Interesting topic came up....

[desertrat77]

Seems like Scouter.Com is down to just a few folks.

 

Beavah

Beavah, very true.   Those old threads really highlight how many have departed.   Lots of names I haven't seen in awhile.   I hope they are doing well.

[Fehler]

This country was founded on slavery.  We changed.  Inefficient and inherently unfair economic models need to be discarded.

[Krampus]

This country was founded on slavery.  We changed.  Inefficient and inherently unfair economic models need to be discarded.

 

ROFL. Riiiight.

 

Slavery, while distasteful, was not the basis for the founding of the country. Freedom from tyranny and the pursuit of religious and economic freedom was why the country was founded. You might want to read a few European history books to brush up on what living in 16th-19th Century Europe was like.

 

There's nothing unfair about a free market system. Everyone has a chance. Everyone is free to do what they want. Government does not control where they go, what they do or what they can become.

 

Ask the workers in Venezuela how they feel about their recently announced 5 day weekend. Ask the workers in China how they like being told how long to work, where to work, what to make and where they can live.

 

Seriously, I sometimes wonder if some folks here actually paid attention in school, or if they just swallow what the liberal press send to them to read.

[TAHAWK]

Inefficient and inherently unfair economic models need to be discarded.

Starting with Socialism.

[Stosh]

If economic structures keep pulling/driving to the median, how will it ever progress?  Shouldn't the economy be focused on that which moves it forward towards an improvement for all rather than the average for all?

[Krampus]

If economic structures keep pulling/driving to the median, how will it ever progress?  Shouldn't the economy be focused on that which moves it forward towards an improvement for all rather than the average for all?

 

Ask the sick people in England who wait 3 months for an MRI on a broken leg, thus requiring the leg to be re-broken in order to operate on it correctly. 

 

The people who advocate capitalism is "broken" have failed to read (and understand) any historical literature on what life was like around the world prior to the advent of a free-market, capitalist economy.

 

 

"How shall I ever understand this world? There is nothing on which it is so hard as poverty, and yet, there is nothing it condemns with such severity as the pursuit of wealth."

Edited April 29, 2016 by Krampus

[Beavah]

In a free-market capitalist country like the US? The wage you are paid is determined by the market...not the government and not your employer (directly).

 

Yah, hmmm...

 

There are lots of reasons why market capitalism works better than lots of other systems, eh?   But it's a mistake to not recognize that it also has its problems and creates some problems, too.   In order to keep it workin' yeh need to address those problems.

 

One of da problems is that market capitalism relies on some measure of honor and ethics on da part of employers, eh?   Takin' care of their workers, paying a just and living wage, helpin' good people advance and such.     If yeh have employers who honestly view their role as takin' care of their workers and not just maximizing shareholder profit, then things work OK.  If yeh have employers who only maximize shareholder profit rather than bein' ethical, then yeh can use da accumulation of capital to take advantage of workers, trap 'em in company towns or sweatshops, leverage da business to money in their own pockets and the like.

 

Then yeh have unions and laws and regulations to deal with da bad behavior of employers.

 

Another issue is that da purchaser needs to have access to good information in a market.   If fraudulent information is out there, or simply lack of good information, then da market can't function as designed.  

 

So yeh need to have laws and regulations to deal with fraud, and yeh need a truly free and independent investigative press to give purchasers real information.

 

In da real world, distribution of ability is not equal, eh?  Some folks are smarter than others; some are better athletes and the like.  That means that capital will naturally accumulate to those who are smarter, stronger, faster as they outperform others.   That's a feature, not a bug, of course.   Givin' ethical smart people more resources helps 'em do more to advance society.

 

Da problem comes when yeh allow that accumulated capital to pass unrestricted to the next generation, and the next, eh?  Havin' bright, ethical parents or an excitin', innovative start-up doesn't mean yeh are goin' to have bright, ethical, hardworkin' kids or an innovative older company.    Accumulatin' capital that is allowed to pass unrestricted to the next generation leads to feudalism, eh?   It no longer matters who is smarter or more hard-workin' or more ethical.   It just matters what family yeh were born into that has accumulated all da capital. 

