Earning vs Winning

[Capitalist]

Another nice article from Jim Peron, Executive Director of NZ Institute for Liberal Values http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php

Just don't earn it!

One of the largest lottery jackpots in US history, well over $300 million, was won not too long ago by three people. Of course people win large sums of money all the time though we all know that far more is lost than is ever won.

There is nothing particularly unusual about this except one trend I've noticed. People who win large sums of money do not attract the same amount of hatred as does those who earn large sums of money. In some political circles it's chic to hate the rich but the rich who are hated are those who worked for it not the lucky few gamblers.

In a lottery all you have to do is pick the right numbers. But in business you have to work and usually work very hard. You have to find a niche in the market, you have to find a product that people want. You have to deliver that product at a price that people are willing to pay. Often such efforts fail and you have to start all over again.

So why is it that so many people are willing to despise those who earn their wealth while ignoring those who simply win it? You would think that if anyone would be despised it would the lucky few who did nothing for their winnings and not those who made robust efforts.

I have a theory on this: those who earn their wealth tend to be despised precisely because they earned their wealth. When some housewife becomes a millionaire by fluke it says nothing about those of us who are not millionaires.

But the millionaire, or worse yet the billionaire, who has earned his wealth raises questions we don't like to consider. Was it because he was smarter? Did he work harder than I did? His successes speak volumes to our failures. His riches, and our lack of comparable riches, implies that somehow he was better than we were. In fact, all we know for sure, is that he was better at that one task than we were or at least managed to satisfy more consumers.

If the market rewards this ability then a lack of reward implies a lack of that ability, at least in comparison to the millionaire. Of course the fact is that most Americans succeed to a higher degree than do people in the rest of the world. That is one reason that anti - Americanism is so popular in so many cultures.

The same reason that so many people hate America is the same reason that so many people in America like to run down the wealthy - - especially the very wealthy.

It is not because these people have "stolen" their wealth or that they are "crooks", though many like to pretend that is true. It is because of their virtues that they are hated. The proof we value their ability is that they couldn't get rich in a free market without satisfying lots of customers. And often the very people who buy their products despise the rewards the producers receive. It is what Ayn Rand called the hatred of the good for being the good.

The less successful don't hate success. They just hate that others achieved what they desired.

Egalitarianism is often popular precisely because it implies that all people are equally deserving of reward. Those who fear they won't be rewarded are precisely the ones who adopt that viewpoint. But how is it that people become wealthy in the marketplace? It is only by satisfying the wants or needs of large numbers of people that profits are earned. The businessman who produces a good product satisfies millions of people. His wealth is an indication of how much he has improved the lives of others. His wealth does not come at the expense of his clients. His wealth comes because he makes his clients wealthier themselves - - after all they wouldn't purchase his product unless they thought it made their lives better.

But the lottery winner's good fortune comes precisely because so many others lost out. The more losers there are the greater the sum of money he or she wins. This is exactly the opposite of market wealth creation.

James Madison noted: "The first object of gove

[thereslifeafter87]

It is only by satisfying the wants or needs of large numbers of people that profits are earned.

Or creating the want or need.... ie: big tobacco, large scale advertising creating consumer markets, driving fashion change etc etc.

The businessman who produces a good product satisfies millions of people. His wealth is an indication of how much he has improved the lives of others.

I refer to the above...
Some of what is written in that article is undoubtedly true. But, it is a very selective reporting of the truth.

[Placebo]

That mob is a front for the ACT Party. Liberal values my ar*e. They are right wingers to a tee!

pardon me while I shoot the messenger :D

[Capitalist]

Jim likes ACT to be sure, because he is wary that Nats will lead the liberal Brash (remember he is in favour of the civil union legislation) to the right.The thing is, because libertarianism is so radical these days, all you can do is get you ideas out there, not your policies implemented--that is a long way off. Just to get people to think about a life without government intervention is a huge step forward.

BTW Brash was with Perigo at his party in Wellington to celebrate the 10th anniverary of his journal "The Free Radical"

People who win large sums of money do not attract the same amount of hatred as does those who earn large sums of money. In some political circles it's chic to hate the rich but the rich who are hated are those who worked for it not the lucky few gamblers.

That is absolutely correct. Tall poppy syndrome.

[zyreon]

wonderful article.

poor people are poor because of their attitude
rich people are rich because of their attitude

{attitude/thinking/perspective/mind/awareness)

[Capitalist]

Cheers Zyreon. You feel you are fighting a long, lonely battle. Anyone who advocates less government, in whatever forum that is open to them, comes in for a lot of abuse.

I know Bongo, Liberty and Stormy are libs here, but we are very thin on the ground :( Big government is just so entrenched.

[MeNoBatty]

And one for the 'rent boys' out there (excuse the pun). How some of the rich get there....(Found this interesting, but did not want to start a new post Minder style.)


"Why economic reform is not for cowards"
GITTINS ON SATURDAY

I read a speech by an OECD bureaucrat the other day that advanced the most appealing argument for micro-economic reform. In the process, however, he put his finger on the reason politicians find reform so hard, writes Ross Gittins.

The official is Val Koromzay, director for country studies in the economics department, and you can find his speech on the OECD website.

Governments make policy changes all the time, but how do you tell what's a reform and what's just a change?

Koromzay defines economic reform as "policy change directed at improving the . . . efficiency of resource allocation in the economy".

Economists' obsession about raising the efficiency with which resources are used is all about increasing the economy's production of goods and services.

But if you can't get terribly excited by the quest for faster economic growth (if you think it will make you any happier, you're kidding yourself - as many economists are), consider Koromzay's alternative rationale for economic reform. He says micro reform is about "taking away rents that have built up in the economic system".


Huh? The rents he's talking about are "economic rents" and they're not really about real estate. Economic rent is the amount paid for the use of a factor of production (land, labour or capital) that's in excess of the amount needed to maintain that factor in its current use.

Consider a CEO being paid $2 million a year to do his job. He couldn't earn anything like that much in any other job and, if he had to, he'd be prepared to do the job for much less - say, a measly $500,000. If so, he's earning economic rent of $1.5 million.

People or businesses enjoy economic rents because they possess "market power" - the ability to get away with charging a price far higher than the opportunity cost of the resources involved.

Sometimes rents and market power arise for natural reasons - someone or something just happens to be in the right place at the right time. But, more commonly - and certainly more objectionably - rents arise because someone has managed to stamp out the competition or persuade some government to intervene in the market to grant them a degree of market power.

(Now you know why, when businesses go to Canberra to lobby the government for special consideration, the process is referred to disparagingly as "rent seeking".)

So, in this context, rents occur when producers get themselves into a cushy position where they can wax fat by overcharging their customers.

And micro reform is about moving through the economy, finding the rents that have built up over the years and doing things to cut those rents back - usually by introducing increased competition.

In other words, micro reform is about attacking economic privilege - cutting down the tall poppies, to the benefit of ordinary, hard-pressed consumers.

And often those tall poppies are firms or industries that have used their power and influence to extract economic favours from (usually long-gone) politicians who weren't as scrupulous in protecting the public interest as they should have been.

Put it like that and micro reform becomes an exciting crusade, championing the little guy against rich and powerful capitalists. Even sounds a bit left-wing.

But Koromzay points to some factors that make reform more complicated in practice and, increasingly these days, frighten the pollies off.

One is that the costs of reform are tightly concentrated, whereas the benefits are widely and thinly spread.

So vested interests who've been enjoying the rent will fight like tigers to stop you making a major dent in their livelihoods, whereas the thousands of individual consumers who stand to save a few dollars from your efforts will do little to support you. (That's partly because they're not as well organised, but also because

[Halebop]

I'm not impressed by Jim Peron. His views are dogmatic and often contradictory (as only a dogmatic can be). Take his article "How's the 3rd World Doing?" ...unintentionally very funny.

Jim saw the productive virtue of having to breed family units of labour for your farm rather than be able to finance the purchase of a tractor. Apparently, tilling your fields for decades of back breaking labour using crude tools and medieval farming methods is a virtue overlooked by typical economists. Skinny I hope you're reading this!? You have been bad! I must have words with my Dad too, he never made me dig dirt on the farm, I would be a much better person...

Despite being pro private property and freedom of choice he sees no irony in the same article when quoting death rate stats from China circa 1930 and circa now to illustrate how well the "third world" has developed. Well Jimbo, this was a command economy that created these vast improvements so apparently adopting communism is the answer!?

I could take drugs and perform my own 2nd rate thinking without reading someone elses... [xx(] I even agree with many of Jim's views. I just view him as a cr@p thinker.

Zyreon - here is a challenge for you on attitude. In NZ we live in a reasonably affluent, reasonably enlightened society. There is still enough egalitarianism in our culture that mostly anyone could prosper (I wouldn't like Adolf Hitler's or Saddam Hussain's chances if they arrived off the boat but mostly everyone...)

Statistically, Maori are poorer. Do they have bad attitudes?
Statistically, Woman earn less than men. Do they have worse attitudes than men?
If the poor have bad attitudes how does a poor person sometimes get rich?
If the Rich have good attitudes, how do they sometimes go broke?
Is being rich the only barometer of attitude? Any number of socially worthy and contributing perople I know are poor and have good attitudes. They just don't know much about (or care about) money.

I have a religious friend who studies full time, works part time, makes very little money and yet gives most of her spare cash (and then some!) and spare time (and then some!) to charitable causes. You and I would be directly poorer without her. We would pay higher taxes to support social causes that rely on her labour or suffer the consequences of increased crime, medical care costs etc.

Extremes of thinking on left and right have a way of compressing complex circumstances into simple and pithy catch phrases and concepts. Jim Peron is a prime example! The right wing line on attitude and thinking is a "lift yourself up by your bootstraps and get on with it!" thing. Try doing this when you grew up in a broken home, were beaten and raped as a child and programmed to be worthless. A bit easier to have a positive attitude when you come from a nice middle class family unit...

[Capitalist]

Would you mind if I sent your comments to Jim HB? I think he should have right of reply here.

[zyreon]

halebop

you will note with benefit that I added the brackets as a parenthetical statement to connote that attitude is the general mindset... the attitude that i am trying to express is not just a mood or outlook, it is a combination of knowledge, perspective, awarenness, and thinking.

I am wealthier than the average person my age because of the way I think and act. If I acted and thought the way most people my age do my net worth would also be negative. Personal responsibility is the greatest power.

