The Ultra rich getting richer

[Michael Hardner]

Now governments have "false" strength. You've lost the point on "strong governments" and now wish to define strong govenrments as having false strength.

I just don't think you can call a dictatorship "strong" when they are one assasination away from total chaos.

[Pliny]

There are millions of people living in many troubled nations who do backbreaking labour--sometimes literally backbreaking--for what we spend on a cup of coffee.

You don't think that requires perseverence and determination?

Do you think that if a successful Westerner had been born in Bangladesh, he'd likely be similarly successful, or even relatively? I beg to differ.

And of course our forefathers who built our society didn't do any back-breaking work. They didn't live in earthen huts. they always had it easy.

The westerner of today has inherited the wealth created by preceding generations. If he were born in Bangladesh he wouldn't be a westerner but he would only have the opportunity available to him that his parents and grandparents and the society they created, or the government they allowed to create society, left to him.

[Pliny]

I just don't think you can call a dictatorship "strong" when they are one assasination away from total chaos.

Then you aren't talking about strong government. Perhaps you mean "stable" government and that would be more accurate. Do you see western governments becoming more "stable" as they grow in their social responsibilities and individuals delegate more of those responsibilities to them? I see political and special interests increasingly over-riding the public's input and leaning more toward telling the citizenry what is right and not even consulting their understanding but one-sidedly presenting it's case.

I don't find that healthy for society.

[Michael Hardner]

Then you aren't talking about strong government. Perhaps you mean "stable" government and that would be more accurate. Do you see western governments becoming more "stable" as they grow in their social responsibilities and individuals delegate more of those responsibilities to them? I see political and special interests increasingly over-riding the public's input and leaning more toward telling the citizenry what is right and not even consulting their understanding but one-sidedly presenting it's case.

I don't find that healthy for society.

I know that's what you 'see'. But haven't we already shown that your perspective isn't reflected in reality earlier in this thread when we showed you that tax rates for the rich have dropped ?

I know your philosophy, and I do appreciate it, in that it's quite philosophically consistent with itself. However, I don't think that you're correct in applying it to the real world. I do believe, however, that you try to be intellectually honest in your discussions.

[blueblood]

There's nothing quite like patting yourself on the back, is there ?

Personally, I believe that our society is soft, and that many of us that do well are reaping the rewards that our ancestors guaranteed for us by their sacrifice.

That all comes to making right decisions. There are some decisions that were made that we are paying for today (re Trudeau and his socialist spending spree and Mulroney trying to fix it)

I know your philosophy, and I do appreciate it, in that it's quite philosophically consistent with itself. However, I don't think that you're correct in applying it to the real world. I do believe, however, that you try to be intellectually honest in your discussions.

That philosophy has been part of western civilization since the mid 1400's. That philosophy is what allowed western civilization to get out of the thumb of the catholic church. That philosophy is why western society is as successful as it is today, and why emerging markets around the world are starting to become successful.

To Bloodyminded:

The westerner of today has inherited the wealth created by preceding generations. If he were born in Bangladesh he wouldn't be a westerner but he would only have the opportunity available to him that his parents and grandparents and the society they created, or the government they allowed to create society, left to him

And those that come here have the same opportunities as westerners to succeed or fail. The unemployment rate of the Vietnam boat people during the 1970's and their descendants is rock bottom. At the other end, there are people who's ancestors have been in Canada for much longer and are unemployed. Inherited wealth is no good if it is squandered.

[Michael Hardner]

That philosophy has been part of western civilization since the mid 1400's. That philosophy is what allowed western civilization to get out of the thumb of the catholic church. That philosophy is why western society is as successful as it is today, and why emerging markets around the world are starting to become successful.

That's great, but what has it done for us lately ? I'm all for building on achievements of the past: open markets, freedom of speech, phonetic writing, the wheel, etc. But just because, say barter and the city-state worked well in 4000 BC doesn't mean it's a good option for today. Could you imagine Hamilton as a city-state ? Ugh.

[eyeball]

All people should be treated equal under the law not made equal by law.

