The teacher’s union and lousy teachers are the only ones opposed to reforming the school system. The teacher’s union is not a criminal organization like the Mafia legally speaking but they are in spirit. On the other hand they are more powerful and the Mafia is kinder to kids.
BULLSHIT !! so explain to me why the rich Boston Weston school kids parents don’t have to pay tuition and the Bronx kids parents do. I hope ‘ol Milton lies peaceful in his sleep but is also forgotten.
“Another example is fusion energy … Do you think the free-market would be more successful in this area?”
Yes, but perhaps by not making the investment. I can’t say what is the correct decision is, I don’t know if the pay-off is worth it.
There are currently new Fission Reactors (”Fission Fragment Reactors”) which are much safer, more efficient, and produce far less nuclear waist. We’ve known about them for 30 years, but can’t build them because of government regulations.
Actually automation was created by Henry Ford (when he invented the assembly line). The computer was ENIAC and was built to calculate artillery firing tables. The U.S. did this for national defense purposes which is a proper role for the government. However, there were several other non Federal funded computers being built at the same time by IBM (Mark Series), and Iowa State (Colossus).
I don’t have a problem with government supporting the sciences when doing it’s constitutional functions.
Another example is fusion energy. It is still on the drawing board, but experimental devices are incredibly expensive. The newest experimental reactor, called ITER, will cost $9.3billion. Even with this huge investment, there are no guarantees that the problem will be solved. Limitless energy harvested from seawater makes it worth the investment though.
Do you think the free-market would be more successful in this area?
I see what you are saying, however, I think that in technological advances that require lots of money, like the computer, the state was essential. I can’t envision a private industry that would be able to hemorrhage that much money on something as risky as basic research. Automation is a big part of mass production, and that was also developed by the state.
Do you think private industry would be able to produce a particle collider? Basic research precedes any application.
“but you could also say that the US is more prosperous … and there are more social programs now.”
We are more prosperous now, not because of social programs, but in spite of them. We are more prosperous because of the industrial revolution, mass production, electricity, integrated circuits, etc. The government had very little if no influence in these areas.
You are correct that we had less technology in the 1800’s, but unemployment was lower, and money retained it’s value.
I am thinking of Dickens’ Hard Times when I think of the completely free market. I have heard Milton Friedman comment on that very question and his answer was that it was better than the Feudalistic society before it. This is true, but you could also say that the US is more prosperous now than it was in the late 1800’s and there are more social programs now. Are my facts wrong? Were things different than I describe/conjectured in the early days of capitalism.
“In capitalism, because you can’t work together, your hand is forced.”
Why?
The reason I believe in freedom and free trade is because it works. History has shown it is the best way that we have figured out. Economic theory explains why it is the best way. That fact of the matter is your “social contracts” always lead to tyranny and suffering.
If the facts showed your ideas worked I would agree with you, but history paints a different picture. You seriously need to look at some facts.
“you aren’t actually free to pursue anything except a job”
Why not, you can pursue any job you wish. Everyone has a job, even rich people. Everyone does at least some amount of work.
“I believe that in a free-market, you will end up with a small number of people owning a majority of the wealth and the vast remainder of people with no other means of subsistence”
History shows the opposite to be true. Also economic theory shows the opposite to be true.
To me, the situation for society is similar to the prisoners dilemma. If the prisoners worked together, then they would both be better off than if they work on their own. In capitalism, because you can’t work together, your hand is forced. As a worker, you can’t independently protest wages because you will starve and as a business owner you can’t independently raise wages because you will go out of business. It takes a social contract to raise everyone up.
In a capitalist society, if you are not born into wealth, you aren’t actually free to pursue anything except a job to keep yourself alive. There isn’t spare land to go live on your own. You have but one choice and that choice is to rent yourself out to someone who is willing to pay you to do labor.
Business owners are compelled by competition to pay their workers as little as possible. If you want to pursue your own interests, you better hope you are born into wealth.
I believe that in a free-market, you will end up with a small number of people owning a majority of the wealth and the vast remainder of people with no other means of subsistence other than renting themselves to the capital owners. These masses of wage laborers will do virtually all of the work yet the capital owners will extract virtually all of the wealth. This wealth will be turned into more capital, which will make workers more efficient and thus require less of them.
Besides America hasn’t had a free market since December 23, 1913. America is not a capitalistic society, it is currently a socialistic society. You can’t say what you currently see is a problem with capitalism, because you have never seen capitalism.
“The libertarian left thinks that everyone should get together and agree …”
Neither I nor Friedman believe this to be true.
“However, I also see pseudo-feudalistic society emerging from capitalism”
This is caused by collectivism not capitalism. Thats what monarchs, dictatorships, and socialists are.
People being free to peruse there own interests is a new idea, it is the embodiment of capitalism. This more then anything else accounts for the wealth of America.
The libertarian left thinks that everyone should get together and agree to work together to provide everyone with a material life. Participation is voluntary but if you choose not to participate, you are on your own.