I'm not sure if I have correctly postulated my reasoning yet. I will try to list the various characteristics of a poverty mindset vs a wealth mindset.
Poverty:
-buy consumables with debt
-settle for less
-ignorance of simple financial concepts
-ignorance of investing, instead purchase lotto tickets
-profligate spending
-the tall poppy effect
-rely on government "entitlement mentality"

wealth:
-only use debt to purchase appreciating assets(investments)
-invest a portion of money consistently
-awareness that rich people are people, and are basically not superior to other people, they just act and think differently
-does not spend money wastefully
-"how can I afford it, not I can't afford it"
-awareness of basic business concepts
-awarness of the merits of having good advisers
-goals and ambitions, because of a sense that they are possible.
-the desire to be rich
-work smarter
-make money work harder than themselves


As for being maori, or single parent, or bankrupt or whatever situation you come up with, remember a quote that says: "do the best with what you have where you are".

I believe that anyone can 'become wealthy' if they want to, and I don't think that I am deluding myself.

Try those thoughts on... my apologies to kiyosaki, I dragged a few ideas from his books. I think his books are very thought provoking.

[stormrose]

quote:...In NZ we live in a reasonably affluent, reasonably enlightened society. There is still enough egalitarianism in our culture that mostly anyone could prosper....
Hear hear. You have to be willfully poor in NZ. It's easy for anybody to make it to the "middle-classes", hard to become fabulously rich though.


quote:Statistically, Maori are poorer. Do they have bad attitudes?
Statistically, Woman earn less than men. Do they have worse attitudes than men?
Yes. Their financial attitudes are worse.


quote:If the poor have bad attitudes how does a poor person sometimes get rich?
If the Rich have good attitudes, how do they sometimes go broke?
Luck and Risk. Generally a richer person can afford more risk and can afford more hedging to avoid catastrophic risk.


quote:Is being rich the only barometer of attitude? Any number of socially worthy and contributing perople I know are poor and have good attitudes. They just don't know much about (or care about) money.
We're only talking about financial attitude here. There's more to life than finances. Each person can choose the mix they want.


quote:I have a religious friend who studies full time, works part time, makes very little money and yet gives most of her spare cash (and then some!) and spare time (and then some!) to charitable causes. You and I would be directly poorer without her. We would pay higher taxes to support social causes that rely on her labour or suffer the consequences of increased crime, medical care costs etc.
Good on her.


quote:Extremes of thinking on left and right have a way of compressing complex circumstances into simple and pithy catch phrases and concepts.
Agreed, in the end left/right dogma becomes an underlying philosophy in what must be practical implementations.


quote:Try doing this when you grew up in a broken home, were beaten and raped as a child and programmed to be worthless. A bit easier to have a positive attitude when you come from a nice middle class family unit...
At some point a person becomes an adult. An adult takes whatever childhood they had then moulds themselves. It's a move from dependancy/blame into independancy/responsibility. Yes, "middle-class" kids get a head start - that's their good luck - not an excuse for dirt poor kids to not become adults. Nobody tells Ricky Martin to uglify himself because it's harder for ugly people to look presentable. Nobody tells Lyndon Johnson to run slower.

Z: I've never read Kiosaki, though heard he's pretty good.

[Halebop]

quote:Originally posted by Capitalist

Would you mind if I sent your comments to Jim HB? I think he should have right of reply here.


Hi Cap,

You'd be most welcome. ;) I've left myself equally open to scrutiny and reply be daring to have an opinion and open my mouth as well. The desire for personal liberty doesn't come without debate.

I wonder though, how many have contacted Helen Clark, George Bush or whoever else whenever someone has offered an opposing view? Hmmm. [}:)]

[Major von Tempsky]

Trouble is he's a Peronista.

Maria Sharapova has just won over a million dollars. I'm madly envious but I wouldn't consider a sex change.

I think Thereslifeafter87's arguments are a bit specious and too narrow. Addictive drugs are a special case. Can you blame Big Business for P? Nope, blame the Gangs. Tobacco's slowly dying out. Is he against vodka, beer and wine?
Does advertising create a demand for food? Basically, no, we'd all starve to death if we didn't get it.
And the thing about Capitalism is that it works, it raises the standard of living. Socialism just stultifies and then collapses of its own weight and corruption.

MVT And ofcourse capitalists are not corrupt. You must be wearing rose coloured Spectacles

[Mr_Market]

To finish first - first you must finish.

[Halebop]

Zyreon I think I didn't explain my perspective clearly enough.

In a nutshell - there are more than just financial attitudinal factors that affect our financial outcomes. Other attitudinal and emotional factors come into play as well. Not everyone is nearly so well equiped as yourself to cope.

[warthog]

Originally posted by stormrose

quote:
Z: I've never read Kiosaki, though heard he's pretty good.


Kiosaki sells fastasy to those who can afford it. Yes there are a few good points he makes but they are common sense points. When he was in NZ in the early 90s he was exposed as a crummy broom salesman, willing to ridicule and humiliate people for his own benefit.

[zyreon]

Kiyosaki may be seen as a rabble rouser

all people who provoke thought are

"make a man think; and he will hate you for it. make a man feel like he's thinking and he will love you for it"

I'm not neccessarily defending him... but his suggestions caused me to think

[Halebop]

quote:Originally posted by stormrose


quote:...In NZ we live in a reasonably affluent, reasonably enlightened society. There is still enough egalitarianism in our culture that mostly anyone could prosper....
Hear hear. You have to be willfully poor in NZ. It's easy for anybody to make it to the "middle-classes", hard to become fabulously rich though.


Ahh Stormrose, you appear to be blaming "the government" or some other unseen force for a lack of fabulous wealth. Perhaps some counselling will get you past this cycle of blame and dependancy? [}:)]

[zyreon]

hmm, curious that you make such and extrapolation HB my friend. I would concur with the statement[Hear hear. You have to be willfully poor in NZ. It's easy for anybody to make it to the "middle-classes", hard to become fabulously rich though.
] on the basis that, although possible (and I hope not self-delusion), it is hard to replicate businesses such as the warehouse, microsoft, dell, (et al you see), bbecause the only way to 'fabulous wealth' is to create a megacorp... or as the article quotes; to create tremendous levels of value for the consumer ;)

[Halebop]

My extrapolation was actually the reference to blame and dependancy. My company works with psychologists, counsellors and HR people to create psychmetric testing suites. My partner is working towards her PHD in an associated field. When people talk about esoteric topics like "Financial Attitude" most of the experts I use would categorically affirm there is no such thing. It is all bound up in our whole psyche like an onion, layer upon layer, each holding different sets of values until you reach the dark centre.

When analysing ourselves, most of us never reach the centre! And without exception it is a very painful journey, no matter how great you think your life may have been or how well balanced you may think you are. There are all sorts of dark and strange things lurking in the thoughts of every one of us. Most of us never work ourselves out let alone make serious money. At the risk of sounding zen like you have to know yourself to be happy.

To blithely state matters like "Oh I was just talking financial attitude" or the right wing "Bootstraps" concept is in practice impossible. It is part of the whole. All these factors, financial, emotional, environmental, spiritual and everything else currently contributes to your and my view on the world. It is often observed that people soften their views on a range of topics over time, gravitating from the extremities of belief towards the centre. At which point are these people wrong? The beginning or the end? In myself I was somewhere to the right of Roger Douglas as a teenager. Although I strenously denied the results, a psychologist who recently profiled me as research for one of our projects gave my broad outlook as Centrist to Left-Libertarian (Urgghhh!) but reading back through my responses I had to agree - particularly interesting that I didn't notice as I was answering though... (In my defence there weren't any economic/financial questions! I'm a rabid dog I tells ya!)

A simple cure all response like saying "read these principles and apply them and all will be well" sounds like the perfect answer. The reality is most of us have a whole bunch of issues to deal with - beyond just learning a few financial or work ethic principles before we can move forward. To point back to your quote on making/helping a man think: If we don't want to, we just don't. It's part of our psyche. Sometimes we have to peel a few layers of the onion first. The best proof of this would be in the vast number of self help and investment guru style books. Does anyone honestly think Kiyosaki has created millions of millionaires for his millions of books? Why not, the process is frankly quite easy (although I personally find his business pedigree and advice a bit dubious).

As an aside: One school of thought even says an analytical personality like mine is more the result of chemical imbalance - a concept I'm sure my friends would agree with!

[stormrose]

Halebop: Your extrapolation would be mostly wrong. Try tall-poppy syndrome for a start.

I'd agree that the issue is more complex that just "financial attitude" - but the phrasing is adequate to describe that part of the onion we're talking about. By itself it doesn't exist - it is a combination of all other parts of self. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it though.

Things aren't simple, but don't orate a 10 volume opus when a sentence will do.

And careful now, you're starting to get philosophical, and it appears we've much to disagree on that front. :-)

And just so you know: I largely disagree with the the underlying philosophy of counsellors too. They are often found ineffective in assisting others by their ethics and codes of conduct.

(Seems we share a similar imbalance there - you have the occassion "blue-day"?)

[skinny]

An interesting thread encompassing many themes - envy of the rich, the meaning of wealth, criteria for judging success, habits of the financially savvy, the political economy of economic reforms, our psychological development and attitudes -- phew!!

At a personal level I agree most with Halebop's comments and I've no troubled upper middle-class conscience to wrestle with - Mr. J. Tamihere and I share similar backgrounds. Unlike Tamihere though my motivation for 'making it' was purely selfish. At heart I'm a rather lazy hedonist and a few hot and smelly summers spent working at the factories down the road (and one even more appalling summer hay-baling) was enough to convince it wasn't a life I cared to continue!

Anyways, I thought I'd move the debate to the international and macro arena. One misconception about the poor I've often heard is the blithe assumption that they don’t have a good attitude for work. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, sub-Saharan Africans work more hours on average than anyone else on Earth. Even in developed countries the in-work poor tend to work more hours than the middle classes.

So why do the hard-working poor countries remain poor? Well, thats a massive question economists have pondered since Smith. One thing its certainly not is a lack of entrepreneurial spirit. You only need to go to any large third world city to see all manner of weird and wonderful small businesses and feel (literally) the grasping hands of those desperate to make a buck. What seems far more important is a lack of opportunity - to a good education, health care systems and most crucially capital, given the lack of well-functioning legal systems that confer property rights. For a nation an opportunity to trade what they are best at producing (relative to other goods) is also extremely important. I agree with the UN call that free trade in agriculture would do more to solve poverty and war in the third world than any other non-economic intervention.