Okay, I'll try to remember that when I go fishing and get $.15 cents a pound and the guy who's quota I was forced to lease gets $3.50.

Privatized ownership of a common property resource is how the ultra-rich get richer around these parts. Apparently having to actually work for their $3.50 just wouldn't be fair.

[bloodyminded]

And of course our forefathers who built our society didn't do any back-breaking work. They didn't live in earthen huts. they always had it easy.

Michael already plainly and clearly made the point about those who came before us.

But you're misreading me.

If we are successful, and it can be laid at the feet of our ancestors' hard work and determination--their "strength" as blueblooded puts it, and nothing but that--then surely all this backbreaking labour performed by poverty-stricken third-worlders (most of whom have it far worse than our mythic and vaunted ancestors, by the way) will eventually cause them to be successful.

Hard work and perseverence equals success? It's really that simple? The world truly IS black and white, and can be explained by self-serving platitudes?

Awesome.

The westerner of today has inherited the wealth created by preceding generations. If he were born in Bangladesh he wouldn't be a westerner but he would only have the opportunity available to him that his parents and grandparents and the society they created, or the government they allowed to create society, left to him.

????

Your coy attempts to blame the people for their own circumstances aside (ie. Pliny is personally responsible for the socialist tyranny to which we're about to be subjected), this is roughly the point I was making, and to which you were objecting.

Ye gods.

Edited December 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

To Bloodyminded:

And those that come here have the same opportunities as westerners to succeed or fail.

So...they're not as "strong" as us and lack the "determination" and "perseverence" and the by-gum-pull-up-yer-bootstraps-and-git-'er-done" excellent qualities of the magnificent Westerner...when they live in troubled and impoverished Third World nations.

However, if they can make it here...well, then they might or might not achieve these qualities...we'll wait and see.

Your prognosis for these inferior beings is not good: in your view, there are roughly two examples which you bafflingly believe are illustrative of your (self-aggrandizing) assertions: "on one end" we've got the "Vietnamese boat people", whom you claimed have made it--based on your expansive demographic study of the matter, presumably; and "at the other end" are....some vague group, undefined...who remain unemployed, thus magically proving your "Westerners-are-best" Supremacy theories.

All this aside, neither you nor Pliny are even aware of your own contradictions...I assume you haven't really thought any of this stuff through.

Edited December 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[blueblood]

That's great, but what has it done for us lately ? I'm all for building on achievements of the past: open markets, freedom of speech, phonetic writing, the wheel, etc. But just because, say barter and the city-state worked well in 4000 BC doesn't mean it's a good option for today. Could you imagine Hamilton as a city-state ? Ugh.

But I'm not talking about 4000 BC, I'm talking about post 1400 renaissance which brought about the advent of modern banking and equity financing. I'll take over 600 years of great success vs. the socialist experiment of the 20th century that was an absolute failure. Emerging markets are grasping the capitalist concept which has proven time and again to be successful, and that's why they're in the position they are in today.

So...they're not as "strong" as us and lack the "determination" and "perseverence" and the by-gum-pull-up-yer-bootstraps-and-git-'er-done" excellent qualities of the magnificent Westerner...when they live in troubled and impoverished Third World nations.

However, if they can make it here...well, then they might or might not achieve these qualities...we'll wait and see.

Your prognosis for these inferior beings is not good: in your view, there are roughly two examples which you bafflingly believe are illustrative of your (self-aggrandizing) assertions: "on one end" we've got the "Vietnamese boat people", whom you claimed have made it--based on your expansive demographic study of the matter, presumably; and "at the other end" are....some vague group, undefined...who remain unemployed, thus magically proving your "Westerners-are-best" Supremacy theories.

All this aside, neither you nor Pliny are even aware of your own contradictions...I assume you haven't really thought any of this stuff through.

Your attempt to portray me as a racist is pathetic and it adds nothing to the discussion.

