings of the terms. Wow.
So in your opinion any 150 janitors have as much power as 150 CEO's of
companies with assets greater than or lets say $1b?
>>>By the same token, someone who is cash-poor, living in low-rent housing,
>>>but earning just enough to survive, feed, clothe and shelter his/her
>>>family could consider themselves "rich" because they're satisfied with
>>>their life.
>>
>>Metaphysics now! Way to go Chris.
>[Chris?]
>>Hide the reality of the system you promote with bromides.
>It's true. Happy people consider themselves rich.
Which I guess explains the results of study after study that shows higher
income individuals have a greater likelyhood of saying they are happy.
And they should be, they live longer, they are healthier and have far more
control over their lives.
>>>The lunatic left likes to pigeonhole people; a rich person is defined as
>>>"someone with more than me."
>>
>>Perhaps, though I'm unclear on who you are referring to. IIRC you think
>>anyone left of Harris or Klein are members of the lunitic left.
>They are.
>>>It's the politics of jealousy; covetry.
>>
>>Actually its the politics of disinterest. Its the politics of people that
>>realize that our current system is a failure in economic, social and moral
>>terms.
>It wants to take what others have rightfully earned and hand it to an
>individual who did nothing to earn it.
And I could reply that its the enormous greed and power seeking of the
powerful that oppresses the poor.
Not a very productive discussion IMO. Of course the economic results of
the current system are so poor you'd rater discuss anything but those
results.
>"Bill Gates has billions. He has too much. We need to take it away from
>him."
Could be, but that certainly isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that the
interests of Bill Gates and the other holders and managers of capital
shouldn't dominate. Organizing high interest rate, high unemployment, low
growth economies in order to protect and enhance the assets of the rich,
is far from ideal for the majority of citizens.
>>>Last time I checked, coveting is against one of the commandments.
>>
>>Really. I though neoclassical economics was big on greed and selfishness?
>>But of course you're referring to the Bible. I though Christ threw the
>>money lenders out of the temple? Sure seems like a plan to me. Don't
>>forget even Adam Smith warned us against the advice of the "masters".
>So, Christ threw the money lenders out of the temple. What's your point?
You were the one that brought up the Biblical nonsense, exactly what was
you point anyway?
>Coveting what another has is evil.
In case you've forgotten Steve, we're not discussing moral values.
>>>The rich "class" does NOT exist, just like the poor "class" does not
>>>exist.
>>
>>Chris it would help the discussion if you attempted to lay off the humour.
>[Chris?]
>The "classes" do not exist. They're a creative invention by the looney
>left to try to build power. "You have less than what Bill down your
>street has. Because of that, he's oppressing you. RISE UP AND TAKE IT
>FROM HIM!"
I see. And the class systems that existed in pre-capitalist society are
also the inventions of the loony left? Are you completely certain you're
not just a little bit loony yourself?
>>>"They" don't, Barry.
>>
>>Really Chris?
>[Chris?]
>>Who exactly determines political, economic and monetary policy then Chris?
>The society, through their elected government. People then hold their
>government accountable; and the population at-large has far more
>electoral power than a few "Big Business"es
They should, but they don't. International capital has become powerful
enough to impose political, economic and monetary policy on any but the
very largest nations, maybe on any but the US. And btw Steve, no this
isn't a conspiracy.
>>I know the laws of economics came into being just after the big bang.
>>
>>>>As I've said before Chris, I favour economic and monetary policies that
>>>>create full employment.
>>
>>>Will NEVER happen.
>>
>>Never is a very long time, but I agree its not very likely unless we can
>>somehow free our governments of the overpowering influence of capital.
>Full employment is an idealistic impossibility. There will always be an
>unemployment rate in a free and democratic society.
And exactly why is that Steve? Because of some "natural laws" of
economics?
Full employment economies are attainable. First we have to decide that we
want them, then we have to learn through trial and error how to create and
maintain them. We've created them before, and maintained them for short
periods, so we have some very good examples of where to start.
>It's a reality.
No its ideology Steve. Pity that you can't see that.
>>>Ever heard of CREATING wealth rather than redistributing it (stealing it
>>>from those who work hard to obtain it and giving it to those who don't)?
>>
>>Your system has a much harder time with wealth creation than my system
>>does Steven. And even when you system creates wealth, it fails to
>>distribute it.
>It doesn't need to. Your Robin Hood fantasies would be laughable, if
>they weren't so scary.
Define need Steve! See we can all play that game. Economic systems don't
"need" to do anything.
Its interesting that you can only envision a more equal income
distribution through theft. You are completely incapable of imagining a
liberal democatic solution. You actually don't believe that all men are
created equal, except in a very narrow legalistic sense. You really
believe in an elite natural ruling class. Very undemocratic sentiments
Steve.
>>Pretty good system for the rich though. They get most of
>>whatever growth occurrs and they keep the uppity common people from
>>thinking they have any right to influence their societies.
>So instead, you favour government oppression of EVERYBODY to ensure that
>NOBODY succeeds.
Oppression as in "taxation is theft"? Steve. Oppression as in democratic
control of central banks to set interest rates at very low levels?
Oppression as in regulation of capital flows, and disincentives for short
term capital speculation? Or do you mean the oppression suffered by the
unemployed, deliberately created and maintained by central banks in order
to maintain price stability? Do you mean the oppression of deliberate
policies to undermine the bargaining position of working people, to keep
wages and benefits low in order to maintain price stability? Do you mean
the willingness of governments to follow the dictates of speculative
capital, in order to defend the principle of capital freedom?
John Ross
john monteith <john_m...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<37385B87...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
> > >
> > Keynesianism is a discredited system. For example, the existence of
high
> > inflation and high unemployment, stagflation, is a condition that is
> > *impossible* according to Keynes. Yet just such a condition existed in
the
> > 70's. Do you want to return to those days?
>
> ending fixed exchange rates caused those conditions to exist simple
Simple? Please explain how ending fixed exchange rates caused high
inflation and high unemployment sumultaneously. I have never heard this
theory so I am sure it will be interesting. If you are proposing something
about movement of capital bear in mind this was a world wide phenomena and
capital moves from one place to another.
> and the resultant move away from supporting the economy.
> keynes surely would have disagreed with that move.
In times of high unemployment Keynes suggested that expansionary monetary
and fiscal policies be used. In times of high inflation contractionary
monetary and fiscal policies would slow the economy. Keynesians believe
there is some sort of inverse relationship between unemployment and
inflation. Well the 70's shot this theory away. High unemployment and
high inflation existed *at the same time*. Keynesians scattered to the
winds because they could not come up with any advice. Keep supporting the
economy? In Keynesian theory that would have led to even higher inflation.
But perhaps you think using money as wallpaper would be a fun thing.
> As for discreditied. only by monitarists, and there love of speculators
> This change is a long way from playing out and the resultant loss of
> spending power by an increasing number will hurt the econonmy badly.
What change are you talking about? Are you predicting a recession based on
the abolishment of fixed exchange rates?
> everyone waitng for the monitarist prediction of the trickle down
> this is a feeble re working oF the pre depression economy.
>
Ah, a depression is coming? Please elaborate.
James Goneaux
wrote:
>
>>From my POV there is nothing wrong with having a "rich" class. I think
>>income is a good motivator. I do oppose the rich having greater influence
>>over political, economic or monetary policy.
>
>1. There will always be people who are brighter than others,
However, whether it is a "natured" or a "nurtured" brightness can be
debated.
>harder-working than others,
Same as above. However, there is no excuse for those who won't, as
opposed to can't, work hard.
>more dishonest than others, or luckier
>than others - or some combination of the above - who end up
>with more money than most others and with all the things that money
>can buy.
Yes, I've noticed. The harder I work, the luckier I get.
<<snip>>
>Another body of opinion suggests that every one of us succeeds or
>fails financially within a local, regional, national, and internation-
>al economy. Frank Stronach makes millions of dollars a year with
>Magma and his other manufacturung endeavours.
Yes, and as he arrived in Canada, unable to speak either English or
French, with about $5 in his pocket, I would presume you realize that
he was one of those who worked hard to get his millions.
<<snip>>
>THus, for anyone to suggest that every cent he makes is *his* alone,
>and that any taxation which he is legally required to pay to local,
>provincial or federal governments is somehow a vicious attack upon his
>right to make a living would be ***nonsense***, since without a
>context in which to work, he would be reduced to being a blacksmith,
>or a farmer, etc.
Somehow, I doubt blacksmiths or farmers would be able to be very
successful if they didn't have the same infrastructure.
Yes, that would be a libertarian an argument anyway. Most of the
people with whom you disagree aren't libertarians, but fiscal
conservatives, who don't argue that every cent is his alone. We argue
that when how much tax he DOES pay is set at too high a rate, the
actual revenue CAN and DOES lower.
>I tire of right-wingers showing their faces in these forums, claiming
>that almost all government is superfluous, and expressing their
>resentment against the transfer of income from the wealthy to the
>poor.
Unfortuately, you are confusing income transferral with
infrastructure.
>I particularly object to those who come on here whining about high
>taxes, but whose posts *****NEVER***** make any reference to the poor
>and the homeless....particularly to needy children.
Fine. Canadian taxes have risen, and the rate of poor, homeless and
needy children have also risen.
Why?
Could it be that the money being spent on such programs isn't getting
to the people who deserve it?
Could it be that social democrats such as yourself believe that
economic ideas that CREATE wealth are secondary to ideas of
REDISTRIBUTING wealth?
john monteith
John Ross wrote:
> john monteith <john_m...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <37385B87...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
> > > >
> > > Keynesianism is a discredited system. For example, the existence of
> high
> > > inflation and high unemployment, stagflation, is a condition that is
> > > *impossible* according to Keynes. Yet just such a condition existed in
> the
> > > 70's. Do you want to return to those days?
> >
> > ending fixed exchange rates caused those conditions to exist simple
>
> Simple? Please explain how ending fixed exchange rates caused high
> inflation and high unemployment sumultaneously. I have never heard this
> theory so I am sure it will be interesting. If you are proposing something
> about movement of capital bear in mind this was a world wide phenomena and
> capital moves from one place to another.
Don`t you get It John pressure on currency by the end of bretton woods
caused governments to reduce spending. deficits increased due to high
interest rates and increased social spending due to the slowed economy,
This was due primarily to decreased government involvement in the economy.
It was an abandonment of Keynes that lead to the problems in the 70`s.
the answer has been to reduce government spending further and that
has been the case since the mid 70`s. only now we are merely limping
along by controlling short term interest rates in order to stabilize prices.
this has helped speculators by allowing them in effect to dictate
the monitary policy of individual government forcing them to
not spend in order to "support their currency" this has in effect
caused a widening in wealth distribution over the past 25
years which it is felt will "flatten out" this isn`t happening and will,
down the line I feel hurt the entire economy. much like the depression
although this time we might move back towards some control of
currency speculation and allow governments some latitude. I am not sure
JOhn I have dealt with you questions fully but it would take pages to
explain in more depth. You will probably feel that the market will
flatten out enough to allow government the latitude to increase revenues
and support the neccessary government infrastructure. or you might
debate the widening gap in wealth distrbution or not feel any governmet
involvement is necessary
John M
>
>
> > and the resultant move away from supporting the economy.
> > keynes surely would have disagreed with that move.
>
>
never suggested it at all John thats your clever poetic assumtion
they should have brought back Bretton Woods.
I am not sure why they got rid of it actually and now there are
rumblings of controls on monitary speculation which makes sense.
>
>
> >
bad...@cow-net.com
>> > The point of contention is on your view that there is some
>> > amorphous, undefined (but nonetheless very evil) blob called "the
>> > rich" who are out to oppress another amorphous, undefined blob
>> > called "the workers".
>> Did I say they set out to oppress Chris?
>Not "set out" - you've simply said that they _do_ oppress. Which is a
>strange claim to make against a group _which you can't even define_.
But they do oppress. Why exactly is it necessary to define them? Its the
sytem in place that has to be changed. The individuals who strongly
support this system are neither here nor there, except in the political
power they weild.
>> Prove the advantages of your system.
