Economics

[Alta4ever]

The current crisis in the US is not due to too much regulation. It's due to POOR regulation. This is not entirely Bush's fault but a large amount of blame can be laid on his administration as well as Clinton's. George W had AMPLE opportunity to fix the system before this happened.

This is not exactly true, the republicans tried to fix the system on three seperate occasions over the last 8 years, and all three times they were blocked by Barney Frank and the Democrats.

The current mess in the US was created over a long period of different adminstrations, but the tipping point and lack of foresight rests squarely on the shoulders of the House Democrats and Barney Frank.

[eyeball]

If we realize that capitalism is about capitalizing and government is about force combining the two should make us realize that government intervention in the economy, such as monopolization over currency, will result in abuses in the form of favour and privilege to capitalist interests enforced by government. Capitalism should never have the power of force and government should never have control over the economy.

The only check against the abuse of power and corruption is the fear of being found out. George Orwell should have written a book about a world where the Telescreens were aimed the other way and Little Brother ruled the government with a critical eye.

The jigs up when everyone can see the wizard for what he really is, a naked emporer. Total Public Awareness is the only hope for mankind. I'd say gop ahead and nationalize the money supply except it looks like the banks already beat us to it. We should just cut out the banks which seem more like a parasite class after the slap in the face they gave to their customers today. Pretty galling considering the reason we loaned them the money was so we could borrow it.

Maybe August is right, there's no hope.

[Bryan]

Surely there are times when group behaviour can also be rational, you seem to be saying there are never times when this is the case. How do you explain something like the development of human rights?

That is actually a good example of collective will gone terribly wrong. Human rights is a good thing. Problem is, everyone has a different idea of what that means and how far it should go. Taken too far, one person's rights inevitably infringe on another's. When you craft legislation that tries to become all things to everyone, the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head, and you end up with epic failures such as our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the CHRC.

[eyeball]

That is actually a good example of collective will gone terribly wrong. Human rights is a good thing. Problem is, everyone has a different idea of what that means and how far it should go. Taken too far, one person's rights inevitably infringe on another's. When you craft legislation that tries to become all things to everyone, the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head, and you end up with epic failures such as our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the CHRC.

I think people are proof of Einstein's observation that everything is relative. Everyone has a slightly different view for the same reason its impossible to know a particles exact position. Trying to pin down a particle's position is as impossible as two people holding the exact same view. That said I think most everyone at least tries to come to an agreement about what a human right is, which after all is probably the rational thing to do.

In any case I view our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the CHRC as being amongst humanity's most epic success story's. The truth as they say is probably in the middle but where that exactly is, is anyone's guess.

Edited October 10, 2008 by eyeball

[Pliny]

I'm a leftist... and pretty far to the left. But when an intelligent person speaks of true free market ... theories?... I can't help but be intrigued.

It's almost counterintuitive to our Western mindset... in a way that I am all over. We LOVE control. We believe that the Earth is ours to do with what we please... really, we believe it is our duty to protect it. That doesn't make sense, though, since the Earth did just fine before we developed that attitude. I really like the idea of 'letting go'... meaning, of the economy, like you just explained.

I can't help, being a leftist, to be skeptical though. I mean, a Marxist society would suffer from people who would take advantage by not contributing what they can and taking more than they need. But I feel that a true free market society would suffer because people who are more successful than others, whether it's for a reason or not (meaning, if they worked hard or got "lucky" by investing in the right stocks), inevitably gain influence and 'power' that people with less money don't have. (I'm on some heavy drugs after a day surgery right now, so I can't articulate that as well as I'd like... but I hope you get the gist).

Economics drives most of our activities. Whatever it is we strive for, a greener planet, a safer community, a healthy lifestyle, a good education, it takes the efforts of someone else, and they cannot sustain themselves without the ability of others to aid in their sustenance. This is economics and to be ignorant of it is to leave the sustainment of your life in the hands of strangers.

When I think of my days as a union member and my utter ignorance and lack of interest in what was going on in the economy and the turmoil others were suffering, I attribute that ignorance and lack of interest to to the fact that I didn't have to worry about any of it. You may have thought that this was the purpose of having a union so that I didn't have to worry about things like the economy. I had a good wage and benefits that would have made most people envious. I faced no economic challenges and had no reason to concern myself with it - all I had to do was budget. I enjoyed my work but glimpsed the future and saw a very uneventful life with few challenges and who knows what missed opportunities. I could have lived that life and become concerned with things like relationships, or keeping up with the Jones, or an interesting hobby, or promoted human rights causes or things of that nature, but not one thing would I have learned about the creation of the wealth necessary to sustain any of those things. The creation of wealth is what gives us the time to even consider social concerns such as the welfare of the poor, human rights and the environment because that makes it of fundamental importance to social activity.

The basic socialist concept of taking form the rich and giving to the poor gives no regard to where the wealth of the rich is derived. It is a "concept" of "good intent" with very little understanding of the economics of how the socialist goal of egalitarianism is achieved.

I find this the hallmark of the politician whose understanding of economics is merely about finding and extracting where the wealth is and budgeting it according to his interests - claiming them to be the interests of his constituents, of course. The failures of government are, it seems, always the lack of resources and the greed of people who will not share and do not care. It is never the failure of government itself although the party system may call the other party to account, it's reasoning is generally specious and it only seeks to usurp the power of the sitting administration. The change of administrations rarely brings about effective change to what was deemed the failure of the other party.

