That is the very reason why big business argues that environmental groups, labor unions, consumer groups, anti-trust laws, and the like are all against a free market. I personally feel they are there to keep the market free.
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Free trade is good in theory and on paper but horrible in vivo. Just like communism.
The problem is that free trade relies on smart consumers. People who won't just buy at wal-mart because it is cheapest. They need to be willing to pay for quality. A consumer can be very powerful if they want to be. This concept is completely missed by an average American.
It also fails because there is no way for counter against huge corporations. They completely go against true free trade because they involve complicated deals and backings that give unfair advantages to products that might not be as good. The original xbox is a great example. For most other companies it would have tanked, but microsoft kept the money artery pumping strong and luckily enough there were enough frat boys to buy halo and now they are debatably the best consule. A superior system at the time, which came out internet ready but didn't have the backing, Sega Dreamcast, barely lasted a few months even with some kick ass games. If there was truly free trade the inferior system would be gone and my Dreamcast would have a library full of games.
The huge corporations (though they pretend to hate it) love government intervention, because in its current manifestation it is a huge corrupt inefficient bureaucracy with a semi-incompetent and easily manipulated dictator. The government is a very easy to control in this form and as long as they work under the guise of a "Free Market", no one is the wiser.
Personally I see a true free market as the competition for certain goals by 3 groups all with mutual interests. The groups being the consumer, the laborer, and the owner/investor/manager. Each group should be able to keep the market free a system of checks and balances much like how our government was originally supposed to work. The consumer insure the is a buyer for the good and demands that they get acceptable quality goods at fair prices. The laborer produces insures that that they produce a decent quality good and demands fair wage and safe working conditions. The owner/investor/manager (depending on the situation, whatever title they want) makes sure the system is kept up by supplying capital and organizing the production. They demand that they get fair retribution for their investment but are also expected to offer the good at fair price and pay a fair wage to the laborer.
Since in actuality, the consumer is also be a laborer or a own/inv/mana but usually in a different area, they need to remember that they are also working for a consumer in their circle. Many different circles in many different areas of many different businesses all competing in this system is a free market because each interest group has equal power and equal responsibility ...
That is freedom. The Free Market most people speak of is the freedom for the powerful to do whatever they want and keep the market as unfair as possible. Nothing Free about that. No freedom to produce and invent when there is a huge impenetrable wall in front of you.
Big business is not evil, they are just interested in maximizing their profit. With or without free trade, they will try to pull their weight, use their connections, their $$ and try to exploit ways to make more money. That's why we have agencies to make sure products meet safety and quality standard. That's why we have consumer protection agencies. That's why we have labor laws. All those can be extended to businesses with global presence.
And just like we didn't say let's stop business from doing business because we are afraid of all the issues that come with big business, we shouldn't say let's stop free trade because there are issues with free trade.
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Free trade is good in theory and on paper but horrible in vivo. Just like communism.
The problem is that free trade relies on smart consumers. People who won't just buy at wal-mart because it is cheapest. They need to be willing to pay for quality. A consumer can be very powerful if they want to be. This concept is completely missed by an average American.
It also fails because there is no way for counter against huge corporations. They completely go against true free trade because they involve complicated deals and backings that give unfair advantages to products that might not be as good. The original xbox is a great example. For most other companies it would have tanked, but microsoft kept the money artery pumping strong and luckily enough there were enough frat boys to buy halo and now they are debatably the best consule. A superior system at the time, which came out internet ready but didn't have the backing, Sega Dreamcast, barely lasted a few months even with some kick ass games. If there was truly free trade the inferior system would be gone and my Dreamcast would have a library full of games.
The huge corporations (though they pretend to hate it) love government intervention, because in its current manifestation it is a huge corrupt inefficient bureaucracy with a semi-incompetent and easily manipulated dictator. The government is a very easy to control in this form and as long as they work under the guise of a "Free Market", no one is the wiser.