I really see the point of Rand/Friedman regarding the immorality of being chained down to the collective against your will. However, I also see pseudo-feudalistic society emerging from capitalism, as Marx believed and explained in Capital.
Let me put that challenge on hold for a moment and ask you what you think about the libertarian left(anarchist socialism). Both sides are opposed to a central state making decisions regarding the population. The left just says that people should voluntarily work together and the right says that they should compete against each other. The left is also against renting yourself out as a laborer, or, more generally, against the separation of workers and capitalists.
Just to clarify a “Socialist Government Program” is a program which work by reallocating wealth from one set of people to another. Examples: minimal wage, low income housing, social security, higher education. Example of whats not a SGP: Military, FBI.
Also I was only referring to Federal Programs, not state. I don’t want to get into state laws.
“it is extremely easy, conceptually and in practice, to just say that all government is bad.”
It is easy to say these government programs are good. It is much harder to look up the numbers, do the math calculations, look at the broad picture, and decide for yourself.
I challenge you to find one “Socialist Government Program” which achieves their “Stated Goals”, without “Severely Harming” the people it claims it is trying to help.
“the best way to structure a government program or regulation to promote equal opportunity”
I don’t believe in equal opportunity. I believe in equality under the law.
If a person is born blind how are you going to give him equal opportunity? Should we poke out everyone else’s eye?
The historic facts show that government will always side with business against it’s people. From the beginning when they shot labor strikers, to now where they steal $700 billion for a bail out (and more).
“W/o minimum wage, larger labor pools lower labor market prices.”
With minimum wage, this leads to unemployment, and people starving on the street. Basically what minimum wage says is if you can’t demand at least so much for your wage, then you are legally prohibited from working.
In regards to your second statement, it is extremely easy, conceptually and in practice, to just say that all government is bad. It is a much more difficult problem do decide the best way to structure a government program or regulation to promote equal opportunity. There exists a bad govt. program does not prove all govt. is bad.
I don’t think “laissez faire” is equal opportunity to a child born in Manhattan vs. Harlem. Do you?
If there weren’t a minimum wage, then with a pool of unemployed workers, the agreed upon price will be determined by the most desperate members of the unemployment pool. As capital increases, the unemployment pool gets larger because the machines typically replace skilled labor w/ unskilled labor and/or make workers more efficient. W/o minimum wage, larger labor pools lower labor market prices.
I suppose this could all be fixed with worker unions. Taft-Hartley limits them however.
The teacher’s union and lousy teachers are the only ones opposed to reforming the school system. The teacher’s union is not a criminal organization like the Mafia legally speaking but they are in spirit. On the other hand they are more powerful and the Mafia is kinder to kids.
BULLSHIT !! so explain to me why the rich Boston Weston school kids parents don’t have to pay tuition and the Bronx kids parents do. I hope ‘ol Milton lies peaceful in his sleep but is also forgotten.
“Another example is fusion energy … Do you think the free-market would be more successful in this area?”
Yes, but perhaps by not making the investment. I can’t say what is the correct decision is, I don’t know if the pay-off is worth it.
There are currently new Fission Reactors (”Fission Fragment Reactors”) which are much safer, more efficient, and produce far less nuclear waist. We’ve known about them for 30 years, but can’t build them because of government regulations.
Actually automation was created by Henry Ford (when he invented the assembly line). The computer was ENIAC and was built to calculate artillery firing tables. The U.S. did this for national defense purposes which is a proper role for the government. However, there were several other non Federal funded computers being built at the same time by IBM (Mark Series), and Iowa State (Colossus).
I don’t have a problem with government supporting the sciences when doing it’s constitutional functions.
Another example is fusion energy. It is still on the drawing board, but experimental devices are incredibly expensive. The newest experimental reactor, called ITER, will cost $9.3billion. Even with this huge investment, there are no guarantees that the problem will be solved. Limitless energy harvested from seawater makes it worth the investment though.
Do you think the free-market would be more successful in this area?
I see what you are saying, however, I think that in technological advances that require lots of money, like the computer, the state was essential. I can’t envision a private industry that would be able to hemorrhage that much money on something as risky as basic research. Automation is a big part of mass production, and that was also developed by the state.
Do you think private industry would be able to produce a particle collider? Basic research precedes any application.
“but you could also say that the US is more prosperous … and there are more social programs now.”
We are more prosperous now, not because of social programs, but in spite of them. We are more prosperous because of the industrial revolution, mass production, electricity, integrated circuits, etc. The government had very little if no influence in these areas.
You are correct that we had less technology in the 1800’s, but unemployment was lower, and money retained it’s value.
I am thinking of Dickens’ Hard Times when I think of the completely free market. I have heard Milton Friedman comment on that very question and his answer was that it was better than the Feudalistic society before it. This is true, but you could also say that the US is more prosperous now than it was in the late 1800’s and there are more social programs now. Are my facts wrong? Were things different than I describe/conjectured in the early days of capitalism.
“In capitalism, because you can’t work together, your hand is forced.”
Why?