There was at one time in our recent history a single global currency accepted by all people and all nations. In order to protect that currency from being debased the national governments decided they should take over the manufacture of this currency instead of trying to just protect it. Isn't this what governments do then. They are given charge to protect and instead of doing so; or in their failure to do so, would be more accurate, decide they are better guardians if they monopolize the responsibility themselves. The result, as history has recorded, is a sham of the service they lay claim to. They give us paper fiat currencies and call that money which they have debased further than any private concern would have been allowed to debase it. They give us an education that neither develops critical thought nor indeed invites it. They give us a health care system that fails all but those with an investment in the industry and no concern where any of the payments to either institution originate. They blame lack of resources and seek extract further wealth from - gosh, where ever it is now hidden by reluctant taxpayers. When taxes no longer work to pay for government and all it's concerns is the only time of change. It is economically dictated.

Gotta go! Have a glorious day!

[Moonbox]

This is not exactly true, the republicans tried to fix the system on three seperate occasions over the last 8 years, and all three times they were blocked by Barney Frank and the Democrats.

The current mess in the US was created over a long period of different adminstrations, but the tipping point and lack of foresight rests squarely on the shoulders of the House Democrats and Barney Frank.

Well that mistake rests squarely on my poor understanding of the American political system. Either way it was poor regulation, I just don't know which squabbly group of old Americans to blame.

[Kitch]

I tend to think that income is a necessary but insufficient condition for happiness. Poor people may sometimes be happy but as Sophie Tucker said: "I been poor and I been rich. Rich is better."

As to rational people - here's a thought: Individuals are rational (and your definition is good, Kitch) but there's no reason to believe that a group of rational individuals is rational. IOW, this idea of rationality applies only to individual behaviour, not group behaviour.

Indeed, from reading various forums over the past few years, it seems to me that a tremendous problem for otherwise intelligent people is understanding how to generalize individual behaviour to group/collective behavioir.

A group of people does not behave as a single person. Group behaviour is often irrational even though each individual in the group is rational. In the past few days, the world stock markets are ample evidence of this idea.

This is where economics overlaps with reality of life rather than just the reality of finances.

On that note, economics is the study of decisions made about limited resources. Money is only an aspect of that.

Increases in income do result in increases in happiness (proportionally) only until basic needs are met. Then any increase in happiness is either not proportional to an increase in income or there is a plateau...

"Typically market health measures such as GDP and GNP have been used as a measure of successful policy. However, although on average richer nations tend to be happier than poorer nations, beyond an average GDP/capita of about $15,000 (most of the world's nations have less than this), studies indicate the average income in a nation makes little difference to the average self-reported happiness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_economics

On that note, my given definition of rationality has nothing to do with the reality of human behaviour, individual or group. Individuals are NOT always rational. I don't think you can even quantify, generally, how often or determine circumstances that humans generally are rational. We each have a slightly different perspective on EVERYTHING... how then could we even define what rational behaviour is? The decision made by people within one standard deviation of the centre of a bell curve?

And nobody has acknowledged the absurdity of the fundamental assumption that resources are infinite... or that growth is not contingent upon LIMITED resources. Could somebody please explain how it could be possible for the market to grow indefinitely? Seriously... somebody?

[Kitch]

I think he is obliquely speaking of the "invisible hand" theory. I'm sure you've heard about it, wherein the market forces of supply and demand naturally lead to a sort of equilibrium between those things in demand and the prices we will pay for them. So what he's saying is that by fiddling with the market forces (by government) the banking system got out of balance and now someone has to pay.

However one could argue that the reason Canada's banking system is in better shape than many others is simply because our fiddling was better than their fiddling, since our system is more regulated and others less so, then one could argue our system is fiddled with more.

What I find very interesting and more than a little scary about the current financial situation is what sort of leverage was the banking sector applying to these mortgages. Fisrt the mortages themselves were preditoty the way they set people up and lured them into using their biggest asset to finance their lifestyles, but in reality it is perhaps 20% of US mortages or less were in trouble, the real estate values underlying the paper still has at least 50% of its value, what leverage ratio has been applied to cause the financial melt down, I'm guessing it must be at least 20 to 1. And what the heck are the bankers doing seemingly knowingly setting up such a house of cards?

You seem to be very well educated on financial happenings of the economy. I understand the idea of the invisible hand but what I don't understand is how it can't lead to the problems that a leftist like me is worried about. Could you please explain to me why it won't lead to a massive imbalance in power/resources to a few people? Or does capitalism really assume that anyone who doesn't "get ahead" really hasn't worked hard enough?

[Pliny]

Well that mistake rests squarely on my poor understanding of the American political system. Either way it was poor regulation, I just don't know which squabbly group of old Americans to blame.

Poor regulation? It was a poor excuse for justice. This rests squarely on the shoulders of government. Regulation is not the question. The government, charged with overseeing justice, has failed in it's responsibility to justice. Why? Because just as many politicians had money in Wall street as any banker. But it was the do good-intention of Democrats- and Republicans, to give every American the chance to live the American dream without putting any effort into it. When groups like ACORN in the US can picket the homes of Bankers and demand loans be given to those who cannot pay them back, then what kind of economic sense does that make?

Good luck trying to understand how it can all be paid for.