>Look around yourself, Barry. Look at the incredible advantages that
>freedom of human innovation has brought you - the monitor you're looking
>at, the keyboard you're typing on, the car you drive, the flushing toilet
>down the hall, the hydroponic marijuana operation in your basement, etc.
Capitalism and innovation continue to exist in a Keynsian system. None of
this is specific to neoliberalism.
>> >Which policies are those, precisely?
>> International control of capital flows. International agreements to
>> thwart capital flight. International agreements to keep interest
>> rates at around 1 per cent.
>In other words destroy investment, productivity, savings, etc.
Didn't happen before. In fact the exact opposite occured. Growth was
higher, productivity gains were higher, wealth creation was higher. Don't
know about savings, but I suspect they were higher as well. The modern
"global" system is actually pretty poor at creating investment. Look at
the 1.2 trillion dollars washing around in very short term currency
speculation. Just think what this money could accomplish if it was
invested.
>> Not a cop out at all. If you care to examine the diversity of
>> government policies and platforms of political parties in the
>> advanced industrial states during Keynsianism, you'll see a
>> remarkably diverse landscape.
>There was remarkable little difference between, say, British Labour and
>the pre-Thatcher Tories. There was little (and still is little)
>difference between the Liberals and Tories in Canada. There was (and
>still is) little difference between the Democrats and Republicans in the
>US. Ditto again for Labour and the Liberals in Australia.
Look at the differences between Sweden and Canada. Look at the
differences between the US and Germany. Now all countries and all
political parties are singing from the same song sheet. Of course if they
don't capital gets edgy and starts moving on out, while at the same time
the currency traders start attacking the currency.
It telling how after an election the bond rating agencies are asked to
comment.
>> That is what I support.
>As long as everybody mindlessly supports statism, you'll be just fine? I
>imagine you would be.
Some day you'll grow up and put utopian politcal and social philosophies
behind you.
>> Really Chris. Then please explain why smaller governments and
>> liberalized free markets have created more Cronyism not less?
>Simply because governments _haven't_ gotten smaller. Alberta - the
>supposed (and fraudulent) "model" of government restraint - has, for
>example, two entirely new Ministries that didn't exist six years ago.
>For all the whining and caterwauling about "cutbacks", the fact remains
>that most goverments (including Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Ottawa,
>and Washington) did not _cut_ anything at all -
>they only reduced the budget with response to _prior projections_. There
>has been no rollback of the scope of government size or power in Canada
>or the US, Barry. 1979-1990 UK is the only example of a government which
>significantly reduced itself - and the unbridled prosperity that followed
>speaks for itself.
Actually governments have been reduced extensively in Canada. By 6 per
cent on the federal level.
GB has not experienced unbridled prosperity. Elements with in GB have
done very well, while others have done very poorly. Economic growth is
still only equal to Keynsian levels, while income distribution has become
much worse. Cronyism is more alive than ever in GB, which is really
saying something about such a class dominated society.
>> Please explain why our economies have performed so pathetically.
>Because they're mixed. Because the government strangles them with
>taxation and regulation.
More of the same reforms. With only theory to back you up, you want us to
proceed further with a program that has so far only made things much
worse. Very strange logic.
>> >It's not an unholy alliance of government with business. It's an
>> >alliance of government with parasites who know that they would not be
>> >able to compete in a free market.
>> Whatever Chris. You're the one that says we can punish them through
>> the market.
>If you believe that a majority of a population would democratically vote
>to punish Company X, why do you insist that it's impossible for these
>same people to do it by _not patronizing_ that company in the first
>place?
Because as consumers we act out of self interest. As citizens we act out
of disinterest or community interest.
>You're right that it's impossible to punish a company if _one individual_
>has a problem with them. That's because millions of other _individuals_
>don't - and they're exercising their choice.
Only because it just one more bit of data in an overwhelming stream. We
don't know about Monsanto. We don't know which products of theirs we buy.
We don't know which dairies use products from farms that use monsanto
products. And on it goes. Its a hopeless task.
>> Guess we should as the peoples of Asia, or Mexico, or Brazil or
>> Russia about how profound they found the effects of "economic
>> freedom".
>Most of these people don't have economic freedom. Those Asian nations
>that do - Hong Kong and Singapore, for example - have had _growth_
>throughout the "Asian flu" period.
They had very high growth levels in Asia. They were approaching our
levels of prosperity. Through "globalization" they've been destroyed.
Setback probably by a generation.
Hong Kong was saved for the same reason that Chile didn't suffer.
Exchange controls. The HK dollar was pegged against the dollar and
defended by the Yuan. For all I know Singapore also has exchange controls
or capital controls. Taiwan has also done alright. And they do have a
statist economy, with a high degree of central planning and of course
currency controls.
>> Command economies certainly have a very poor record. But I though
>> you Libs called W. European and N. American governments statist?
>> These "statist" nations seem to have a very good agricultural record.
>They're mixed economies, and the market is what drives their success.
>Although the controlled portion acts as a deterrent - and manifests
>itself, for example, when we see statist thugs locking farmers in prison
>for selling their wheat. So much for your "looking out for the little
>guy" claim.
You're joking. EC agriculture is so productive and prosperous because of
subsidies. US and Cdn farmers are also heavily subsidized. The market
has very little to do with agricultural prosperity.
>> Why is that good Chris? In a low growth economy, more rich people
>> means many many more poor people.
>The only way an economy can be a zero-sum game is by decree of
>government. In a market where every transaction is voluntary, no trade
>can possibly me "my gain, your loss".
Manhattan for a string of beads. Yup both equal winners alright.
Such a belief system is down right silly.
>> The golden age of classical economics. Paradise on earth for the
>> owners, hell on earth for the children in the factories and mines.
>The life of children during the industrial revolution may seem dismal
>from your perch in front of your computer in 1999 - but the standard by
>which is must be judged is not against present conditions, but rather
>against what _preceeded_ it. And in that light, working in a factory was
>a vast improvement over what came before - and then lead in turn to the
>developments that have brought us to today.
Yes do judge them against what proceeded them. Shorther working hours.
Far fewer working days. Better housing, better food, better and safer
communites, and freedom from starvation unless the whole community
starved.
bad...@cow-net.com
>Keynesianism is a discredited system. For example, the existence of high
>inflation and high unemployment, stagflation, is a condition that is
>*impossible* according to Keynes. Yet just such a condition existed in
>the 70's. Do you want to return to those days?
Yes gladly! Only a few countries suffered from stagflation. They could
have learned from those countries that didn't. Of couse by this period
the basis of Keynsianism was already destroyed with the abrocation of
Bretton Woods.
Chris J Delanoy
> I see. And the class systems that existed in pre-capitalist society
> are also the inventions of the loony left?
There is only a "class system" insofar as there will always be
people who are relatively poor and those who are relatively rich.
Your error in judging this system is twofold: 1) You believe that
the terms "rich" and "poor" are absolutes; and 2) You believe
that precisely the same people occupy precisely the same positions
in the structure at all times.
> Full employment economies are attainable.
Definitely - but _productive_ full employment economies can only
be created outside the realm of government interference.
If all you want is "full employment", we could do that tomorrow:
we could order everybody to go out and dig a hole and fill it up
again ad infinitum. There you go - they have a job by government
decree. But if it's worthwhile, productive employment that you
desire (and I don't see why even a nutbar like you wouldn't), then
it can not be done by government regulation and strangulation - all
of which are _necessarily_ detriments to productive employment.
> Its interesting that you can only envision a more equal income
> distribution through theft. You are completely incapable of
> imagining a liberal democatic solution.
The "liberal democratic" solution (taxation) is precisely equivalent
to theft.
> You actually don't believe that all men are created equal, except
> in a very narrow legalistic sense.
The idea that all men are created equal means that every man - of
any economic standing - has certain unalienable rights (life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness). And it is the protection of every
individual - against any agressor large or small - that is the proper
function of government.
bad...@cow-net.com
>>From my POV there is nothing wrong with having a "rich" class. I think
>>income is a good motivator. I do oppose the rich having greater influence
>>over political, economic or monetary policy.
>Such people have become victims of materialism, and have lost any sense
>of proportion, when they find nothin alarming in the spectacle of
>"haves" and "have nots" existing side by side in their Canadian
>communities.
>Quite simply, I think that those who choose to ignore the poor,
>particularly the children of the poor, are despicable.
>And that opinion applies to all, regardless of the party label that they
>adopt.
>I trust that you concur.
Actually as I've said before, I agree with many of your opinions.
bad...@cow-net.com
at 12:30 AM, Chris J Delanoy <cdel...@ualberta.ca> said:
> bad...@cow-net.com wrote:
>> I see. And the class systems that existed in pre-capitalist society
>> are also the inventions of the loony left?
>There is only a "class system" insofar as there will always be people who
>are relatively poor and those who are relatively rich. Your error in
>judging this system is twofold: 1) You believe that the terms "rich" and
>"poor" are absolutes; and 2) You believe that precisely the same people
>occupy precisely the same positions in the structure at all times.
I have never made either claim. How could rich and poor be absolutes when
they depend on each other for definition. And of course there is mobility
in capitalist economies, its just much smaller than you'd like to believe.
Nor would it matter if there was a 100 per cent turnover in every
generation. It would still be "the rich", the powerful the influential.
>> Full employment economies are attainable.
>Definitely - but _productive_ full employment economies can only be
>created outside the realm of government interference.
Nonsense. There has never been and never be an economy outside the realm
of government interference. The reality is that as government
interference has declined so too has economic growth, while unemployment
has increased.
>If all you want is "full employment", we could do that tomorrow: we could
>order everybody to go out and dig a hole and fill it up again ad
>infinitum. There you go - they have a job by government decree. But if
>it's worthwhile, productive employment that you desire (and I don't see
>why even a nutbar like you wouldn't), then it can not be done by
>government regulation and strangulation - all of which are _necessarily_
>detriments to productive employment.
Look at interest rates not regulation as the chief obstacle to employment.
Post war Keynsian economies didn't achieve very low unemployment and
growing general prosperity through a lack of regulation or via government
decree.
>> Its interesting that you can only envision a more equal income
>> distribution through theft. You are completely incapable of
>> imagining a liberal democatic solution.
>The "liberal democratic" solution (taxation) is precisely equivalent to
>theft.
Only to a Libertarian!
>> You actually don't believe that all men are created equal, except
>> in a very narrow legalistic sense.
>The idea that all men are created equal means that every man - of any
>economic standing - has certain unalienable rights (life, liberty and the
>pursuit of happiness). And it is the protection of every individual -
>against any agressor large or small - that is the proper function of
>government.
Funny how the majority of your fellow citizens in all democracies think
quite differently. It is only the neocons and libertarians that wish to
so limit governments.
James Goneaux
>There has never been and never be an economy outside the realm
>of government interference.
Then why is the government so concernned with the underground economy?
John Ross
>
> > > > Keynesianism is a discredited system. For example, the existence
of high
> > > > inflation and high unemployment, stagflation, is a condition that
is
> > > > *impossible* according to Keynes. Yet just such a condition
existed in the
> > > > 70's. Do you want to return to those days?
> > >
> > > ending fixed exchange rates caused those conditions to exist simple
> >
> > Simple? Please explain how ending fixed exchange rates caused high
> > inflation and high unemployment sumultaneously. I have never heard
this
> > theory so I am sure it will be interesting. If you are proposing
something
> > about movement of capital bear in mind this was a world wide phenomena
and
> > capital moves from one place to another.
>
> Don`t you get It John pressure on currency by the end of bretton
woods
> caused governments to reduce spending. deficits increased due to high
> interest rates and increased social spending due to the slowed economy,
> This was due primarily to decreased government involvement in the
economy.
> It was an abandonment of Keynes that lead to the problems in the 70`s.
I am trying to fathom how you are explaining high unemployment and high
inflation at the same time using Keynesian principles.
You are saying there was increased social spending but decreased government
involvement in the economy. So the increased social spending caused a
disincentive to work leading to high unemployment? The solution is to
cutback social spending? Interesting.
Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>
And you hysterical, violence prone, psychotic anti-Harris postings
indicate *your* sense of proportion?
john monteith
John Carrick wrote:
> >From my POV there is nothing wrong with having a "rich" class. I think
> >income is a good motivator. I do oppose the rich having greater influence
> >over political, economic or monetary policy.
>
> 1. There will always be people who are brighter than others,
> harder-working than others, more dishonest than others, or luckier
> than others - or some combination of the above - who end up
> with more money than most others and with all the things that money
> can buy.
>
> 2. That is not only unavoidable, but it is sometimes a good thing.
> Society ought to reward those who, through greater ability and/or
> greater effort improve themselves financially. They might be termed
> "the acquisitive class", when they show major interest in
> accumulating an ever-increasing amount of wealth.
>
> (At the same time, we ought to discourage theose whoattempt to become
> wealthy through sharp practices and criminal activity. I take it that
> when you praise the existence of the wealthy, you are not including
> illegal drug kingpins, bank robbers, or stock market swindlers; that
> is, you don't approve of people getting rich *any* way they can.)
>
> 3. Once you have a wealthy segment of the population, the question
> arises, "What proportion of their wealth is it reasonable to ask them
> to contribute to the general good?" Your answer will determine the
> level of taxation to which this group will be subjected.
>
> There are those who argue that any *graduated* tax scheme serves as a
> disincentive to the acquisitive classes. They further suggest that
> the entire economy will suffer, if the financially ambitious/rapacious
> are discouraged from striving to become ever more wealthy.
>
> Another body of opinion suggests that every one of us succeeds or
> fails financially within a local, regional, national, and internation-
> al economy. Frank Stronach makes millions of dollars a year with
> Magma and his other manufacturung endeavours. Yet, he could not
> make a dime if there were not an Ontario economy in which to operate.
> His company could not exist, if there were no Canadian nation
> providing him with infrastructure, a regulated employment regime,
> educated and trained workers, etc.
>
> THus, for anyone to suggest that every cent he makes is *his* alone,
> and that any taxation which he is legally required to pay to local,
> provincial or federal governments is somehow a vicious attack upon his
> right to make a living would be ***nonsense***, since without a
> context in which to work, he would be reduced to being a blacksmith,
> or a farmer, etc.
>
> I tire of right-wingers showing their faces in these forums, claiming
> that almost all government is superfluous, and expressing their
> resentment against the transfer of income from the wealthy to the
> poor.
>
> I particularly object to those who come on here whining about high
> taxes, but whose posts *****NEVER***** make any reference to the poor
> and the homeless....particularly to needy children.
>
> Such people have become victims of materialism, and have lost any
> sense of proportion, when they find nothin alarming in the spectacle
> of "haves" and "have nots" existing side by side in their Canadian
> communities.
>
> Quite simply, I think that those who choose to ignore the poor,
> particularly the children of the poor, are despicable.
>
> And that opinion applies to all, regardless of the party label that
> they adopt.
>
> I trust that you concur.
The mark of any "sound"" ideology or economic system is its ability to ignore
it`s liabilities.
John M
john monteith
James Goneaux wrote:
> On MCould it be that social democrats such as yourself believe that
> economic ideas that CREATE wealth are secondary to ideas of
> REDISTRIBUTING wealth?
wealth creation can include tax cuts as an engine for redistribution
as well as other time tested measures such as limits on currency
speculation and many other incentives.which give government latitude
the present challenge to all
ideologies seems to be creating a robust economy that has
as low or no inflation and total employment and low interest.
keep the very economically important "social safety net"
many social democrats are accepting that challenge to
go beyond the freidman "acceptance of natural forces"
which in reality aren`t natural at all. The present economic
pattern which you seem to favour accepts unemployment
as a hedge against inflation and ignores the widening gap in
wealth distribution. It strange how victory has been claimed
in the battle of economic ideology yet these persistent problems
increase. Its food for thought. economics with a moral imperative
is unavoidable and a worthy challenge.
John M
bad...@cow-net.com
Because it can't interfere as much as it would like to. <g>
Of course you realize I was talking about national economies as opposed to
any particular sector. Good to see you still enjoy stirring the pot.
I've grown concerned that the current election in Ontario was straining
your sense of humour. <g>
James Goneaux
>In <37398314....@news.gov.on.ca>, on 05/12/99
> at 01:34 PM, jam...@my-dejanews.com (James Goneaux) said:
>
>>On Wed, 12 May 1999 01:51:44 -0700, bad...@cow-net.com wrote:
>
>>>There has never been and never be an economy outside the realm
>>>of government interference.
>
>>Then why is the government so concernned with the underground economy?
>
>Because it can't interfere as much as it would like to. <g>
Maybe they could put someone totally useless in charge of the Ministry
of Trying to Find the Underground Economy. But I guess that would be
step down from the Minister of Flags, Sheila Copps.
>Of course you realize I was talking about national economies as opposed to
>any particular sector.
Well, yeah, but the fact is, rougue nations are like the underground
economy of the world. Good luck getting Feldbrugge out of the Grand
Caymans, for instance.
>Good to see you still enjoy stirring the pot.
Nah, that's not stirring the pot. Trust me, you'll know when I'm
stirring the pot, you lilly-livered commie simp.
>I've grown concerned that the current election in Ontario was straining
>your sense of humour. <g>
Hey, a busload of Tory Jugend just hijacked a party bus and picked up
some high school girls. Don't tell us Tories don't have a sense of
humour.
Although the Liberals seem upset: I guess they'll just have to steal
this idea too. What they have to do to get laid...
John Crawford
R. Hartle
John Ross wrote:
> john monteith <john_m...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <37385B87...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
> > > >
> > > Keynesianism is a discredited system. For example, the existence of
> high
> > > inflation and high unemployment, stagflation, is a condition that is
> > > *impossible* according to Keynes. Yet just such a condition existed in
> the
> > > 70's. Do you want to return to those days?
> >
> > ending fixed exchange rates caused those conditions to exist simple
>
> Simple? Please explain how ending fixed exchange rates caused high
> inflation and high unemployment sumultaneously. I have never heard this
> theory so I am sure it will be interesting. If you are proposing something
> about movement of capital bear in mind this was a world wide phenomena and
> capital moves from one place to another.
The reason for the stagflation was the misguided attempts by the right-wing
govts (Reagan, Thatcher, Muldoon, etc) to use high interest rates and the
resulting slowdown in the economy to drive up unemployment, which would then
lead to lower demands on the part of workers. On the other hand the bankers
and wealthy people with lots of money to invest were having a heyday getting
better returns from interest on bank accounts etc. than they would get from
stocks. So they actually took money out of the market rducing the amount of
capital available to companies who wanted to expand, develop new products, etc.
resulting in a further slowdown of the economy. Meanwhile these right-wing
govts also de-regulated the banking systems allowing banks to loan huge
additional sums of money without requiring them to have as much capital in
reserve. This move along with the prevalence of readily available credit for
consumers was like the Germans printing valueless money before the great
depression. It also prevented the price of goods from dropping due to a lack
of demand. Of course this high interest policy was also the main contributor
to the balooning federal deficit in this country as John Crow decided the govt
would borrow the (unsecured) money from private banks resulting in huge profits
for their shareholders, instead of the Bank of Canada which would have meant
the interest paid would go from one pocket of the govt into another.
>
>
> > and the resultant move away from supporting the economy.
> > keynes surely would have disagreed with that move.
>
> In times of high unemployment Keynes suggested that expansionary monetary
> and fiscal policies be used. In times of high inflation contractionary
> monetary and fiscal policies would slow the economy. Keynesians believe
> there is some sort of inverse relationship between unemployment and
> inflation. Well the 70's shot this theory away. High unemployment and
> high inflation existed *at the same time*. Keynesians scattered to the
> winds because they could not come up with any advice. Keep supporting the
> economy? In Keynesian theory that would have led to even higher inflation.
> But perhaps you think using money as wallpaper would be a fun thing.
>
As mentioned above, the "money wallpaper" is exactly what did happen which is
why there were record bankruptcies during the period. Making money more
readily available through lower interest rates is the policy that permits more
investment in developing new enterprises. That is also the means of creating
more jobs leading to vigorous growth in an economy. This is how the huge
deficits after the world wars were erased, and low interest rates have been
responsible for every economic boom this century.
>
> > As for discreditied. only by monitarists, and there love of speculators
> > This change is a long way from playing out and the resultant loss of
> > spending power by an increasing number will hurt the econonmy badly.
>
> What change are you talking about? Are you predicting a recession based on
> the abolishment of fixed exchange rates?
>
If there is a recession it will be because the policies of the right wing take
the money out of the pockets of workers who spend it on products, which create
demand which in turn keeps companies alive. Stock market speculation where the
capital needed to to keep an industry alive can be given and whisked away on
some uninformed gambler's whim is more destructive than anything else. That's
why regulations were initially introduced.
Andrew P Boulton
: >DEFEAT ORGANIZED LABOUR:
: >RE-ELECT MIKE HARRIS!
: What sort of garbage is this to append to a post?
Precisely! Mr. Harris will almost certainly never introduce right-to-work
legislation (and hence hasten the defeat of the big unions), so that sig
is misleading.
: Have you any notion how offensive this sort of thing is to decent
: people?
Yep... The mafia-esque tactics of organized "labour" always have been.
: Have a sense of proportion for Christ's sake!
He does... He seems to realize that unions have powers and influence
disproportionate to their fair share.
: And stick your anti-union materialism up your ass!
Unions' constant demands for inflated wages much higher than the real
market value seems pretty materialist to me. How are the goats doin', ol'
Carprick?
--
=======================================================
| Andrew P. Boulton |
| Radical Capitalist Warrior |
| com...@idirect.com -or- yu21...@yorku.ca |
| http://webhome.idirect.com/~cometx |
| Crush labor monopolies -- right-to-work laws _now!_ |
| THE VILLAGE PEOPLE RULE! |
=======================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Internet Direct. Have you heard about our :
: (416)233-2999, 1000 lines Do-It-Yourself Webserver? :
: T3 bandwidth, 9600-33,600bps+ISDN http://web.idirect.com :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Honest John
>
>>DEFEAT ORGANIZED LABOUR:
>>RE-ELECT MIKE HARRIS!
>
>What sort of garbage is this to append to a post?
>
>Have you any notion how offensive this sort of thing is to decent
>people?
>
>Have a sense of proportion for Christ's sake!
>
>And stick your anti-union materialism up your ass!
Carrick's back with usual anal pre-occupation! An indication of his
sexual orientation perhaps?
Bob Davies
John Carsick wrote:
>
> >DEFEAT ORGANIZED LABOUR:
> >RE-ELECT MIKE HARRIS!
>
> What sort of garbage is this to append to a post?
>
> Have you any notion how offensive this sort of thing is to decent
> people?
>
> Have a sense of proportion for Christ's sake!
>
> And stick your anti-union materialism up your ass!
--
Bob Davies
Socialism is about the equal distribution of poverty!
Learn about Socialism - everyone needs a laugh!
http://www.worldsocialism.org/
Chris J Delanoy
> But they do oppress. Why exactly is it necessary to define them?
> Its the sytem in place that has to be changed. The individuals who
> strongly support this system are neither here nor there, except in
> the political power they weild.
I agree that there are people who wield excessive political power.
The solution to this is to reduce the amount of political power
available, not increase it. All you do when you balloon the government
to meet your statist fantasies is give the parasites and thugs
more room.
And you must recognize the difference between political and economic
power. Political power - because it comes from the government - is
coercive in nature. Economic power comes only through voluntary
transaction - there is nothign coercive about it.
> > Look around yourself, Barry. Look at the incredible advantages
> > that freedom of human innovation has brought you - the monitor
> > you're looking at, the keyboard you're typing on, the car you
> > drive, the flushing toilet down the hall, the hydroponic marijuana
> > operation in your basement, etc.
> Capitalism and innovation continue to exist in a Keynsian system.
That's because it's a mixed system. The capitalist side of the
economy is what keeps it going - _despite_ the regulatory side.
Even Soviet Russia had an element of capitalism (in that it is
an impossibility to organize every aspect of human activity on
any appreciable scale - only voluntary (ie - capitalistic) organization
works) - but when this side is so heavily oppresed by the terror
and coercion of the state, it does very little good.