What about NZ? In this country I like the line that most people have the opportunity to chase their dreams if they really wish to do so. But its not something we should take for granted or be ideological about – I fear that a strictly libertarian approach to caring for the least materially well-off in society would have seen myself and Mt. T begging for food scraps down in Henderson Mall as youngsters, perhaps graduating to drugs and pimping later on ;) On the other hand, I think welfare systems should embody ‘carrot and stick’ principles to guard against life-time and (especially) inter-generational state dependency and NZ has a bit of work to do here. Finally, with just a little softening of the old stone heart we might also recognize that for some childhoods are so clouded by personal tragedy that the 'adult step' Stormrose alludes to is just too difficult to take alone...and the cost of ignoring those in distress is often massive.

[Placebo]

A very thoughtful post Skinny. To me wealth is about a lot more than just financial and material things. It's about having things like depth and breadth of culture and a society that supports excellence in all things. I was more focussed on material acquisitions before we had kids, now that's my focus. For others it's community work or hooking up with the school PTA, or pursuing sporting excellence. We all have to cut our lives up in different ways and if you throw more energy into one area then you have to sacrifice another. It's about achieving balance and perspective.

NZ is still a great place to live because it has things like a welfare system that provides a safety net for people who, for whateve reason, fall on hard times (and yes I know it is open to abuse, that's another issue). It is still a caring society, something I see every day, despite the media's constant focus on the negative aspects such as high rates of imprisonment, recidivism, etc etc. I would be happy to see NZ in the top 5 OECD nations per capita wealth, but I wouldn't want us to be there at the expense of such things as homelessness, the welfare system per se, or a winning All Blacks team [:p]

[Liberty]

One of the biggest mistakes people make about libertarians is with regard to their approach to welfare. Many people believe that the advent of a libertarian state would spell the end of any form of welfarism. It wouldn't.

Most libertarians' argument is not with welfare per se, but with a welfare state; ie with the method of delivery rather than the concept. Government delivery of a welfare system, with all its attendant inefficiences and abuses, is the problem here.

I am dead against any form of state-sponsored welfarism, partly because of the lack of say I get into how that money is allocated. If I wanted to donate some money to charity, I would be able to target assistance based on what charity I chose to give money to. The charity would need to act in a way that would encourage future donations; obviously this would depend on the money donated being used wisely for its intended purpose.

Naysayers believe that if you remove forced state welfarism via taxation, that people at the lower end will suffer bitterly. I do not accept this. To believe this is to disregard the natural philanthropy of the human being. The urge to help others in need is a strong innate one, and we all experience it; why is it then, that when it comes to the crunch, most believe that the only way is to force people to give? And why is it that government is seen as the only possible intermediary? There is a better way.

To deny this implies a most cynical view of the human spirit.

[Placebo]

Getting off topic but we seem to be intermingling "libertarian" with "liberal": the two are very different.

Libertarians emphasise individual responsibility and eschew governmental interference in personal lives. So they stand for small government, low tax, emphasise an individual's right to choose (Bob Jones regards himself as libertarian, refuses to wear a seatbelt). The closest we have to a libertarian party in NZ (apart from the Perigo mob) is ACT.

Liberals are different; they incorporate ideals such as inclusiveness, tolerance, family values, the community and social responsibility, but also support the concept of individuals being responsible for themselves. Liberals would not describe themselves as politically left or right, rather occupying some middle ground.

Unfortunately the term Liberal has been hijacked (particularly in the States) by the political right to hurl as an insult at the left, so its true meaning is now misunderstood.

Libertarians are also often confused with librarians, but that's another story

[Halebop]

Some good comments Skinny.

Liberty - an interesting point and if you could make it work I'd be all for it. I have some reservations though.

When my girlfriend and I go into the supermarket we usually buy some pet food for the SPCA bin. Often we share a nervous chuckle because the bin is split in two - one for the City Mission (Poor People) and one for the SPCA (Homeless Cats and Dogs). The bin for homeless cats and dogs is always much fuller than the one for poor people. Society is cynical. Our society makes a judgement every day at those bins that says those people are less worthy than the cats and dogs.

The notion of personal-macro-altruism seems impractical. Lets say $150 a week in tax gets deducted from our incomes for "social" issues. If "the government" (thats us anyway) gave that back to everyone would we collectively turn around and donate $150 per week to worthy causes?

If the government demand that we "had" to donate it, the distribution would be unevenly weighted towards sexy causes (maybe the cats and dogs?). We would also have the added personal burden of having to administer our donations - to prove we had donated the requisite amount for "the government" auditors and to satisfy ourselves that the money was being properly allocated and spent by "our" causes (a lot of very well fed cats and dogs). Successful charities would waste resourses on raising money rather than doing their job. Unsexy but important functions would go broke...

Sir, can I interest you in supporting herpes prevention?
Urghhhh! No! Go away!

Madam, do you know the plight of the rare native New Zealand Potamopyrgus antipodarum?
Huh?
It's a mud snail...
What?

Aspects of our taxation system and many of our social policies are indeed dumb. I dislike paying a benefit to drug dealers and others who work within the black economy for example. But its a still lot better than many alternatives.

Anyways, I'm off to take a chill pill - actually a Coffee and a Brioche. Hmmmmm. So you can all relax!

P.S. If I'm having a blue day you won't actually hear from me. I can be kinda loud on the good days though. [:p]

[Capitalist]

Thank you all for your replies--I never imagined the thread would spawn so many comments in the space of one day.

Mr Peron said it is nice to know that people find his writing interesting enough to talk about.

Cheers.

[Halebop]

OK I feel bad now. Although I believe everything I have said here I none the less was intentionally trolling for flames as a source of entertainment - perhaps not the most enlightened view to take.

I apologise for any angst caused. Particularly to Cap, who holds strong views but none the less is usually quite reasonable.

I am hoping Dimebag completes his exams and gets back to posting on FA issues sooner rather than later so at least I can restrict my debating to investing.

Regards,

Halebop

P.S. Skinny - I'm very sorry but nothing has changed. Economists are still naughty.

[Capitalist]

Good grief Halebop-- no need to apologise to me. I admire people who feel passionately about things-- nothing worse than fence-sitters.

Here is some humour 4u from Perigo.

Thrash The Blighters!
by Lindsay Perigo
[From The Politically Incorrect Show, 08/17/2000]


The winner has just been announced of an essay competition for humanities students at Victoria University instigated by Sir Robert Jones. The topic was, "That the world would be a better place if BCom students were given a daily flogging." (Commerce students were forbidden to take part.) Sir Bob & his co-judges - all of them drunk - awarded a prize of $1000 to an English Literature student, Sandi Miller, who argued that flogging commerce students would keep God amused, thus deflecting Him from such other entertaining diversions as killer tornadoes & military coups.

A sound thrashing was possibly one of the outcomes Sir Bob had in mind when he once dispensed some advice to a couple of BCom graduates who were pestering him with their flow-charts & spread-sheets awash in "paradigms," "dynamics," "inputs," "throughputs" & similar gibberish. "Buy a copy of 'Truth' newspaper," he admonished. "It includes half a dozen pages of classified advertisements by many hundreds of young ladies who are eager to commit diverse atrocities on willing males. Accept these offerings & work your way through the lot. At the end you will not only be a great deal better for this but will have a better handle on life at large."

Personally, I think daily floggings would have a lot going for them. For years I have relied on rational persuasion when dealing with morons, & failed lamentably to effect any diminution of their retardation. Now I have come to believe Sir Bob is right - it's time to get out the horse-whip.

But why stop at commerce students? I can think of several other groups for whose recalcitrance the only solution is a daily dose of the lash. For instance, those insufferable pests - usually taxi drivers or shop assistants - who persist in asking, "How's your day been?" It's none of their damned business how my day has been. A good thrashing is undoubtedly the best response to this impertinence.

Then there are those who bite into a raw carrot while speaking to you on the telephone, to deafening effect. In fact, any ass who eats raw carrots should be flogged anyway, since carrots give you cancer. As for those cretinous creatures who chew gum all day - a merciless whipping is definitely called for. To be sure, chewing gum doesn't give you cancer, but I find it offensive.

Of course, where the offenders are women, the severity of the floggings should be much greater. Come to think of it, ALL women should be horse-whipped daily as a matter of course. The silly ctreatures can't drive or read maps, & the world of linear logic is closed to them. They are driven entirely by their hormones. They turn every little thing into a cosmic drama, & there's no point in trying to reason with them since they are congenitally incapable of listening. If they do, by accident, manage to absorb something you say, they tuck it away & quote it back at you thirty years later. Daily floggings wouldn't cure them - there is no cure for women known to man - but they'd certainly be very satisfying to administer.

Yes, Sir Bob is on to something. The hell with this limp, libertarian "live & let live" tosh I've hitherto espoused. Thrash the buggers, I say! The world would assuredly be a better place if many - in fact, most - of its inhabitants were flogged routinely.

Needless to say, however, this daily discipline should be withheld from those who show signs of enjoying it.

[stormrose]

Skinny: In the spirit of stupidly simple formulas:
1) Earn and income
2) Spend less than you earn (earn more, spend less)
3) Invest the difference
Working hard is actually the dumbest way to wealth. It miiight work, but probably won't. You to get others working for you. Share ownership is just one way of getting others working for you.

And about that subsidy thing. I'd be one heck of a lot more sympathetic if the countries in question removed their barriers to foreign investment, ownership, and tariffs. It needs to go both ways.

Liberty: Agreed about denying philanthropy. Then there's always families and income/health/life insurance.

Halebop: The SPCA gets the most because we know the poor are taken care of via welfare. If welfare went then the food-bin situation would most likely reverse. And **** it all, if I want to give to the kittens and pup then I will - even knowing that means lil Kathy goes without breakfast today.

Glad you brought up the SPCA. They euthanise animals that are unwanted or otherwise useless. Yet we have this morbid obsession with prolonging the lives of human garbage for what reason? And what cost is society prepared to pay?

Bullets are cheaper than prison cells. Three strikes and you're really out.

[Halebop]

LOL Cap that was pretty funny. Overshadowed only by Stormrose's hilarious rambling.

Perhaps we should shoot those who subject us to bad prose instead? [:p]

[ananda77]

Liberal, libertarian, conservative, communist, socialist or national, labor, act... what does it actually mean in the scheme of things?

Power lies in the hands of those who have 'capital' (in the Marxist sense), which enables only a few to create vast amounts of wealth and huge business empires and getting bigger and bigger (Globalisation). They have done, do, and will continue to determine what is 'go'.

Thankfully at this stage, they still need us 'mere mortals' to help produce those goods for them and fight those wars for them (the war on terrorism is the war for oil and markets), at least until the last village on this planet is in their sphere... and the ?terrorists? are the best allies ever since they can be found in even the smallest village anywhere)
To keep us 'mere mortals' happy, the welfare state (reduced to a 'safety net' incorporated since 1984) remains tolerated, but fast disappearing. The time has not yet come to simply get rid of two thirds of the planet's population largely due to slower than expected technological advance.

