Minimum Wage Workers At 40hrs A Week Can't Afford 2-Bedroom Unit In Any State
(09-12-2013, 02:16 PM)Sidewinder Wrote:
(09-12-2013, 02:02 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(09-12-2013, 01:59 PM)Sidewinder Wrote: Socialism only works in a hunter-gatherer society.

Oh? Your evidence of this?

The consistent failure of socialism. The only example I can see of successful socialism was among the tribes in North America which were hunter-gatherers in the land of Eden.


(09-12-2013, 02:02 PM)csrowan Wrote: Not that it matters much to me, because I actually appreciate a lot about capitalism. I'd just like to see a blend of several different things, including capitalism and socialism, that's crafted and adapted over time to provide for people when necessary while helping them get to a point where it's no longer necessary.

Not even capitalism can make socialism work.

Quote:And your non-existent free market wouldn't do that even if it existed.

When the free market existed, it raised the standard of living for the entire world - more than any other system - and at a rate not accomplished in 1000 years of fedualism/socialism.


I've shared links explaining why the free market won't work and why it doesn't exist.

And ultimately, it's built upon corporations being fully transparent without government intervention to make them do it, and customers making rational decisions of what's best for themselves and society based on the knowledge they gained from that transparency.

It is in the corporations' interests to not be transparent.

And humans have a horrible track record of making rational decisions of what's best for themselves and society, especially when self gratification comes into play.




And regarding socialism, we already have a combination of capitalism and socialism. So does almost every other first world country.
Reply
(09-12-2013, 02:31 PM)csrowan Wrote: I've shared links explaining why the free market won't work and why it doesn't exist.
And Al Gore says the "consensus of science" says humans are causing global warming. LOL

(09-12-2013, 02:31 PM)csrowan Wrote: And ultimately, it's built upon corporations being fully transparent without government intervention to make them do it, and customers making rational decisions of what's best for themselves and society based on the knowledge they gained from that transparency. It is in the corporations' interests to not be transparent.

Where does any obligation for transparency enter into the free market, free enterprise and business? Generally speaking, tax returns are private.

Also, the free market involves more than corporations. Corporations evolved purely as a manifestation of the ages old tradition of the limitation of liability to investors in a ship and its cargo. Corporations are but one form of enterprise in a system designed to foster enterprise.

(09-12-2013, 02:31 PM)csrowan Wrote: And humans have a horrible track record of making rational decisions of what's best for themselves and society, especially when self gratification comes into play.

You just cannot trust people to be free. Let's go back to serfdom with a loving lord taking care of us. (Substitute commissar for lord and you have communism. Substitute bureaucrat and you have socialism.) If your system is all that desirable, why did the Germans have to build a wall to keep their people in it?

(09-12-2013, 02:31 PM)csrowan Wrote: And regarding socialism, we already have a combination of capitalism and socialism. So does almost every other first world country.

You seriously think that is working?
Reply
Show us a single example of pure capitalism working. I submit none exists. All successful governments so far seem to involve some mixture of capitalism and socialism both.
Reply
(09-12-2013, 03:46 PM)Sidewinder Wrote: And Al Gore says the "consensus of science" says humans are causing global warming. LOL

And he is correct so what is there to laugh about?
Reply
(09-12-2013, 03:46 PM)Sidewinder Wrote:
(09-12-2013, 02:31 PM)csrowan Wrote: I've shared links explaining why the free market won't work and why it doesn't exist.
And Al Gore says the "consensus of science" says humans are causing global warming. LOL

(09-12-2013, 02:31 PM)csrowan Wrote: And ultimately, it's built upon corporations being fully transparent without government intervention to make them do it, and customers making rational decisions of what's best for themselves and society based on the knowledge they gained from that transparency. It is in the corporations' interests to not be transparent.

Where does any obligation for transparency enter into the free market, free enterprise and business? Generally speaking, tax returns are private.

Also, the free market involves more than corporations. Corporations evolved purely as a manifestation of the ages old tradition of the limitation of liability to investors in a ship and its cargo. Corporations are but one form of enterprise in a system designed to foster enterprise.

(09-12-2013, 02:31 PM)csrowan Wrote: And humans have a horrible track record of making rational decisions of what's best for themselves and society, especially when self gratification comes into play.

You just cannot trust people to be free. Let's go back to serfdom with a loving lord taking care of us. (Substitute commissar for lord and you have communism. Substitute bureaucrat and you have socialism.) If your system is all that desirable, why did the Germans have to build a wall to keep their people in it?

