Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Capitalism      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 201
CapitalismPage 9 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
So some of you guys blame the " fat cats" and " capitalism" for the demise of the health system in America, you want to have a similar system as we have in here in Canada, or the UK or other European countries?

You want to see what our system is like find a Canadian or a Brit and ask them, ask them about the long wait times in the doctors office or trying to get a MRI or some major surgery the exception if you're a professional athlete. I'm knocking our system but it is what it is.

I have a friend of mine just last week had to go to Buffalo New York from her home in Toronto to get a MRI, she couldn't wait the 6 weeks in Canada.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 202
Capitalism
Posted: 5/20/2011 10:33:00 AM
Really? Waiting six weeks is now intolerable? And she doesn't know how to use a search engine?

There are plenty of places in Toronto that will do an MRI for you lickety split if you want to pay. That's why professional athletes get MRI's within hours of an injury.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 203
Capitalism
Posted: 5/20/2011 10:44:01 AM
There are little to no free market incentives to care for the environment, to be non-discriminatory in hiring, to avoid fraud, avoid monopolies, and to care about long term public health-- even short term public health concerns would have quite a lag time in a purely free market.

Maybe that is why no truly free market exists for any length of time...
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 204
Capitalism
Posted: 5/20/2011 10:46:20 AM

Really? Waiting six weeks is now intolerable? And she doesn't know how to use a search engine?

There are plenty of places in Toronto that will do an MRI for you lickety split if you want to pay. That's why professional athletes get MRI's within hours of an injury
before you open your mouth Halftime dad, ask your self this question do you know of her situation why she couldn't wait the 6 weeks? here's a clue, she just went through losing her breast because of cancer and her specialist needed a MRI for something ( im not in the medical field) but she needed the MRI right away and the states was her best option.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 205
Capitalism
Posted: 5/20/2011 11:42:01 AM
Well, seeing as MRI's are only being used in clinical trials to detect breast cancer, I'm guessing it isn't the doctor that requested the test.

Ultrasounds are still the preferred method of testing. And her oncologist would know that. I'm also willing to bet (based on the scant information you've provided) that no Canadian private clinic would do the test, as it hasn't yet been proven to be effective. It's her body and her right to seek out any test or treatment she feels would help her. And there are a lot of people in the States willing to take the money of cancer patients and survivors. You won't find them as much in Canada because we tend to frown on those who victimize those already suffering.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 206
Capitalism
Posted: 5/20/2011 11:55:29 AM

I'm guessing it isn't the doctor that requested the test.


I dunno about Canada, but in Connecticut...you cannot get a medical test done, even if you pay cash, unless it's ordered by a physician..

Not so long ago, I read that administrative costs absorb 25% of every private insurance premium dollar...while with medicare 4% is the cost of administration....

In Connecticut individual insurance policy holders are getting a premium rebate's because of OBAMACARE's requirement that says X- amount of insurance premium dollars must be spent on actual claim payment.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 207
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/20/2011 4:33:41 PM
"There are little to no free market incentives to care for the environment, to be non-discriminatory in hiring, to avoid fraud, avoid monopolies, and to care about long term public health-- even short term public health concerns would have quite a lag time in a purely free market."

Well said. The single biggest reason I end up at odds with every single advocate of "unfettered free market capitalism," is that so far, every single one of them I've met or communicated with, or read about, is completely blind to the fact that all values in a capitalist system are ASSIGNED by those in charge of the system. Thus, all such systems are "PRE-FETTERED" in some way.
In the past in this country, a value of ZERO was assigned to the general health of the local environment, when it came to deciding how much wealth was generated by someone's use of it. In those days, if you ripped a mountain apart, threw all your discarded waste into the local water system along with other chemical waste from your processing of the ore, and sent billowing clouds of poisoned smoke into the atmosphere as a result of your processing, you were allowed to walk away and leave the entire mess you created behind for the remaining inhabitants to deal with at their own high cost.

Many "profits" are actually sneakily derived by taking the gross receipts from an endeavor, and pretending there will be no bill for expenses come due in the future. That's how ventures that ignore environmental costs work. It's also how using up workers lives at the cheapest hourly wage they will accept, instead of allowing for the real total cost of a persons life works. So too, is how many businesses throughout history have made great amounts of cash for the investors, selling KNOWN defective products and services, staying just far enough ahead of the natural market forces to be "out of town" when the enraged customers come looking for them.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 208
Capitalism
Posted: 5/20/2011 10:02:22 PM

The single biggest reason I end up at odds with every single advocate of "unfettered free market capitalism," is that so far, every single one of them I've met or communicated with, or read about, is completely blind to the fact that all values in a capitalist system are ASSIGNED by those in charge of the system. Thus, all such systems are "PRE-FETTERED" in some way.
This is why we are at odds, you dont seem to understand Igor, Pre fettered, Unfettered free markets means " NO ONE IS IN CONTROL...... NOBODY is in control, there is no system to set up and control.