[Stormrose: Yet we have this morbid obsession with prolonging the lives of human garbage for what reason? And what cost is society prepared to pay?
Bullets are cheaper than prison cells. Three strikes and you're really out.

In the meantime, we continue to keep ourselves amused with intellectual tra-la-la, earning bucks and consume them until we finally leave the stage and die.

Happiness par excellence... for SUPEREGOS, even the sky is not the limit....

[zyreon]

ananda

there is no purpose to life, that's why we invent games like business to keep our minds off the angst

[ananda77]

Oh Zeyreon, old friend, forgive my arrogance, but you could not be more wrong!!!

[skinny]

Thanks ananda, we were missing the nihilist perspective in this debate.

SR - yes the developing countries also need to reduce trade barriers. Your simple formulas would also do the trick if people would only follow them. Thank goodness we have the Govt. super fund growing away for those who don't.

HB - how was your brioche?

[Halebop]

quote:Originally posted by skinny

HB - how was your brioche?


LOL!

Now we are onto important topics and the most expansive segment of my portfolio (namely: my gut). At the ripe old age of 34 I've began to show the first signs of needing to watch what I eat! Grrrr. Somebody better tell my taste buds I'm not 19 anymore.

It was very good, thank you. Coffee and brioche from Sierra Cafe in Lorne Street, Auckland ($7.50). Ably augmented by two very attractive young ladies who work there. A delicious bargain.

I had an embarrassing episode in their recently where one of the afore-mentioned young ladies felt compelled to tell me my fly was undone. Oops. [:I]

The character building next door is being demolished to make way for David Henderson's latest ugly addition to our skyline. I hope it doesn't harm business for the cafe.

[stormrose]

ananda77: Get a clue - there is no "they". There is no conspiracy, you are not a puppet to "them" unless you think you are.
The closest approximation you'll see to "them" is if you look in the mirror (yes you invest, yes you are your own variable limitation.)
Stop your primitive brain fixating on "bad-guys" that don't exist. Your wariness of "them" will stunt your true growth.

(BTW: This message was sponsored by the illuminati, masons, mormons, scientologists, knights templar, catholics, and hugo the blind busker. Hugo's sponsorship was not entirely voluntary however.)

[In the meantime, we continue to keep ourselves amused with intellectual tra-la-la, earning bucks and consume them until we finally leave the stage and die.]
Precisely. Beats sitting in a refugee camp using s.h.i.t to bait flies for dinner.

Life is cruely beautiful. Thai food for lunch (the way thai women say "chicken" makes me swoon). Indian for dinner. Sipping a quiet drink, Led Zep and a Bollywood songs alternating on the stereo. A brief breather and then back to running faster and faster just to keep up.
Beats having to say "No flies for dinner, 'cos daddy ate all the s.h.i.t and I'm clean out."

[stormrose]

Skinny said the bits in []

[SR - yes the developing countries also need to reduce trade barriers. Your simple formulas would also do the trick if people would only follow them.]
The formulas are only for accumulating wealth. Once you have a sizable chunk of wealth you graduate out of primary school and into the real money making.

[Thank goodness we have the Govt. super fund growing away for those who don't.]
Why would anybody in their rational minds do anything as long as we keep rewarding losing behaviour and penalising winning behaviour?

Time flies when you're talking s.h.i.t.

[skinny]

Stormrose - time for a brioche mate, that was a wind up ;)
Us economists are bad [:p]

[Halebop]

I gave everyone fair warning Skinny.

[stormrose]

I know it's a wind up - I'm a sucker for trolls.... my strategy is to be pulled in close before I stabs 'em.

[Capitalist]

SR said "Why would anybody in their rational minds do anything as long as we keep rewarding losing behaviour and penalising winning behaviour?"

If this thread was a bumper sticker that would be it!

Government has encouraged millions to think of themselves as helpless children who are not responsible for their lives and well-being. Millions of dollars poured into every imaginable kind of statist intervention has seen the people the programmes were supposed to help fall further and further behind. Meanwhile some sectors advocate more of the poison that is killing them. We need programmes that encourage independence, not dependency.

Hopefully the values that the marketplace requires ie self-responsibility and accountability will find their way into the education system sooner or later.

[ananda77]

hey, hey, who is now contemplating on a conspiracy theory?
Hoestly, it was not meant to be a wind-up, Stormrose. Too much respect for people in general to just try to wind them up. What would be the purpose of that?

You said what you said and I used those words that originated in a mindset that fitted in perfectly into my scenario. In the end, whatever I wrote will be irrelevant for you if you just let it go.

Stormrose:
Life is cruely beautiful. Thai food for lunch (the way thai women say "chicken" makes me swoon). Indian for dinner. Sipping a quiet drink, Led Zep and a Bollywood songs alternating on the stereo. A brief breather and then back to running faster and faster just to keep up.
Beats having to say "No flies for dinner, 'cos daddy ate all the s.h.i.t and I'm clean out."

Happiness for you, so be it, as long as you are happy, no one will be able to disown you of it.

However, I have a different concept of happiness and I know that if I would expose my thoughts on it, there would be a high probability that they would be rubbished. The dominant thinking prevalent in our capitalist Western society remains egocentrically embedded in views 'that our concepts are the right ones', although looking around, one can see so much misery.

A different concept of how to achieve happiness more sustainable in the long run and to a large extent independent of outside stimuli has been hinted at by

Halebop: "When analysing ourselves, most of us never reach the centre! And without exception it is a very painful journey, no matter how great you think your life may have been or how well balanced you may think you are. There are all sorts of dark and strange things lurking in the thoughts of every one of us. Most of us never work ourselves out let alone make serious money. At the risk of sounding zen like you have to know yourself to be happy.

For me 'mere mortal' that would be THE START and, assuming a rational mind making rational decisions, an absolut necessity to include the above thinking into any mind portfolio.

[Major von Tempsky]

It's no longer a capitalist "Western" society.
Add in Japan, India, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, India, Thailand.....& &.
Apart from Africa it's much easier to just list a few exceptions like North Korea, Cuba, Myanmar......

[ananda77]

Yes Major von Tempski, point taken. These are all capitalist countries.
When I use Western however, I indicate 'cultural' differences

[Capitalist]

Check this out Tempsky my love--preaching to the converted I know, but eloquent just the same [:X][:p]

The Bernstein Declaration
On the Principles and Possibilities of Capitalism


Capitalism is the only system based on the recognition that each individual owns his life. Capitalism is the only social system in which individuals are free to pursue their rational self-interest, to own property and to profit from their actions. It entrenches individual rights, limited Constitutional government, and political/intellectual/economic freedom.

The more capitalist a culture - the greater its freedom and prosperity

That is the verdict of history. In just two short centuries, capitalism has lifted men’s living standards to heights undreamed of in the pre-capitalist era. Often forgotten today is that Western Europe, prior to the capitalist revolution of the late Eighteenth Century, suffering under the political yoke of the feudal aristocracy, was the equivalent of a Third World country - wracked by famine, recurrent plague, and the most unspeakable poverty. But no longer.

When was the last time a famine occurred in any capitalist nation - whether in Western Europe, North America or Asia? The United States has never suffered a famine in its history. Capitalism has created abundance unmatched in human history, enabling hundreds of millions to live better today than all the kings of yesterday.

Less capitalism means more human misery

But the non capitalist nations - the fascist, socialist, military or theocratic dictatorships - enslave their own citizens and subsist in abysmal squalor. In many African countries the living standard is one or two hundred dollars per year. In North Korea, they starve to death by the tens of thousands. In Cuba, they drown trying to swim to freedom in the United States. Millions of oppressed people around the globe yearn to emigrate to the Free World. But who in the capitalist nations seeks to emigrate to Cambodia?

What makes capitalism’s astounding success possible?

What principles explain the fact that mankind’s greatest inventions and works of art - his most life-giving material and spiritual advances - the steam engine, the cinema, the telegraph, the telephone, the electric light, the novel, the automobile, the symphony, the airplane, the radio, the television, the personal computer, the Internet and countless medical cures - were created under capitalism?

The simple answer is: freedom.

When men are free to pursue their rational self-interest, when they are free to use their minds in the quest to profit and better their lives, they are magnificently productive. The political/economic freedom of capitalism liberates the best minds and the most ambitious men to build, to create, to innovate, to invent, to advance human well-being and happiness.

Mankind’s greatest inventor, Thomas Edison, in his laboratory at Menlo Park, specifically tailored his projects toward the purpose of profitability. He, and so many of the other great inventors and industrialists responsible for raising men’s living standards, earned and enjoyed great wealth. Left free - under capitalism - to create, produce, and build for personal gain they consequently raised the living standards of all.

The Mind

Involved in this is a deeper principle: Capitalism is the system of the mind. The mind is man’s fundamental survival instrument, just as wings are a bird’s. It is only by means of rational thinking and productive work that man can raise his living standards and increase his life expectancy. But the mind does not function under coercion. Coercion paralyses creativity. The mind cannot be enslaved. Capitalism flourishes because it is the only system of free minds, free men and free markets.

The greatest thinkers and activists of history - from Aristotle to John Locke, from Thomas Jefferson to Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand - have recognized, fought for, and glorified the freedom of man’s mind. They have understood that when men are oppressed, the

[Major von Tempsky]

I generally agree Cap, but there's one small impediment which affects most men, that prevents them achieving their potential....

"Capitalism is the only system based on the recognition that each individual owns his life. Capitalism is the only social system in which individuals are free to pursue their rational self-interest, to own property and to profit from their actions. It entrenches individual rights, limited Constitutional government, and political/intellectual/economic freedom."

How can you do all that when you've got a wife? ;)

Mine follows the principle that "What's mine is mine, what's ours is mine, and what's your's is mine".
It's worse than socialism....

[stormrose]

MVT: Are you a husband or a son? Is she your wife or your mother?
Maybe she's happy to share her lippy with you.

a77: I'd agree you have to know yourself to be happy. Knowing yourself is the first step to improving yourself. To be sure I love my job, and shareholding suits me fine for investing - all perfect matches for my personality.

The other great thing about capitalism is that those who don't produce have a perfect right to STFU and die. Hopefully before their loser genes get passed onto a new generation. The lefty-zen-warm-fuzzy term for this is "creative destruction".

More descriptively called: letting loser's lose so the rest of use can avoid doing what they did.

[stormrose]

Random musing from my time on the toilet bowl...