> Actually governments have been reduced extensively in Canada. By 6
> per cent on the federal level.
Spending on federal departments (ie - excluding transfers) has
_grown_. The federal government is getting larger.
> GB has not experienced unbridled prosperity. Elements with in GB
> have done very well, while others have done very poorly.
"very poorly" relatively. Because by every objective measure,
the entire nation is doing much better than it was twenty years
ago. The difference is startling, in fact.
> Economic growth is still only equal to Keynsian levels, while income
> distribution has become much worse.
Much worse? By what standard?
> >Because they're mixed. Because the government strangles them with
> >taxation and regulation.
> More of the same reforms. With only theory to back you up,
It's not only theory. Countries like the US in the 19th century,
Japan during the Meiji Restoration and (the best of all) Hong Kong
after World War II show precisely how incredible the possibilities
are in near-capitalistic societies.
The fact that you hold the ludicrous view that you are living worse
off than a pauper 150 years ago demonstrates just how remarkably
out of touch with these realities you really are.
> Because as consumers we act out of self interest. As citizens we
> act out of disinterest or community interest.
Everything you do is for your self-interest, Barry. The problem is
when enough people figure out that they can get together and rob
everybody else at gunpoint.
> Hong Kong was saved for the same reason that Chile didn't suffer.
Hong Kong was saved because it didn't have to wait for policians
or bureaucrats to react. Their prosperity after the World War II
is _precisely_ the result of the fact that the British government
ignored and disregarded them. The people were left alone to pursue
whatever they wanted to do with their lives - and the results (in a
infinitesimaly small country with no resources, remember) are nothing
short of spectacular.
> >They're mixed economies, and the market is what drives their success.
> >Although the controlled portion acts as a deterrent - and manifests
> >itself, for example, when we see statist thugs locking farmers in
prison
> >for selling their wheat. So much for your "looking out for the
little
> >guy" claim.
> You're joking. EC agriculture is so productive and prosperous
> because of subsidies.
It is "prosperous" because of bookkeeping - accounting which doesn't
account for the fact that it's subsidized in the first place.
> US and Cdn farmers are also heavily subsidized. The market
> has very little to do with agricultural prosperity.
Tell that to the 35 million people who starved in five years in a
nation with more arable land than the US and Canada combined.
> Manhattan for a string of beads. Yup both equal winners alright.
That's an urban legend to begin with, but even if it were true,
you would again be mistaken in looking at transactions through
your late-20th-century lens. You see the transaction (again, if
it had actually happened) as an exchange of "beads" for an island
covered in skyscrapers worth trillions of dollars.
> Yes do judge them against what proceeded them. Shorther working
> hours. Far fewer working days. Better housing, better food, better
> and safer communites, and freedom from starvation unless the whole
> community starved.
If this is your view of life in 17th and 18th century Britain (not to
mention the rest of Europe), then you have a serious problem. The
pre-industrial period was one of feudal oppression, bare subsistence
living, plague and pestilance, a 60%+ child mortality rate, an average
35-year lift span, etc. Your idlyllic view of children prancing
merrily in the street while their mothers hang laundry outside their
well-appointed storybook cottages is outrageously inconsistent with
history.
John Monroe
(bad...@cow-net.com) writes:
>
>>> International control of capital flows. International agreements to
>>> thwart capital flight. International agreements to keep interest
>>> rates at around 1 per cent.
What interest rates were ever kept at 1% (I assume you mean real
interest rates, but even so, the only real interest rates which ever
stayed as low as 1% for an extended period were those paid on savings
accounts) and what international agreements kept them there?
>
> Didn't happen before. In fact the exact opposite occured. Growth was
> higher, productivity gains were higher, wealth creation was higher. Don't
> know about savings, but I suspect they were higher as well. The modern
> "global" system is actually pretty poor at creating investment. Look at
> the 1.2 trillion dollars washing around in very short term currency
> speculation. Just think what this money could accomplish if it was
> invested.
I am not sure what you think happens to this money now, but it is invested
(except for the part borrowed by government and individuals to finance
current consumption) Reducing the amount in "short term currency
speculation" will not create additional money for investment, it will just
force a shift from short term borrowing to longer term borrowing. If I
choose to invest a million in "short term currency speculation", those are
still dollars which someone has to choose to borrow, which they will only
do if they can use the funds. Discouraging short term investments will
not add to the capital available for investment, it will only shift it
from short term to long term, and reduce the flexibility of the lender and
borrower.
John Monroe
bad...@cow-net.com
> bad...@cow-net.com wrote:
>> But they do oppress. Why exactly is it necessary to define them?
>> Its the sytem in place that has to be changed. The individuals who
>> strongly support this system are neither here nor there, except in
>> the political power they weild.
>I agree that there are people who wield excessive political power. The
>solution to this is to reduce the amount of political power available,
>not increase it. All you do when you balloon the government to meet your
>statist fantasies is give the parasites and thugs more room.
I really should dig out a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
Reducing the power of the state is not the solution. We're already
experiencing the fruits of that. Regulatory agencies bought and paid for
by large corps. International trade and capital agreements that limit the
power of our parliaments.
Nope the answer is increased democracy.
>And you must recognize the difference between political and economic
>power. Political power - because it comes from the government - is
>coercive in nature. Economic power comes only through voluntary
>transaction - there is nothign coercive about it.
I don't understand how you can live in the world and believe this stuff.
Its pure fantasy. Power is power. We either reserve the power to
ourselves through democratic government or we give the power to the
largest capitalist on the block.
>> Capitalism and innovation continue to exist in a Keynsian system.
>That's because it's a mixed system. The capitalist side of the economy
>is what keeps it going - _despite_ the regulatory side. Even Soviet
>Russia had an element of capitalism (in that it is an impossibility to
>organize every aspect of human activity on any appreciable scale - only
>voluntary (ie - capitalistic) organization works) - but when this side is
>so heavily oppresed by the terror and coercion of the state, it does very
>little good.
All capitalist economies are mixed economies. What does this have to do
with innovation?
>> Actually governments have been reduced extensively in Canada. By 6
>> per cent on the federal level.
>Spending on federal departments (ie - excluding transfers) has _grown_.
>The federal government is getting larger.
No it is getting smaller, relative to the size of the economy. Program
spending has decreased from a high of about 18 per cent to the current 12
per cent. Why would you question such a widely agreed upon fact?
>> Economic growth is still only equal to Keynsian levels, while income
>> distribution has become much worse.
>Much worse? By what standard?
The rich get richer the poor get poorer and the rest work longer and
harder to stay in the same place.
>> >Because they're mixed. Because the government strangles them with
>> >taxation and regulation.
>> More of the same reforms. With only theory to back you up,
>It's not only theory. Countries like the US in the 19th century, Japan
>during the Meiji Restoration and (the best of all) Hong Kong after World
>War II show precisely how incredible the possibilities are in
>near-capitalistic societies.
And they also show the horror of unregulated capitalism. Growth during
the Keynsian era was very high, with only very minor recessions. Taiwan
and Japan both did better and managed to maintain very low unemployment
rates with managed developement. Singapore as well.
As for the US during the 19th century. Panics as they were then described
were a periodic feature. Social conditions were very bad for the poor,
while the rich lived like Roman Emperors.
>The fact that you hold the ludicrous view that you are living worse off
>than a pauper 150 years ago demonstrates just how remarkably out of touch
>with these realities you really are.
You have to go back further than that if you want to compare being a
pauper before the industrial revolution and being a pauper today.
Capitalism has created a great deal of wealth. It is absolutely the best
system for producing wealth that the world has seen so far. In its
unregulated form it is a absolute horror for very large segments of the
population. Capitalism has to be socialized to make it work well for all
of us. Exactly the same way children have to be socialized in order to
take their place as responsible adults in society.
>> Because as consumers we act out of self interest. As citizens we
>> act out of disinterest or community interest.
>Everything you do is for your self-interest, Barry. The problem is when
>enough people figure out that they can get together and rob everybody
>else at gunpoint.
You are either incredibly selfish and selfcentred or completely dominated
by your ideology if you believe such nonsense. Selflessness is
commonplace.
>> Hong Kong was saved for the same reason that Chile didn't suffer.
>Hong Kong was saved because it didn't have to wait for policians or
>bureaucrats to react. Their prosperity after the World War II is
>_precisely_ the result of the fact that the British government ignored
>and disregarded them. The people were left alone to pursue whatever they
>wanted to do with their lives - and the results (in a infinitesimaly
>small country with no resources, remember) are nothing short of
>spectacular.
Ah Chris that would be a good argument if Hong Kong was the only country
(city state) in the region to prosper. Many states prospered, under very
different political systems. Singapore which is even smaller than Hong
Kong did even better. Singapore also has almost no resources.
>> You're joking. EC agriculture is so productive and prosperous
>> because of subsidies.
>It is "prosperous" because of bookkeeping - accounting which doesn't
>account for the fact that it's subsidized in the first place.
You're not making sense. You claimed that agriculture was so productive
because of capitalism.
>> US and Cdn farmers are also heavily subsidized. The market
>> has very little to do with agricultural prosperity.
>Tell that to the 35 million people who starved in five years in a nation
>with more arable land than the US and Canada combined.
Get a grip Chris. We're talking advanced industrial nations and they're
all capitalist.
>> Manhattan for a string of beads. Yup both equal winners alright.
>That's an urban legend to begin with, but even if it were true, you would
>again be mistaken in looking at transactions through your
>late-20th-century lens. You see the transaction (again, if it had
>actually happened) as an exchange of "beads" for an island covered in
>skyscrapers worth trillions of dollars.
Ah Chris. You claim that both parties win in a voluntary exchange in the
free market. Yet its obvious that in order for both parties to win, both
parties must have exactly the same skills, and the same information and
neither must be disadvantaged by extraneous circumstances, such as
starvation or a mortgage payment or what ever. It just doesn't work that
way all the time.
>> Yes do judge them against what proceeded them. Shorther working
>> hours. Far fewer working days. Better housing, better food, better
>> and safer communites, and freedom from starvation unless the whole
>> community starved.
>If this is your view of life in 17th and 18th century Britain (not to
>mention the rest of Europe), then you have a serious problem. The
>pre-industrial period was one of feudal oppression, bare subsistence
>living, plague and pestilance, a 60%+ child mortality rate, an average
>35-year lift span, etc. Your idlyllic view of children prancing merrily
>in the street while their mothers hang laundry outside their
>well-appointed storybook cottages is outrageously inconsistent with
>history.
Feudal oppression was mostly far more benign than capitalist oppression.
Which of course explains the resistance to the emergence of capitalism by
the common people. Life got worse and continued to decline for a very
long time.
bad...@cow-net.com
at 03:23 AM, aw...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Monroe) said:
> (bad...@cow-net.com) writes:
>>
>>>> International control of capital flows. International agreements to
>>>> thwart capital flight. International agreements to keep interest
>>>> rates at around 1 per cent.
>What interest rates were ever kept at 1% (I assume you mean real interest
>rates, but even so, the only real interest rates which ever stayed as
>low as 1% for an extended period were those paid on savings accounts) and
>what international agreements kept them there?
The average real interest rate between 1945 and 1973 was 1 per cent. Look
it up John. Capital was very cheap. If you wanted to make money with
your money you had to put it to work.
From Stats
Can (Cat. No. 13-201) and Finance Canada (Economic Reference
Tables 1994) Average Real interest rate paid on public debt 1962 to 1981
0.9%. Average Real interest paid on public debt 1982 to 1992 7.5%.
>>
>> Didn't happen before. In fact the exact opposite occured. Growth was
>> higher, productivity gains were higher, wealth creation was higher. Don't
>> know about savings, but I suspect they were higher as well. The modern
>> "global" system is actually pretty poor at creating investment. Look at
>> the 1.2 trillion dollars washing around in very short term currency
>> speculation. Just think what this money could accomplish if it was
>> invested.
>I am not sure what you think happens to this money now, but it is
>invested (except for the part borrowed by government and individuals to
>finance current consumption) Reducing the amount in "short term currency
>speculation" will not create additional money for investment, it will
>just force a shift from short term borrowing to longer term borrowing.