[Pliny]

I understand the idea of the invisible hand but what I don't understand is how it can't lead to the problems that a leftist like me is worried about. Could you please explain to me why it won't lead to a massive imbalance in power/resources to a few people? Or does capitalism really assume that anyone who doesn't "get ahead" really hasn't worked hard enough?

Can you explain to me why socialism will not lead to a massive imbalance of power/resources to a few people?

People have different levels of responsibility, effort and initiative, Capitalism allows for that, socialism, being egalitarian, does not but it does create a privileged status known as protector of the State.

Edited October 11, 2008 by Pliny

[August1991]

This is where economics overlaps with reality of life rather than just the reality of finances.

On that note, economics is the study of decisions made about limited resources. Money is only an aspect of that.

No, economics is the study of individual decisions made about limited resources, and how those individual decisions aggregate to a group decision.

And money? It is just paper - hardly a limited resource.

----

As to your comments/links about income and happiness, I have no patience for arguments based on "basic needs". Wants, needs - Mick Jagger may see a difference but I don't. People with more choices are generally happier. In some cases, individuals are happier when they deliberately restrict their choices but this is their own choice. (If a guy chooses to marry, he officially restricts his choice and can't sleep around anymore. Well, some people burn their bridges.)

On that note, my given definition of rationality has nothing to do with the reality of human behaviour, individual or group. Individuals are NOT always rational. I don't think you can even quantify, generally, how often or determine circumstances that humans generally are rational. We each have a slightly different perspective on EVERYTHING... how then could we even define what rational behaviour is? The decision made by people within one standard deviation of the centre of a bell curve?

OK. But the basic problem is not the lack of individual rational behaviour - it's a misunderstanding of how possibly rational individuals add up to irrational group behaviour.

Kitch, I think you are sadly missing the main question here. The problem is not individuals who may possibly be irrational. The problem is how rational individuals aggregate to irrational group behaviour. By and large, I happen to think that individuals are rational. I readily admit however that this does not mean that the collective decision of rational individuals is rational.

To give an example: I happen to think that individual Americans are rational but I would never expect America, teh society, to be rational in its choices.

And nobody has acknowledged the absurdity of the fundamental assumption that resources are infinite... or that growth is not contingent upon LIMITED resources. Could somebody please explain how it could be possible for the market to grow indefinitely? Seriously... somebody?

Uh, the basis of economics is choice. IOW, resources are limited and people must choose. If resources were infinite, economics would be otiose.

Surely there are times when group behaviour can also be rational, you seem to be saying there are never times when this is the case. How do you explain something like the development of human rights?

Uh, do you mean that "human rights" were the result of group behaviour? Really?

The current crisis in the US is not due to too much regulation. It's due to POOR regulation. This is not entirely Bush's fault but a large amount of blame can be laid on his administration as well as Clinton's. George W had AMPLE opportunity to fix the system before this happened.

That idea (although common) is very naive, Moonbox. What makes you think that a future government will have better regulations? Has teh nature of the State changed? Edited October 11, 2008 by August1991

[Kitch]

Can you explain to me why socialism will not lead to a massive imbalance of power/resources to a few people?

People have different levels of responsibility, effort and initiative, Capitalism allows for that, socialism, being egalitarian, does not but it does create a privileged status known as protector of the State.

Thank you, but why do you find it necessary to answer my question with a question that is unrelated? I understand that people dislike socialism and I'm STARTING to get an idea of why, although I still have a vague REAL working definition of what it is because whenever I ask "what is socialism", I get haters giving me answers like 'it's the end of the world!!!'.

My ideal form of society is a true Marx communist one. I am fully aware of both the likelihood of that happening and inherent problems with that system. My reasons for liking it are irrelevant given the fact that it would be populated with humans who each have their own ideals. So, while I understand that, I still prefer a society that is more on the left.

What I'm trying to do is REALLY understand how conservatives feel... REALLY feel. Not how they present themselves to lefties like me, typically. But a real, working explanation of their realistic ideal society.

It would be amazing if this invisible hand theory would work as elegantly as it explains economics. But I also know that, for the same reasons a communist society wouldn't work, a truly free market society wouldn't work. The same reasons relating to the way that humans typically work... meaning that we all have different views of the world.

So, I ask again, to all the righties out there. How would a totally free market society not lead to the problems that I outlined above? (The ones that all the people you hate cry about). And remember that I'm not expressing an opinion here, or even trying to set people up for an attack (I might have beef with some logic, but it's not my intention). I just want to know what you think.

[eyeball]

Uh, do you mean that "human rights" were the result of group behaviour? Really?

When the rights are codified in a representative legislature, sure. Group behaviour can mean anything from a bunch of hunter-gatherers moving across a landscape to a bunch of politicians legislating rights.

If you're only talking about objectively studying entire masses of humanity I think an overcrowded rats-cage would be just as revealing about what constitutes rational behaviour in an economic context. Alpha rats band together in the face of scarcity and use their combined strength in an aggressive and violent manner like alpha countries act to secure resources for their exclusive use. These groups behave the way they do out of a sense of self preservation. Is that rational or not?

[Pliny]

Thank you, but why do you find it necessary to answer my question with a question that is unrelated?

The question asked was why Capitalism will not lead to a massive imbalance of power/resources to a few people?

