BF2S Forums Responsible Capitalism

Uzique wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

My definition of best and brightest comes from our outstanding technological and scientific output while developing a huge economy in under 250 years. These developments have come from individuals looking to find their niche in society, and as a result being pushing themselves intellectually as far as possible.

That is wrong.

Your military-industrial complex (and all of the technological/scientific advances that came as a result) was funded completely by the government. It was not a demonstration of the American dream in practice, with outstanding individuals making great leaps forward- it was more a case of your government throwing all of their public funding into research and development and the 'borrowing' of technologies from other countries and other countries own scientists. America is not some haven of intellectual and scientific marvel, your government simply took the economic initiative to develop PC's and other technology because none of your self-serving and avaricious corporations wanted to spend vast amounts of money in an area (R&D) that was not profitable.

The military industrial complex is only responsible for a portion, not all of our technological advancements, and the biggest problem many people have with it, including me is how far from American ideals it is set up. The idea of a blank check does not fit anywhere in our economic ideals, and certainly doesn't promote efficient spending. However you can't say that a large percentage of the advancements made would not have been if it were run more like a business than the way it has been. Essentially we are paying a premium for that last 10% of technological production in my eyes.

I would still advocate large spending in that area, but I seriously question how well all the money going into the DoD is being spent. That money still attracts people to the field of scientific development, and forces them to fight for the government contracts. I wish they had come up with the idea of the X-Prizes sooner, to me that is an absolutely amazing system that gets incredible bang for the buck while producing in many ways even better results.

Uzique wrote:

Also your academic institutions and intellectual base is very conformist and to the status quo. There have been very few real eccentrics or pioneers in the popular American intellectual establishment- it's full of Harvard boys that spent 3 years learning how to speak in an English accent and drink port correctly, and all of them are just as indoctrinated and subservient as the other. In fact there are several examples of cases when intellectuals have been kicked out of their University tenure because they were opposed to the popular mainstream thought and ideology. This is not the environment that breeds individuals who "find a niche" and then "push themselves intellectually as far as possible".

Which is why I thoroughly despise our universities, and the people who make something of themselves in business get out of them as quickly as possible. The one exception would be M.I.T., and if you're going to argue those same points for that school, you're crazy.

Uzique wrote:

I assumed you really knew what you were talking about when it comes to America and economics- but you fail to make the differentiation between free-market capitalism and Keynesian economics, the latter of which has developed America into a modern-day superpower- not some Darwinistic model that only serves the power-holders at the top whilst oppressing and restricting the people below.

Again, truly free market economics makes no sense in the real world, because it can only truly be applied in a political vacuum. Obviously that doesn't gel with human nature. For example after 9/11, the airline industry went to shit, but it had absolutely nothing to do with economics. Does it not make sense that to some degree when politics interferes in an otherwise sound industry, it tries to fix what it has caused? I'm not going to try to defend the airline industry as perfect or every cent of the government bail out, but there are instances where you have to back up a little bit and look at the bigger picture. So while in instances your Keynesian ideals have been the most obvious and in many cases successful approach to our economic problems, you are unfairly judging the free market ideals to unrealistic standards. Just because at times the free market fails due to relatively unrelated circumstances does not mean its ideals are unsound, or that the type of interventionism exemplified in the OP is warranted, it only means that when you violate some of the fundamental foundations of the theory then you can't expect the same results.

Darwinism does not hold anyone down; it lets those at the bottom be siphoned off naturally. The theory is that over time those that are unfit will be unable to keep up and will eventually die off, not that the best will kill off anyone worse than them. It's a fundamental difference that economic liberals would like to ignore.

Uzique wrote:

And I can honestly say neither of us are going to make a trillion or earn a Nobel Prize with how much time we throw away bickering over topics on an Internet forum . Maybe the most non-productive activity in the world- haha!

Psh, speak for yourself, I am still sculpting my young and supple mind into the receptive, yet assertive form it needs to be in order to scramble up the ladder to success.

Uzique wrote:

There are examples of M.I.T doing the same sort of mainstream-subscription as all the other big name Universities. I don't know the reputations and actions of all the big American institutions in great detail but I do know that there are examples of Professors and young academics losing their place on the course/tenure because they have often represented unpopular ideas or discussed things that are 'taboo' in popular intellectual circles. For example a student at M.I.T that wanted her PhD dissertation marked by Noam Chomsky found that the PhD panel (normally around 3-4 people) was instead composed of around 20 of the institution's staff. Why? Because the staff knew that Noam represented a 'radical' side of the political spectrum and didn't want him marking a political-science dissertation without any mainstream-intellectual assertions and injections. It's a very random example but it just illustrates that the everyday machinery of even the most professional and honorable Universities promotes a sense of ideological control and indoctrination. Talk about the right things and subscribe to the ideas and theories that we teach, and you'll get your 1:1 .