Personally I see a true free market as the competition for certain goals by 3 groups all with mutual interests. The groups being the consumer, the laborer, and the owner/investor/manager. Each group should be able to keep the market free a system of checks and balances much like how our government was originally supposed to work. The consumer insure the is a buyer for the good and demands that they get acceptable quality goods at fair prices. The laborer produces insures that that they produce a decent quality good and demands fair wage and safe working conditions. The owner/investor/manager (depending on the situation, whatever title they want) makes sure the system is kept up by supplying capital and organizing the production. They demand that they get fair retribution for their investment but are also expected to offer the good at fair price and pay a fair wage to the laborer.
Since in actuality, the consumer is also be a laborer or a own/inv/mana but usually in a different area, they need to remember that they are also working for a consumer in their circle. Many different circles in many different areas of many different businesses all competing in this system is a free market because each interest group has equal power and equal responsibility ...
That is freedom. The Free Market most people speak of is the freedom for the powerful to do whatever they want and keep the market as unfair as possible. Nothing Free about that. No freedom to produce and invent when there is a huge impenetrable wall in front of you.
Big business is not evil, they are just interested in maximizing their profit. With or without free trade, they will try to pull their weight, use their connections, their $$ and try to exploit ways to make more money. That's why we have agencies to make sure products meet safety and quality standard. That's why we have consumer protection agencies. That's why we have labor laws. All those can be extended to businesses with global presence.
And just like we didn't say let's stop business from doing business because we are afraid of all the issues that come with big business, we shouldn't say let's stop free trade because there are issues with free trade.
That is the very reason why big business argues that environmental groups, labor unions, consumer groups, anti-trust laws, and the like are all against a free market. I personally feel they are there to keep the market free.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Free trade is good in theory and on paper but horrible in vivo. Just like communism.
The problem is that free trade relies on smart consumers. People who won't just buy at wal-mart because it is cheapest. They need to be willing to pay for quality. A consumer can be very powerful if they want to be. This concept is completely missed by an average American.
It also fails because there is no way for counter against huge corporations. They completely go against true free trade because they involve complicated deals and backings that give unfair advantages to products that might not be as good. The original xbox is a great example. For most other companies it would have tanked, but microsoft kept the money artery pumping strong and luckily enough there were enough frat boys to buy halo and now they are debatably the best consule. A superior system at the time, which came out internet ready but didn't have the backing, Sega Dreamcast, barely lasted a few months even with some kick ass games. If there was truly free trade the inferior system would be gone and my Dreamcast would have a library full of games.
The huge corporations (though they pretend to hate it) love government intervention, because in its current manifestation it is a huge corrupt inefficient bureaucracy with a semi-incompetent and easily manipulated dictator. The government is a very easy to control in this form and as long as they work under the guise of a "Free Market", no one is the wiser.
Personally I see a true free market as the competition for certain goals by 3 groups all with mutual interests. The groups being the consumer, the laborer, and the owner/investor/manager. Each group should be able to keep the market free a system of checks and balances much like how our government was originally supposed to work. The consumer insure the is a buyer for the good and demands that they get acceptable quality goods at fair prices. The laborer produces insures that that they produce a decent quality good and demands fair wage and safe working conditions. The owner/investor/manager (depending on the situation, whatever title they want) makes sure the system is kept up by supplying capital and organizing the production. They demand that they get fair retribution for their investment but are also expected to offer the good at fair price and pay a fair wage to the laborer.
Since in actuality, the consumer is also be a laborer or a own/inv/mana but usually in a different area, they need to remember that they are also working for a consumer in their circle. Many different circles in many different areas of many different businesses all competing in this system is a free market because each interest group has equal power and equal responsibility ...
That is freedom. The Free Market most people speak of is the freedom for the powerful to do whatever they want and keep the market as unfair as possible. Nothing Free about that. No freedom to produce and invent when there is a huge impenetrable wall in front of you.
Big business is not evil, they are just interested in maximizing their profit. With or without free trade, they will try to pull their weight, use their connections, their $$ and try to exploit ways to make more money. That's why we have agencies to make sure products meet safety and quality standard. That's why we have consumer protection agencies. That's why we have labor laws. All those can be extended to businesses with global presence.
And just like we didn't say let's stop business from doing business because we are afraid of all the issues that come with big business, we shouldn't say let's stop free trade because there are issues with free trade.