If that is a fear of Capitalism you hold to be true it is misplaced. It is a fear of socialism. Capitalism is a an ever flowing process that is not about accumulating power and resources. The individual that is concerned about accumulating power and resources is usually an agent of the government. The only way a person in a capitalist system could amass power and resources is by not consuming. He may become wealthy but it is the job of government to ensure force is not used against other individuals or groups which is why the power to use or delegate the use of force is relegated to government and government only. The respect for person and private property is essential to a free market system, crimes against another's person and property leave the wealthy powerless. Everyone needs to understand that for a healthy society. Wehn govenrmetn failsin it's mandate of justice society collapses. A republican form of government with a limited mandate of justice, defence and not much more is what is required for the safety and security of person and property.

I understand that people dislike socialism and I'm STARTING to get an idea of why, although I still have a vague REAL working definition of what it is because whenever I ask "what is socialism", I get haters giving me answers like 'it's the end of the world!!!'.

Socialism is the structure of all organization. There is a central authority in any organization. Communism confuses the issue by stating all are the proletariat and there is no central authority but in actual fact there must be a central authority that is the State.

The difference between any organization and government is the ability to use or delegate the use of force, that is it can initiate force against another individual or group. That gives it power.

What socialism does is give government sweeping powers that can violate the safety and security of the individual. It makes the economy very unstable because government when it becomes large is always looking for resources to sustain itself and the responsibilities it has usurped from society. Wealth then will feed socialism as long as it can but inevitably socialism kills production by taking the wealth. It must be understood that government, despite its claims to the contrary, does not produce wealth in any respect.

My ideal form of society is a true Marx communist one. I am fully aware of both the likelihood of that happening and inherent problems with that system. My reasons for liking it are irrelevant given the fact that it would be populated with humans who each have their own ideals. So, while I understand that, I still prefer a society that is more on the left.

What I'm trying to do is REALLY understand how conservatives feel... REALLY feel. Not how they present themselves to lefties like me, typically. But a real, working explanation of their realistic ideal society.

Well, I am not really a conservative politically but I do hold what can be considered conservative values.

I tend toward Libertarianism and the concept of a very small and limited government that does not interfere with the economy.

If you are searching for Nirvana you will not find it here excepting if you define it in terms that describe life on Earth. The political spectrum expressed as a true dichotomy should stretch from anarchy to totalitarianism.

The left-right paradigm we are so familiar with is very hard to work with and gets into confusions of what is socialism really. If it is defined as the engineering of society by the State then it exists at both extremes of the spectrum and in varying degree downward toward the centre.

It would be amazing if this invisible hand theory would work as elegantly as it explains economics. But I also know that, for the same reasons a communist society wouldn't work, a truly free market society wouldn't work. The same reasons relating to the way that humans typically work... meaning that we all have different views of the world.

What do you mean by "wouldn't work"? What is the desired goal? Egalitarianism? Definitely impossible.

So, I ask again, to all the righties out there. How would a totally free market society not lead to the problems that I outlined above? (The ones that all the people you hate cry about). And remember that I'm not expressing an opinion here, or even trying to set people up for an attack (I might have beef with some logic, but it's not my intention). I just want to know what you think.

Sorry, I am not a rightie nor a lefty. Both, in my opinion, should leave society to engineer itself.

[Slim MacSquinty]

In 1775 when Adam Smith wrote the "Wealth of Nations" the economic system was significantly less complicated than today. However it was he who coined the phrase the "invisible hand", he was referring to the balance between supply and demand and how the cost of goods and services would find an equilibrium based on the simple premise that when prices get too high demand would fall, then the market would face an oversupply and the price would fall in a never ending cycle he called the invisible hand of the market.

The wealth of nations and the invisible hand theory are the most quoted and misinterpreted writings in all of economics, its a very difficult read and I think most who quote it hae only read excerpts. Smith was not an economist, I believe (and I have read it cover to cover) the the book is actually about moral ethics and the market place, remembering that in 1775 the market place consisted of cottage industries, trade guilds and a small professional class. Child labour, day labour and a very one sided market existed at this time. He talks about how labour could be valued and how prices and wages should be set. He advocates fairness and more even power between parties in the system. He says very clearly in the book that government has a role to play in the market and that an owner or manager of a company should not make more than 20 times the lowest paid worker. Something that is clearly lost in todays marketplace.

The lesson for today, there have been inadequate controls on the market, sharholders are not being treated fairly, business are too big, credit/ equity is being eroded when it sold and resold many times.

I think Flaherty should capitlize our banks by providing bond equity so that they can go on a buying spree in the states, we will make back our investment ten fold in a few years without having spent any cash, and our banks could have an excellent positive influence on US banking and markets.

[manwithnoname]

"...Stay the course is the best course of action for the short term, no point in talking about government intervention until absolutely necessary. yestereday the German Chansellor promised to guarantee all deposits then had to back off since money started to move from other countries.

If you are actually worried about the economy, then elect an economist for Prime Minister, not a socioligist or a crazy unionist.

_____________

Please see what I have to say about it on my site "Shame on Us all.."

Meanwhile riddle me this: What if there was a way to get Harper to change the count so that it is possible to calculate a representative portion / per province of all Canadian at the House of Parliament!

_____________________________________

Petition to the Government of Canada

Official Release:

Petition to the Government of Canada

Petition open only to Canadian

October 12, 2008

Dear Government of our proud Country of Canada,

We the little people that live in your land and depend on its resources request that a more representative form of election count be taken, and since we also understand that the government, under P.M. Harper, has failed on this promise and therefore has denied us all, Canadian voters, the right to implement these changes prior to this unscheduled General Election, as you will understand, it would be unfair to not allow a few suggested corrections by the many of us, as it would be easy to implement, and it would also be an insult to us all Canadians if it was not.