In the past in this country, a value of ZERO was assigned to the general health of the local environment, when it came to deciding how much wealth was generated by someone's use of it. In those days, if you ripped a mountain apart, threw all your discarded waste into the local water system along with other chemical waste from your processing of the ore, and sent billowing clouds of poisoned smoke into the atmosphere as a result of your processing, you were allowed to walk away and leave the entire mess you created behind for the remaining inhabitants to deal with at their own high cost.
Oh please, because a few companies with misguided and horrible management teams causes problems you want to lump all companies like that?

I hate unions, I can go as far to say some of them ( the unions) has been infilatrated by the Mafia, do you know how many Unions The Gambino'sLucchese's Genovese crime families controlled and exploited?

The Teamsters has been substantially controlled by La Cosa Nostra. In recent years, four of eight Teamster presidents were indicted, yet the union continued to be controlled by organized crime elements. The government has been fairly successful at removing the extensive criminal influence from this 1.4 million-member union by using the RICO act.

But I supposed people like you blame capitalism for the Mob infiltrating the Unions? too

What most of you fail to realize is, its not the government's job to provide you with health care, health care isn't a right, the government's job is to protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, your country doesn't owe you happiness because some of the citizens are miserable and hates the wealthy .

You complain about health care in your country but do nothing about it, its easier to blame and point fingers at the fat cats

And spare the environmental crap, environmentalist care about one thing , the only GREEN they are motivated by is Money, look you want windmills all over the place but doesn't that interfere with the Wildlife? another government intervention by the way, you dont want the companies to drill for oil blah blah blah, your computer is a oil by product

The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Environmentalism's goal is not the advancement of human health,happiness, and life rather, it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshiped like the totem of some primitive religion.

In a nation founded on the pioneer spirit, environmentalists have made "development" an dirty word. They inhibit or prohibit the development of Alaskan oil, offshore drilling, nuclear power--and every other practical form of energy. Housing, commerce, and jobs are sacrificed to spotted owls and Giant panda bears. Medical research is sacrificed to the "rights" of mice. Logging is sacrificed to the "rights" of trees? give me a break.

What is wrong with a company making profit, that is what they are in business for is the make profit, Im going to assume you drive? that car you drive was made by a company who's sole purpose is to make profit unless you drive a GM or Chrysler because the concept of profit is foreign to them

You guys think a company making profit is a bad thing? ( rolling my eyes here)
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 209
Capitalism
Posted: 5/20/2011 10:59:31 PM
I was hoping for more substance addressing the points being made and less ranting and strawman arguments, but oh, well.

Speaking of the free market and public health issues, let me pose a question about free markets: how would the free market, with no one in control, handle the use of lead based paints for example? And how would lead ever be discovered as a problem (especially in young children) in the first place? Where is the profit motive in discovering long term dangers that are rather "inconvenient" in the short term?

Admittedly, I am throwing out a "softball" here to get the discussion moving. I could certainly bring up much tougher, more immediate problems to tackle regarding government non-intervention.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 210
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 12:27:54 AM

Speaking of the free market and public health issues, let me pose a question about free markets: how would the free market, with no one in control, handle the use of lead based paints for example?

Well, this is just a guess, but, from the largely theoretical perspective of free markets I've seen so far, I would guess that the answer would go something like...

"Someone will discover that there is lead in their preferred brand of paint despite the lack of gov't regulation (which I'm guessing would likely mean no safety testing regulations or labelling regulations, except maybe those relating directly to criminal fraud) and conclude by common sense that this lead is the direct cause of children's mental retardation. This person will then stop buying paint with lead in it (he may even discover exactly which brands have lead and which don't by an as yet undescribed process). He'll tell two friends and they'll tell two friends and lickety-split no-one will buy anymore lead-based paint, the lead-based paint manufacturers will be forced by loss of sales to change their formula or go out of business. After this no manufacturer would dare to take the risk of using lead in their paint for fear that someone, somewhere, will somehow discover their secret and they will go out of business"

Again, that is just a guess and I could be completely wrong about how this would work under the completely free market that has been described... I imagine I will be corrected if I am.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 211
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 4:53:26 AM
""Someone will discover that there is lead in their preferred brand of paint despite the lack of gov't regulation (which I'm guessing would likely mean no safety testing regulations or labelling regulations, except maybe those relating directly to criminal fraud) and conclude by common sense that this lead is the direct cause of children's mental retardation. This person will then stop buying paint with lead in it (he may even discover exactly which brands have lead and which don't by an as yet undescribed process). He'll tell two friends and they'll tell two friends and lickety-split no-one will buy anymore lead-based paint, the lead-based paint manufacturers will be forced by loss of sales to change their formula or go out of business. After this no manufacturer would dare to take the risk of using lead in their paint for fear that someone, somewhere, will somehow discover their secret and they will go out of business"

Again, that is just a guess and I could be completely wrong about how this would work under the completely free market that has been described... I imagine I will be corrected if I am."