People are individuals, some make it, some don't. Third world nations have nobody to blame but themselves for the predicament they are in. There are various emerging countries with individuals making sound decisions that are allowing them and the rest of the people in their countries to become richer than they previously were. Lazy people exist in all aspects of all societies, some societies are ran by them, some aren't.

The fact that the western world is as successful as it is, is a testament to sound decision making such as creating incentive for people to become wealthy. The third world doesn't do that, that's why they are poor. Emerging markets have started to get sound decision making and are now richer for it, and keeping the world's economy afloat.

[bloodyminded]

Your attempt to portray me as a racist is pathetic and it adds nothing to the discussion.

I am not portraying you as a racist. I'm portraying you as one who swallows whole grand narrative myths, and then, thanks to cultural identity, feels that he himself has anything at all to do with cultural success. You're a Westerner, so therefore Western triumphs reflect directly upon yourself.

People are individuals, some make it, some don't. Third world nations have nobody to blame but themselves for the predicament they are in.

The impoversihed people living in third world nations (rather than some abstract, personified entity called "nations") are no more reponsible for their predicament than you are.

Maybe less responsible for their predicament than you are and I am, as I'll get to in a moment.

There are various emerging countries with individuals making sound decisions that are allowing them and the rest of the people in their countries to become richer than they previously were. Lazy people exist in all aspects of all societies, some societies are ran by them, some aren't.

????

Lazniness!!! That's your response?

Ok, I now profoundly suspect you're not even trying to have a serious discussion; but on the chance that I'm mistaken, I'll keep going.

The fact that the western world is as successful as it is, is a testament to sound decision making such as creating incentive for people to become wealthy. The third world doesn't do that, that's why they are poor. Emerging markets have started to get sound decision making and are now richer for it, and keeping the world's economy afloat.

If your entire world view is to be predicated on vacuous, self-serving platitudes uttered by reactionary nationalists, you're going to keep spewing this nonsense...which, not incidentally, is not only adding insult to injury, but is designed to do so.

A massive, in fact crucial component of Western success is based on theft and murder. No one even disputes this any more, except for bigoted revisionists.

Earlier, you said,

Third world nations have nobody to blame but themselves for the predicament they are in.

By this standard--by your standard, blueblood--you are personally responsible, for just one example, of the massive state terrorism conducted agaisnt the East Timorese by our allies the Indonesians, with crucial Western support.

Yes, the Americans were the primary sponsors of terrorism and mass murder in that awful case...but Canada's hands are far from clean. The UK are co-conspirators as well, as was Australia.

you know, the superior Western states.

Terrorists, interestingly enough.

Now, since we have a representative government, and since we could have found out what was going on had we chosen to (rather than sip smugly on the heady myths of cultural superiority, which you like to do) we are a hell of a lot more responsible for the suffering of the East Timorese than they themselves are; and more responsible for the suffering of the Indonesians under the dictator Suharto, to whom our government offerred intentional and material support for terrorism on a scale Hamas doesn't even dream of, while powers-that-be were well aware that it was occurring.

How are they responsible for our culpability in the terrorism directed towards them?

That's one example, blueblood. Out of many.

And do you think Haiti's terrible plight is "all their own fault"...that being a slave state (under Western auspices) and then having France, the U.S. and Canada intentionally subverting their democratic will, and preferring such lovelies as the Duvalier killers, has nothing at all to do with their situation?

Really, blueblood?

Edited December 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

But I'm not talking about 4000 BC, I'm talking about post 1400 renaissance which brought about the advent of modern banking and equity financing. I'll take over 600 years of great success vs. the socialist experiment of the 20th century that was an absolute failure. Emerging markets are grasping the capitalist concept which has proven time and again to be successful, and that's why they're in the position they are in today.

Ok, so you're talking about 600 years ago, not 6000.

Again - what have you done for us LATELY ? The socialist experiment brought us permanent changes in policy - social programs in Europe and the US that modified capitalism.

Pure communism and pure capitalism both failed, and the best-of-breed solution is in place in Canada, the US and elsewhere.

Your attempt to portray me ...

Watch your quotes here, that was someone else. Sorry.