(09-12-2013, 02:31 PM)csrowan Wrote: And regarding socialism, we already have a combination of capitalism and socialism. So does almost every other first world country.

You seriously think that is working?


I'm not a socialist. I believe there is value to having well run social programs in a regulated capitalistic model.

And if there's no obligation for transparency in the free market, then how will having a free market make the world a better place? If you don't know where your money is going, you can't even make informed decisions on how to vote with your money. Not that people are very good at doing that anyway.

How will your free market make wages rise? How will eliminating minimum wage end up making people more money? We already know that many corporations (and businesses) are mostly interested in profit, specifically profit for owners, management, and stockholders. How is a free market with no minimum wage going to get people who already do everything they can to pay their employees starvation wages suddenly going to make them pay a living wage? Especially if the majority of companies decide to lower wages.

What happens then? Sure, you can refuse to take a job for less than you think you're worth, but your neighbor may not have a strong of willpower, and they'll take the low paying job to put food on the table and you're left without a job.
Reply
Average 2 bedroom rent in South Dakota (avg of entire state) is around $700/mth. 2 people at min. wage ($7.25/hr)...$2516 pre tax. Easily affordable if you know how to budget.

Americans live beyond their means.

If I can support a family of four on a tad more than $2000 a month (in Oregon), with almost half of it going to a mortgage...then 2 people making minimum wage should be able to make it.
Reply
(09-12-2013, 03:53 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Show us a single example of pure capitalism working. I submit none exists. All successful governments so far seem to involve some mixture of capitalism and socialism both.
The USA began as a result of Adam Smith positing the concept of free enterprise and a cornucopia of natural resources. The system introduced accomplished more in raising the standard of living for the entire world in 200 years than all the feudalism/socialism had accomplished in 5000. The Plymouth Colony began as a socialist enterprise (funded by capitalists) and failed utterly until it was re-organized as a free enterprise system.

The consistent error you make is to confabulate "capitalism" with "free enterprise." Capital is simply an economic tool to satisfy a need in any system other than that of hunter/gatherer to provide immediate reward for the investment of labor.

The USA has put itself into bankruptcy by burdening the free market with its schemes of welfare (and wars) which can only be funded by taxing the free market out of existence.

We need to heed the founder's advice, avoid foreign entanglements, and put checks on government.
Reply
(09-12-2013, 03:54 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-12-2013, 03:46 PM)Sidewinder Wrote: And Al Gore says the "consensus of science" says humans are causing global warming. LOL

And he is correct so what is there to laugh about?
Ha Ha Ha. Gotcha. "Consensus of science" is an oxymoron.
Reply
(09-12-2013, 04:00 PM)csrowan Wrote: I'm not a socialist. I believe there is value to having well run social programs in a regulated capitalistic model.

Like being slightly pregnant?

(09-12-2013, 04:00 PM)csrowan Wrote: And if there's no obligation for transparency in the free market, then how will having a free market make the world a better place? If you don't know where your money is going, you can't even make informed decisions on how to vote with your money. Not that people are very good at doing that anyway.

You are confabulating voting with trading in the economic market place. One doesn't buy or not buy a handsaw based on making the world a better place. One buys the one that best satisfies his need/want. A million recurrences of that transaction will eliminate unsatisfactory products and avoid the waste involved in buying something worthless, thereby rendering the economy healthier.

(09-12-2013, 04:00 PM)csrowan Wrote: How will your free market make wages rise? How will eliminating minimum wage end up making people more money? We already know that many corporations (and businesses) are mostly interested in profit, specifically profit for owners, management, and stockholders. How is a free market with no minimum wage going to get people who already do everything they can to pay their employees starvation wages suddenly going to make them pay a living wage? Especially if the majority of companies decide to lower wages.

Again, we're confabulating issues. It isn't an issue of providing people with more money. It is an issue of providing them with more wealth with which to acquire the things they want/need. We are giving half the folks in Oregon free money - we just use Oregon Trails instead of the USDA redbacks. But inflation gives them no more pourchasing power. The evil is inflation which is all about government manipulating the value of the money.
Reply
So there's nothing in your free market to prevent WalMart from overwhelming the US market even more while people buy cheap crap made elsewhere, putting local companies out of business and ruining our economy?

Just faith.
Reply
(09-12-2013, 06:28 PM)csrowan Wrote: So there's nothing in your free market to prevent WalMart from overwhelming the US market even more while people buy cheap crap made elsewhere, putting local companies out of business and ruining our economy?

I have to plead ignorance regarding WalMart goods. I don't do business there.