Exactly correct! And exactly why I argue against this "let the market work things out" approach: it requires the acceptance of all of the death and mental deficiencies that result during the time it takes for enough people to stop using a harmful product to cause it's demise. As I have said before, the reason why MOST regulations were put into place, is because some business or group of them came along, and put short term profits above long-term pain and suffering.
And by the way, if you want a good example of how businesses respond to public disclosure of dangerous products alone, look back at the tobacco industry. They actually knew from THEIR OWN TESTING that tobacco products were killers, and the public knew it too. Did these business people leave the market? Work to make tobacco safe? No, they stepped up their advertising, and played the Denial game, because they knew they had an addicted populace of customers they could suck money from. They are STILL around, STILL marketing products they know are harmful. They also know that their products have contributed to more of the high costs of health care that ALL of us have to bear, thus again demonstrating my point that some profits are derived simply from refusing to take responsibility for the results of one's business activities, converting general PUBLIC cost, into PERSONAL profit. Wealth is sucked out of the market place by this kind of business.

" Pre fettered, Unfettered free markets means " NO ONE IS IN CONTROL...... NOBODY is in control, there is no system to set up and control."

This would ONLY be true in a state of complete ANARCHY. If ANY government exists at all, it will change the market from unfettered to fettered. That's what you aren't seeing, because you are blind to the fact that all the things you take for granted, such as the court systems and police forcing customers to pay for what they take, wouldn't exist if the government didn't step in. That's my point. You and I differ more by degree than anything else, but because you mentally categorize all the BENEFICIAL aspects of government as existing in spite of government, you think we are at opposite poles.

The reason why most business these days will respond to public pressure quickly, isn't JUST because they fear losing customers. It's because they also fear that if they fail to respond, that they will lose customers, AND have government oversight added to their backs.
There were times in the past, plenty of them, when governments did NOT take a hand in regulating commerce in any way, and those times were NOT 'heaven on earth' for anyone except the tiny groups of "entrepreneurs" who took the scant wealth of the people around them, and then ran away, or hid behind violent 'enforcers.' If you actually studied the past, in an unprejudiced way, you would know this.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 212
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 5:24:41 AM

There were times in the past, plenty of them, when governments did NOT take a hand in regulating commerce in any way, and those times were NOT 'heaven on earth' for anyone except the tiny groups of "entrepreneurs" who took the scant wealth of the people around them, and then ran away, or hid behind violent 'enforcers.' If you actually studied the past, in an unprejudiced way, you would know this.


I call those times the Rockefellian times...where every company owner deserved gold fixtures in the potty.

On a great many levels I believe in capitialism...that an entrepreneur should receive whatever the worth of his/her product....but, you know...most large cap companies in todays world are corporations...the origional owner is long gone...these corporations are now run by the CEO of the moment:

Median Tenure as CEO
CEOs of companies based in the Pacific region continue to have the longest position tenures, at 7. 5 years. This is notably higher than the S&P 500 median of 5 years.

http://content.spencerstuart.com/sswebsite/pdf/lib/2005_CEO_Study_JS.pdf


What most of you fail to realize is, its not the government's job to provide you with health care, health care isn't a right


While healthcare may not be a right...un-controlled and un-administered it will be the downfall of America.

I went to see a client the otherday...own's a business...does well...he say's his health premium for he (age 64) and his wife (age61) is $20,000/year...and he has an HSA plan with a $5,000 deductable.

So, when the great masses can no longer afford healthcare...because insurance companies charge premium only the well to do can afford....and these great masses show up for care at the emergency room of every hospital in America...costing taxpayers even more tax money....what do we do then...deny access to the uninsured...

In today's world...most small companies provide no healthcare for the employees...larger companies, who offer healthcare coverage to employees, cost share greater and greater amounts to these employees...the employee often pays full cost for family members....insurance premium rates have risen double digit increases for 15-20 years....

When we stop providing access to healthcare...we will turn into a 3rd world country...and mortality rates will reverse course of people living longer.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 213
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 7:14:13 AM
"Oh please, because a few companies with misguided and horrible management teams causes problems you want to lump all companies like that?

I hate unions, I can go as far to say some of them ( the unions) has been infilatrated by the Mafia, do you know how many Unions The Gambino'sLucchese's Genovese crime families controlled and exploited?"

A direct self-contradiction, right in your own post. You want to side with the corporations against the rest of us, on the grounds that a few bad apples shouldn't limit everyone, bit when it comes to unions, the opposite logic applies. You can't claim to be following a PRINCIPLE, and then only apply it selectively.

"But I supposed people like you blame capitalism for the Mob infiltrating the Unions? too"
Nope, I hold each individual responsible for their actions. I'm not the one who blindly supports or opposes someone, you are.

"What most of you fail to realize is, its not the government's job to provide you with health care, health care isn't a right, the government's job is to protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, your country doesn't owe you happiness because some of the citizens are miserable and hates the wealthy .

You complain about health care in your country but do nothing about it, its easier to blame and point fingers at the fat cats"
This is just a standard, commonplace, and FALSE generalization that some sloppy thinkers ladle over anyone who doesn't support their self-blinded views. I never said any of that, but you blame me for it anyway, out of prejudicial assumption.