So we are suggesting that we use the "exact counts for each box/riding"(each scrutineer makes the count assisted by the secretary of the same Box/riding) and the manager of this riding will pick up the boxes and the lists of each riding to bring the Director of Election assigned deposit he then already "add up each riding results for each Province or Territories" total vote numbers "and separately by national Party vote casted" then take the "total number of vote casted in that Province or Territory)" and "divide the whole by the number of riding in that Province" to have a fair representation of our people in each part of this country, and then make the House of Parliament represent us accordingly, as a percentage of the seats.

There is also no Extra cost as you are paying the same for each person that does the Election count per day, not per hours; they already do a count of each party ballots and a total per riding, and the Director of the Election is also provided the total number of vote casted by ridings throughout the Province or territory, the only difference is he will have to do some mathematics at a level of a 5th grader, and he will have to take that extra ten minute, that is all.except a bit longer, but if only your Chief of District asked each scrutineer to give him the Party's vote there would already be #vote per party per district , making the Director of Elections calculation a bit shorter as each District already provides him a list with each vote casted in their riding for each party already totaled, so he will need to add each of these results to each other for the Province and then take this number and use it as a divider for each Party representation by % seats

And Please, can our Government be big enough to return their right to vote for the Election to the Canadian Homeless NOW, by letting them provide Social Insurance Number (SIN number) and a Church or a Community center in the area as address or a specific corner of street, an alley or doorway where they sleep! Shame on us all Canadian for letting this take place!

Please add your name to Petition The Government of Canada and get our good and proud People of CANADA, to implement a fairer Electoral system, "as Canadian deserves better", For a Better Canada!

Linda Couillard (no relation to Julie) in BC.

A Canadian Voice amongst many others!

[email protected]

http://thebenefactory.ca/

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished!

___________________________________________

It would appear that my site is down in Canada but up in Australia go figure, so You can copy the text itself, do not change anything to it, by copying it and pasting it to any document, to print it

Edited October 12, 2008 by manwithnoname

[Pliny]

Slim McSquinty wrote:

The lesson for today, there have been inadequate controls on the market, sharholders are not being treated fairly, business are too big, credit/ equity is being eroded when it sold and resold many times.

"There have been inadequate controls on the market."

When bankers are forced to make loans by picketers on the street to people they normally wouldn't due to being too high a financial risk and the government backing the picketers by guaranteeing the loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then I wonder about those kind of government controls.

"Shareholders are not being treated fairly."

This I agree with. The money managers are concerned primarily with their portfolios as are politicians who vote to bail them out.

"Businesses are too big."

How big is too big?

"Credit/equity is being eroded when it is sold and resold many times."

It is eroded when it has no backing. The hopped up real estate market fell out the bottom and the backing disappeared. Speculators and Wall street investment firms should pay the price of their risks. Mind you they were encouraged to overextend credit by having GSE's that offered to guarantee their credit and a government policy that backed people demanding credit to get credit. Those policies were from Democrats, such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. And in the end the politicians did guarantee the credit with a 750 billion dollar bailout- probably with an eye on their own financial portfolios. The bailout, of course has no backing either. It is money created out of thin air. It's result is a greater tax burden on America and ultimately, inflation of the money supply results in a general increase in prices -which some people think is inflation rather than a symptom.

Edited October 12, 2008 by Pliny

[Kitch]

The question asked was why Capitalism will not lead to a massive imbalance of power/resources to a few people?

If that is a fear of Capitalism you hold to be true it is misplaced. It is a fear of socialism. Capitalism is a an ever flowing process that is not about accumulating power and resources. The individual that is concerned about accumulating power and resources is usually an agent of the government. The only way a person in a capitalist system could amass power and resources is by not consuming. He may become wealthy but it is the job of government to ensure force is not used against other individuals or groups which is why the power to use or delegate the use of force is relegated to government and government only. The respect for person and private property is essential to a free market system, crimes against another's person and property leave the wealthy powerless. Everyone needs to understand that for a healthy society. Wehn govenrmetn failsin it's mandate of justice society collapses. A republican form of government with a limited mandate of justice, defence and not much more is what is required for the safety and security of person and property.

Socialism is the structure of all organization. There is a central authority in any organization. Communism confuses the issue by stating all are the proletariat and there is no central authority but in actual fact there must be a central authority that is the State.

The difference between any organization and government is the ability to use or delegate the use of force, that is it can initiate force against another individual or group. That gives it power.

What socialism does is give government sweeping powers that can violate the safety and security of the individual. It makes the economy very unstable because government when it becomes large is always looking for resources to sustain itself and the responsibilities it has usurped from society. Wealth then will feed socialism as long as it can but inevitably socialism kills production by taking the wealth. It must be understood that government, despite its claims to the contrary, does not produce wealth in any respect.

Well, I am not really a conservative politically but I do hold what can be considered conservative values.

I tend toward Libertarianism and the concept of a very small and limited government that does not interfere with the economy.

If you are searching for Nirvana you will not find it here excepting if you define it in terms that describe life on Earth. The political spectrum expressed as a true dichotomy should stretch from anarchy to totalitarianism.