[Bonam]

A massive, in fact crucial component of Western success is based on theft and murder. No one even disputes this any more, except for bigoted revisionists.

The "theft and murder" conducted by "the West" was only so because they got there first, not because of some unique moral failing of the West or its people. Almost all peoples, West, East, and South have been killing and stealing from their neighbors for thousands of years. The West just happened to have a bit of a technical edge when it counted most. The fact that the West's relatively advantageous position in the world today is due in part to a history of violence does not take away from the value of the West's accomplishments, or the pride that Westerners may choose to feel in those accomplishments.

Now, since we have a representative government, and since we could have found out what was going on had we chosen to (rather than sip smugly on the heady myths of cultural superiority, which you like to do) we are a hell of a lot more responsible for the suffering of the East Timorese than they themselves are; and more responsible for the suffering of the Indonesians under the dictator Suharto, to whom our government offerred intentional and material support for terrorism on a scale Hamas doesn't even dream of, while powers-that-be were well aware that it was occurring.

The West has certainly supported some less than savory regimes when it has suited it, as of course have other powerful nations or blocs of nations. But to claim that we have "more" of a responsibility for the conditions of the East Timorese or Indonesians than they themselves do is not correct. Whatever the West did in the events you refer to, it did not send in its own forces to forcefully subjugate these peoples. It had dealings with their governments or factions which they themselves came to through varying means. The West supported or opposed certain regimes. So yes, we've certainly had an impact.

But in the end the only one that can determine one's own destiny is oneself. Even in the worst disasters, in the worst atrocities, some individuals survive and prosper while others suffer and perish. If one's life sucks, that person can wait around and hope someone else will fix it for them, or stop doing something that is making their life suck, or they can take charge and try to improve things for themselves. The West does have a rich tradition of people doing precisely that, whether it is deposing tyrannical monarchs, fleeing repressive and overpopulated nations to colonize new continents, or whatever else.

If we are successful, and it can be laid at the feet of our ancestors' hard work and determination--their "strength" as blueblooded puts it, and nothing but that--then surely all this backbreaking labour performed by poverty-stricken third-worlders (most of whom have it far worse than our mythic and vaunted ancestors, by the way) will eventually cause them to be successful.

Manual backbreaking labour with no end in sight besides immediate survival is not what I mean by "strength" or "perseverance". When the only choice one has is to toil all day long and live or lay down and die, the decision is obvious, and it takes no particular strength of character or mental effort to keep working. What is hard is to try something different, to risk something in the hopes that it might lead to improvement in the longer term. When your village sucks and you can barely scrape out a living and most of what you make is taken by your rulers/supervisors/oppressors, well, you can stay there and keep living like that, or you can go elsewhere and try to make it on your own, or you can rebel.

So, while I certainly can sympathize with the physical hardships the third-worlders you mention are going through, forgive me if I don't bow down in respect for their choices or their perseverance. They do what they must to survive, but no more. Those who do do something more usually end up much better off. The best example of that is of course those that figure out how to fill out a few forms so they can come to Canada or some other Western country. Or even those that get on a boat illicitly and do the same.

I guess it can all be summed up by the old saying "God helps those who help themselves", which applies aptly to this debate, even though I am an atheist. If one is unhappy with one's life and conditions, the surest place to find a way to better them is oneself.

[maple_leafs182]

Pure communism and pure capitalism both failed, and the best-of-breed solution is in place in Canada, the US and elsewhere.

It's because both systems are subservient to the banks.

[Michael Hardner]

It's because both systems are subservient to the banks.

Communist bank ?

[blueblood]

Ok, so you're talking about 600 years ago, not 6000.

Again - what have you done for us LATELY ? The socialist experiment brought us permanent changes in policy - social programs in Europe and the US that modified capitalism.

Your previous post has stated what has capitalism done for us lately, and we can see the results of that. If we're asking what I've done for us lately, I run a 3000 acre farm. I pay close to 20 grand in property tax, 35 grand in corporate tax, and another 15 grand in income tax, and have operating expenses of over a half a million dollars, and invest in various companies in order to finance my future retirement for starters. I think I contribute just fine. I feel i can contribute more if I had less tax expense.