That is the very reason why big business argues that environmental groups, labor unions, consumer groups, anti-trust laws, and the like are all against a free market. I personally feel they are there to keep the market free.
What's with the booleans? It's not a choice between big business without any restriction or banning it, between free trade without any restriction or banning it.
The discussion is about how to regulate it, how to limit it, so that you get the benefits and minimize the costs.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Anyways free trade can be a boon to your economy provided you regulate that trade so another country doesnt undermine your industries. A classic example of this is when Korea subsidized their steel industry to flood the market to kill our steel industry. Just saying we need or dont need free trade is too simplistic. It needs to be regulated by the regulating body(usually govt).
Originally posted by: Vic
Like most everything else, an extreme position on free trade, for or against, is untenable, unwise, and undesirable. Open markets are important to provide consumers with the best products and the best prices. At the same time, however, it is necessary to protect our nation's own workers from having to compete against slave/impoverished labor in other countries where human life is not held in as high regard as it is here.
Originally posted by: yllus
So while some of you may prefer thinking back a few decades to the good ole days where America reigned and the rest of the world couldn't build for crap, realize that daydreams aren't real.
Those days are gone, and nobody is going to bring them back.
Time to adjust.
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Vic
Like most everything else, an extreme position on free trade, for or against, is untenable, unwise, and undesirable. Open markets are important to provide consumers with the best products and the best prices. At the same time, however, it is necessary to protect our nation's own workers from having to compete against slave/impoverished labor in other countries where human life is not held in as high regard as it is here.
agreed, and of course don't forget health and environmental regulation.
Cambodia, while still a very cheap place to produce apparel, has chosen to rely on outside inspectors and to foster unusually strong garment unions that have become an independent political force in a country otherwise awash in corruption and cronyism. The efforts at improvement here may point the way for other nations seeking to avoid a race to the bottom as they struggle to establish or sustain footholds in the global economy.
Despite the loss of special access to the American market with the end of quotas, the Cambodian government, many garment-factory owners and the unions here are sticking to their higher standards. All agree that these factors have helped Cambodia escape much of the convulsion that is sweeping through the global apparel industry.
Cham Prasith, the Cambodian minister of commerce who reached the deal with Washington in 1999, said the benefits had gone beyond anyone's expectations.
"We are extending our labor standards beyond the end of the quotas because we know that is why we continue to have buyers," he said in an interview. "If we didn't respect the unions and the labor standards, we would be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs."
Originally posted by: SirStev0
I see your obscure reference and raise you.... um....
anyway. If you saw my original post that I actually feel the way to fix the system would be with smart consumers. I am not going to go through it all over again since it is quoted, but see it from my side. My problem with big business is that they tout the benefits of a free system without interference from gov or other, yet are one of the biggest interferer's of them all.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: SirStev0
I see your obscure reference and raise you.... um....
I didn't think booleans was an obscure reference, not that I have anything against well-placed obscure references. But use 'black and white' if you like.
At least I didn't use 'Manichean'.
anyway. If you saw my original post that I actually feel the way to fix the system would be with smart consumers. I am not going to go through it all over again since it is quoted, but see it from my side. My problem with big business is that they tout the benefits of a free system without interference from gov or other, yet are one of the biggest interferer's of them all.
The thing is, you need to use solutions that are feasible and which work.
Just saying smart consumers would solve the problem only helps if you can get them.
You can't. It's amazing how predictable behaviors are, regardless of the bigger picture, based on economic interest. The same people hurt by Wal-Mart shop at Wal-Mart.
Al Gore has an anecdote in his book 'The Assault on Reason' about how during a Senate campaign, when his opponent was starting to catch up, his campaign strategists told him that if they spent a certain sum on an ad, and the opponent responded as they expected, and they countered that, his numbers would go up about 8.5%. They did it, and his numbers went up exactly 8.5%. The lesson he got was that he was worried how much public opinion can effectively be 'bought and paid for' in the current environment.
The numbers for him had less to do with the relative merits of the candidates' positions, which didn't change with the numbers, than with the times the public was exposed to ads.