The left-right paradigm we are so familiar with is very hard to work with and gets into confusions of what is socialism really. If it is defined as the engineering of society by the State then it exists at both extremes of the spectrum and in varying degree downward toward the centre.

What do you mean by "wouldn't work"? What is the desired goal? Egalitarianism? Definitely impossible.

Sorry, I am not a rightie nor a lefty. Both, in my opinion, should leave society to engineer itself.

So a corporation that does VERY well, that is owned by a small number of people who, consequently, also do very well... that doesn't lead to/represent an imbalance of power? Money = power in our society. It's influence, it's options it IS power. The less money you have the less your decisions impact large portions of society.

Take Rogers in Toronto. They own a lot of companies and real estate here. They own media outlets. Decisions that they make in a board room have an impact on people in the city who are not even Rogers customers. That, my friend, is undemocratically elected government. And it is the result of capitalism.

I think that, because of your libertarian views, you are at odds with any control on your life from exterior forces. Yes, you sound, to me, like an anarchist. (Farther in that direction than a conservative... is what I mean).

No Nirvana... that sounds like a shot at liberal types. I'm a strong atheist... no Buddha even.

I am of the opinion that a communist society would be the most desirable model society, but most definitely wouldn't work because it would be too easy for people to take advantage of others. Money is nothing more than incentive to work. If people did not need that incentive, then our society could work much the way it does now without MANY of our problems. But, people seem to need that incentive and aren't keen on placing the good of society above their own interests. Egalitarianism is the most achievable goal of all those that I find important. Now, to me, that doesn't necessarily mean each person lives an equal lifestyle. But everyone deserves to be treated like a human being by every other human being.

Capitalism doesn't address any of the things that I see as important for society. The nature of competition, which is capitalized by the fabricated competition amongst nieghbours (keeping up with the Jones), doesn't encourage people to consider the potential negative consequences of their actions on others. That's not to say that people don't do that (many don't), it's just to say that capitalism doesn't do so. And if it does, it's only for selfish reasons such as reputation.

I want to strive for something in the middle, but left leaning... and I DO think that there are certain industries that are best controlled by a democratically elected government such as health care, justice AND insurance. There are more, but I'm tired and this line of thought is new to me.

[Pliny]

So a corporation that does VERY well, that is owned by a small number of people who, consequently, also do very well... that doesn't lead to/represent an imbalance of power? Money = power in our society. It's influence, it's options it IS power. The less money you have the less your decisions impact large portions of society.

Take Rogers in Toronto. They own a lot of companies and real estate here. They own media outlets. Decisions that they make in a board room have an impact on people in the city who are not even Rogers customers. That, my friend, is undemocratically elected government. And it is the result of capitalism.

Well, I don't equate having money with having power. You do have more control over your future as money is a store of wealth but it is not power. So Rogers owns a lot of companies, media outlets and real estate. So does the government of Ontario who do you think can be more easily divested of their property? Rogers will not be around for too long. Government is here to stay.

A capitalist enterprise in order to exist must remain publicly popular. Rogers is already unpopular. It also has a monopoly granted by government so is difficult to get rid of and it doesn't have to care if it is popular or not so it is not really a capitalist enterprise. Real Capitalist enterprises that become unpopular go the way of Enron and Worldcom, Lehman Brothers and such. All of whom at one time had lots of money. Rogers is only around because of government decree - therein lies their power.

I think that, because of your libertarian views, you are at odds with any control on your life from exterior forces. Yes, you sound, to me, like an anarchist. (Farther in that direction than a conservative... is what I mean).

Well, you have assumed too much here, I think. I don't have too much trouble living or working under rules and regulations that I can understand and agree with. I do not understand why nor agree that government should engineer society to any great degree. Government is composed of only a few individuals with power. Fine in and of itself but in my estimation they are too often wrong and concern themselves more with maintaining their power than governing honestly and wisely. So I believe their mandate should be limited.

No Nirvana... that sounds like a shot at liberal types. I'm a strong atheist... no Buddha even.

I see. Well that's another topic. I don't think I will pick up on that one.

I am of the opinion that a communist society would be the most desirable model society, but most definitely wouldn't work because it would be too easy for people to take advantage of others. Money is nothing more than incentive to work. If people did not need that incentive, then our society could work much the way it does now without MANY of our problems. But, people seem to need that incentive and aren't keen on placing the good of society above their own interests. Egalitarianism is the most achievable goal of all those that I find important. Now, to me, that doesn't necessarily mean each person lives an equal lifestyle. But everyone deserves to be treated like a human being by every other human being.

Capitalism doesn't address any of the things that I see as important for society. The nature of competition, which is capitalized by the fabricated competition amongst nieghbours (keeping up with the Jones), doesn't encourage people to consider the potential negative consequences of their actions on others. That's not to say that people don't do that (many don't), it's just to say that capitalism doesn't do so. And if it does, it's only for selfish reasons such as reputation.

It is wonderful that you have the time and the standard of living that you can concern yourself with these social concerns. Your philanthropy would make Rockefeller proud. He too thought that the greatest sin was competition and ever since he has promoted the socialist ideal. Pushing to have health care and education available to all. Experimenting in socialism around the world. Busy making everyone else equal to the standards he has set for them. What a wonderful man he was and his Foundations carry on his work to this day.