After accusing Confuscianism as being the reason for the stagnation of asian societies because it was too successful....

Maybe the abundance yielded by capitalism has given us more resources to feed our "nurture at all costs" instinct. Like the over-protective parent this stiffles the development of adults...

Maybe communism is for children...a tid-bit from Asia today on BBC World.

The southern state of xxxxxx (name escapes me) is an Indian communist state. It has the highest rate of literacy in India, but also has the highest unemployment rate. Employers are scared off by huge taxes and cripling anti-business laws. Graduates are leaving the state in droves looking for jobs.

There you go, socialism for kiddies, capitalism for the grown-ups. Now stop treating me like a ****ing child.

[ananda77]

Capitalist/Stormrose:

The Bernstein view is ceratinly idealistic, readily adopted by people who find themselves on the sunny side of the divide. Nothing wrong with that.

A view closer to reality however, shows a large gap between the real and the ideal.

Capitalism, like any other ism-system of production and social organisation, in itself is neither 'good' nor 'bad'. What makes a particular system tick the way it ticks, depends on the people acting in it and executing it.

From my perspective, although I count myself to be very fortunate, it is the bad sides of a system which need to be accounted for, in order for the potential benefits of the system to be fruitful to all.

Just be aware! Things in this physical universe are always changing and impermanent and changes in the macro-environment, totally out of anyones control, may easily affect us on the personal level detrimentally. Misfortune can happen to anyone and if it does, we would indeed call ourselves fortunate to be supported by people we now readily dismiss as lunatics.

[Halebop]

quote:Originally posted by Capitalist

The Bernstein Declaration
On the Principles and Possibilities of Capitalism...

Less capitalism means more human misery

...In Cuba, they drown trying to swim to freedom in the United States. Millions of oppressed people around the globe yearn to emigrate to the Free World...

Er. There is a certain sense of irony when much of the oppression and misery in Cuba is imposed by the economic sanctions of their oh so freedom loving Capitalist neighbour.

I am a capitalist and sometimes these sorts of stupidly simplistic logical arguments make me wonder how?


quote:
The Mind

Involved in this is a deeper principle: Capitalism is the system of the mind. The mind is man’s fundamental survival instrument, just as wings are a bird’s. It is only by means of rational thinking and productive work that man can raise his living standards and increase his life expectancy. But the mind does not function under coercion. Coercion paralyses creativity. The mind cannot be enslaved. Capitalism flourishes because it is the only system of free minds, free men and free markets.

and...

Universal and Inevitable

It is no accident that man’s freest periods have seen his greatest achievements. From the Golden Age of Athens to the Italian Renaissance to the technological and industrial breakthroughs of the United States, the freedom of man's mind has led to magnificent advances in philosophy, the arts and science.

This is the promise and the possibility of capitalism. This is the Capitalist Vision. It is our vision.

Liberate man’s mind and behold the spectacle of his advance. Revel in the beauty of his sculptures, paintings and symphonies, soar with the heroes of his novels, marvel at his philosophic, scientific and technological advance.

The West progressed culturally and economically because it had at least some reverence for man’s mind and the inalienable rights of the individual. These are the inescapable prerequisites of human advancement. If we desire the effect of cultural Renaissance, we must enact the cause of political/economic freedom.

The current predicament of the Third World’s starving millions is identical to that of Europe in the Dark Ages. Their minds and bodies are oppressed by political dictators. Give them freedom - and give them life. They have the advantage of seeing what the West has accomplished. When they institute freedom, they can replicate the achievements of capitalism.


I don't actually think Capitalism has anything to do with freedom. The leadership in various dictatorships and communist nations have shown decidedly capitalist tendancies in the past. Nixon, even Reagan and a bunch of capitalist leaders have only been too happy to trample on freedoms. I wonder how many "free minds" were drafted into the army to fight the evils of communism in south east asia?

Freedom, equality and even opportunity are their own concepts. Capitalist, communist and every other type of society can all be shown to have and not to have these qualities. It's time capitalists started blowing a different trumpet. This tune is tired and too easily debunked.

To me the virtue of capitalism is simply this: You can make more money and have more stuff this way. True this means I'm shallow but I'm certainly not deluded.

I have a sense that some day in the future society will look back on our fuddling and muddling with these concepts and laugh at us in the same way we can be amazed that doctors once didn't wash their hands before surgery.

[Capitalist]

It's all right Stormy ;) It's a funny old world when WE are seen as the enemy!

*********************************

Most of the "inequalities" that capitalism supposedly brings about actually come from socialist policies.

You can't institute heavy doses of socialism, look at the crappy results (and they always will bring crappy results - just look at history), and then say that it's capitalism's fault - as a matter of fact there has never been a truly capitalist modern society.

Easy taxes, a good administration of justice (as Adam Smith said); no stupid regulations THAT'S CAPITALISM - and that's what is needed to bring any society from the basest poverty to the highest wealth - again as Adam Smith said.

Just LOOK AT THE DATA - look at standards of living, highest/lowest income ratios, etc. in different countries - the more capitalist (remember this includes a good political system) the country, the better the living conditions and the lower the ratio - except for the European countries where they have huge welfare - just look at the data not counting that welfare and sans taxes - this'll give you the true incomes (for an honest analysis).

[ananda77]

Capitalist: “Just LOOK AT THE DATA - look at standards of living highest/lowest income ratios, etc. in different countries - the more capitalist (remember this includes a good political system) the country, the better the living conditions and the lower the ratio - except for the European countries where they have huge welfare - just look at the data not counting that welfare and sans taxes - this'll give you the true incomes (for an honest analysis).”

Definitely NO Capitalist, as the numbers DO NOT support your thesis.

Ratio: income of male population of the 10% richest divided by the income of male population of the poorest 10% as an indicator of inequality. (the higher the figure, the greater the inequality)!

USA = 4.3 Canada = 3.8 UK = 3.3 NZ = 3.2 Australia = 2.9 Japan = 2.7
Italy = 2.6 Sweden = 2.2(source: Independent on Sunday, 21 July 1996)

One of the foremost neo-liberal thinkers, Hayek, supposed in 1960, that “the expression of individual self-interest through the ‘market’ leads to the most desirable social outcomes in which social well-being is necessarily advanced by the pursuit of an individual self-interest.”

During the 80’s and 90’s, wide-ranging reforms swept through the public sector and the economy in the USA, NZ, Australia, and the UK. As a result of neo-liberal ideas, the Welfare State was reduced to a safety-net, providing only minimal assistance to those in need.

The theory underlying the reform-policies were based on assumptions, that cutting tax rates for individuals and corporations as well as opening up the distribution of wealth and income to the mechanism of the ‘market’ would create a ‘trickle-down effect’ to the less fortunate in society.

The above evidence DOES NOTsupport those assumptions. The results rather indicate expanding differentials in terms of inequality between the poor and the wealthy. (source: Giddens, Anthony. (1997). Sociology. (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

As for the topic 'Earning v. Winning' I suppose, that many individuals readily identify more easily with winners of lotteries instead of big earning captains of industries, because winning in a lottery might be more realistically achievable.

[Capitalist]

Now socialists in debate never actually answer the question about why socialism is good. Instead, they keep using sophistry to attack events that have nothing to do with capitalism.

You tell us why socialism is good ananda.

Beware of Socialists patting you on the back and saying "We'll take care of you." Remember, 170,000,000 souls beg to differ.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

Capitalist Turning the tables give us good reasons why capitalism is so good. I think it is malodourous. Please don't give me the reason it makes you rich. It also makes others poorer.

[stormrose]

a77: You're supposing that a large inequality in a society is a bad thing. It isn't.
Your cute 'lil formula also fails to compare how the poorest in capitalist countries have improved their standards of living relative to the poor in the non-cap countries.

[Capitalist]

Think Enigma.If you hate capitalism why are you investing in the sharemarket?

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. So the saying goes. Opponents of capitalism like to claim that the poor suffer because the rich are constantly increasing their wealth and using it to oppress the poor. They see the successful as a parasite somehow living off the suffering of the unsuccessful.

The fallacy here is that wealth and success are zero-sum - one man's gain is another's loss. That there is a pie to be divvied up and one man's larger portion is another's smaller portion. Under this false premise the above would make sense - the rich have more (it doesn't matter how they got it), so the rest have less. How unjust!

The truth is that there isn't one big pie being divvied up. There is a separate pie for each individual, each sized according to how productive he is. Every man's consumption is a direct result of his production. One man's effort and consumption in no way negatively affects another's.

Rebut That [^]

[skinny]

Capitalist - you can rebut it, but I don't like the argument at all as it offers a profoundly dim view of the human spirit. I'll lay it out in any case. From the same line of work spawning the feild of behavioural finance (which I've read you like), another strand looks at how people 'value' happiness. Surprise, surprise study after study reveal that the standard economic axioms of individual happiness (called utility) are violated under simple pyschological tests. In particular people really don't seem to prefer more to less - instead they seem to get more 'happines' out of doing relatively better than their neighbours even if absolutely they are worse off.

At the macro level these findings have unsettling implications. You might use it to motivate, for example, the reason why the full-blown Marxist footrace got its start, and why more milder forms of socialism still have such broad appeal today. You might also think it helps explain why once the information wall between the West and the Iron Curtain started to breach in the late 70s it was only a matter of time before the curtain fell. More mildly, I do think it helps explain why we see the Europeans (French and Germans) reforming, albeit slowly and with great reluctance - there is a real jealousy of US economic performance since the mid-1990s.

So there we have it - humanity (or most of it) is driven by competing jealousies rather than a noble desire to better oneself [V]

[stormrose]

And behavioural economists will tell you that having does not have the same "payoff" as getting something new.

So what? competing jealousies, noble intentions, provided property rights are respected who cares about intention. The emergent behavior (yes it's an AI term) is an overall betterment of society.

It's more logical to work with the "nature of man" than against it when the outcomes are good.

Again, so what?

[ananda77]

Definition Capitalism: An economic system based on free enterprise and economic competition. Central to the capitalist system is the ‘market’, in which ideas, knowledge, money, services etc. are freely exchanged.

Definition Capitalist: People who own the means of production (factories, offices machinery, and the money to buy it. In contrast, everyone who does not fit into the above category (incl. high-salaried executives) are no capitalists.

Stormrose:
“a77: You're supposing that a large inequality in a society is a bad thing. It isn't.
Your cute 'lil formula also fails to compare how the poorest in capitalist countries have improved their standards of living relative to the poor in the non-cap countries.”