Since you can't get the consumers to shape up, you need to find another solution, if you don't want to just ignore the problem.
Sometimes consumer-aimed measures help. I'm all in favor of ingredients lists, nutrition lists, black-box warnings, even the restrictions on tobacco ads.
But I hate to tell you, the priviliges modern consumers have are hard-won and delicate; mankind's normal societal structure is with a few rich and in the middle and a lot of poor.[/b]
It wouldn't be hard for the US to fall back to that, as we're already in part doing for 25 years.
It's one thing for the public to be fooled by rhetoric that if you cut the taxes on the rich, they'll invest so much more that everyone will do better; that if you lower tax rates that are already relatively low, the tax revenue will increase, and so on. But it's 25 years; the data is in, and there's no excuse for not telling the truth now and society acting to right its mistakes. No excuse but the fact that the policies are set less on the merits, than on the power structure.
Is globalization working? Ask the average American and get one answer, ask the very wealthy and get another.
It's a little like asking those who profit from war how the war is going. As long as the war is going, it's going well. Their enemy is peace, but they can't say that, now can they?
Only a small part of the wealth at the top has anything to do with making a better mousetrap; that's the high-hanging fruit. If you can cut workers' salaries, in the short term that's just as much more profit as improving products, or increasing sales. But it is short-term, it's not good for society in the long run.
Capitalists themselves often know this; they just often lack the means to do much about it, as they are pressured for short-term gains for competitive reasons. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, business leaders were often the ones calling for the govenment to level the playing field by closing the exploits in the marketplace. One of the leading profiteers, Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK), was the first head of the SEC, where he used his knowledge of how to exploit the markets to close those exploits.
No one helped the workers get out of their rut from the dark times. They paid in blood, against hired thugs, even against the US military, to fight for basic labor rights - and the country benefitted for decades. Now we're facing similar issues on a global scale; the gains of US workers are threatened by global competition like never before. If you don't want the prosperity of the US to be lost to history and the US drug down closer to other nations, you need to support the measures to fight that - and that largely means labor rights
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: rchiu
Free trade is not bad, it is necessary. Without free trade, your economy is not going to operate efficiently because you are putting up barriers and making business to not use the most cost efficient resources.
"Free trade" that includes the freedom to exploit very un-free sweat shop labor markets, and lax manufacturing, environmental and product safety conditions, is anything but "free." It's simply shifting the immediate effects of those conditions to locations that still allow them at the expense of American companies and workers.
That doesn't stop more long range fallout, here, including contaminated, unregulated products and higher unemployment, both of which are happening. Without adequate protection and regulation, "free" trade is not fair trade.
Well, the US really can't worry about what other country do. And remember, what's sweat shop for the US maybe a great career for a developing country. Ask a teenager on the street of Manila or Jakarta if he/she would rather sell newspaper for a few cents and risk their life standing in a busy street, or a factory with stable income.
The lax product quality is a problem for the companies that outsource their production. They are the ones selling the product to the end customers, and they should be the ones ensuring acceptable product quality. It is a regulatory issue and should not be used as an excuse not to have free trade.
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Free trade benefits all, and not just in theory. The success of America and the West is testament in part to this.
In theory, people's wants and desires will drive market forces and prices. Businesses will compete in order to attract consumers, thus driving prices down. As prices fall, the consumer saves money as a result, allowing him or her more buying power, which will drive industry. It's an equilibrium.
That's a very basic explanation of a very small aspect of microeconomics. This is theory, but the results of its application have vindicated the theory. No, not everyone is left happy, but far more are left happy than impoverished.
One thing that people should understand is that there's no perfect form of economy. No matter what we do, there are going to be people who get screwed over, left behind, and forgotten. There's no way around it. I don't ask that we call this a good thing, rather that we understand going in that, in any human institution, there will be casualties inevitably.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Free trade benefits all, and not just in theory. The success of America and the West is testament in part to this.
In theory, people's wants and desires will drive market forces and prices. Businesses will compete in order to attract consumers, thus driving prices down. As prices fall, the consumer saves money as a result, allowing him or her more buying power, which will drive industry. It's an equilibrium.