"The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Environmentalism's goal is not the advancement of human health,happiness, and life rather, it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshiped like the totem of some primitive religion.

In a nation founded on the pioneer spirit, environmentalists have made "development" an dirty word. They inhibit or prohibit the development of Alaskan oil, offshore drilling, nuclear power--and every other practical form of energy. Housing, commerce, and jobs are sacrificed to spotted owls and Giant panda bears. Medical research is sacrificed to the "rights" of mice. Logging is sacrificed to the "rights" of trees? give me a break."

More unsubstantiatable, prejudicial, boilerplate political nonsense. There ARE a few people out there who advocate "demolition of technological/industrial civilization," but they are a TINY minority of all the folks who want a clean, well managed environment. I'm sure you actually KNOW this on some level, but are afraid to admit it, because it's easier to blanket condemn people you disagree with, than to do the work required to support your arguments and points of view with real and SUFFICIENT factual evidence. And again, I never said any of that anyway, so you are ranting against imaginary demons painted on the inside of your own eyeballs.
There are a PLENTITUDE of hard working, capitalism supporting, regulatory-resistant people in the world, some of them here in our forums, who both believe that the environment needs protection from some of their fellow men, AND they oppose the same extremes you pretend all environmentalists support.

"What is wrong with a company making profit, that is what they are in business for is the make profit, Im going to assume you drive? that car you drive was made by a company who's sole purpose is to make profit unless you drive a GM or Chrysler because the concept of profit is foreign to them

You guys think a company making profit is a bad thing?"

Again, I personally never said ANY of this, you are running entirely on your own imagination. What I said, was that I oppose the business models that are based on ignoring the complete costs of an enterprise, and instead expect the individual business person to be able to take wealth out of the system by shifting those real costs to the general public. I AM a capitalist, and believe in the profit motive system.

Stop panicking. Just as someone can oppose your walking through their living room to get to the store, because it's a shorter distance than walking around the block, doesn't mean they want to dictate every step you take.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 214
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 8:46:26 AM

Well, this is just a guess, but, from the largely theoretical perspective of free markets I've seen so far, I would guess that the answer would go something like...

"Someone will discover that there is lead in their preferred brand of paint despite the lack of gov't regulation (which I'm guessing would likely mean no safety testing regulations or labelling regulations, except maybe those relating directly to criminal fraud) and conclude by common sense that this lead is the direct cause of children's mental retardation. This person will then stop buying paint with lead in it (he may even discover exactly which brands have lead and which don't by an as yet undescribed process). He'll tell two friends and they'll tell two friends and lickety-split no-one will buy anymore lead-based paint, the lead-based paint manufacturers will be forced by loss of sales to change their formula or go out of business. After this no manufacturer would dare to take the risk of using lead in their paint for fear that someone, somewhere, will somehow discover their secret and they will go out of business"

Again, that is just a guess and I could be completely wrong about how this would work under the completely free market that has been described... I imagine I will be corrected if I am.

Well, sounds good to me! And it's so ingeniously simple that a child could understand it. Too bad Ron Paul didn't have a lot more kids...
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 215
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 9:07:42 AM
Igor, you need to learn how to use the quote thing, its a little hard to read sometimes


A direct self-contradiction, right in your own post. You want to side with the corporations against the rest of us, on the grounds that a few bad apples shouldn't limit everyone, bit when it comes to unions, the opposite logic applies. You can't claim to be following a PRINCIPLE, and then only apply it selectively-Igorfrankensteen
self contradiction?? No sir your WRONG.

Im for capitalism, Im not for crony capitalism, Ive been clear from the get go.
2) I dont like government intervention, but you guys seem think Im for NO GOVERNMENT, Ive never said that, Ive said it oh a thousand times, We need government, but the government role is to protect our rights,We need objective laws to protect rights and not regulations to tell us how to live.


More unsubstantiatable, prejudicial, boilerplate political nonsense. There ARE a few people out there who advocate "demolition of technological/industrial civilization," but they are a TINY minority of all the folks who want a clean, well managed environment. I'm sure you actually KNOW this on some level, but are afraid to admit it, because it's easier to blanket condemn people you disagree with, than to do the work required to support your arguments and points of view with real and SUFFICIENT factual evidence. And again, I never said any of that anyway, so you are ranting against imaginary demons painted on the inside of your own eyeballs. -igorfrankensteen
I dont care if you agree or disagree I stated my opinion in what I believe just because you dont agree doesn't me wrong , I go by facts Igor, its funny how some environmentalist out there with their marketing tactics claims that Oil and nuclear technologies is bad, but yet you rely on it to live on? interesting, they claim they hate crony capitalism but they have a mutual desire for the government to be involved, and dont tell me for one minute you dont support crony capitalism, because most of you support Cap and Trade.

I have a question for you environmentalist, If green energy is that efficient why do you need the government help? the free market would be all you need , by the way its takes coal, natural gas or oil to generate electricity, the green movement is no different from any other industry out there, they have a product to sell and a product to market and in my opinion the green market is the ugly side of the free market just like crony capitalism is the ugly sister to socialism.