 

So yeh need mechanisms to break up accumulated capital sometimes, eh?   Whether it's antitrust actions or estate taxes or da more spectacular alternatives of bankruptcies, depressions, looting, riots and revolutions, societies need mechanisms to break up feudalistic accumulations of capital.   If yeh are a student of da Bible, this was handled in Old Testament times by Sabbatical and Jubilee years, eh?   Set times when God ordered that capital be redistributed.

 

Some folks who by dint of accident or illness or youth or age or disability or just not bein' as bright or strong or whatnot are not able to participate fully as workers in market capitalism.   That means that those folks will be left behind and impoverished.  Da more capital accumulates to a few, the more poverty yeh get, eh?

 

So yeh need to have a very strong ethic of family and of charity for a capitalist society to thrive.  Strong enough so that people choose carin' for their family over working more, and choose charity over maximizin' their own capital growth.  Either that or yeh need to be OK with slums, and crime, and drugs, and homelessness, and disease, and da old and infirm and mentally ill dyin' on the streets.

 

And so on...

 

Da point is that market capitalism is a fine thing, eh?   It can spur innovation and social advancement more effectively than other systems.   But it's not enough to have market capitalism on its own.   It requires strong personal and employer ethics, a robust independent press, a societal commitment to family, and community, and charity beyond family.   And even then, it requires that yeh redistribute capital and not let it pass unhindered to da next generation.  

 

Beavah

[Stosh]

In a "Free Market" how can one impose morality to it without voiding the whole idea of Free?  Once one adds restrictive morality and ethics, it is no longer a free market.

 

If left truly free, the worker would be free to choose any employer he/she wishes.  If they don't think the wage is appropriate, moral or ethical, they are free to choose another employer.  If the employer feels the value of the employee worth it, he/she will pay a wage to keep them.  Otherwise if the employer feels they are not getting what they're paying for why should they be forced to accept poorer quality at a higher price.  It's kinda like being forced to buy medical services at governmental fee rates irregardless of whether that service is of any value or not.  In a free market people ought to be able to get what they paid for, otherwise the system is not open and free, it's mandated and restricted.

 

All of this Free Market discussion is of course based on the idea that free market means "open market , not free in as a market where one doesn't have to pay for it, get walk up and take it for nothing. or the taking as many in our society seem to define it.  Somehow I seem to get a nagging feeling that such definition is paramount to organized theft from those who provide valuable goods and services.  Where's the ethics and morality in that?

[TAHAWK]

"Free" is a term of art and cannot be taken literally in any society.  Even the anarchists in Spain had rules.

[Krampus]

"Free" is a term of art and cannot be taken literally in any society.  Even the anarchists in Spain had rules.

 

The Wealth of Nations should be mandatory reading for every one.

[Stosh]

"Free" is a term of art and cannot be taken literally in any society.  Even the anarchists in Spain had rules.

 

Free?  As in art?  We have thousands of people both American and Illegal aliens that have made Free an art form.

[TAHAWK]

It has a meaning that is probably not evident from it's literal meaning.  For example, the Pres and others of his ilk speak of "free" education.  What they mean is, "You should have more, and they should pay for it."

[Stosh]

If one listens carefully to what people are saying, the college TUITION should be "free", still gotta pay for room and board and computers and books and supplies and transportation, and fees, and etc. It's going to end up to be pretty much a no big deal in the end.  At least not the total free ride they are expecting.......  

 

Always gotta check the fine print at the bottom of the page before one signs.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Stosh

[qwazse]

It has a meaning that is probably not evident from it's literal meaning.  For example, the Pres and others of his ilk speak of "free" education.  What they mean is, "You should have more, and they should pay for it."

I've refused to use the word in that context. My line to the kids as the went out the door on school days:

"You have ___ days of publicly funded education remaining to you. Use them wisely."

They did.

 

In fact, friends who I know were on welfare never considered it free. They did their darnedest to make up for lost time and get an education, get employed, and start "paying back."

[Stosh]

I've refused to use the word in that context. My line to the kids as the went out the door on school days:

"You have ___ days of publicly funded education remaining to you. Use them wisely."

They did.

 

In fact, friends who I know were on welfare never considered it free. They did their darnedest to make up for lost time and get an education, get employed, and start "paying back."

 

Our state started having the welfare recipients work for their benefits.  There were a lot of negative media coverage on it, but then when they went out and interviewed some of the people affected by the new rules said they kinda enjoyed getting out of the house and meeting people who were going through the same struggles in life they were.