>If I choose to invest a million in "short term currency speculation",
>those are still dollars which someone has to choose to borrow, which they
>will only do if they can use the funds. Discouraging short term
>investments will not add to the capital available for investment, it will
>only shift it from short term to long term, and reduce the flexibility of
>the lender and borrower.
That certainly is the current theory. The reality of course is that
speculation increases instability, while decreasing capital investment in
capital goods. The shift from short term borrowing to long term borrowing
is exactly what the Tobin tax is designed to do. Reducing the flexibility
of the lender is a great idea.
John Monroe
(bad...@cow-net.com) writes:
> In <7hdgjf$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, on 05/13/99
> at 03:23 AM, aw...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Monroe) said:
>
>
> The average real interest rate between 1945 and 1973 was 1 per cent. Look
> it up John. Capital was very cheap. If you wanted to make money with
> your money you had to put it to work.
>
> From Stats
> Can (Cat. No. 13-201) and Finance Canada (Economic Reference
> Tables 1994) Average Real interest rate paid on public debt 1962 to 1981
> 0.9%. Average Real interest paid on public debt 1982 to 1992 7.5%.
>
paid in the year divided by federal debt less the CPI inflation in
the year is a totally meaningless number, because much of the federal debt
is at rates locked in in prior years, and has nothing to do with the
current year's inflation or interest rates. This number will be low in
years of increasing inflation and interest rates, and high in years of
declining inflation and interest rates. Real interest rates defined as
the interest rate on short term government borrowing less current
inflation, have never been as low as 1% for an extended period.
>
>>>
>
>
>>I am not sure what you think happens to this money now, but it is
>>invested (except for the part borrowed by government and individuals to
>>finance current consumption) Reducing the amount in "short term currency
>>speculation" will not create additional money for investment, it will
>>just force a shift from short term borrowing to longer term borrowing.
>>If I choose to invest a million in "short term currency speculation",
>>those are still dollars which someone has to choose to borrow, which they
>>will only do if they can use the funds. Discouraging short term
>>investments will not add to the capital available for investment, it will
>>only shift it from short term to long term, and reduce the flexibility of
>>the lender and borrower.
>
> That certainly is the current theory. The reality of course is that
> speculation increases instability, while decreasing capital investment in
> capital goods. The shift from short term borrowing to long term borrowing
> is exactly what the Tobin tax is designed to do. Reducing the flexibility
> of the lender is a great idea.
Don't forget that the borrower's flexibility is also reduced. If I have
to finance a seasonal inventory, or fluctuating accounts receivable, I
don't want to issue long term bonds, I want the flexibility to borrow
short term or invest my short term cash, with the assurance that if I
miscalculate my cash flow, there is a liquid secondary market where I can
borrow or purchase securities. Reducing this flexibility adds to the cost
to business.
John Monroe
john monteith
John Ross wrote:
> john monteith <john_m...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <3738F900...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
> >
>
> > > > > Keynesianism is a discredited system. For example, the existence
> of high
> > > > > inflation and high unemployment, stagflation, is a condition that
> is
> > > > > *impossible* according to Keynes. Yet just such a condition
> existed in the
> > > > > 70's. Do you want to return to those days?
> > > >
> > > > ending fixed exchange rates caused those conditions to exist simple
> > >
> > > Simple? Please explain how ending fixed exchange rates caused high
> > > inflation and high unemployment sumultaneously. I have never heard
> this
> > > theory so I am sure it will be interesting. If you are proposing
> something
> > > about movement of capital bear in mind this was a world wide phenomena
> and
> > > capital moves from one place to another.
> >
> > Don`t you get It John pressure on currency by the end of bretton
> woods
> > caused governments to reduce spending. deficits increased due to high
> > interest rates and increased social spending due to the slowed economy,
> > This was due primarily to decreased government involvement in the
> economy.
> > It was an abandonment of Keynes that lead to the problems in the 70`s.
>
> I am trying to fathom how you are explaining high unemployment and high
> inflation at the same time using Keynesian principles.
I wasn't trying to? I was explaining the end to fixed exchange rates and its
resultant effect on the economy. most economist on all sides of the debate
feel Bretton Woods brought us to the end of Keynesian policies and moved
us into a monetarist era. My point was simply and I ll state it again.
The end of fixed exchange rates brought about high inflation and interest rates
which ( here we go again) which raised the debt to government
>
> You are saying there was increased social spending but decreased government
> involvement in the economy. So the increased social spending caused a
> disincentive to work leading to high unemployment?
NO
> The solution is to
> cutback social spending? that
> is the current solution, certainly not mine.
I will assume I didn't make myself clear rather than an intentional
effort on you part to discuss this issue by misrepresenting my point.
John M
John Ross
<3739E0B5...@cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>
> >
> > Simple? Please explain how ending fixed exchange rates caused high
> > inflation and high unemployment sumultaneously. I have never heard
this
> > theory so I am sure it will be interesting. If you are proposing
something
> > about movement of capital bear in mind this was a world wide phenomena
and
> > capital moves from one place to another.
>
right-wing
> govts (Reagan, Thatcher, Muldoon, etc) to use high interest rates and the
> resulting slowdown in the economy to drive up unemployment, which would
then
> lead to lower demands on the part of workers.
Reagan and Thatcher appeared in the 80's. I am talking about the 70's when
all the governments believed in Keynesianism and were following Keynesian
principles yet inexplicably stagflation occurred. No one can explain why
stagflation occurred according to Keynesianism principles because it was
supposed to be impossible. It is like asking to explain how a perpetual
motion machine works according to Thermodynamics. If a perpetual machine
were to be discovered then we would have to throw out the Laws of
Thermodynamics. This is what happened in the 70's. Stagflation occurred
and so the underlying theory of Keynesianism has been thrown out(except by
some fringe economists). The only escape has been various theories that
shocks, eg the oil crisis of the 70's, somehow suspended Keynesianism. But
we have long since absorbed the oil crisis and inflation and unemployment
is still a problem.
Our Lesson: An inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment
does *not* exist. It is possible to have low inflation and low
unemployment *simultaneously*.
James Goneaux
>>R. Hartle <har...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote in article
>> The reason for the stagflation was the misguided attempts by the right-wing
>> govts (Reagan, Thatcher, Muldoon, etc) to use high interest rates and the
>> resulting slowdown in the economy to drive up unemployment, which would then
>> lead to lower demands on the part of workers.
>
>Reagan and Thatcher appeared in the 80's. I am talking about the 70's when
>all the governments believed in Keynesianism and were following Keynesian
>principles yet inexplicably stagflation occurred. No one can explain why
>stagflation occurred according to Keynesianism principles because it was
>supposed to be impossible.
For a view of what Keynesian economics CAN'T explain:
pbuc...@bigfoot.com
john monteith <john_m...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Don`t you get It John pressure on currency by the end of bretton
woods
> caused governments to reduce spending. deficits increased due to high
> interest rates and increased social spending due to the slowed
economy,
> This was due primarily to decreased government involvement in the
economy.
> It was an abandonment of Keynes that lead to the problems in the
70`s.
> has been the case since the mid 70`s. only now we are merely limping
> along by controlling short term interest rates in order to stabilize
prices.
> this has helped speculators by allowing them in effect to dictate
> the monitary policy of individual government forcing them to
> not spend in order to "support their currency" this has in effect
> caused a widening in wealth distribution over the past 25
> years which it is felt will "flatten out" this isn`t happening and
will,
> down the line I feel hurt the entire economy. much like the depression
> although this time we might move back towards some control of
> currency speculation and allow governments some latitude. I am not
sure
> JOhn I have dealt with you questions fully but it would take pages to
> explain in more depth. You will probably feel that the market will
> flatten out enough to allow government the latitude to increase
revenues
> and support the neccessary government infrastructure. or you might
> debate the widening gap in wealth distrbution or not feel any
governmet
> involvement is necessary
>
> John M
>
> >
> >
> > > and the resultant move away from supporting the economy.
> > > keynes surely would have disagreed with that move.
> >
> >
>
> they should have brought back Bretton Woods.
> I am not sure why they got rid of it actually and now there are
> rumblings of controls on monitary speculation which makes sense.
Well John...if you and Barry Adams had a little more respect for
economics you might learn enough to answer your questions.
Bretton Woods was abandoned by the US after posting current account
deficits in the 60's. Fixed exchange rates are disasterous when there
is a free exchange of capital. This is certainly proven in Thailand's
experience with the Asian flu. Thailand refused to take new steps to
curb its current-account deficit and reduce short-term foreign
borrowing. Thailand linked its currency to the dollar as a way of
limiting inflation. As the dollar rose, it's economy lost it's
competitiveness.
The fact is that with a fixed currency, interest rates cannot be
changed to slow an overheating economy. Money is borrowed at an
excessive rate for questionable ventures.
Fixing exchange rates may be great to get inflation down but it doesn't
adjust inflation to world levels and can really make a country
uncompetitive. That was the US's fear and situation in the 60's...that
is why they decided to get away from Bretton Woods.
So why don't we limit capital flows? Advocates like yourself and Barry
seem to have this magical solution that the "stupid economists" never
thought of. Unfortunately your answer is simplistic and uninformed
(can't blame you two...why should you read things from people who study
a "non-science"?). The fact is that capital flows are extemely
difficult to regulate. Even in Chile (where this was tried)...two
Chilean economist (Soto & Valdes-Prieto) found that the controls were
not really effective. Evidence seems to point to the actions of
solidifying the domestic banks as the true cause of Chile's success.
Beyond that...we owe our standard of living to capital flows. How does
one import or export technological innovations without capital flows?
How does one import or export knowledge or expertise without capital
flows? Specialization has lead to huge technological advantages (to all
you people who studied economics...remember the guns vs butter curve?)
Anyways...only by 2 cents worth. Do with the information what you will.
John Ross
john monteith <john_m...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<373AED4...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
>
>
> I wasn't trying to? I was explaining the end to fixed exchange rates and
its
> resultant effect on the economy. most economist on all sides of the
debate
> feel Bretton Woods brought us to the end of Keynesian policies and moved
> us into a monetarist era.
Keynesianism was so firmly established that it was taken as gospel by
economists in the 60's. It was the advent of stagflation, unexplainable by
Keynesians, that brought an end to Keynesian policies being used in an
attempt to manage the economy. Even in the teeth of contradictory evidence
Keynesian policies were still used in some countries but simply did not
work, eg in the UK.
> My point was simply and I ll state it again.
> The end of fixed exchange rates brought about high inflation and interest
rates
> which ( here we go again) which raised the debt to government
I won't argue about the causes of stagflation, my point was that Barry
Adams was advocating the return of Keynesian policies without being
aware(or ignoring) the problems with the theory.
bad...@cow-net.com
>> The average real interest rate between 1945 and 1973 was 1 per cent. Look
>> it up John. Capital was very cheap. If you wanted to make money with
>> your money you had to put it to work.
>>
>> From Stats
>> Can (Cat. No. 13-201) and Finance Canada (Economic Reference
>> Tables 1994) Average Real interest rate paid on public debt 1962 to 1981
>> 0.9%. Average Real interest paid on public debt 1982 to 1992 7.5%.
>>
>fAs I have pointed out before, this number, the total federal interest
>paid in the year divided by federal debt less the CPI inflation in the
>year is a totally meaningless number, because much of the federal debt is
>at rates locked in in prior years, and has nothing to do with the current
>year's inflation or interest rates. This number will be low in years of
>increasing inflation and interest rates, and high in years of declining
>inflation and interest rates. Real interest rates defined as the
>interest rate on short term government borrowing less current inflation,
>have never been as low as 1% for an extended period.
Sorry I couldn't find the correct source so I posted the above.
"Real interest rates in Canada were 1 per cent or less for the two decades
before monetarism became the creed; during the 80's they averaged 3.5 per
cent on short term investments, and 4.6 per cent for longer terms. Canada
had higher interest rates than any of our major trade competitors, and
among the highest of any developed country. "
Clarence L Barber, "Monetary and Fiscal Policy in the 1980s," in "False
Promises: The Failure of Conservative Economics".