There are examples of everything everywhere, but that doesn't mean they make a habit of it, or even that we are getting the full story.

M.I.T. has an excellent reputation for having very good professors, best of the best students, staggering amounts of research coming out of there...that's the one ivy league school where I think you get your money's worth, and a place where challenging the norm is the everyday.

Uzique wrote:

And again I will repeat that I don't think Darwinism should have any place in economics or politics. You have to retain a bottom-line humanity and morality when you rule and represent millions of people, and social Darwinism basically leaves the impoverished to die off and starve as if we're still living on the savannahs of Africa. It's a ridiculous ideal in my opinion, you can't let the working-classes drop off the ladder and "die off" because they're not economically "fit" enough. It's an extremely dangerous and inappropriate mixing of a natural phenomenon with human nature-- and furthermore it's almost sort of self-contradicting. The fat cats and corporate suits at the top need the working class and the poor in order to perform their menial tasks and physical duties... letting an entire class of impoverished or troubled people die off just because the sole occupation of your life is to make money is utterly inhuman and morally reprehensible. I'm all for prosperity and the advancement of society but you have to look after your own flock. Everyone is entitled to a base-level of personal/medical and financial care; it's a human right that isn't given to us based on our annual income.

The working class are not the people that get siphoned off. It's those who can't even afford to feed themselves or their family, and especially with the raise in the minimum wage, if you have a half decent job you can do that much. The factory worker at Bill's Bass Pro Plant isn't in danger of starving.

Apart from that this goes back to the two different sides of a coin thing.

I'd be willing to bet that the worst off here are still a damn sight better off than much of sub-saharan Africa and rural Asia/South Asia.

Its called trust busting, it's like over 100 years old. Just ask Theodore Roosevelt.

Last edited by Roc18 (2008-08-31 13:31:21)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Roc18 wrote:

Its called trust busting, it's like over 100 years old. Just ask Theodore Roosevelt.

Well I'm awfully glad you learned something in your A.P. U.S. History class, but I was wondering what your point is?

I thought it was obvious. That its nothing new in response to what the OP said.

Uzique wrote:

That's because there are legal rules and regulating bodies to make sure that price-competition doesn't get out of hand.

So hence we're not discussing true classical-economist 'free market capitalism'.

You're right, those damn mom + pop stores would just blast prices through the roof if it wasn't for government regulations to keep them in check.

I mean seriously, what are you arguing here? That Wal-Mart (American Tesco if my transition is confusing) shouldn't be allowed to lower prices anymore? Seems like a plus to the consumer for me. That Wal-Mart's prices are too high, when they beat the competition?

Uzique wrote:

I mean really you're defending a system that is so flawed that the repercussions of its use now results in the deaths of millions of people in the African continent. Teaching economic grad-students the tenets of free-market capitalism has effectively caused such situations... I can genuinely never see an example of where the application of free-market principles has had a positive outcome.

sux2bafrica

If you don't see any advantages at all you are blind to the positive aspects of a free market and to the negative aspects of government regulation. Everyone should understand that there is a positive and negative side to everything.

Uzique wrote:

Now within the thread's context of "responsible capitalism" (responsibility for humans and co-workers, not responsibility for your profit margins)- can you really objectively say that the system is sound and beneficent?

Not at all in those terms. Quite the opposite in fact.

Uzique wrote:

Flaming you misunderstood my point about pricing-regulations which exposes a very fundamental and elementary mistake. The aim/purpose of pricing regulation bodies and legal constraints is that in the circumstances of monopolisation, then laws and external protocols exist to prevent the business from pricing their products/services at an unsuitable level. The laws and regulations aren't there to prevent Wal-Mart from lowering prices, they're there to make sure that in the event of a market domination, consumers are not abused in their position.

I understood it perfectly. The laws are there both to keep prices from going too high, but also too unreasonably low in monopoly type efforts to unfairly undercut the opposition when you are willing to take a huge loss in order to get rid of the competition. In my response I showed that it is stupid because Wal-Mart's prices are below the competition as it is, so if anyone is boosting their prices too high it is small time business, and you are going to tell me that it is bad for the consumer if the price is too low? The laws that are aimed at monopolies are, if anything, effecting their polar opposites.

Uzique wrote:

I do realize that there are positives and negatives to all doctrines and ideologies- but really free-market capitalism is such a ridiculous theory that it is even taken lightly by studying economists and academics. My only observation is that with how much praise you attest to free-market capitalism (i.e. the successes of the American people)- there is only a tiny modicum of 'real' truth to it. The way you deal with the physical implications and problems associated with the system- for example the great exploitation of the third world - really lets yourself down because I would have liked to see your (normally) intelligent rebuttal to the problem. The fact that the selfishness of Western corporations and the self-serving actions of many Western societies results in the deaths and impoverishment of millions of people doesn't bother you? "Sux2bthem"? That's an extremely immature and disappointing way to deal with a real glaring, ugly error in the case for free-market capitalism.