The reason I believe in freedom and free trade is because it works. History has shown it is the best way that we have figured out. Economic theory explains why it is the best way. That fact of the matter is your “social contracts” always lead to tyranny and suffering.
If the facts showed your ideas worked I would agree with you, but history paints a different picture. You seriously need to look at some facts.
“you aren’t actually free to pursue anything except a job”
Why not, you can pursue any job you wish. Everyone has a job, even rich people. Everyone does at least some amount of work.
I don’t see your point.
“I believe that in a free-market, you will end up with a small number of people owning a majority of the wealth and the vast remainder of people with no other means of subsistence”
History shows the opposite to be true. Also economic theory shows the opposite to be true.
What are you basing this on?
To me, the situation for society is similar to the prisoners dilemma. If the prisoners worked together, then they would both be better off than if they work on their own. In capitalism, because you can’t work together, your hand is forced. As a worker, you can’t independently protest wages because you will starve and as a business owner you can’t independently raise wages because you will go out of business. It takes a social contract to raise everyone up.
In a capitalist society, if you are not born into wealth, you aren’t actually free to pursue anything except a job to keep yourself alive. There isn’t spare land to go live on your own. You have but one choice and that choice is to rent yourself out to someone who is willing to pay you to do labor.
Business owners are compelled by competition to pay their workers as little as possible. If you want to pursue your own interests, you better hope you are born into wealth.
I believe that in a free-market, you will end up with a small number of people owning a majority of the wealth and the vast remainder of people with no other means of subsistence other than renting themselves to the capital owners. These masses of wage laborers will do virtually all of the work yet the capital owners will extract virtually all of the wealth. This wealth will be turned into more capital, which will make workers more efficient and thus require less of them.
Besides America hasn’t had a free market since December 23, 1913. America is not a capitalistic society, it is currently a socialistic society. You can’t say what you currently see is a problem with capitalism, because you have never seen capitalism.
“The libertarian left thinks that everyone should get together and agree …”
Neither I nor Friedman believe this to be true.
“However, I also see pseudo-feudalistic society emerging from capitalism”
This is caused by collectivism not capitalism. Thats what monarchs, dictatorships, and socialists are.
People being free to peruse there own interests is a new idea, it is the embodiment of capitalism. This more then anything else accounts for the wealth of America.
“think about the libertarian left(anarchist socialism).”
I nor Friedman believe in anarchy or socialism.
“Both sides are opposed to a central state making decisions regarding the population.”
Socialism is in favor of central state planning.
The libertarian left thinks that everyone should get together and agree to work together to provide everyone with a material life. Participation is voluntary but if you choose not to participate, you are on your own.
I really see the point of Rand/Friedman regarding the immorality of being chained down to the collective against your will. However, I also see pseudo-feudalistic society emerging from capitalism, as Marx believed and explained in Capital.
Let me put that challenge on hold for a moment and ask you what you think about the libertarian left(anarchist socialism). Both sides are opposed to a central state making decisions regarding the population. The left just says that people should voluntarily work together and the right says that they should compete against each other. The left is also against renting yourself out as a laborer, or, more generally, against the separation of workers and capitalists.
To amend the previous challenge:
Just to clarify a “Socialist Government Program” is a program which work by reallocating wealth from one set of people to another. Examples: minimal wage, low income housing, social security, higher education. Example of whats not a SGP: Military, FBI.
Also I was only referring to Federal Programs, not state. I don’t want to get into state laws.
“it is extremely easy, conceptually and in practice, to just say that all government is bad.”
It is easy to say these government programs are good. It is much harder to look up the numbers, do the math calculations, look at the broad picture, and decide for yourself.
I challenge you to find one “Socialist Government Program” which achieves their “Stated Goals”, without “Severely Harming” the people it claims it is trying to help.
Just one, good luck.
“the best way to structure a government program or regulation to promote equal opportunity”
I don’t believe in equal opportunity. I believe in equality under the law.
If a person is born blind how are you going to give him equal opportunity? Should we poke out everyone else’s eye?
The historic facts show that government will always side with business against it’s people. From the beginning when they shot labor strikers, to now where they steal $700 billion for a bail out (and more).
“W/o minimum wage, larger labor pools lower labor market prices.”
With minimum wage, this leads to unemployment, and people starving on the street. Basically what minimum wage says is if you can’t demand at least so much for your wage, then you are legally prohibited from working.
In regards to your second statement, it is extremely easy, conceptually and in practice, to just say that all government is bad. It is a much more difficult problem do decide the best way to structure a government program or regulation to promote equal opportunity. There exists a bad govt. program does not prove all govt. is bad.
I don’t think “laissez faire” is equal opportunity to a child born in Manhattan vs. Harlem. Do you?
If there weren’t a minimum wage, then with a pool of unemployed workers, the agreed upon price will be determined by the most desperate members of the unemployment pool. As capital increases, the unemployment pool gets larger because the machines typically replace skilled labor w/ unskilled labor and/or make workers more efficient. W/o minimum wage, larger labor pools lower labor market prices.
I suppose this could all be fixed with worker unions. Taft-Hartley limits them however.