I've also got a quote from Gillespie out of his study of debts and
deficits in Canada since Confederation, but I can't seem to find it at the
moment. He quotes directly from a Stats Can study for his data.
>> That certainly is the current theory. The reality of course is that
>> speculation increases instability, while decreasing capital investment in
>> capital goods. The shift from short term borrowing to long term borrowing
>> is exactly what the Tobin tax is designed to do. Reducing the flexibility
>> of the lender is a great idea.
>Don't forget that the borrower's flexibility is also reduced. If I have
>to finance a seasonal inventory, or fluctuating accounts receivable, I
>don't want to issue long term bonds, I want the flexibility to borrow
>short term or invest my short term cash, with the assurance that if I
>miscalculate my cash flow, there is a liquid secondary market where I can
>borrow or purchase securities. Reducing this flexibility adds to the cost
>to business.
Yes I agree. I think, though I'm no expert, this is one of the reasons
that many neo-keynsians favour a flexible tobin type tax to act as a
disincentive, rather than attempting to return to fixed exchange rates.
None the less its clear that even under the burden of fixed exchange rates
and other capital controls, gdp growth was twice as high in the
industrialized world.
bad...@cow-net.com
>Reagan and Thatcher appeared in the 80's. I am talking about the 70's
>when all the governments believed in Keynesianism and were following
>Keynesian principles yet inexplicably stagflation occurred.
Central Banks had already abandoned keynsian monetary policy in favour of
monetarism.
From: Donners and Peters "Monetarist Counter-Revolution" p 11
Tom Courchene, an economist and monetarist at Queens "in thought and word,
the Bank of Canada probably qualifies for the designation of the world's
most monetarist central bank."
>No one can
>explain why stagflation occurred according to Keynesianism principles
>because it was supposed to be impossible. It is like asking to explain
>how a perpetual motion machine works according to Thermodynamics. If a
>perpetual machine were to be discovered then we would have to throw out
>the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is what happened in the 70's.
>Stagflation occurred and so the underlying theory of Keynesianism has
>been thrown out(except by some fringe economists). The only escape has
>been various theories that shocks, eg the oil crisis of the 70's, somehow
>suspended Keynesianism. But we have long since absorbed the oil crisis
>and inflation and unemployment is still a problem.
Absolutely false. There are many explanations, including the simple one
that keynsianism isn't possible when the central banks are practicing
monetarism.
>Our Lesson: An inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment
>does *not* exist. It is possible to have low inflation and low
>unemployment *simultaneously*.
True. And Keynes proved it years ago. The US is proving it yet again.
In other words full employment relatively low inflation economies are not
only possible, they are obviously superior. Your lesson should be that
full employment economies are only possible when interest rates are very
low.
bad...@cow-net.com
>For a view of what Keynesian economics CAN'T explain:
>http://www.polyconomics.com/redraw.html
And its nonsense. Of course Keynsians can explain it. Its just a
reworking of the Gold Standard using monetarism to control the money
supply. If the money supply is fixed prices have to drop to accomodate
either competition or economic growth. Nice principle.
In practice what happens is that those segments of the economy unable to
defend their prices and wages experience deflation. Now this works nicely
as long as full employment is defined as NAIRU or someother artificial
measurment. Because in fact it means there's still a pool of unemployed
around to act as drag on wage demands and on resistance to decreases in
wages. Add to that the mobility of capital, and the practice and threat
of moving production to low wage areas and you have a very good lever to
force declining or stable wages while productivity grows.
Helps explain the growing income disparities even though the economy is
growing at a very healthy rate and unemployement is officially quite low.
bad...@cow-net.com
>Well John...if you and Barry Adams had a little more respect for
>economics you might learn enough to answer your questions.
>Bretton Woods was abandoned by the US after posting current account
>deficits in the 60's. Fixed exchange rates are disasterous when there is
>a free exchange of capital. This is certainly proven in Thailand's
>experience with the Asian flu. Thailand refused to take new steps to curb
>its current-account deficit and reduce short-term foreign borrowing.
>Thailand linked its currency to the dollar as a way of limiting
>inflation. As the dollar rose, it's economy lost it's competitiveness.
Yes but under the Bretton Woods agreements there was supposed to be a
regulated not free exchange of cpaital. Bretton Woods was subverted
through the creation of the Euro Dollar Off Shore Funds, in London.
Fixed exchange rates, and regulated interest rates are only possible if
there is some control on capital movement.
>So why don't we limit capital flows? Advocates like yourself and Barry
>seem to have this magical solution that the "stupid economists" never
>thought of. Unfortunately your answer is simplistic and uninformed (can't
>blame you two...why should you read things from people who study a
>"non-science"?). The fact is that capital flows are extemely difficult to
>regulate. Even in Chile (where this was tried)...two Chilean economist
>(Soto & Valdes-Prieto) found that the controls were not really effective.
>Evidence seems to point to the actions of solidifying the domestic banks
>as the true cause of Chile's success.
Capital flows would be extremely easy to control. All it would require
would be an IMF regulation that capital flows be monitored in order to be
elegable for IMF loans. In practice it means all that would be required
would be that the US wanted to control capital flows.
>Beyond that...we owe our standard of living to capital flows. How does
>one import or export technological innovations without capital flows? How
>does one import or export knowledge or expertise without capital flows?
>Specialization has lead to huge technological advantages (to all you
>people who studied economics...remember the guns vs butter curve?)
humbug. No one is talking about locking capital in place. Just
regulating the flows.
john monteith
John Ross wrote:
but its a chicken and egg argument John My point was and you appear to agree
is that stagflation was caused by an end of fixed interest rates which was a
keynesian measure
John M
C.John Zammit
WebPoll
The Poll is open until 8:00 P.M. on Wednesday, May 26th.
Its results will be posted on the same website on Saturday, May 29th
and will be carried by most community newspapers.
Only one Vote per e-mail address will be accepted by the software--any
additional votes from the same address will be discarded.
All 103 Ontario Ridings are listed--just pick your Riding and your
choice of Party, or Independent/Protest Vote.
How accurate is this type of poll? As accurate as Your Vote.
------------------------------------------------
C.John Zammit
http://aq9.com/on99
------------------------------------------------
Barry Bruyea
<zam...@iaw.on.ca> wrote:
>Ontario residents are invited to participate in the Ontario Election
>WebPoll
>
>http://aq9.com/on99
>
>The Poll is open until 8:00 P.M. on Wednesday, May 26th.
>Its results will be posted on the same website on Saturday, May 29th
>and will be carried by most community newspapers.
>
>Only one Vote per e-mail address will be accepted by the software--any
>additional votes from the same address will be discarded.
Many, many people have more than one email address as every
web-service site and its brother is offering the service.
Steven C. Britton
>You could always quite posting your pro socialist drivel as well.
I wonder if John has any notion of how offensive his sort of thing is to
decent people...
----------------------------------------------------
DEFEAT ORGANIZED LABOUR:
RE-ELECT MIKE HARRIS!
Steven C. Britton
Calgary
"Trust the computer industry to shorten Year 2000 to Y2K.
It was this kind of thinking that caused the problem in the first place."
-- Tony Poldrugovac
Chris J Delanoy
> > I agree that there are people who wield excessive political power.
> > The solution to this is to reduce the amount of political power
> > available, not increase it. All you do when you balloon the
> > government to meet your statist fantasies is give the parasites
> > and thugs more room.
> I really should dig out a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
You're too fargone for it do you any good.
> Reducing the power of the state is not the solution. We're already
> experiencing the fruits of that.
No, we're not, because the power of the state is _increasing_. And
every alleged "sin" of capitalism and "the rich" that you've even
named here has been _directly_ related to government regulation and
control.
> Regulatory agencies bought and paid for by large corps.
Exactly. So scrap the regulatory agencies.
> Nope the answer is increased democracy.
You just want your gang to seize power from some other gang
of statist thugs. That's all it is to you: brute, animalistic
group warfare. Capitalism is the enemy of _all_ of the gangs - of
_all_ of the incarnations of statism, whether communistic,
socialistic, facsistic, monarchistic, theocratic, etc.
> We either reserve the power to ourselves through democratic
> government
The power reserved to government is that of brute force.
> > That's because it's a mixed system. The capitalist side of the
> > economy is what keeps it going - _despite_ the regulatory side.
> > Even Soviet Russia had an element of capitalism (in that it is an
> > impossibility to organize every aspect of human activity on any
> > appreciable scale - only voluntary (ie - capitalistic) organization
> > works) - but when this side is so heavily oppresed by the terror
> > and coercion of the state, it does very little good.
> All capitalist economies are mixed economies.
To a degree they have been, yes. But the issue is how much control.
In the US in the 19th century, the major control was a restriction of
international trade and "protective" tarrifs. In 20th century Hong
Kong, there were a smattering of controls - one example being rent
control, the existance of which is precisely why housing is scantly
available there.
> What does this have to do with innovation?
Because it's the capitalistic side of the economy which permits
people to pursue their intellectual interests and which _rewards_
them for doing it well. Regulations and government - because they
are coercive and nature - are necessarily a restriction on this
freedom.
> >Much worse? By what standard?
> The rich get richer the poor get poorer and the rest work longer and
> harder to stay in the same place.
Who has gotten poorer? Name him.
> > It's not only theory. Countries like the US in the 19th century,
> > Japan during the Meiji Restoration and (the best of all) Hong Kong
> > after World War II show precisely how incredible the possibilities
> > are in near-capitalistic societies.
> And they also show the horror of unregulated capitalism.
Such as? Precisely describe the "horror".
> Taiwan and Japan both did better and managed to maintain very low
> unemployment rates with managed developement.
But again with both we see that it is the capitalistic natures of
their economies which burst through. Japan became a world power
(either #1 or #2, depending on who you ask) in automobiles precisely
because the government left it free of nationalization and control.
Compare that success to, say, British Leyland.
> As for the US during the 19th century. Panics as they were then
> described were a periodic feature.
There were no panics on anywhere near the scale witnessed in the 1920s
once the Federal Reserve Board was fully responsible for "averting"
them (we all know, of course, that it was the incompetence of this
central government board that precipitated the Great Depression).
In the 1800s, every bank run was kept local precisely because the
banks in question were allowed to react themselves by a concerted
restriction of payments.
> Social conditions were very bad for the poor,
No they weren't. The 19th century was an era of enormous growth and
improvement.
> You have to go back further than that if you want to compare being a
> pauper before the industrial revolution and being a pauper today.
I rest my case - you're a nut. Anybody who has the wherewithall to
suggest that his life in 1999 is worse than _anybody's_ life in
pre-Industrial Britain must only be insane.
> Capitalism has created a great deal of wealth. It is absolutely
> the best system for producing wealth that the world has seen so far.
> In its unregulated form it is a absolute horror for very large
> segments of the population. Capitalism has to be socialized to make
> it work well for all of us.
Socialized - by whom?
> Ah Chris that would be a good argument if Hong Kong was the only
> country (city state) in the region to prosper. Many states
> prospered, under very different political systems. Singapore which
> is even smaller than Hong Kong did even better. Singapore also has
> almost no resources.
Singapore is largely capitalistic, as well. Their government is
more authoritarian, but as always, that goes back to exactly how
much power the government should have in the first place.
> >It is "prosperous" because of bookkeeping - accounting which doesn't
> >account for the fact that it's subsidized in the first place.
> You're not making sense. You claimed that agriculture was so
> productive because of capitalism.
The point is that EU agriculture _isn't_ "so" productive once you
factor the subsidies into the equation (ie - it's easy to make a
"profit" when your costs don't factor into the equation).
> >That's an urban legend to begin with, but even if it were true, you
> >would again be mistaken in looking at transactions through your
> >late-20th-century lens. You see the transaction (again, if it had
> >actually happened) as an exchange of "beads" for an island covered
> >in skyscrapers worth trillions of dollars.
> Ah Chris. You claim that both parties win in a voluntary exchange
> in the free market.
They do. If there is no coercion, then nobody (intelligent) would
make a transaction by which they lose some perceived value (whatever
their individual perception may be).