That ‘it is not’ a bad thing is your judgment. I neither said ‘it is’ nor ‘it is not’ a bad thing. I said inequalities exist and backed that statement up with numbers.

Stormrose, without being cynical, cute little formulas explain one thing at a time. You are right, it fails to explain the improvement of living standards of the poor in capitalist countries relative to those of non-capitalist countries…but that was not the purpose of the formula to do.
However it would be interesting to get a data-set on that one, which I think could compare quite positively in favor of capitalist countries. Countries for comparison would be for example: North Korea, Myanmar, Cuba, Bhutan??.

The question is: What do we achieve when we compare living-standards on a material basis only? A person who drives a Mercedes might be sick, but not necessarily, he/she might be a saint, although unlikely, while a socialist thriving for the ideal of an egalitarian community might be totally greedy for and envy those in a Mercedes. All of them might be completely unhappy or happy.


Capitalist:
“Now socialists in debate never actually answer the question about why socialism is good. Instead, they keep using sophistry to attack events that have nothing to do with capitalism.
You tell us why socialism is good ananda.”

Capitalist, you are trying to put me in a box labeled socialist, capitalist, communist, etc., while I think of myself to be a complete no-no, undetectable, one tiny speck in a mass of humanity, someone who endeavors to be objective and try to see reality as it is and not as I like it to be.

Modes of production and social systems of organization and any combination of the two are neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ and any resulting values within or of a system depends on the people acting in them and executing them… but any of them will thrive if our actions are based on humanistic ideals of empathy, compassion, understanding, tolerance, generosity, respect, and good-will. We all have a lot to learn in that respect.

[skinny]

quote:Originally posted by stormrose

And behavioural economists will tell you that having does not have the same "payoff" as getting something new.

So what? competing jealousies, noble intentions, provided property rights are respected who cares about intention. The emergent behavior (yes it's an AI term) is an overall betterment of society.

It's more logical to work with the "nature of man" than against it when the outcomes are good.

Again, so what?


Good question Stormrose (& this is not a wind up). I also couldn't give a flying **** what individual motivations drive the aggregate outcomes as long as they keep on being delivered. But I guess the 'so what' is that perhaps we can't take property rights for granted if the majority (or a vocal minority) resent the 'relative poverty' they feel under it.

Or using your AI term does the emergent behaviour gauruntee a sustainable aggregate equilibrium? If so why do you, Cap, MVT, liberty and others here spend so much effort espousing the benefits of capitalism? And if we can take capitalism for granted then I should certainly pack in the day job!

[stormrose]

[the majority (or a vocal minority) resent the 'relative poverty' they feel under it.]
And we're meant to give into this child-like behaviour? Hide ourselves to prevent the jealousies of others?
**** that, success is a source of inspiration for others.
Jealousy is the emotion of losers. The ones that feel jealousy, rather than inspiration, best take a check on how their attitudes keep them poor.

Emergent behaviour only refers to the meta-effect of aggregates of smaller actions. No equilbrium is implied.
BTW: Equilibrium = stagnation = eventual death.

You could pack in the day job and still survive in NZ. Your living standard probably wouldn't be as great (without other income or capital to burn).

[Capitalist]

I haven't seen the list of all the benefits of socialism that I requested :D

Quite right Stormy--envy is not a viable basis for economic or social policy.

Why do some of us spend time here espousing capitalism? Because we know that our views can be buttressed by case after case, and at bottom, the Left knows all this stuff -- it would take a certain willful blindness or stupidity not to -- which is why their anti-capitalist rhetoric becomes increasingly frantic and overblown (and amusing).

In the absense of fact, all that's left are slogans -- government by bumper-sticker -- and reliance on "expert" opinion (again, not fact) to buttress their philosophy.

Oh, that and "feelings", which brings us all the way back to brain-fart ideas.

[Dimebag]

Can I say at the outset that I'll be one of the first to attest to the benefits of free enterprise and the significant (and often underappreciated) benefits to wider human kind that such undertakings frequently produce.

However, as is often the case, I can't help but feel often people debate the issues under an idealised view of the world.

I used to be a hard right winger, and bought completely into all the efficiency/value creation ideologies Jim Peron and Capitalist etc al talk about. However, as I have matured I have increasingly come to appreciate that taking the 'hard-line' is seldom always correct. In life there are few definites and always exceptions. Life is grey and does not fit so neatly into idealised models of thought.

For a start, one thing I have begun to observe is that not all wealth is created equal.

Jim Peron talks fondly of the enterprising businessperson who creates innovative products and services, and works long and hard to bring these products to market which enhance the overall welfare of the consumers in the market they serve. I couldn't agree more. These individuals are clearly deserving of their wealth and have benefited society immeasurably. Stephen Tindall is a good example.

However, not all wealth earned or apportioned in such a meritorious way, and not all transactions that make money enhance overall welfare.

You can make money by creating or by finding value. If a stock is selling in the market at $0.60 but is worth $1.00. $1.00 is the economic value of the entity. When you buy it for $0.60 there is a straight transferral of wealth of $0.40 from the seller to the buyer. No value has been created for society - it's a straight wealth transferral.

And the truth is many people got rich that way. Through zero-sum wealth transferral.

Is that fair? In the sharemarket, yet it probably is, but in other spheres perhaps not.

A key assumption of the pure capitalist/competition ideology is that all people have been endowed with equal skills, abilities, and opportunities.

Here is another hotspot of confusion. In the real word, two things coincide concurrently to determine success/wealth: one is the inate/uncontrollable circumstances an individual is born into, and the other is the personal effort and initiative they use to make the most of the realistic opportunities they have been given.

Many pure capitalists do not appreciate that both (not just the second) factors operate in determining outcomes. Wealth doesn't always fall at the feet of the most deserving.

Some people are born into poverty; some into disfunctional or abusive families; many arn't given the same educational opportunities, or arn't instilled with a sound emotional make-up and self-esteem which develops from a supporting and loving upbringing; some people just arn't as intelligent as others.

The devout proponent of capitalism has probably invariably enjoyed a priveleged upbringing that affords them with the ability to succeed beyond measure because the first, uncontrollable factor, has gone their way. They need only then work hard to succeed.

However, in the competitive world of commerce, for the less fortunate people, no amount of effort and dedication will prove sufficient to overcome these uncontrollable disadvantages.

If you believe that not all people are given the same ability to compete (which I believe you must), then you are tacitly stating "let the winners and losers that inevitably emerge from capitalism lie where they fall". If you win, great, if you don't, tough - even if it was your bad luck and you had no personal failing. If all players compete with the same passion and desire, those endowed with superior abilities will still succeed at the expense of the lesser endowed. Wealth transferrals will take place from the informed /smart to the less well informed/ unintelligent.

Again, I believe the confusion and impassioned debate arises because people don't appreciate TWO factors are at play in determining outcomes - one uncontrollable, the o

[Awryly]

Well done, Dimebag.

The problem with the right singers on this site is that they recognise no greater good than the capitalist values they espouse. Sure, capitalism has its uses. But any fool knows it is not accessible to everyone. And fundamentally, what is capitalism anyway? It’s a way of focusing and using resources. Like welfarism, there are good and no so good ways of doing this (look at Paris Hilton). And it has good and not so good results – just as welfarism has. Fortunately, most western societies have moved past the swim or sink mentality so often displayed here.

[stormrose]

Again, so what!

It doesn't matter that some start better than others.

Ultimately it might not be your fault that you're not so smart, good looking, etc - but it is your responsibility.

No system (not even socialism) can restore the natural imbalances here.
It's actually fallacy to measure base ability in a single dis/advantage dimension. Many things go into making people what they are.

Let those that fail fall, why encourage losing genes and child rearing strategies to have another generation? Especially when it is done at the expense of those who'd otherwise be winners.

The zero-sum transfer mentioned by Dimebag above does have utility. It is the conversion of asset from one form to another.

[Capitalist]

Thoughtful post Dimebag.

I must take exception to you saying most high achievers are born into priviledged backgrounds. I would say the opposite is probably true- it is the spoiled trust fund kids of these people who have no incentive to achieve.Look at people like Eric Watson, Graeme Hart in NZ alone --left school at 15. Even people like Eminem, who grew up in a trailer park in the armpit of Detroit and clawed his way up, rung by rung, to become one of the most successful recording artists in history. I could go on and on. You have to bust your ass to achieve your dreams, and the dead hand of the Welfare State encourages many not to try.

"Profit" is not a dirty word, and the more profitable a company or individual, the greater the benefit to society as a whole. New capital is created to create more goods and services, technology increases to make life better.While the mixed economy is not perfect, is better than any of the alternatives.Don't forget the so-called 'Decade of Greed" saw donations to charity reach record levels.

Check out Mr Peron's other site www.artistotlesbooks.co.nz. The Thinker's Bookshop...the largest collection of books promoting free markets, civil liberties and limited government in the Southern Hemisphere. 167 Symonds Street, Newton, Auckland

[Capitalist]

Get on the bus Awryly, you bong-witted supernova of idiocy.

[Awryly]

Ah, the Wanganui view.

[Awryly]

Let jeans not be lost.

[Awryly]

Sorry, Cap. You were saying?

[Awryly]

Soothsomely.

[Awryly]

Button A, Cap. If that fails, try Button B.

[Awryly]

Apologies. The Capitalist view was delayed. Gratitude knows no bounds.

[Awryly]

Let's face it. If I say anything vaguely supportive of Capitalist, she will fawnicate. If I don't, she'll be beyond herself- trust me, that's not very far.

[Dimebag]

Hi Capitalist

Thanks for your thoughts. In response:

I must take exception to you saying most high achievers are born into priviledged backgrounds. I would say the opposite is probably true- it is the spoiled trust fund kids of these people who have no incentive to achieve.Look at people like Eric Watson, Graeme Hart in NZ alone --left school at 15. Even people like Eminem, who grew up in a trailer park in the armpit of Detroit and clawed his way up, rung by rung, to become one of the most successful recording artists in history. I could go on and on. You have to bust your ass to achieve your dreams, and the dead hand of the Welfare State encourages many not to try.
You are absolutely right. But how many other "eminems" out there are there that dream and relentlessly pursue their dream but fail? We don't hear about them. For every eminem I would be willing to bet there would be many hundred who have tried and failed.

The unfortunate fact is the everybody can't be famous. It's the way it works. People can't spend enough time watching TV and listening to music for everyone to be famous. So by definition, such success stories will be the exception, not the rule.

Also, often that particular individual will have special innate talents which they leverage (not to mention a decent amount of luck).