It's a response that reflects how I truly feel without going off into another discussion that should be left to another thread. I have a fundamental disrespect for human life, and that is partially what forms the basis of my moral and economic principles. To me how our policies affect other countries is just an economic non-issue. If you want to take that point further I will expand in a different thread, but I hope that satisfies you as to why I just don't see that as a big negative.

Uzique wrote:

If laws and regulations on trade did not exist (i.e. the infringement of free market principles by the state or external bodies) then the consequences would be unequivocally bad for everyone in the system. If there were no restraints then businesses would ideally relocate all of their labour and manpower to cheaper and more price-efficient third world states, and in the case of market superiority would then continue to unfairly raise their price margins to super-inflated levels. A huge migration of labour and a huge inflation in the price of everyday goods. What is good about that? And with no one to keep the hugely-successful corporations in check, what would possibly improve the situation? Even corporate ethical-standards and social rules are contrary to the classically-defined ideals of free-market capitalism. The propounders of the system: Ricardo and Malthus paid no attention to said 'ethical standard's. In fact Malthusian theory dictates that a vast number of the world's population should be killed off in order to preserve a 'safer' future for the rest of us- on the contention that food resources were being consumed at an unrenewable rate. The idea was shunned and is not taken seriously by the institutions today... but it is very dangerous and irresponsible for you to condone and champion such a system; I find it almost incredulous.

You have to take my economic principles in the context of nationalistic political principles. (haven't picked that up by now? ) A free market should be used within the U.S., but not in the global economy. Tariffs and restrictions on trade should be placed as need be to preserve as much economic superiority as possible as nations jockey for political power, a large part of which is made up by trade connections. This would be harmful to some domestic companies, but it is a necessary violation of free market principles in order to maintain political integrity. All countries should first be looking at what they need to do in order to fulfill their political goals first, and only then looking at what is best for their economy. It doesn't do a country any good to be rich if they have no sway on the international stage, it just makes them a juicier target.

Countries need to fix their own internal problems before worrying about the human race on a global scale. When more than a few countries prove themselves stable over a period of time, then we can start looking at bringing about a global society that looks at the political, military, and economic problems of regions as problems of the world.
The cracks of political failings will show long before any true breakdown of just about any economic system. Moral corruption will show itself first through the direct actions of leaders and drastic changes in how a country is run will follow before we have to worry about the Nazi Party of big business.

Uzique wrote:

Nazi Party and "big business" is a funny analogy actually; the Nazi's were amazing economists . The fascist state-seizing of industry and business was hugely positive from an economical point of view. So I wouldn't ever worry about the fascists of big business... well, I wouldn't worry about a recession or stock market crash anyway!

I was actually aware of the irony...but then I thought that proved my point even further. I'm not worried about a company becoming so economically ambitious as the Nazis (or at least Hitler) were politically ambitious, much less being more successful at it than the Nazis any time soon.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'd be willing to bet that the worst off here are still a damn sight better off than much of sub-saharan Africa and rural Asia/South Asia.

Probably. But I'd risk a bet on the worst off members of Norwegian society being in a better position than the worst off members of American society. like I said the US has the best and the worst of most things.

But you just agreed that the US isn't the worst by agreeing that other places are worse. That was the whole point.

And anyway, Norwegians eat that nasty fermented herring crap. That's reason enough to leave.

As opposed to what, the fineries of American cuisine? .

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But you just agreed that the US isn't the worst by agreeing that other places are worse. That was the whole point.

And anyway, Norwegians eat that nasty fermented herring crap. That's reason enough to leave.

As opposed to what, the fineries of American cuisine? .

I'll take barbecue or steak over fermented fish any day.

And we don't need culinary quips from people who boil everything.

Haha I'm not really sure where that culinary stereotype came from but I actually eat very little boiled foods. Unless you're talking about rice or pasta of course . I'd say the fact that our "national dish" is a Scottish-hijack of an Indian meal deserves some derision though- I'll give you that! It was only a jest though made in light-hearted humour, please don't take offence... your breakfast drive-thrus and steak-houses have accommodated for me and kept me well fed in the past!

Here's some good free-market economics in action...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/busin … N_BRF.html
US government steps in to stop a small Kansas meat packer from testing their cows for mad cow disease because the big companies don't want to pay for the tests and also don't want to actually compete with them. Thier answer is to get the government to ban the Kansas meant packers from doing the tests.

Rich western govenrments change laws and regulations to benefit big businesses even at the expense of small businesses. If you believe that any rich country follows free-market capitalism you aren't looking closely enough.