Again, I personally never said ANY of this, you are running entirely on your own imagination. What I said, was that I oppose the business models that are based on ignoring the complete costs of an enterprise, and instead expect the individual business person to be able to take wealth out of the system by shifting those real costs to the general public. I AM a capitalist, and believe in the profit motive system. -igorfrankensteen
that isnt capitalism Igor, that crony capitalism, they are not the same thing.


Stop panicking. Just as someone can oppose your walking through their living room to get to the store, because it's a shorter distance than walking around the block, doesn't mean they want to dictate every step you take.-Igorfrankensteen
Ive must of missed that in my capitalist class, what the hell does that mean? and who is panicking?


For the gentleman that posted about Lead in paint, my response to that is you let the free market dictate what happens to that company, the government roll is to protect society, Im sure we agree on that and those companies that deliberately cause harm to society should be dealt with
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 216
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 9:43:55 AM

my response to that is you let the free market dictate what happens to that company,

In other words, what mungojoe said. Outstanding.

the government roll is to protect society, Im sure we agree on that and those companies that deliberately cause harm to society should be dealt with

BUT:

that isnt capitalism Igor, that crony capitalism, they are not the same thsing.

Where does split-personality disorder fit into a free market?

When one boils it down, a pure, free market is about "I got mine; screw everyone else" and "Less taxes!" All of the many subtle things that government effectively does for us (highways, clean air and water, product, food, drug safety, air traffic control, etc.), is handily ignored and taken for granted.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 217
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 1:18:17 PM

When one boils it down, a pure, free market is about "I got mine; screw everyone else" and "Less taxes!" All of the many subtle things that government effectively does for us (highways, clean air and water, product, food, drug safety, air traffic control, etc.), is handily ignored and taken for granted.-flyguy51
Flyguy, This is what im talking about, most of you fine intellects cannot for what ever reason understand what " free markets' means.

The basic definition of " free market" is... Its Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.

As much as I hate the term " crony capitalism" it is what it is, any business that realizes on government intervention, subsidies,bail outs or what ever you want to call it, is a business/corporations that favours crony capitalism, they are weak minded individuals that screams that they are capitalist but knows deep down inside they would never make it a truly free market, Its like a snotty nose teenager that thinks they know more than their parents and quick to criticize but knows that cannot make it in the real world.

A truly free market means nobody controls anything ( not the capitalist/business owners or the government) NOBODY, A truly free markets means no force or coercion, advocates of the truly free market systems recognizes there will be greedy and unscrupulous people, free marketers acknowledges no matter what economic system is out there, people will do what they can to seek profits, greedy and unscrupulous people succeeds in this type of market because of special friends/lobbyist banding together to wipe out its competitions all in the name of profits , that's not good.

Free markets if left on its own has two ways of dealing with greedy and unscrupulous individuals and corporations

1) Make the use of force or fraud unprofitable
2) Economic Equilibrium which keeps businesses from gouging prices or paying too little to their work forces, where the government comes in is to protect a person's rights ( property rights) and society rights from fraud , force and things like that, the Governments job isn't to tell a company how to run its company or how to live your life or grant special favors to certain companies.

Its kind of like a parent telling their child, you dont like my rules, go own your own kid, make your own way into the world, but if you need money for rent if you're short, or a place to do laundry if your stuck or a little grocery money if you're short at the end of the month, come to us and we will give it to you, so how is that " freedom?" and what does that teach the kid? and before someone says " oh its my duty to help my children" think about what that teaches the kid?

 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 218
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 2:00:25 PM

This is what im talking about, most of you fine intellects cannot for what ever reason understand what " free markets' means.

I think we understand free markets all too well, in that we foresee the very distasteful consequences of a purely free market-- consequences that you don't seem to think about, even when they are pointed out to you. Of course, you are free to educate us further if you like; we are pretty quick learners here.

Until such education happens, I should tell you that you seem to think of the free market as a magical pixie dust for society's ills. Leaded paint? Put free market pixie dust on it. Food poisoning? Free market pixie dust. Unsafe cars/boats/planes? Pixie dust.

It is really no wonder that, like pixie dust, a purely free market does not exist.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 219
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 2:25:00 PM
fly guy, Ive already said that a long time ago, there is no " truly free market" I said I wish there was one.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 220
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 2:32:25 PM
I'm fully aware of that-- the major difference is that you see the absence as a tragedy, and I see it as a matter of basic social responsibility-- not that I am at all fully satisfied with the status quo, however.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 221
Capitalism
Posted: 5/21/2011 9:15:43 PM
Ice ~~ the *reason* the FDA, the EPA, the FCC, etc. *exist* in this country is BECAUSE of abuses by Business. To the point they couldn't be trusted to feed us, or give us drugs, or even trade fairly. That is simply history.


Some of the key documents that came to define the work of the muckrakers were:

Ray Stannard Baker published "The Right to Work" in McClure's Magazine in 1903, about coal mine conditions, a coal strike, and the situation of non-striking workers (or scabs). Many of the non-striking workers had no special training or knowledge in mining, since they were simply farmers looking for work. His investigative work portrayed the dangerous conditions in which these people worked in the mines, and the dangers they faced from union members who did not want them to work.