If 1,000 people want to be the best swimmer in Australia, only one person will be. Ian Thorpe is, no doubt with the aid of unusually large feet. He certainly needed to work very hard, but perhaps this small advantage was enough to make him the best. He makes several million per annum in endorsements. I read somewhere that the second or third best swimmer in Australia, who was but a few seconds slower, only earnt some A$12,000.

Unchecked, capitalism creates absolutely huge disparities between the winners and losers. The winners take all, and, structurally, the winners can only be comparitively few.

Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not trying to abrogate personal responsibility here. I'm sure many people would settle for a level of success much below what the likes of Graham Hart has attained, and to be honest, most people, if they really try, in NZ should be able to attain at least a modest amount of wealth if they work and save hard. But often it is the assistance of many social services that in fact allow this to be the case.

Without freely available public education for example, how could you expect anyone to work their way out of poverty? If their parents can't collect welfare, what about the kids? Shall we let them starve or die of malnutrition?

But life just ain't that simple. The market is amoral and is blind to what is just and fair.

The point I am trying to make is that there are structural inequalities and complex issues lurking beneith the surface. Taxation goes some way towards remedying the massive inequalities that are wrought by the unbridled capitalist system where the 'winner takes all'. After tax is paid, the winner still takes plenty. You can still get very rich and the reality is that incentives don't change that much with tax.


"Profit" is not a dirty word, and the more profitable a company or individual, the greater the benefit to society as a whole.
Absolutely not. You are envisaging a well functioning and competitive market in which there are several suppliers with limited market power. In this case, to earn abnormal profits, you need to provide extraordinary value. In this context, I would have to whole heartedly agree. Customers are liable to be able to buy products well below what they are worth to them.

But what about the monopolist with huge amounts of market power. They would earn huge amounts of profit ("economic rents") simply because they could price their goods and services right to the point where value to customer = price. In economic parlance, all the "consumer surplus" is extracted and appropriated to the monopolist. Here, high profit margins are a pure tr

[ananda77]

Capitalist:
“I haven't seen the list of all the benefits of socialism that I requested”

Definition Socialism: Political ideas emphasizing the co-operative nature of modern industrial production and stressing the need to achieve an egalitarian social community.

In contrast to First World societies like USA, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan with private ownership of production and market economies, Second World societies, the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European Block countries including the ‘GDR’ as well as Third World Societies like China, Cuba, and North Korea featured centrally planned economies with no room for private property or competitive enterprise(socialist).

Following Marxist theory, assumptions were made, that a collectively owned system of economic production based on central planning would prove superior to the privately owned system of economic production. Once superiority was established, the goals of an egalitarian society could be achieved.

History has judged this form of social, political, and economic organization to be unsuccessful(source:Giddens,A.(1997).sociology. (3rd ed.).Cambridge: Polity Press).

To my knowledge, the positive achievements in socialist countries can be found in areas of:
• health –high standards of free health care for all
• education – access to free high standard education for all
• living standards –absence of subsistence levels of poverty, although general standards of living low compared to First World Societies
• employment –right to work, no unemployment
• achievements in areas of sports, literature, and the arts.

In all countries subscribing to socialist ideals, consistent violations of basic Human Rights could be observed, as well as large scale oppression of the general population(‘The Iron Curtain’).

Dimebag:

Exactly!! The famous 'Middle Way' practiced by smart thinkers of the new 'Third Way'(New Labor)parties in nearly all First World Societies as a consequence of the 'Greed is Good' neo-liberal ideology over the past two decades. Well done, Bill Clinton, Neil Kinnock, John Smith, Tony Blair, and Helen Clark

[Major von Tempsky]

Well, I'd much rather have Ananda Marga than old foaming at the mouth (grand mal) Belg, it's almost possible to reason with him (Ananda) and although he's off the beam as usual he puts it in an objective way - most refreshing.

Firstly, France is commonly reckoned to have the best health system in the world, and it ain't socialist.

Secondly, the economic disparities in socialist societies were worse than those in capitalist societies. Take the disparities in the Soviet Union between members of the Communist Party with their luxurious apartments, dachas on the Black Sea, limousines, trips overseas, access to luxury goods through the Party stores and preference for their children in the education system. Have a look at the similar disparities in North Korea and Cuba. Anyone want a 1950's American car? (Cuba).

Thirdly, what high standards of socialist education are we talking about?
For a start an economic qualification from a socialist country isn't worth a tin of fish. And what the Soviets called "Doctors of medicine" were mass produced to a low standard. Read Polytech nurse for a Western equivalent.
The quality of anything from the good old USSR was extremely suspect. Anyone fancy flying in a Soviet built plane compared to a Boeing or Airbus?

[ananda77]

Allright, Major von Tempski,

Let's put it that way:

To my knowledge, the positive achievements in socialist countries can be found in areas of:

• health -free health care for all
• education –access to free education for all
• living standards –absence of subsistence levels of poverty, although general standards of living low compared to First World Societies
• employment –right to work, no unemployment
• achievements in areas of sports, literature, and the arts.

After all value judgements are always problematic in the face of a critical readership. However, one should not throw the soup away just because there was a little black stone in it.

[Halebop]

OMG! I totally agree with Dimebag. I need to lie down. Must be that damned greenie-pinko-subversive vegetarian meal I just ate. I'll have another look at his post later... must be something I can pick on... jeez.

[Gryffyn]

Great post Dimebag. Nice to see people playing nice and discussing freely ona thread for a change.

MVT - by most peoples reckoning France is a socialist country - why do you think otherwise? It's not communist but that and socialism are very different.

I agree with your points about communist states but they are not relevant to the practice of socialism in free market democracies with rule of law paramount.

As for quality of stuff from old USSR, you are in the main correct but the number one weopen of choice for decades for guerillas, mercenaries etc was the kalishnikov.

And let's not forget who put the first satellite and the first man up there. I thnk you are painting with too broad a brush.

[stormrose]

The AK47 is not known as a quality product. It's designer made AKs with such wide tolerances precisely because he knew that the quality of manufacture would be so variable.

No communist country has survived long enough to demonstrate that the benefits are sustainable long-term.

Dimebag is mostly right. Capitalism doesn't account for externalities, both positive and negative. The government takes the charges for externalities via taxation.

My gripe is the NZ govts are so much to the left that our lifestyle is becoming unsustainable.

[ananda77]

The scourges of capitalism:unemployment and inflation

Unemployment was traditionally low or non-existent in Soviet-style economies since labor was generally low in supply as a result of ambitious economic plans. Controlled prices tended to be quite stable, therefore measured inflation was absent.

However, in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, open inflation erupted. Additionally, prices were well below market-clearing levels, and acute shortages arose in what is called repressed inflation.

and on: comparative economic performance

Most economists believed until recently, that the Soviet Union grew rapidly from 1928 until the mid 1960’s, with growth rates perhaps surpassing those of North America and Western Europe. After the mid-1960’s, growth in the Soviet Union stagnated and output actually began to decline.
(source: Samuelson, P., Nordhaus, W. (1998). macroeconomics. (16th. ed.). Boston: McCraw-Hill CO)

This is what happened, but the question is:

<center>Why did it happen</center>

Any economists amongst the readership, who are knowledgably on the subject?

Additionally to the question on socialism:

in contrast to the Soviet-style Socialist Command Economy, Mixed Market Economies and Socialist Economies found throughout Europe as well as the Asian Managed-Market approach have been highly successful.

Anecdote: On an assignment in Europe between 1997 and 2000 the rewards for hard work were as follows:

base salary + performance bonus + six weeks paid annual leave (standard in Germany) incl. holiday pay + company sponsored 2-bedroom flat in the heart of Muenich (15 min. from the Marienplatz) to the tune of 50% + 13th. month salary as x-mas bonus (standard in most industries)

and…I was just a bum there!

[Major von Tempsky]

France is a socialist country? Quelle horreur!
C'est la folie! Vous avez le mal du tete!
Socialism includes the nationalisation of production, distribution and exchange. France is not even a mixed economy in the sense of having a significant number of the producers, distributors and exchangers owned by the government. The government is caned and stopped by the EU whenever it tries to even give aid to producers to compete.
Neither the President nor the Prime Minister belong to the Socialist Party.
Am I imagining the CAC Quarante? (French Stock Exchange).
What next, nom d'un nom d'un chien.....(mutter, mutter, mutter).

[Gryffyn]

MVT - nice French but the govt does control an awful lot of production and assist such producers. Just look at the contortions it goes through to satisfy its farmers and (just) keep the EU of its back on that score.

How also do you explain legislating the 35 hour a week max?

I think your definition of Soc is too narrow - modern implementations are comforatble with the community ownership aspect being part private if the pop as a whole is benfitting.

What then is your def of communism and its differentiation from socialism?

Perhaps we are discussing at cross purposes.

[Major von Tempsky]

Communism differs from Socialism in that Communism imposes itself by force and does not allow non Communist Parties or contested elections. Ultimately, Communism sees the State withering away and replaced by local communes. Everything is owned by the State.
Socialism tries to establish itself by democratic means but ultimately (have a look at the original manifestoes of the Labour Parties and Socialist Parties)they seek public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
If you are into mixed economies, that's not socialism, its something espoused by the Democrats of the USA and the Social Democrat Parties of Europe and the modern Labour Parties as distinct from the Socialist parties of Europe (of which there are quite of few of quite strong influence in some European countries).

[Gryffyn]

Fair enuf - so you are drawing a distinction between pure socialism and what is practiced by the lab parties of say NZ and UK.

But to get back to the original discussion there are very few countries practicing socialism as you see it so why use that as an example etc when it is obvious that the discussion is looking at liberal govts with socialist tendancies?

[thereslifeafter87]

quote:Originally posted by Awryly

(look at Paris Hilton).


So Paris Hilton would be a good example? :D

I love the internet for so many reasons :D:D:D

[thereslifeafter87]

Ananda,
One of the reasons put forward for the slowing of growth rates in the USSR is that from the 1920's-60's there was a significant number of large scale infrastructure projects undertaken. These included railways, electricity projects, etc.
Because of the dearth of such infrastructure early on in communist rule (the USSR was effectively still a feudal state until the bolshevik uprising), the government was able to launch ambitious plans for infrastructure creation, and thus drive economic growth that way.

Planning for a few big projects is much easier than planning for the production of numerous amounts of consumer goods on a micro level. The state planning agency was huge, but just consider the amount of decisions that would need to be made to manufacture something as simple as a shoe. You have to plan to grow/import the rubber, create the livestock, make the leather, transport everything to the manufacturing plant, build the factory, organise builders, organise materials, organise the transport and housing for the builders, and so on and so on to infinity.