Pure communism and pure capitalism both failed, and the best-of-breed solution is in place in Canada, the US and elsewhere.

When has pure capitalism failed? Every business man knows that there is tax to be paid, that's the way it goes. The debate is how much tax does the state REALLY need in order to function. The business community naturally feels it is much less than it is now, and that's where the never ending debate is. What makes the debate challenging is that a stable state makes for an ideal place to do business, and it takes money to run a state. However, various left leaning people use that premise as a trojan horse as it were to ram tax and spend policies down our throats claiming it is the cost of government and how it works. It is also very challenging debating with people who benefit from big government without having to really pay for those benefits - why would anyone want to argue against getting "free money".

Canada is on a campaign to slash corporate taxes, and is setting up a pension pool through financial institutions for small businesses instead of beefing up the CPP. Europe has had the mistake of making the cost of government too high and making gov't too big and is now paying for it. The Americans will end up having to pay for it, and we in Canada had got it under control in the late 90's/early 2000's.

Watch your quotes here, that was someone else. Sorry.

I know, the dilemna of not having high speed internet resulting in having to keep posts at a minimum.

To Bloodyminded:

Bonam's reply will suffice

[dre]

The countries with the most government have all failed, Germany (twice), Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia, Yugoslavia, Rumania, communist China. They were totalitarian socialist governments that failed. And as individual responsibility is lost to the state we can start looking at Greece, Italy (again), Spain (again), Portugal, Ireland, France, Great Britain, all on the verge of economic failure.

Sheer dishonesty. The countries that have achieved the best balance between socialism and capitalism are without exception the ones that have thrived.

How about you name a single country you would like to live in today that doesnt have a pretty healthy balance of both? Better yet... move there, and send back monthly reports.

Seriously... its easy for you go and experience what its like to live outside of Europe, North American, NewZealand, and Australia (the hybrid capitalist/welfare state countries). Go try it out!

And stop trying to compare Russia to Europe as if thats an example that proves mixed economies dont work

Edited December 18, 2010 by dre

[dre]

Your previous post has stated what has capitalism done for us lately, and we can see the results of that. If we're asking what I've done for us lately, I run a 3000 acre farm. I pay close to 20 grand in property tax, 35 grand in corporate tax, and another 15 grand in income tax, and have operating expenses of over a half a million dollars, and invest in various companies in order to finance my future retirement for starters. I think I contribute just fine. I feel i can contribute more if I had less tax expense.

If you run a farm in North America your whole livelyhood is subsidized. About 25% of your income is a gift from the taxpayer, and the government props up your business and protects you from foreign competition. The north americans agricultural sector is about as close to communism as we GET.

[bloodyminded]

To Bloodyminded:

Bonam's reply will suffice

I daresy you wouldn't respond like Bonam has.

[bloodyminded]

The "theft and murder" conducted by "the West" was only so because they got there first, not because of some unique moral failing of the West or its people.

Absolutely, and this point--which I take as an obvious given--doesn't alter one bit of anything I've said.

First of all, that "others would do it too" (a reasonable speculation based on history) doesn't justify our doing it, at all.

Second, your response is rather different from blueblood's; where you see hard work, ingenuity, and so on as part of the story, for him it's the explanation entire, and so acheives the status of myth.

But to claim that we have "more" of a responsibility for the conditions of the East Timorese or Indonesians than they themselves do is not correct.

I was talking of two specific situations: First, Suharto's extrajudicial killing of hundreds of thousands of Indonesians in '65....in which he was offered help by US intelligence for many of the targets. Lists of names, and so on.

But second, and more to the point (lest the first one get bogged down on debates about "communist subversives" and so on) was the invasion of East Timor.

The ongoing oppression and murders--in which possibly a third of the population was wiped out--could not have occurred without Western aid. The US and UK, primarily, made the massacres materially possible. Indonesia couldn't have done it without them.