Lincoln Steffens published “Tweed Days in St. Louis”, in which he profiled corrupt leaders in St. Louis, in October, 1902, in McClure’s Magazine.[18]

Ida Tarbell published The Rise of the Standard Oil Company in 1902, providing insight into the manipulation of trusts. One trust they manipulated was with Christopher Dunn Co. She followed that work with The History of The Standard Oil Company: the Oil War of 1872, which appeared in McClure's Magazine in 1908.

Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906, which revealed conditions in the meat packing industry in the United States and was a major factor in the establishment of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Sinclair wrote the book with the intent of addressing unsafe working conditions in that industry, not food safety. Sinclair was not a professional journalist but his story was first serialized before being published in book form. Sinclair considered himself to be a muckraker.

" The Treason of the Senate: Aldrich, the Head of it All", by David Graham Phillips, published as a series of articles in Cosmopolitan magazine in February, 1906, described corruption in the U.S. Senate.

The Great American Fraud by Samuel Hopkins Adams revealed fraudulent claims and endorsements of patent medicines in America. This article showed light on the many false claims that pharmaceutical companies and other manufactures would make as to the potency of their medicines, drugs and tonics. Using the example of Peruna in his article, Mr. Adams described how this tonic, which was made of seven compound drugs and alcohol,[19] did not have “any great potency”.[19] Manufacturers were selling it at an obscene price and hence made immense profits. His work forced a crackdown on a number of other patents and fraudulent schemes of medicinal companies during that time.

There were many other works by muckrakers, which brought to light a variety of issues in America during the Progressive era.[19] These writers focused on a wide range of issues including the monopoly of Standard Oil; cattle processing and meat packing; patent medicines; child labor; and wages, labor, and working conditions in industry and agriculture. In a number of instances, the revelations of muckraking journalists led to public outcry, governmental and legal investigations, and, in some cases, legislation was enacted to address the issues the writers' identified, such as harmful social conditions; pollution; food and product safety standards; sexual harassment; unfair labor practices; fraud; and other matters. The work of the muckrakers in the early years, and those today, span a wide array of legal, social, ethical and public policy concerns.
[edit] Muckrakers and their works

* Samuel Hopkins Adams (1871–1958) — The Great American Fraud, exposed false claims about patent medicines
* Ray Stannard Baker (1870–1946) — of McClure's & The American Magazine
* Burton J. Hendrick (1870–1949) — "The Story of Life Insurance" May - November 1906 McClure's
* Frances Kellor (1873–1952) — Studied chronic unemployment in her book Out of Work (1904)
* Thomas W. Lawson (1857–1924) Frenzied Finance (1906) on Amalgamated Copper stock scandal
* Edwin Markham (1852–1940) - "published an exposé of child labor in Children in Bondage" (1914)
* Frank Norris (1870–1902) The Octopus
* Mrs. Fremont Older (1856–1935) San Francisco corruption and the case of Tom Mooney
* Jacob Riis (1849–1914) - How the Other Half Lives, the slums
* Charles Edward Russell (1860–1941) — investigated Beef Trust, Georgia's prison
* Upton Sinclair (1878–1968) — The Jungle (1906), U.S. meat-packing industry, and the books in the "Dead Hand" series that critique the institutions (journalism, education, etc.) that could but did not prevent these abuses.
* John Spargo (1876–1966) — American reformer and author, The Bitter Cry of Children (child labor)
* Lincoln Steffens (1866–1936) The Shame of the Cities (1904)
* Ida M. Tarbell (1857–1944) exposé, The History of the Standard Oil Company
* John Kenneth Turner — (1879–1948) author of Barbarous Mexico (1910), an account of the exploitative debt peonage system used in Mexico under Porfirio Díaz.