I want to strive for something in the middle, but left leaning... and I DO think that there are certain industries that are best controlled by a democratically elected government such as health care, justice AND insurance. There are more, but I'm tired and this line of thought is new to me.

If we had the best health care in the world then I would support the system. We don't, and it is almost impossible to change it- it has the power of government behind it. Justice could work privately but I don't disagree entirely that justice could be part of the mandate of government. Insurance- never.

[Mad_Michael]

Insurance- never.

According to classical liberal economic theory, it has been long understood that the proper role of the government in the economy is to do those things that are needed but cannot be done profitably by the private sector.

Insurance appears to fall into this category. Insurance can only be done profitably by denying the payment of claims. Thus, even though private insurance systems may be profitable (in some cases) the bottom line is that those who pay for the insurance do not always get the benefit of their insurance. This suggests that insurance is not generally done well by the private sector.

[Slim MacSquinty]

"I want to strive for something in the middle, but left leaning... and I DO think that there are certain industries that are best controlled by a democratically elected government such as health care, justice AND insurance. There are more, but I'm tired and this line of thought is new to me."

What do you mean by "left leaning" What we presently have is considerably more left leaning than what they have in the states. Pure laise faire capitalism would have little goverment control on anything, truly Darwinism at its best, only the fit survive. There really are no systems like that in the world. Our system seems to be a decent balance however I think we could do better, for example insurance has been raised, the purest form of insurance would be co-op insurance, wherein if you're a farmer, doctor, engineer etc, you join together with others like you pool you money and by virtue of the pooled money could cover most claims easily. Furthermore since you have a stake in the company fraud would be significantly less prevelant.

Health care is another example, why not have private clinics? If a group of doctors want to get together form a company and buy an MRI machine, good for them, so long as everyone has access through their health care plan that's a big capital investment you and I don't have to make through the government.

Pick an industry you think should be nationalized and I can tell you that private industry can do a better job, furthermore, it is essential that profits are made and re-invested for growth, increased productivity and industrial progress in general. Getting rich is the inducement for keen business people. It is that excess money (profit) which fuels new inventions, re-investment and all the progress that we in western democracies benefit from. Free markets and democracy are what makes it work properly, there are countless examples of socialist experiments that result in a government class of rich people and all the rest poor.

The only business type activities that should be in public ownership are water and sewer treatement, road maintenance and nuclear energy production and only them because of the public health issues related to them.

In terms of all that sharing the wealth business and fairness, hard work should pay off, smarts should pay off, great inventions should pay off, taking business risk should have the potential to pay off. Being lazy should have drawback, being dumb should not pay well, making babies should not be for profit. There will always be poor people, not always their own doing, but life is not fair, but I would say that our social safety net is doing OK, being poor today is a damn site better than being poor in my grandparents day.

One of the things that I find disturbing today is the clamouring for "rights", we have right to water, hydro, education, a place to live, childcare etc, until you pretty much describe middle class, what about responsibility? Are we not responsible for oursleves and our desicions in any way?

[Kitch]

According to classical liberal economic theory, it has been long understood that the proper role of the government in the economy is to do those things that are needed but cannot be done profitably by the private sector.

Insurance appears to fall into this category. Insurance can only be done profitably by denying the payment of claims. Thus, even though private insurance systems may be profitable (in some cases) the bottom line is that those who pay for the insurance do not always get the benefit of their insurance. This suggests that insurance is not generally done well by the private sector.

Whammy!!!

[Kitch]

Well, I don't equate having money with having power. You do have more control over your future as money is a store of wealth but it is not power. So Rogers owns a lot of companies, media outlets and real estate. So does the government of Ontario who do you think can be more easily divested of their property? Rogers will not be around for too long. Government is here to stay.

A capitalist enterprise in order to exist must remain publicly popular. Rogers is already unpopular. It also has a monopoly granted by government so is difficult to get rid of and it doesn't have to care if it is popular or not so it is not really a capitalist enterprise. Real Capitalist enterprises that become unpopular go the way of Enron and Worldcom, Lehman Brothers and such. All of whom at one time had lots of money. Rogers is only around because of government decree - therein lies their power.

Well, you have assumed too much here, I think. I don't have too much trouble living or working under rules and regulations that I can understand and agree with. I do not understand why nor agree that government should engineer society to any great degree. Government is composed of only a few individuals with power. Fine in and of itself but in my estimation they are too often wrong and concern themselves more with maintaining their power than governing honestly and wisely. So I believe their mandate should be limited.

I see. Well that's another topic. I don't think I will pick up on that one.

It is wonderful that you have the time and the standard of living that you can concern yourself with these social concerns. Your philanthropy would make Rockefeller proud. He too thought that the greatest sin was competition and ever since he has promoted the socialist ideal. Pushing to have health care and education available to all. Experimenting in socialism around the world. Busy making everyone else equal to the standards he has set for them. What a wonderful man he was and his Foundations carry on his work to this day.

If we had the best health care in the world then I would support the system. We don't, and it is almost impossible to change it- it has the power of government behind it. Justice could work privately but I don't disagree entirely that justice could be part of the mandate of government. Insurance- never.

Money is most certainly power. In the way that it allows its possessors access to things that cannot be accessed without it AND in that it tends to enable access to things that are not 'supposed' to be accessible. Meaning that it is buying power AND influence... don't forget the influence.