Now...how are the East Timorese more responsible for the Western-backed state terrorism conducted against them than are the terrorist backers themselves?

I find that a strange formulation, frankly.

For an experiment, try telling people that the victims of 9/11 are more responsible for the terrorist attacks than are the Islamists.

Then, duck and cover.

What we find outrageous rhetoric for ourselves, we routinely apply it for others, as you have done here.

And in fact, the analogy is unfair to the East Timorese, since their terror and murder was so much worse than the tragedy of 9/11.

Whatever the West did in the events you refer to, it did not send in its own forces to forcefully subjugate these peoples. It had dealings with their governments or factions which they themselves came to through varying means. The West supported or opposed certain regimes. So yes, we've certainly had an impact.

I appreciate your willingess not to ignore the matter, and your reasonableness and civility is again exposed. But the facts are a little off here; maybe I wasn't clear, which would explain the confusion, and why it appears I'm being harsher with the West than seems proportional:

I'm not talking about a Rwanda, where we looked away, or a WW2 alliance with the Soviets, which was a justifiable alliance with a dictatorship. I'm talking about direct, material, intentional support for mass murder, both before it occurred and while it reached its peak. There was no Soviet threat; there was Cold War politics involved, in that an Asian anti-communist like Suharto was considered valuable.

But there was no immediate or even proposed communist threat; this was no pre-emptive policy. More like a warning, and/or succor to an anti-communist ally (one who was worse than most communist leaders, by the way).

Can we justify support for state terrorism and mass murder in such situations?

I certainly don't think so; and for those who do--justify terrorism, I mean, and on a scale that makes Hamas look like zero threat at all--well, clearly that changes the paradigm of all terrorism debates, doesn't it? Terrorism isn't bad, not even massive state terrorism; it can be justified; and it can be justified even when there is no clear threat.

Wow, it changes the whole measure of the debates on terrorism. Illegal invasions, mass murder (including machete killings, just to clarify the horror, not that I suppose it makes much difference to the dead) and state terrorism are not wrong in and of themselves. It's all about the context.

I'm not willing to lower myself to that level, personally.

in the end the only one that can determine one's own destiny is oneself.

Well, if they had the means, I guess they could have militarily attacked the terrorist supporters. I get the feeling that would not go down with much applause around here.

[Michael Hardner]

Your previous post has stated what has capitalism done for us lately, and we can see the results of that. If we're asking what I've done for us lately, I run a 3000 acre farm. I pay close to 20 grand in property tax, 35 grand in corporate tax, and another 15 grand in income tax, and have operating expenses of over a half a million dollars, and invest in various companies in order to finance my future retirement for starters. I think I contribute just fine. I feel i can contribute more if I had less tax expense.

No, I'm not talking about capitalism as it is today. I'm talking about Libertarianism.

When has pure capitalism failed? Every business man knows that there is tax to be paid, that's the way it goes. The debate is how much tax does the state REALLY need in order to function. The business community naturally feels it is much less than it is now, and that's where the never ending debate is. What makes the debate challenging is that a stable state makes for an ideal place to do business, and it takes money to run a state. However, various left leaning people use that premise as a trojan horse as it were to ram tax and spend policies down our throats claiming it is the cost of government and how it works. It is also very challenging debating with people who benefit from big government without having to really pay for those benefits - why would anyone want to argue against getting "free money".

I think that the industrial era gave us an idea of the results of pure capitalism.

Yes, it's a challenging debate - and although you do have to listen to all sides, the wealthiest will naturally want less, just as there are those who think that there should be a free lunch.

[blueblood]

No, I'm not talking about capitalism as it is today. I'm talking about Libertarianism.

I think that the industrial era gave us an idea of the results of pure capitalism.

Given the political power of the lower middle class which happens to be the sweet spot all parties gun for, I don't think we'll see much of Libertarianism in society.