However, in general, the benefit of the free market is that consumers will recognize a malinvestment when they make one and will not repeat. Thus, there is a built in mechanism for eliminating the purveyor of defective merchandise from the system. However, if the product actually satisfies their needs/wants for less then it is not a malinvestment. It is beneficial and it frees up the difference between the low price and the competition for investment in something else - promoting expansion of the economy on the same amount of money.

A purveyor who successfully overcharges for equivalent merchandise - such as a monopoly - does not aid our economy. He depletes it with no compensatory benefit.
Reply
What constitutes a malinvestment?

If it's cheap enough, it doesn't matter if it falls apart, you can just buy a new one.

If it ruins the environment and there's no transparency, and you buy an affordable durable good as a result, is that a good investment or a malinvestment?

If the companies who can charge the least for an equivalent product are the ones who ignore the environment and underpay their employees, is the purchase if that product a good investment or a malinvestment?

In a free market, what is to stop monopolies from arising?

When people will buy cheap goods made in China in preference to more durable but more expensive goods made in the US, where does that fall on the scale of recognizing a malinvestment when they make one? It hurts the local economy, but the consumer believes it is beneficial because it saves them money, despite it driving down wages for the entire region.

In what world do you trust the average citizen to make good choices with their money?
Reply
(09-12-2013, 10:07 PM)csrowan Wrote: What constitutes a malinvestment?

A malinvestment is an investment that fails to produce the anticipated return.


(09-12-2013, 10:07 PM)csrowan Wrote: If it's cheap enough, it doesn't matter if it falls apart, you can just buy a new one.

If you have to pay for something two, three whatever number of times, how can you consider it cheap enough?

(09-12-2013, 10:07 PM)csrowan Wrote: If it ruins the environment and there's no transparency, and you buy an affordable durable good as a result, is that a good investment or a malinvestment?

We've been through that transparency thing. Irrelevant. If the effect on the environment is of concern, the consumer in a free market will factor that into his evaluation. Eg. organic veggies, avoid gmo products, glutens, whatever.

(09-12-2013, 10:07 PM)csrowan Wrote: If the companies who can charge the least for an equivalent product are the ones who ignore the environment and underpay their employees, is the purchase if that product a good investment or a malinvestment?

The magic word is "equivalent." If that is satisfied, the economics are beneficial. If the "environment" is a factor, then the consumer will insist upon it. If it is not - and only a concern of bureaucrats - the consumer will not care, even if he isn't smart enough to know what's good for him in the eyes of the bureaucrat.

How much an employer has to pay for the labor he purchases is a free market exercise. "Underpay" is purely the decision of the seller of the labor.

(09-12-2013, 10:07 PM)csrowan Wrote: In a free market, what is to stop monopolies from arising?

It is the role of government to guarantee a free market. A monopoly is the antithesis of free market.

(09-12-2013, 10:07 PM)csrowan Wrote: When people will buy cheap goods made in China in preference to more durable but more expensive goods made in the US, where does that fall on the scale of recognizing a malinvestment when they make one?

The source is irrelevant. If the investor seeks durability, and the product he purchases (scam or whatever) doesn't deliver durability, it is a malinvestment. There is no protection in any system against a malinvestment. The free market provides a vehicle with which to avoid its repetition.


(09-12-2013, 10:07 PM)csrowan Wrote: It hurts the local economy, but the consumer believes it is beneficial because it saves them money, despite it driving down wages for the entire region.

Paying less for an equivalent product helps the economy because the difference is money that can be spent on additional consumption. I fail to see how overpaying for equivalent goods benefits the economy in any way. It is wasted expense.

(09-12-2013, 10:07 PM)csrowan Wrote: In what world do you trust the average citizen to make good choices with their money?

I trust my fellow man in the aggregate. Clearly, as we see here, there are those whose individual judgment may be questionable. However, in a free market, a fool and his money are soon parted. The bureaucrats don't have to concern themselves protecting those who will not take care of themselves.
Reply
There is nothing in what you said that convinced me if anything other than that you care more about your libertarian economic ideals than you do about real life economics.

I was right the first time I stopped talking to you about this subject. You'd rather have people starve than consider alternative views, and there's no point in talking with you further.
Reply
(09-12-2013, 10:43 PM)csrowan Wrote: I was right the first time I stopped talking to you about this subject. You'd rather have people starve than consider alternative views, and there's no point in talking with you further.

I care a lot about little old ladies who fall and fracture their hips. I don't try to reinvent the laws of gravity to protect them.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)