> Yet its obvious that in order for both parties to win, both
> parties must have exactly the same skills, and the same
> information
Rubbish. The free price system works automatically as the conduit
of information that is required in the transaction. It simultaneously
combines the demand and supply from literally millions of indivudal
points - and will suffice so long as there is no government forcibly
sending static into the information stream.
> Feudal oppression was mostly far more benign than capitalist
> oppression.
You have been unable to give even one example of "capitalist
oppression" that has not involved coercion by a government - precisely
the force that capitalism seeks to end.
Chris J Delanoy
> > I agree that there are people who wield excessive political power.
> > The solution to this is to reduce the amount of political power
> > available, not increase it. All you do when you balloon the
> > government to meet your statist fantasies is give the parasites
> > and thugs more room.
> I really should dig out a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
You're too fargone for it do you any good.
> Reducing the power of the state is not the solution. We're already
> experiencing the fruits of that.
No, we're not, because the power of the state is _increasing_. And
every alleged "sin" of capitalism and "the rich" that you've even
named here has been _directly_ related to government regulation and
control.
> Regulatory agencies bought and paid for by large corps.
Exactly. So scrap the regulatory agencies.
> Nope the answer is increased democracy.
You just want your gang to seize power from some other gang
of statist thugs. That's all it is to you: brute, animalistic
group warfare. Capitalism is the enemy of _all_ of the gangs - of
_all_ of the incarnations of statism, whether communistic,
socialistic, facsistic, monarchistic, theocratic, etc.
> We either reserve the power to ourselves through democratic
> government
The power reserved to government is that of brute force.
> > That's because it's a mixed system. The capitalist side of the
> > economy is what keeps it going - _despite_ the regulatory side.
> > Even Soviet Russia had an element of capitalism (in that it is an
> > impossibility to organize every aspect of human activity on any
> > appreciable scale - only voluntary (ie - capitalistic) organization
> > works) - but when this side is so heavily oppresed by the terror
> > and coercion of the state, it does very little good.
> All capitalist economies are mixed economies.
To a degree they have been, yes. But the issue is how much control.
In the US in the 19th century, the major control was a restriction of
international trade and "protective" tarrifs. In 20th century Hong
Kong, there were a smattering of controls - one example being rent
control, the existance of which is precisely why housing is scantly
available there.
> What does this have to do with innovation?
Because it's the capitalistic side of the economy which permits
people to pursue their intellectual interests and which _rewards_
them for doing it well. Regulations and government - because they
are coercive and nature - are necessarily a restriction on this
freedom.
> >Much worse? By what standard?
> The rich get richer the poor get poorer and the rest work longer and
> harder to stay in the same place.
Who has gotten poorer? Name him.
> > It's not only theory. Countries like the US in the 19th century,
> > Japan during the Meiji Restoration and (the best of all) Hong Kong
> > after World War II show precisely how incredible the possibilities
> > are in near-capitalistic societies.
> And they also show the horror of unregulated capitalism.
Such as? Precisely describe the "horror".
> Taiwan and Japan both did better and managed to maintain very low
> unemployment rates with managed developement.
But again with both we see that it is the capitalistic natures of
their economies which burst through. Japan became a world power
(either #1 or #2, depending on who you ask) in automobiles precisely
because the government left it free of nationalization and control.
Compare that success to, say, British Leyland.
> As for the US during the 19th century. Panics as they were then
> described were a periodic feature.
There were no panics on anywhere near the scale witnessed in the 1920s
once the Federal Reserve Board was fully responsible for "averting"
them (we all know, of course, that it was the incompetence of this
central government board that precipitated the Great Depression).
In the 1800s, every bank run was kept local precisely because the
banks in question were allowed to react themselves by a concerted
restriction of payments.
> Social conditions were very bad for the poor,
No they weren't. The 19th century was an era of enormous growth and
improvement.
> You have to go back further than that if you want to compare being a
> pauper before the industrial revolution and being a pauper today.
I rest my case - you're a nut. Anybody who has the wherewithall to
suggest that his life in 1999 is worse than _anybody's_ life in
pre-Industrial Britain must only be insane.
> Capitalism has created a great deal of wealth. It is absolutely
> the best system for producing wealth that the world has seen so far.
> In its unregulated form it is a absolute horror for very large
> segments of the population. Capitalism has to be socialized to make
> it work well for all of us.
Socialized - by whom?
> Ah Chris that would be a good argument if Hong Kong was the only
> country (city state) in the region to prosper. Many states
> prospered, under very different political systems. Singapore which
> is even smaller than Hong Kong did even better. Singapore also has
> almost no resources.
Singapore is largely capitalistic, as well. Their government is
more authoritarian, but as always, that goes back to exactly how
much power the government should have in the first place.
> >It is "prosperous" because of bookkeeping - accounting which doesn't
> >account for the fact that it's subsidized in the first place.
> You're not making sense. You claimed that agriculture was so
> productive because of capitalism.
The point is that EU agriculture _isn't_ "so" productive once you
factor the subsidies into the equation (ie - it's easy to make a
"profit" when your costs don't factor into the equation).
> >That's an urban legend to begin with, but even if it were true, you
> >would again be mistaken in looking at transactions through your
> >late-20th-century lens. You see the transaction (again, if it had
> >actually happened) as an exchange of "beads" for an island covered
> >in skyscrapers worth trillions of dollars.
> Ah Chris. You claim that both parties win in a voluntary exchange
> in the free market.
They do. If there is no coercion, then nobody (intelligent) would
make a transaction by which they lose some perceived value (whatever
their individual perception may be).
> Yet its obvious that in order for both parties to win, both
> parties must have exactly the same skills, and the same
> information
Rubbish. The free price system works automatically as the conduit
of information that is required in the transaction. It simultaneously
combines the demand and supply from literally millions of indivudal
points - and will suffice so long as there is no government forcibly
sending static into the information stream.
> Feudal oppression was mostly far more benign than capitalist
> oppression.
You have been unable to give even one example of "capitalist
oppression" that has not involved coercion by a government - precisely
the force that capitalism seeks to end.
Chris J Delanoy
James Goneaux
Bruyea) wrote:
>On Thu, 13 May 1999 18:22:57 -0400, "C.John Zammit"
><zam...@iaw.on.ca> wrote:
>
>>Ontario residents are invited to participate in the Ontario Election
>>WebPoll
>>
>>http://aq9.com/on99
>>
>>The Poll is open until 8:00 P.M. on Wednesday, May 26th.
>>Its results will be posted on the same website on Saturday, May 29th
>>and will be carried by most community newspapers.
>>
>>Only one Vote per e-mail address will be accepted by the software--any
>>additional votes from the same address will be discarded.
>
>Many, many people have more than one email address as every
>web-service site and its brother is offering the service.
Well, I guess the Liberals can count on three votes from Kent\Fred\...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Free enterprise can be free of all sorts of things including ethics." P.J. O'Rourke
John Monroe
(bad...@cow-net.com) writes:
>
> Sorry I couldn't find the correct source so I posted the above.
>
> "Real interest rates in Canada were 1 per cent or less for the two decades
> before monetarism became the creed; during the 80's they averaged 3.5 per
> cent on short term investments, and 4.6 per cent for longer terms. Canada
> had higher interest rates than any of our major trade competitors, and
> among the highest of any developed country. "
>
> Clarence L Barber, "Monetary and Fiscal Policy in the 1980s," in "False
> Promises: The Failure of Conservative Economics".
>
the source of Mr Barber's numbers, and how he defines real interest rates,
and how he defines "the two decades before monetarism became the creed."
If his article does not at least provide that information, in my opinion
it is hardly worth quoting.
> None the less its clear that even under the burden of fixed exchange rates
> and other capital controls, gdp growth was twice as high in the
> industrialized world.
I agree that we would be better of with fixed (or more stable) exchange
rates, at least among similar economies. If Canada's exchange rate with
respect to the US dollar had been fixed, it would have meant higher
interest rates and lower inflation in the 1970s, reducing the need for
high interest rates in the 1980s, and preventing John Crow's over-reaction
to inflation. Many countries in the European Union have maintained stable
exchange rates with each other for quite some time. I do not think a Tobin
tax would do anything at all to promote such stability. Currencies and
securities which are illiquid fluctuate in value as much as, if not more
than, those which are liquid, so making the market less liquid will not
promote stability.
John Monroe
bad...@cow-net.com
>> I really should dig out a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
>You're too fargone for it do you any good.
Not at all. It still has the power to bring tears of unconstrained humour
to my eyes.
>> Reducing the power of the state is not the solution. We're already
>> experiencing the fruits of that.
>No, we're not, because the power of the state is _increasing_. And every
>alleged "sin" of capitalism and "the rich" that you've even named here
>has been _directly_ related to government regulation and control.
You really do live in a fantasy land.
>> Regulatory agencies bought and paid for by large corps.
>Exactly. So scrap the regulatory agencies.
No we need the regulatory agencies. Limit the power of the corporations
to influence the regulatory agencies. Which really means limit the power
of large corporations.
>> Nope the answer is increased democracy.
>You just want your gang to seize power from some other gang
>of statist thugs. That's all it is to you: brute, animalistic group
>warfare. Capitalism is the enemy of _all_ of the gangs - of _all_ of the
>incarnations of statism, whether communistic,
>socialistic, facsistic, monarchistic, theocratic, etc.
You're really very confused Chris. Capitalism creates larger and larger
enterprises. These enterprises become minature (well not so minature
anymore) totalitarian states. These states are the true statist thugs.
They will do anything they think they can get away with to grow and
prosper.
Democracy is our best hope of freeing ourselves from such thuggery (full
historical meaning intended). No vanguards of the revolution need apply
and that includes a capitalist overlord class.
>> We either reserve the power to ourselves through democratic
>> government
>The power reserved to government is that of brute force.
All power in the end depends on brute force. Or as Chairman Mao used to
say, power comes from the barrel of a gun. Our task is to create a system
that is so just, so equitable, so democratic; that the gun is rarely
needed.
>> All capitalist economies are mixed economies.
>To a degree they have been, yes. But the issue is how much control. In
>the US in the 19th century, the major control was a restriction of
>international trade and "protective" tarrifs. In 20th century Hong Kong,
>there were a smattering of controls - one example being rent control, the
>existance of which is precisely why housing is scantly available there.
You really look back to the gilded age with rose tinted glasses Chris.
All controls have negative consequences. The question for reasonable
people should be, do the controls have a net positive effect, and how can
we minimize the negative consequences. In the new (really old) global
enviornment, no attempt is made to even determine the net results let
alone mitigate against them. Why? Because its an article of faith that
the free market ALWAYS creates the best POSSIBLE conditions. Nonsense of
course but there you have it.
>> What does this have to do with innovation?
>Because it's the capitalistic side of the economy which permits people to
>pursue their intellectual interests and which _rewards_ them for doing it
>well. Regulations and government - because they are coercive and nature
>- are necessarily a restriction on this freedom.
Nah. You just haven't spent that much time with truly creative people.
The overwhelming majority of them don't give a fig about material success
as long as they and their family are comfortable. What they care about is
the "WORK". Its the exploiters of innovation that are obsessed with
material reward. Believe me, they will work for much less, if much less
is all they can expect.
>> >Much worse? By what standard?
>> The rich get richer the poor get poorer and the rest work longer and
>> harder to stay in the same place.
>Who has gotten poorer? Name him.
Do try to follow the discussion Chris. There is more than enough data to
show how income and asset distribution has changed over the last 30 years.
Of course a far more graphic example is the relationship between rich and
poor nations.
>> > It's not only theory. Countries like the US in the 19th century,
>> > Japan during the Meiji Restoration and (the best of all) Hong Kong
>> > after World War II show precisely how incredible the possibilities
>> > are in near-capitalistic societies.
>> And they also show the horror of unregulated capitalism.
>Such as? Precisely describe the "horror".
Child labour, longer working hours, in declining working conditions. Less
holidays. No community. No freedom from fear of starvation. In fact a
return to serfdom without reciprocal obligations from the Lord.
>> Taiwan and Japan both did better and managed to maintain very low
>> unemployment rates with managed developement.