That's a very basic explanation of a very small aspect of microeconomics. This is theory, but the results of its application have vindicated the theory. No, not everyone is left happy, but far more are left happy than impoverished.
One thing that people should understand is that there's no perfect form of economy. No matter what we do, there are going to be people who get screwed over, left behind, and forgotten. There's no way around it. I don't ask that we call this a good thing, rather that we understand going in that, in any human institution, there will be casualties inevitably.
This is nice and all, but we're currently discussing the topic of free trade on the macro level, not micro. That changes things a bit.
Originally posted by: maverick44
Originally posted by: Craig234
The thing is, you need to use solutions that are feasible and which work.
Just saying smart consumers would solve the problem only helps if you can get them.
You can't. It's amazing how predictable behaviors are, regardless of the bigger picture, based on economic interest. The same people hurt by Wal-Mart shop at Wal-Mart.
Al Gore has an anecdote in his book 'The Assault on Reason' about how during a Senate campaign, when his opponent was starting to catch up, his campaign strategists told him that if they spent a certain sum on an ad, and the opponent responded as they expected, and they countered that, his numbers would go up about 8.5%. They did it, and his numbers went up exactly 8.5%. The lesson he got was that he was worried how much public opinion can effectively be 'bought and paid for' in the current environment.
The numbers for him had less to do with the relative merits of the candidates' positions, which didn't change with the numbers, than with the times the public was exposed to ads.
Since you can't get the consumers to shape up, you need to find another solution, if you don't want to just ignore the problem.
Sometimes consumer-aimed measures help. I'm all in favor of ingredients lists, nutrition lists, black-box warnings, even the restrictions on tobacco ads.
But I hate to tell you, the priviliges modern consumers have are hard-won and delicate; mankind's normal societal structure is with a few rich and in the middle and a lot of poor.[/b]
It wouldn't be hard for the US to fall back to that, as we're already in part doing for 25 years.
It's one thing for the public to be fooled by rhetoric that if you cut the taxes on the rich, they'll invest so much more that everyone will do better; that if you lower tax rates that are already relatively low, the tax revenue will increase, and so on. But it's 25 years; the data is in, and there's no excuse for not telling the truth now and society acting to right its mistakes. No excuse but the fact that the policies are set less on the merits, than on the power structure.
Is globalization working? Ask the average American and get one answer, ask the very wealthy and get another.
It's a little like asking those who profit from war how the war is going. As long as the war is going, it's going well. Their enemy is peace, but they can't say that, now can they?
Only a small part of the wealth at the top has anything to do with making a better mousetrap; that's the high-hanging fruit. If you can cut workers' salaries, in the short term that's just as much more profit as improving products, or increasing sales. But it is short-term, it's not good for society in the long run.
Capitalists themselves often know this; they just often lack the means to do much about it, as they are pressured for short-term gains for competitive reasons. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, business leaders were often the ones calling for the govenment to level the playing field by closing the exploits in the marketplace. One of the leading profiteers, Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK), was the first head of the SEC, where he used his knowledge of how to exploit the markets to close those exploits.
No one helped the workers get out of their rut from the dark times. They paid in blood, against hired thugs, even against the US military, to fight for basic labor rights - and the country benefitted for decades. Now we're facing similar issues on a global scale; the gains of US workers are threatened by global competition like never before. If you don't want the prosperity of the US to be lost to history and the US drug down closer to other nations, you need to support the measures to fight that - and that largely means labor rights
After looking at your tirade against global capitalism I am sorry I just cant see your point.
It's not a choice between big business without any restriction or banning it, between free trade without any restriction or banning it.
The discussion is about how to regulate it, how to limit it, so that you get the benefits and minimize the costs.
1) Cutting taxes or not cutting taxes is not really the question. If you cut taxes the money goes to banks stock markets and venture capitalists, which goes further down the road building skyscrapers, factories and tolled roads. If you increase taxes it goes to the government and further into things like making sure the next gen fighter ( eg f-22) can kill 30 planes instead of 20 and next nuclear weapon kills TWO continents worth of people instead of one. YOUR choice. and most government programs are aimed at UPLIFTING people hardly percolate down to the average worker. there is a lot of bureaucracy to eat away the money in between. I am sorry the rich dont keep their money locked away in a vault somewhere.