It hasn't gotten better: vide Enron.
California electricity crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Winter 2002, The Enron Tapes scandal begins to surface. .... "Electricity prices in California's spot markets were affected by economic withholding ... that defects in the deregulation system would need fixing by "the next governor". ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 222
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/22/2011 11:37:18 AM
Ice, your post at 252 is a prime example of how you get me to think that you contradict yourself. As with so many advocates of "free market, anti-government regulation," you actually DO believe that government is required to intervene to set up your version of a 'free market,' but you simply choose to use words other than "regulator" to describe their role.
You said earlier you wanted to see all anti-trust laws repealed. Yet you are opposed to trusts: you just call them "crony capitalists." You don't even appear to think that PRIVATE "crony capitalists" are GOOD, while government-sponsored or supported ones are BAD. You haven't said how, in the face of the long history of what you call "crony capitalists" doing harm, that they can be successfully exorcised from the market place WITHOUT government intervention.
You DO seem to want the government to PROTECT capitalists from each other, but again your way of explaining that uses different words and phrases than "regulation."
So I apologize IF I've misunderstood what you support and oppose, but as long as you continue to express yourself with general statements along the lines that "all government regulation of business is bad," I can't possibly know what it is you DO actually believe.
I am thankful for the part of 252 where you began to describe your version of a "free market" is, but you still used vague, undefined statements that are critical to explain, to support your beliefs. For example, the phrase "1) Make the use of force or fraud unprofitable." Exactly how is this accomplished? As an historian, I know that trusts were specifically created to PREVENT anyone from being able to oppose them. "Market forces" cannot do anything, when competition is prevented, which you obviously know well, as you oppose acts of government that prevent competition (as I do, too. We only differ in that, in what anti-competitive situations have actually been created by the government ). That is the reason why the government DID act against them, and stopped ASSISTING them, as it had done BEFORE the passage of the anti trust laws.
The concern I have with advocates of any sort of government or anti/non government way of shaping the world, is that there HAS to be a specific MECHANISM that makes things happen; it doesn't happen by magic. Most pro-free-market people I've dealt with, so far including you, fail to specify how their MECHANISMS will actually bring about the results they claim, without tremendous abuses taking over.
Lots of talk about "free market forces," but no details that would demonstrate clearly, that these "forces" are real. We've already had examples discussed here, that have shown that the kind of "free market" you seem to advocate CANNOT function at all, without government support, as you yourself have described.
The only ways that the use of "force or fraud" have EVER been usefully prevented or dealt with, have ALWAYS been through some sort of government intervention and enforcement. The actions of the Mafia-type gangs you decried a while back (in association with their infiltration of SOME unions), were all TREMENDOUSLY successful, UNTIL the government stopped allowing them to do as they wished. "Market forces" played no direct role at all. The most one might say, is that all the people who were suffering from the distortions in the marketplace created by the gangs, banded together to vote in a government who WOULD stop them. But THAT goes against your claim that market forces alone are all that is necessary.
I am again left suspecting that you DO support SOME government regulation, and not others, just as I do. But the reason I continue to argue against you, and others who talk as you do, is that your way of describing what ever changes you DO advocate, are so sloppy and broad, that if they were enacted AS YOU DESCRIBE, we would be reduced to a state of anarchy, at the mercy of whatever local, wealthy crime lords were around us. I KNOW that you don't actually want to see that happen, because you have said so. But since you continue to insist on saying things like ALL government limitations on the market must stop, and failing to say that you really DON'T mean that at all, then I continue to oppose YOUR WORDS.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 223
Capitalism
Posted: 5/22/2011 1:52:25 PM

Most pro-free-market people I've dealt with, so far including you, fail to specify how their MECHANISMS will actually bring about the results they claim, without tremendous abuses taking over.

Aye, therein lies the rub... So far the "pure free market" advoates' points have been PURELY theoretical and expressed in the most abstract ways... There has been little to no discussion of how those highly theoretical processes work as actual applied processes... this is exactly why I made wide use of terms like "someone", "somewhere", "somehow" and "as yet undescribed process" in post 245 and it is exactly why the only other answer has been nothing more detailed than "let the free market dictate"...

There are, in my opinion of course, reasons for this vagueness... A truly free market cannot function in a large scale, diverse society organized around the rule of law... A truly free market requires anarchism in order to function as a truly free market (once a society starts into "rule of law", the laws its members inevitably insist on to protect their real rights and interests will always lead to the suppression of someone else's supposed "right of economic liberty". This, imo, is another element of the reason we didn't get a more comprehesive answer to the "lead paint question")...
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 224
Capitalism
Posted: 5/22/2011 2:54:26 PM
So far the "pure free market" advoates' points have been PURELY theoretical and expressed in the most abstract ways... There has been little to no discussion of how those highly theoretical processes work as actual applied processes...


I have understood that the main points are:

1) The government should not interfere with my business and making as much profit as I can.

2) The government should not interfere with my right to pay as little as I can to my employees so that I can make as much profit as I can.

3) The government should not impose any taxes on my business so that I can keep as much profit as I can.

4) Since the government has instituted regulations that interfere with those three points above, I can go around complaining that there isn't a "free market capitalism" and say that it is all the fault of the socialists like Obama and their governments that allow the "crony capitalists" to take advantage of the people.

In the meantime, the proponent of free trade capitalism here will have to defend the practices of the capitalists, "crony capitalists" as they may be, against those who want to have restraints put on the business people to force them to play fair, to pay their employees a living wage, and to ask them to pay their share of maintaining a civilized society.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 225
Capitalism
Posted: 5/22/2011 6:15:51 PM
Oh man, where do I start?



Ice ~~ the *reason* the FDA, the EPA, the FCC, etc. *exist* in this country is BECAUSE of abuses by Business. To the point they couldn't be trusted to feed us, or give us drugs, or even trade fairly. That is simply history. - woobytoodsday<
Im not sure if that was the real reason but they have had their shares of problem and causing problems , The EPA, What about Carol Browner zealously activist reign at the Environmental Protection Agency? and the reason why she resigned?

Three months after Browner left office did the government admit that a) Browner had ordered her hard drive erased; b) three other top EPA bureaucrats also had their computers erased despite Judge Lamberth's court injunction; and c) the EPA had failed to search Browner's office for public documents as required by Landmark's lawsuit.