To talk about your point on pure capitalism and the industrial era, one of Adam Smith's conclusions is that of the invisible hand. During the industrial era, workers were paid as little as possible because factory owners were able to get away with it. However, since the workers were not being paid they were not motivated to work, which in turn caused labour unrest, which in turn caused lower productivity and a lower bottom line. The owners therefore had to increase wages in order to satisfy the workers in order to get them to work again. However, gov't which was influenced by this working class helped that along. IMO, that is the invisible hand at work right there, resulting in some sort of equilibrium lasting until the later part of the 20th century.

What happened in the later part of the 20th century is that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, resulting in outsourcing - the invisible hand striking again.

To Dre:

If you run a farm in North America your whole livelyhood is subsidized. About 25% of your income is a gift from the taxpayer, and the government props up your business and protects you from foreign competition. The north americans agricultural sector is about as close to communism as we GET.

Seriously? If I had a herd of dairy cattle in Quebec I would have to concur, but the Canadian grain sector is far from propped up by the gov't. If you are a grain producer turning a profit, the gov't does zero as it should. I cannot get gov't "assistance" because I turn a profit. So that little myth is busted. The Canadian grain sector is far from protected from foreign competition. Next to New Zealand, the Canadian grain sector has the least gov't involved compared to any country in the world.

[Jack Weber]

Given the political power of the lower middle class which happens to be the sweet spot all parties gun for, I don't think we'll see much of Libertarianism in society.

To talk about your point on pure capitalism and the industrial era, one of Adam Smith's conclusions is that of the invisible hand. During the industrial era, workers were paid as little as possible because factory owners were able to get away with it. However, since the workers were not being paid they were not motivated to work, which in turn caused labour unrest, which in turn caused lower productivity and a lower bottom line. The owners therefore had to increase wages in order to satisfy the workers in order to get them to work again. However, gov't which was influenced by this working class helped that along. IMO, that is the invisible hand at work right there, resulting in some sort of equilibrium lasting until the later part of the 20th century.

What happened in the later part of the 20th century is that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, resulting in outsourcing - the invisible hand striking again.

First of all,we do not have pure Capitalism,and that's a good thing.Pure Capitalism is an extreme,just like pure Marxism or pure Fascism.We've seen throughout history what extreme's do to entire populations.Generally,it's never very good...

Secondly,it seems to be your contention that during the industrial era,business owners ripped off their workforces because they could get away with it.And becuase of this,labour was unproductive,and the ownership class magically(through Adam Smith's Invisible Hand) gave these people better wages,benefit plans,40 hour work weeks,paid vacation etc out of some sort of entrepreneurial epiphany...

That's complete and total BS...

None of that was given willingly.Working people sacrificed their livlyhoods and lives long before the great wave of unionization,during,and,after that wave.On many occassions,this was done simply for union recognition.I suggest you look up the Stelco strike in Hamilton,Ontario of 1946.You'll find out about the benevolence of the Steel Company of Canada,and what it thought of its workforce.

That has nothing to do with this "invisible hand' at all...It's got to do with regular people coming back from the 2nd World War,fighting for the human rights of others,and,returning home to find out they had very little in their places of work.Adam Smith had very little to do with it.

As for what's gone on since the electoral success of neoliberal governments under Reagan and Thatcher,it's called neoliberal economics.It's called playing high standard of living jurisdictions against low standard of living jurisdictions by paying for access to politicians.It's an attempt,and sadly a very successful one,at driving the standard of living down in those higher jurisdictions and slightly raising the standard of living in lower ones,to ratchet up global corporate profits.

That's got nothing to do with any invisible hand...

Edited December 19, 2010 by Jack Weber

[maple_leafs182]

I don't think we'll see much of Libertarianism in society.

I don't know about that, I think Ron Paul will be a major candidate in the next American presidential election.

[Michael Hardner]

However, gov't which was influenced by this working class helped that along. IMO, that is the invisible hand at work right there, resulting in some sort of equilibrium lasting until the later part of the 20th century.

What happened in the later part of the 20th century is that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, resulting in outsourcing - the invisible hand striking again.

I have read a little Adam Smith, and I thought the invisible hand was the hand that helped society at large, when people worked towards their own self-interest.