In practice, planners would ask producers how much of an item they thought would be needed in a year, and then tell them to make that much. This was highly inefficient.

Compare that to building a railway for example.... It is easier to focus a high degree of man hours on fuilfilling a large goal.

[thereslifeafter87]

It is quite interesting to note how many communist ideas have been incorporated into capitalist systems.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx argued for free public education, progressive tax rates, and an end to child labour. All of which are now in place in NZ.

[ananda77]

Thanks thereislifeafter87!

That makes sense.

Railway on one hand and shoe, book, clothes on the other...and although managers had considerable flexibility regarding planning details and decision-making power in terms of inputs, distortions happened because of a faulty incentive system.

No simple profit and loss commercial decisions and as a result wasted resources for productions no one wanted.

Although faulty incentives crop up in organisations in all countries, in the Soviet Union there were few checks like bankruptcy or free selection of public goods to provide an ultimate check on waste.

Thanks again, thereislaifeafter87!! Just couldn't see the link between the macro and micro level.

[ananda77]

Major von Tempski,

Every society organizes itself along economic, social, and political parameters and any combination of the three is possible.

In Germany as well as in France, the economy is organized basically incorporating a capitalistic way of production but including socialistic aspects of state intervention in the planning process and government ownership of productive resources etc.
The Germans for example talk about the soziale Marktwirtschaft (social market economy).

In terms of social organization, a redistribution of income by way of welfare to achieve socialistic ideals of a more egalitarian society are paramount.

In terms of political organisation, above named societies operate on the basis of a democratic framework.

Over the last two decades, extensive deregulation and privatization could be observed in the UK, NZ, and Australia. Germany and France are reluctantly instigating the process.
However, this does not necessarily mean, that these societies need to move away from the more socialistic ideals in terms of social organisation.

Major von Tempski, I hope I am not too far off the beam as usual!

[Major von Tempsky]

Hmmm, abolition of child labour?
Immediate knee jerk reaction - That's good but it's not Communist, its christian and humanitarian.
Second reaction - what about paper/leaflet delivery jobs, helping in the shop/farm/family business, small scale part time entrepreneurship &?
Many of the richest/more successful people began with an early introduction to enterprise and initiative via "child labour".
99.99% of our unsuccessful citizens/welfare recipients sat around eating hamburgers, drinking coke and watching TV instead....

Free public education?
Immediate knee jerk reaction, that's good, I had a free public education and the thrill you get when you academically beat el thicko sons and daughters of Cabinet Ministers and rich people is a major high. Then later on you discover they have access to free/cheap capital, family connections for the right sort of jobs, and....and....
But never mind, one can still win in the end though its a struggle.
However what about the Education Voucher system?
This means that you have a voucher equal to the worth of your education taxes/cost of an education and you can then send your child to the school of your choice, supplemented by some extra dosh if necessary I guess, and do things like evade NQA certificates for political correctness and attending class and go for something worthwhile with real exams like the International Baccalaureate.
Roger Douglas/Ruth Richardson are helping the UK Labour government bring it in.

Progressive taxes? I'd rather see flat taxes, like GST. Cutting taxes and deregulation produce economic growth; socialism produces stagnation, demoralisation, and decay. Sitting around in heaps with our hamburgers and coke, watching Coro St on telly while the rest of the world (except Africa, Myanmar, Cuba, North Korea) pass us by.

I still haven't seen anything to convince me France is a socialist country. Far from it. Which large French companies are still government owned? Very few. New Zealand is more socialist than France is. And the vast majority of France's electricity comes from nuclear power plants, and it has a very credible force de frappe nuclear deterrent and nuclear submarines. Would the greenies/socialists allow that?
Take New Caledonia which is part of France. No income taxes; company tax and a tax on imports provide the tax revenue - is that socialist?

[thereslifeafter87]

quote:Originally posted by Major von Tempsky

Hmmm, abolition of child labour?
Immediate knee jerk reaction - That's good but it's not Communist, its christian and humanitarian.
Second reaction - what about paper/leaflet delivery jobs, helping in the shop/farm/family business, small scale part time entrepreneurship &?
Many of the richest/more successful people began with an early introduction to enterprise and initiative via "child labour".
99.99% of our unsuccessful citizens/welfare recipients sat around eating hamburgers, drinking coke and watching TV instead....

Free public education?
Immediate knee jerk reaction, that's good, I had a free public education and the thrill you get when you academically beat el thicko sons and daughters of Cabinet Ministers and rich people is a major high. Then later on you discover they have access to free/cheap capital, family connections for the right sort of jobs, and....and....
But never mind, one can still win in the end though its a struggle.
However what about the Education Voucher system?
This means that you have a voucher equal to the worth of your education taxes/cost of an education and you can then send your child to the school of your choice, supplemented by some extra dosh if necessary I guess, and do things like evade NQA certificates for political correctness and attending class and go for something worthwhile with real exams like the International Baccalaureate.
Roger Douglas/Ruth Richardson are helping the UK Labour government bring it in.

Progressive taxes? I'd rather see flat taxes, like GST. Cutting taxes and deregulation produce economic growth; socialism produces stagnation, demoralisation, and decay. Sitting around in heaps with our hamburgers and coke, watching Coro St on telly while the rest of the world (except Africa, Myanmar, Cuba, North Korea) pass us by.

I still haven't seen anything to convince me France is a socialist country. Far from it. Which large French companies are still government owned? Very few. New Zealand is more socialist than France is. And the vast majority of France's electricity comes from nuclear power plants, and it has a very credible force de frappe nuclear deterrent and nuclear submarines. Would the greenies/socialists allow that?
Take New Caledonia which is part of France. No income taxes; company tax and a tax on imports provide the tax revenue - is that socialist?


MVT,
you need to read your Adam Smith.
Adam Smith says that if the rich know whats good for them, they will always oppose consumption taxes on the necessaries of life (ie: GST).
This is because the market mechanism will force suppliers to raise prices to pay the tax, thus forcing workers to spend more on necessaries, thus causing them to demand more pay, thus forcing employers to increase wages, thus increasing costs, thus causing suppliers to raise prices, and so on and so on.

I don't know if I agree with Smith, because I don't think markets are quite that efficient. I would say that the burden of GST is worn much more heavily by the poor. They are the ones who have to spend most/all of their income on consumer items in order to live. They will thus pay a much larger amount of tax in proportion to their income than the rich will.

MVT, progressive taxes are effective as they are automatically counter-cyclical. That is, the tax take goes up in booms, and drops in recessions, thus creating Keynesian defecits which help to prevent the boom and bust scenarios that led to the Great Depression.
They are also reasonably fair as well - so long as they are levied honestly, and the incentive to avoid the higher rates isn't too great. If rates are too high, goernments end up "digging deeply into great incomes with a sieve", as the rich do all they can to avoid paying. Personally, I would favour having no tax on income up to a certain level (may

[ananda77]

Major von Tempski:

In principle you are right. France cannot be called a socialist country in the sense that it has achieved the ideal goal of a socialist economic, social, and political organization of society innate in socialism.

Calling France a socialist country refers first:

to its location between ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism and the demand economy Soviet style in the economic sphere

refers second:

to its commitment to ‘collectivism’ albeit ‘reluctant collectivism’ versus ‘individualism’ laissez-faire liberal style in social terms

refers third:

to its commitment to achieve the socialist ideal through peaceful and democratic evolution, instead of the bullet votes of the barricades (Samuelson, Nordhaus:1998) advocated by Marx in political terms.

Simply, no socialist society in its pure form or a classic laissez-faire liberal society in its pure form exists today.

Common characteristics can be found in all societies thriving towards socialism:

• Government ownership of productive resources to various degrees
• Planning mechanisms via industrial policies to coordinate different industry sections (state intervention)
• Redistribution of income via welfare (state intervention)
• Peaceful and democratic evolution

For all you laissez-faire capitalists: Enthusiasm for nationalization has ebbed in most advanced democracies today due to unsatisfactory performance of state-owned industries!!!

[thereslifeafter87]

Ananda,
I would hesitate to use the words 'thriving' and 'socialism' in the same sentence, unless one is saying "you cannot have a thriving economy for any lengthy period of time under socialism".
:)

[Awryly]

thereslifeafter87
Member




388 Posts
Posted - 13/07/2004 : 2:13:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Awryly

(look at Paris Hilton).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So Paris Hilton would be a good example?

I love the internet for so many reasons

Excellent example. Fatuous, fartuous, depth of a puddle, instincts of a homeless rat. Now, where have I observed that before?

[Awryly]

Oh, and she's named after a French hotel. Real class.

[ananda77]

thereislifeafter87:

Ananda,
I would hesitate to use the words 'thriving' and 'socialism' in the same sentence, unless one is saying "you cannot have a thriving economy for any lengthy period of time under socialism".

Hmmm, you are right, thereislifeafter87... the subtle nuances inherent in the meaning of a word (undetectable at first as english is not my native language).

Social democracy - thriving, reaching the stage of socialism - maturing, then inevitably decay, decay, decay....such is the universal law of nature as it pertains to the physical universe in which everthing is subject to rising and passing away.

Anyway, what's the story about the Paris Hilton??

[Major von Tempsky]

Mon Dieu, it's quiet around here without Cap around. Hope she hasn't broken a leg skiing, or even worse, the one finger on each hand she types with :-)
We must engage her in a debate on wimmin sometime.
Can anyone think of anything that a woman has invented?
Car? plane?. boat?, rocket?, computer? stethoscope? fridge? stove? microwave? telephone?
Funny isn't it, wimmin just don't invent things, must be something about the female brain.
The standard reply is what about Madame Curie? She discovered radium...
Yes, but she didn't invent anything, did she....

P.S. Cap hasn't discovered where I live, so I've luckily escaped a good kicking for querying, even in a very indirect way, her possible taste in art....

[stormrose]

The thread got boring once we got too serious.

Re: Child Labour and Marx. The timelines don't stack up....for example...

[The three laws which most impacted the employment of children in the textile industry were the Cotton Factories Regulation Act of 1819 (which set the minimum working age at 9 and maximum working hours at 12), the Regulation of Child Labor Law of 1833 (which established paid inspectors to enforce the laws) and the Ten Hours Bill of 1847 (which limited working hours to 10 for children and women).]
http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/tuttle.labor.child.britain.php

Marx came along much much later. In this content Marx appears be extending already established trends.

The move from subsistance living to increasing standards of living made outrages against child labour practical. (Oh, capitalism again...) Yep every moral outrage has a cost. More affluent countries can afford more moral outrages. (Oh, capitalism again...)

MvT: Troll. *sighs*