The SEC failure to investigate Madoff in the beginning, the list goes on and on.

Standard oil, well you weren't told or shall I say those reporters failed to tell the " whole story" Im not going to post all the details but what those media folks forgot to mention was, The first five years of that industry, along with the crude production industry, from 1859 to 1864, was considered by today's standard primitive, and most of the small guys were like the Gold hunters back in the day not a lot of business men, more of speculators the market’s primitive methods of production and distribution at this early stage made it impossible for it to have anywhere near the worldwide impact it would have by the time Rockafeller stepped in.

While other refiners took any given business cost for granted—including the cost of barrels and the cost of crude—Rockefeller put himself and those who worked for him to the task of discovering ways to lower every cost while continuously seeking additional sources of revenue and the others could not compete.



As with so many advocates of "free market, anti-government regulation," you actually DO believe that government is required to intervene to set up your version of a 'free market,' but you simply choose to use words other than "regulator" to describe their role.
I never said no such thing, There is a difference between objective laws and Regulations telling you how to live and how to run your business, Im not against Government if they are doing what they are supposed to do, I dont want Government setting up or regulating the free market, nor do I want any business man or woman controlling the free market either... FREE MARKET means no one is in control the laws of supply and demand dictates, the government should be there if someone/company uses fraud or deliberately injures someone . Ive said this about a 1000 times, is it clear now what Ive said?



You said earlier you wanted to see all anti-trust laws repealed. Yet you are opposed to trusts: you just call them "crony capitalists." You don't even appear to think that PRIVATE "crony capitalists" are GOOD, while government-sponsored or supported ones are BAD. You haven't said how, in the face of the long history of what you call "crony capitalists" doing harm, that they can be successfully exorcised from the market place WITHOUT government intervention
) I hate anti trust laws 2) I HATE Crony Capitalism, they are not real capitalist so I hate what they stand for and I also despise Unscrupulous individuals too, especially those that hide behind special favors from the buddies in the Government . Ive never said I embrace Crony capitalism Private or Public, so dont put words in my mouth I'm wondering if you're mixing up TRUST'S laws with ANTI TRUST laws?



I am thankful for the part of 252 where you began to describe your version of a "free market" is, but you still used vague, undefined statements that are critical to explain, to support your beliefs. For example, the phrase "1) Make the use of force or fraud unprofitable." Exactly how is this accomplished?
This is where Ive said oh a thousand times Igor, objective laws that protects society against fraud. Its really simple Igor, one breaks the law they get punished.

It is important here to distinguish that by a unregulated free market I do not mean anarchism, i.e., no government laws, but I mean capitalism operating under a "rule of law". Under such a system there are laws which punish the violation of rights, but there are no laws explicitly "regulating" individuals who are not violating the rights of others. The difference is that regulations hold someone guilty until he is able to prove himself innocent to a government official; under a rule of law one is free to do what one wishes until one is proven guilty. This is an essential difference between a "common law" system and statutory or "code law" system.



The only ways that the use of "force or fraud" have EVER been usefully prevented or dealt with, have ALWAYS been through some sort of government intervention and enforcement. The actions of the Mafia-type gangs you decried a while back (in association with their infiltration of SOME unions), were all TREMENDOUSLY successful, UNTIL the government stopped allowing them to do as they wished.
You're arguing two different things, 1) intervention is one thing, Enforcement is another, the government job is to enforce and go after people that breaks the law so no argument from me . Intervention is another thing, denying me the right to run my business as I see fit, letting the market dictate if there is a need for my service or product, I dont want a level playing field, or government subsidies , bail outs or special favors.



A truly free market requires anarchism in order to function as a truly free market (once a society starts into "rule of law", the laws its members inevitably insist on to protect their real rights and interests will always lead to the suppression of someone else's supposed "right of economic liberty".-Mungo joe<
I generally agree with a lot what you have to say but this one I dont agree with Brother MJ, as mentioned before a truly free market doesn't require anarchism to function, that as they say my friend is a economic fallacy, objective laws are needed yes, regulation on how to run a business etc isn't.

Imported labour, so a unskilled factory worker should earn $100,000 per year if he or she lives in New York City, Los Angelos or any major city and the CEO of that company should take less money so the unskilled labourer can make more money to live on? who decides what's fair? would you agree most folks do not or cannot handle money, what does the average person do( the one's without financial understanding) when they get a raise, most spends more money, increase spending on the credit card blah blah blah, most ends up living on credit cards because they say its a lack of money and studies show the more most people make the more debt they occur so is more money the answer to their problems?

President Obama makes over $400K a year perhaps he should forfeit some of his salary since he clearly lives for free and doesn't need money while residing in the white house?
$400,000 times 4 years , 1.6 Million dollars , is it tax free? or does he pay taxes on his income? 1.6 million can help some devastated families.

again sorry for the long post folks, I wish we can all sit down over a pint and chat about it live, im sure it would be very interesting.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Capitalism