Maybe people don't like Rogers, but maybe Rogers is the only company that offers certain products in this market. Now, that's not something that is unchangable... nor should it be. But, even IF Rogers is loathed by the public, who's to say that the company can't change names... rebrand. Nobody would REALLY have to know, nor would they if Rogers didn't want them to. That's because corporations don't have faces... they have logos. Logos are not permanent. I see what you're saying about this particular company not being a capitalist enterprise though.

My apologies for my assumptions. But I will say that it seems that it's not fair to paint all 'government' with the same brush. Government is people. This point works better in another place... You're also very right about government being most concerned with keeping power. But this is not a problem inherent to government. It's inherent to the way that government is elected. I don't have any solutions to offer for that though.

I don't understand your sarcasm about my social concerns. You asked why I thought communism wouldn't work and I explained. I also offered an explanation as to why it is the ideal model of society, in my humble opinion. I haven't attempted to push that opinion on anyone. Nor can you say that propagation of my motives would necessarily lead to this demon called "socialism" that so many people are so scared of.

I think that your view of government is too restricting. Health care is something that should be available to everyone at all times. If the government doesn't do a good job at providing it, then the government should change it's approach or the government should change... the concept of private control of health care should not be considered. The reason being that in a capitalist enterprise there are interests that must be considered that are not always the same as the interests of the customers.

Why not insurance?

[Kitch]

"I want to strive for something in the middle, but left leaning... and I DO think that there are certain industries that are best controlled by a democratically elected government such as health care, justice AND insurance. There are more, but I'm tired and this line of thought is new to me."

What do you mean by "left leaning" What we presently have is considerably more left leaning than what they have in the states. Pure laise faire capitalism would have little goverment control on anything, truly Darwinism at its best, only the fit survive. There really are no systems like that in the world. Our system seems to be a decent balance however I think we could do better, for example insurance has been raised, the purest form of insurance would be co-op insurance, wherein if you're a farmer, doctor, engineer etc, you join together with others like you pool you money and by virtue of the pooled money could cover most claims easily. Furthermore since you have a stake in the company fraud would be significantly less prevelant.

Health care is another example, why not have private clinics? If a group of doctors want to get together form a company and buy an MRI machine, good for them, so long as everyone has access through their health care plan that's a big capital investment you and I don't have to make through the government.

Pick an industry you think should be nationalized and I can tell you that private industry can do a better job, furthermore, it is essential that profits are made and re-invested for growth, increased productivity and industrial progress in general. Getting rich is the inducement for keen business people. It is that excess money (profit) which fuels new inventions, re-investment and all the progress that we in western democracies benefit from. Free markets and democracy are what makes it work properly, there are countless examples of socialist experiments that result in a government class of rich people and all the rest poor.

The only business type activities that should be in public ownership are water and sewer treatement, road maintenance and nuclear energy production and only them because of the public health issues related to them.

In terms of all that sharing the wealth business and fairness, hard work should pay off, smarts should pay off, great inventions should pay off, taking business risk should have the potential to pay off. Being lazy should have drawback, being dumb should not pay well, making babies should not be for profit. There will always be poor people, not always their own doing, but life is not fair, but I would say that our social safety net is doing OK, being poor today is a damn site better than being poor in my grandparents day.

One of the things that I find disturbing today is the clamouring for "rights", we have right to water, hydro, education, a place to live, childcare etc, until you pretty much describe middle class, what about responsibility? Are we not responsible for oursleves and our desicions in any way?

Through some conversations that I've had with my future in-laws today, I don't know that what I believe... hold as the ideal... is really "leftist". I don't know that it's something that fits on a two dimensional spectrum. I don't know what else to say but to stop labelling myself and only talk about ideas.

I'll tell you why I despise the idea of private health care clinics. Would they be for profit? If so, would not some of the most talented doctors end up there? It's a slippery slope toward an entirely privatized health care system. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my 'gut' feeling. Please explain to me why I should abandon that feeling... I'm all ears... I already accepted that corporate taxes are bad tonight!

I said nothing of sharing of wealth. Unless you mean wealth in the original sense of the word meaning the state of being well. Certain standards should apply to ALL people. Access to health care, TRUE justice, clean water... maybe even shelter. That's not to say that some people can't/shouldn't become "more equal than others". As a science guy I HATE the use of Darwinian theory in economic discussions. Not that it doesn't apply... it's just like using fine crystal to drink kool aid.

Aye, but there's the rub. Indeed we all have rights, I believe, but we have responsibilities as well. I think that it is easier to prevent parasitic use of things that society provides than it is to prevent the pitfalls of pure capitalism. Given that the advantage can only be taken in the select FEW systems that society provides for itself. If people are clever enough to find ways to create market 'needs'... or fabricated wants... then people can be clever enough to prevent others from not taking their responsibilities seriously.

[blueblood]

I'll tell you why I despise the idea of private health care clinics. Would they be for profit? If so, would not some of the most talented doctors end up there? It's a slippery slope toward an entirely privatized health care system. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my 'gut' feeling. Please explain to me why I should abandon that feeling... I'm all ears... I already accepted that corporate taxes are bad tonight!

Should a millionaire be eating in a soup kitchen??? If a millionaire is eating in the soup kitchen, he is taking a bowl of soup away from someone who actually needs it and taking space in line.

In Canada we have regulations and controls for everything, private clinics would fall into this. I can see salary caps adjusted for inflation and taxes for the private clinics. They have something like this in Europe.