2) I am not an American. I come from a country that believed in all those lofty things like worker welfare and taxing the rich middle class ( often as high as 70 percent). guess what happened. Government corruption ate away most of the wealth that was created in my country. When I was growing up I saw the most brilliant and creative people live out their lives in collective misery.... all for the benefit for the common worker. I have lived long enough here in America to see standards of living increase even in an economy that grows at roughly 2 percent every year. The economy in my home country NOW grows at 8-9 percent. All I hear here on CNN is how my country is stealing every job from middle class americans in the hi tech sector from R&D to call centers.Yet, If I had a choice to be born here instead of there I would gladly trade sides with the americans workers who think they are being shafted in the global rat race. I would work at starbucks,still live comfortably if frugally , finish a masters in engineering or an MBA part time, and if there are no jobs left in the knowledge arena courtesy of my home country I would still use my mba to turn around the starbucks or mcdonalds and hopefully become the store manager.
3) Yes a lot of people did. engineers who made manufacturing processes safer and healthier did. the japanese engineers who designed the robots to do the "workers" work did. the mbas who invented Just in Time manufacturing did. The people who thought about global supply chains did. thanks to them the world employs half as many people in manufacturing as it did 50 years ago and that too mostly in factories in third world countries. The people in china didnt take away your jobs. The chinese arent mostly working in sweat shops. They are working in the same advanced factories that were designed by the japanese, american and european and yes nowadays indian and taiwanese engineers that require better machines not human sweat. when the chinese labor becomes too expensive the factories will move to poorer countries and will be better safer and more productive. hopefully the chinese wont make as big a stink about it as the americans are now.
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Free trade benefits all, and not just in theory. The success of America and the West is testament in part to this.
In theory, people's wants and desires will drive market forces and prices. Businesses will compete in order to attract consumers, thus driving prices down. As prices fall, the consumer saves money as a result, allowing him or her more buying power, which will drive industry. It's an equilibrium.
That's a very basic explanation of a very small aspect of microeconomics. This is theory, but the results of its application have vindicated the theory. No, not everyone is left happy, but far more are left happy than impoverished.
One thing that people should understand is that there's no perfect form of economy. No matter what we do, there are going to be people who get screwed over, left behind, and forgotten. There's no way around it. I don't ask that we call this a good thing, rather that we understand going in that, in any human institution, there will be casualties inevitably. Capitalism is the system that, so far, best minimizes these losses.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Free trade benefits all, and not just in theory. The success of America and the West is testament in part to this.
In theory, people's wants and desires will drive market forces and prices. Businesses will compete in order to attract consumers, thus driving prices down. As prices fall, the consumer saves money as a result, allowing him or her more buying power, which will drive industry. It's an equilibrium.
That's a very basic explanation of a very small aspect of microeconomics. This is theory, but the results of its application have vindicated the theory. No, not everyone is left happy, but far more are left happy than impoverished.
One thing that people should understand is that there's no perfect form of economy. No matter what we do, there are going to be people who get screwed over, left behind, and forgotten. There's no way around it. I don't ask that we call this a good thing, rather that we understand going in that, in any human institution, there will be casualties inevitably. Capitalism is the system that, so far, best minimizes these losses.
That's so over-simplified as to be absurd.
It's like saying that raising taxes is the best way to balance the budget. Well, sure, sometimes it is - if the taxes are outrageously low and spending is appropriate - but what about when taxes are excessively high already? When spending is way too high? The best answer then isn't to raise taxes.
Capitalism is almost neutral - my gosh, do people read Wealth of Nations - in that it can provide great benefits, and it can also be abused to cause great harm.
The fact that is has complexities doesn't mean you are either completely for capitalism without any regulation, or completely against it. These black and white issues keep getting posted, as 'pro' or 'anti' capitalism when that's not the issue. The issue is how and how much to regulate capitalism and other such 'complicated' topics. Making the discussion about capitalism is good or bad is like trying to discuss whether a specific medicine will help a specific patient by talking about being pro medicine or anti medicine.