>But again with both we see that it is the capitalistic natures of their
>economies which burst through. Japan became a world power (either #1 or
>#2, depending on who you ask) in automobiles precisely because the
>government left it free of nationalization and control. Compare that
>success to, say, British Leyland.
That has nothing to do with the argument Chris. Though in fact your whole
argument depends on it. Keynsianism doesn't demand the nationalization of
anything. Nationalization, government ownership may or may not make
sense, may or may not be successful, in any given set of circumstances.
Really this is just like you very low or zero inflation argument. It
rests on extreme results that have nothing to do with the underlying
theory and practice of Keynsian economics.
>> As for the US during the 19th century. Panics as they were then
>> described were a periodic feature.
>There were no panics on anywhere near the scale witnessed in the 1920s
>once the Federal Reserve Board was fully responsible for "averting" them
>(we all know, of course, that it was the incompetence of this central
>government board that precipitated the Great Depression). In the 1800s,
>every bank run was kept local precisely because the banks in question
>were allowed to react themselves by a concerted restriction of payments.
Actually we don't know this at all. There is no doubt that the Fed
Reserve had an effect on what happened. The major problem though was that
the crisis involved the financial sector. The Fed response was totally
incorrect. Instead of dramatically lowering interest rates and
dramatically increasing the money supply they did the opposite.
Compare that with the effects of the collapse of the banking system in
Japan. The government has continued to increase spending and has kept
interest rates at very low rates. The effects of the collapse have been
pretty severe, but no where near as devasting as the Great Depression.
Which goes to show that even central bankers can learn, though very
reluctantly it seems.
>> Social conditions were very bad for the poor,
>No they weren't. The 19th century was an era of enormous growth and
>improvement.
For a few, but not for the many.
>> You have to go back further than that if you want to compare being a
>> pauper before the industrial revolution and being a pauper today.
>I rest my case - you're a nut. Anybody who has the wherewithall to
>suggest that his life in 1999 is worse than _anybody's_ life in
>pre-Industrial Britain must only be insane.
Ah Chris. Once again you attempt to compare apples with oranges to make
your case. Just like some inflation means hyperinflation to you.
The proposition goes like this Chris. The conditions of the majority
declined steadily for almost 150 years as a result of the industrial
revolution, which overthrew the old social and economic order. Conditions
improved dramatically as democratic governments acted to meet the demands
of an increasingly broad electorate. Of course this mostly applies to GB.
The case in the US is altered by the availability of property that was
free or very cheap. Which of course was not the case in GB.
>> Capitalism has created a great deal of wealth. It is absolutely
>> the best system for producing wealth that the world has seen so far.
>> In its unregulated form it is a absolute horror for very large
>> segments of the population. Capitalism has to be socialized to make
>> it work well for all of us.
>Socialized - by whom?
By the people of course. Through their governments. You know the
institutions that brought us sewage systems, schools etc. Not to mention
labour and other social laws.
>> Ah Chris that would be a good argument if Hong Kong was the only
>> country (city state) in the region to prosper. Many states
>> prospered, under very different political systems. Singapore which
>> is even smaller than Hong Kong did even better. Singapore also has
>> almost no resources.
>Singapore is largely capitalistic, as well. Their government is more
>authoritarian, but as always, that goes back to exactly how much power
>the government should have in the first place.
Of course Singapore is capitalistic. Just as Sweden has always been
capitalistic.
>> >It is "prosperous" because of bookkeeping - accounting which doesn't
>> >account for the fact that it's subsidized in the first place.
>> You're not making sense. You claimed that agriculture was so
>> productive because of capitalism.
>The point is that EU agriculture _isn't_ "so" productive once you factor
>the subsidies into the equation (ie - it's easy to make a "profit" when
>your costs don't factor into the equation).
Which has nothing to do with anything. Or has much to do with the topic.
There is no free market in agriculture, because everybody subsidizes food.
Therefore the market can not claim credit for the amazing productivity of
agriculture in the 1st world. Seems I win another point.
>> >That's an urban legend to begin with, but even if it were true, you
>> >would again be mistaken in looking at transactions through your
>> >late-20th-century lens. You see the transaction (again, if it had
>> >actually happened) as an exchange of "beads" for an island covered
>> >in skyscrapers worth trillions of dollars.
>> Ah Chris. You claim that both parties win in a voluntary exchange
>> in the free market.
>They do. If there is no coercion, then nobody (intelligent) would make a
>transaction by which they lose some perceived value (whatever their
>individual perception may be).
See below
>> Yet its obvious that in order for both parties to win, both
>> parties must have exactly the same skills, and the same
>> information
>Rubbish. The free price system works automatically as the conduit of
>information that is required in the transaction. It simultaneously
>combines the demand and supply from literally millions of indivudal
>points - and will suffice so long as there is no government forcibly
>sending static into the information stream.
As if there is no insider information. As if all traders are equally
competent. As if all traders are equally desperate. Come on Chris, looks
nice in the books but has nothing to do with the real world.
>> Feudal oppression was mostly far more benign than capitalist
>> oppression.
>You have been unable to give even one example of "capitalist oppression"
>that has not involved coercion by a government - precisely the force that
>capitalism seeks to end.
As if you could ever seperate the two Chris. In what dream world do you
think your libertarian fantasies could ever operate?
bad...@cow-net.com
> (bad...@cow-net.com) writes:
>>
>> Sorry I couldn't find the correct source so I posted the above.
>>
>> "Real interest rates in Canada were 1 per cent or less for the two decades
>> before monetarism became the creed; during the 80's they averaged 3.5 per
>> cent on short term investments, and 4.6 per cent for longer terms. Canada
>> had higher interest rates than any of our major trade competitors, and
>> among the highest of any developed country. "
>>
>> Clarence L Barber, "Monetary and Fiscal Policy in the 1980s," in "False
>> Promises: The Failure of Conservative Economics".
>>
>I will make up my own mind about the above paragraph if you can tell me
>the source of Mr Barber's numbers, and how he defines real interest
>rates, and how he defines "the two decades before monetarism became the
>creed." If his article does not at least provide that information, in my
>opinion it is hardly worth quoting.
I posted two sources. If you dispute the numbers please post another
source or two.
>> None the less its clear that even under the burden of fixed exchange rates
>> and other capital controls, gdp growth was twice as high in the
>> industrialized world.
>I agree that we would be better of with fixed (or more stable) exchange
>rates, at least among similar economies. If Canada's exchange rate with
>respect to the US dollar had been fixed, it would have meant higher
>interest rates and lower inflation in the 1970s, reducing the need for
>high interest rates in the 1980s, and preventing John Crow's
>over-reaction to inflation. Many countries in the European Union have
>maintained stable exchange rates with each other for quite some time. I
>do not think a Tobin tax would do anything at all to promote such
>stability. Currencies and securities which are illiquid fluctuate in
>value as much as, if not more than, those which are liquid, so making the
>market less liquid will not promote stability.
But you miss the main point. Governments can only fix interest rates at a
very low level if they prevent currency speculation by private capital.
Without low interest rates, capital will be biased towards low risk high
return "rentier" activities. Or high risk very high return speculative
activities. For obvious reasons investment in real economic activities
can't be as secure as buying government paper at high interest rates, nor
can it normally be as rewarding as the probable winfalls from "arbitrage"
type investments. Currency speculation is therefore not only
destabilizing, since without rapid changes in exchange rates such
speculation is unprofitable, but also wastes capital resources, since it
acts as a disincentive to risky investments in real economic activities.
pbuc...@bigfoot.com
bad...@cow-net.com wrote:
> In <7hf1r7$i3r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, on 05/13/99
> at 05:23 PM, pbuc...@bigfoot.com said:
>
> >Well John...if you and Barry Adams had a little more respect for
> >economics you might learn enough to answer your questions.
>
> >Bretton Woods was abandoned by the US after posting current account
> >deficits in the 60's. Fixed exchange rates are disasterous when
there is
> >a free exchange of capital. This is certainly proven in Thailand's
> >experience with the Asian flu. Thailand refused to take new steps to
curb
> >its current-account deficit and reduce short-term foreign borrowing.
> >Thailand linked its currency to the dollar as a way of limiting
> >inflation. As the dollar rose, it's economy lost it's
competitiveness.
>
> Yes but under the Bretton Woods agreements there was supposed to be a
> regulated not free exchange of cpaital. Bretton Woods was subverted
> through the creation of the Euro Dollar Off Shore Funds, in London.
>
> Fixed exchange rates, and regulated interest rates are only possible
if
> there is some control on capital movement.
I would agree with that. However there has got to be a good case for a
democratic country to tell it's citizens that they have no say it where
their money goes. Beyond that...there has been no proof that this is
possible for an advanced economy.
See the example I gave for Chile.
How would you suggest we control capital flows (I assume you only mean
short term capital flows...I don't think you are radical enough to
believe we should restrict all capital flows).
I've seen the "Tobin Tax" passed around here. How does this tax work if
someone decided to exchange currency in a jurisdiction that does not
charge a "Tobin Tax"? Do you think that it was the speculators' actions
that brought down Asia? The biggest sellers of local currencies were
domestic companies trying to hedge their debts dominated in US$.
You may be able to contols short term capital flows originating from
banks but you know that they are not the only source of these.
What you advocate is exactly the opposite that should really happen.
Domestic banking needs to be liberalized to control the impact of st
capital flows. Asia was guilty of not doing this....Chile was guilty of
not doing this (until they reformed the banking sector)...Russia is
guilty of not doing this. Regulating the banking industry to limit
foreign currency exposure and ensuring there is full disclosure all
real and potential liabilities are crucial.
Asia has suffered more than any Western country since the GD. They also
had the large growth that you desire. Their inflexible monetary system
caused their bottoming out. If Bretton Woods remained...it would have
caused our bottoming out as well. The signs were already there for the
US.
>
> >So why don't we limit capital flows? Advocates like yourself and
Barry
> >seem to have this magical solution that the "stupid economists" never
> >thought of. Unfortunately your answer is simplistic and uninformed
(can't
> >blame you two...why should you read things from people who study a
> >"non-science"?). The fact is that capital flows are extemely
difficult to
> >regulate. Even in Chile (where this was tried)...two Chilean
economist
> >(Soto & Valdes-Prieto) found that the controls were not really
effective.
> >Evidence seems to point to the actions of solidifying the domestic
banks
> >as the true cause of Chile's success.
>
> Capital flows would be extremely easy to control. All it would
require
> would be an IMF regulation that capital flows be monitored in order
to be
> elegable for IMF loans. In practice it means all that would be
required
> would be that the US wanted to control capital flows.
IMF loans are the problem Barry. Monitoring capital flows would require
a huge investment of resources and even then would be ineffective. IMF
loans give investors an insurance policy to invest their capital in a
questionable economy. Non-bank short term flows could only be monitored
by new disclosure laws and regular audits of company's financial
statements. Underdeveloped countries already are facing corruption in
gov't and in the banking system. How do you expect to track short term
flows. It's such an impractical solution...a solution advocated by
armchair critics...not the future implementors of it.
>
> >Beyond that...we owe our standard of living to capital flows. How
does
> >one import or export technological innovations without capital
flows? How
> >does one import or export knowledge or expertise without capital
flows?
> >Specialization has lead to huge technological advantages (to all you
> >people who studied economics...remember the guns vs butter curve?)
>
> humbug. No one is talking about locking capital in place. Just
> regulating the flows.
All capital flows or short term capital flows? If you control all
capital flows...you condemn all underdeveloped countries to perpetual
poverty.
Lloyd Walker
C.John Zammit wrote in message <373B50C1...@iaw.on.ca>...
>Ontario residents are invited to participate in the Ontario Election
>WebPoll
>
>http://aq9.com/on99
>
>All 103 Ontario Ridings are listed--just pick your Riding and your
>choice of Party, or Independent/Protest Vote.
>
Too bad you don't offer your voters the opportunity to choose any party
other than NDP, Liberal or PC. Thankfully those who vote Freedom, Family
Coalition, Green, Libertarian, COR or even Communist are allowed to make
their choice on election day.
Lloyd Walker
Party Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario
"http://www.freedomparty.org"