Here's a clue - the prosperity of the west has a lot to do with many things, and many things other than free trade. You should be aware of them before making big statements.
In fact, some of them are precisely against free trade, when it served our interests (and by the way, did you know nearly all federal taxes were from tarriffs most of our history?)
And your statement that no economic system prevents all poverty is not only useless, but damaging to the discussion, just as in the medicine analogy. Just because no system cures poverty doesn't mean that some are better than others - your argument was basically, 'none cure it, so just use unregulated capitalism'. How nuts is that?
Now, I don't think we're likely to get far, sadly, in a discussion here that tries to address the actual issues - there are countless topics for our complex economy which are simplified to 'you big government jerk' and 'you anti-government jerk' deciding the position taken much of the time - but I do think there are some basic ideas about the system it's good to understand.
I try to explain some of those in my posts.
Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's simplified on purpose. Premises generally are.
Free trade is good. The reason for this is that generally the individual is more capable in dictating his needs than having them provided for by an external party. Is regulation necessary to some extent? Yes, of course. But it's something that is wisely undertaken in measured steps.
As I said in my post, the success of the west is testament in part to the success of capitalism. I provided for the fact that its successes are attributable also to other sources. But I place much of it at the feet of the wisdom in the general understanding that free trade is good.
I don't care whether any of my statements are damaging the discussion. I only care that I'm making as factual a statement as I know how. Again, no economic system prevents or cures all societal ills. To date, capitalism comes the closest.
I don't see how anyone can argue that capitalism and communism/socialism/or any other economic system to date are two sides of the same coin, except to say that they are polar opposites. One works in human society. The other doesn't. Period.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Bullshit! We can and should worry about what other countries do. Manufacturing goods for the American market in countries with exploitive working conditions kills American jobs, which is reflected in higher unemployment, in turn reducing tax revenues and raising the costs of dealing with the resulting problems.
Brilliant... as he shuffles deck chairs on the Titanic. :thumbsdown:
All that does is shift the same costs from the countries who should be establishing and enforcing regulations for safe products and workplaces to those companies who import those products to the U.S. Those same costs have to be included in the same products.
One difference is, without local regulation for all manufacturers in any given country, the more attractive it is for some manufacturers to try to save money by skimping on workplace product safety.
Originally posted by: MadRat
I have a great idea, lets contract all the work from China (and these other piss ant nations) for products that leave behind byproducts of the nastiest known chemicals to man. In about ten years when their societies pollute the ***k out of their people then we'll be the ones laughing or asses all the way to the bank. Oh, wait, we already do that...
Seriously, people, this is more of a fairness issue on several levels than people are giving it credit. It is not just about wages and prices, its about the whole big picture of an economy. You cannot send the foundations of your economy abroad and not expect all the evils that were beat out of it the past 150 years not to rear their heads again. The beast is loose. Free reign of the meglo-corporations is a nightmare for everyone.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's simplified on purpose. Premises generally are.
Free trade is good. The reason for this is that generally the individual is more capable in dictating his needs than having them provided for by an external party. Is regulation necessary to some extent? Yes, of course. But it's something that is wisely undertaken in measured steps.
As I said in my post, the success of the west is testament in part to the success of capitalism. I provided for the fact that its successes are attributable also to other sources. But I place much of it at the feet of the wisdom in the general understanding that free trade is good.
I don't care whether any of my statements are damaging the discussion. I only care that I'm making as factual a statement as I know how. Again, no economic system prevents or cures all societal ills. To date, capitalism comes the closest.
I don't see how anyone can argue that capitalism and communism/socialism/or any other economic system to date are two sides of the same coin, except to say that they are polar opposites. One works in human society. The other doesn't. Period.
There's not much point in a detailed response, since you show no interest in the actual issues.
So, suffice it to say to your last summarizing comment, you are claiming that no matter how repressive the situation for most people, with or without any democracy, as long as it's capitalism, it 'works', period for people, and that countries like Sweden which are relatively socialist simply 'don't work for people'.
You are not interested in the facts, the truth, the issue, so why you post, I don't know. But good luck.