Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) The Labour Movement? What a joke. Those same sheep who claim to be part of the "Labour Movement" shoot themselves in the foot with every Statist word they utter. If those who advocate for better treatment of workers or whatever it is they advocate had a clue they'd be in favour of a free market. The free market would create the best possible conditions for workers of all stripes. In a free market there'd be no need for a "Labour Movement"...the very idea would be obsolete. Erm...yeah... Whatever you say... Remember...Give Uncle Milty and Friedrich a big smooch.... Edited February 24, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I suggest you take the needle outta your arm, cause it sure as hell ain't coming to the land of Timmy's and Crappy Tire. Keep telling yourself that. Quote mapleleafalliance.blogspot.com Join Maple Leaf Alliance group on Facebook!
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Controlled Capitalism...The kind that raises the fortunes of all ships...Not just those with the financial wherewithall to take advantage of the theoretical scenario you're proposing... The aspect of control is what causes the problems. A free market, a sink-or-swim economy has control baked in...it's called the profit incentive. A free market doesn't just favour the wealthy, it favours everyone. And the rising tide that floats all boats? That's called wealth creation...it comes from unfettered private enterprise. You get so close, but you can't quite make the connection. "Controlled capitalism" is what allows the wealthy to manipulate the poor. "Controlled capitalism" may begin with the best of intentions but devolves into unintended consequences. You think project housing in the ghetto began with malicious intent? No, just the opposite. Same thing with welfare, and EI, and the minimum wage, etc...all programs started with the best of intentions...all features of "controlled capitalism" and all examples of the unintended consequences spawned by programs aimed at doing good. This is what you and others who advocate government control don't get...economic freedom is not given...wealth is not "provided"...freedom is taken...wealth is earned. Anything else results in waste, neglect, and suffering. Freedom is the only way...no one group should be allowed to pre-suppose how any other person or group is to live their life. Anything purporting to be "control" for the "greater good" is anti-freedom and against self-determination. Some outside intervention in the economy is not a bad thing at all... "some outside intervention" the problem with that idea is a line has to be drawn somewhere, meaning one or many are allowed to decide how much intervention is ok, how much is not ok... That is not freedom. Where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide? Why? The most ethical position is that of there being no line decided on by anyone else...the only line to limit you is that while you live as you please, you not infringe on another's ability to do as they please. That's not statism at all!!Statism is the Soviet Union...Statism is Fascist Italy....I'm not advocating for anything like that... Do you, or do you not advocate government's involvement in the economy? What your advocating for is a theoretical economic free for all... What I advocate is freedom across the board for everyone. And call it theoretical all you like...for now, in our society, it may be...but not for long. No thanks..That will end up in a horrendous mess...And as oppressive as any statist nightmare scenario you can imagine... You've said this before, but have yet to explain why. Try me. The rest of that is Libertarian wet dream/fantasy/unproven theory...Not interested... Interested or not, freedom across the board is coming. Funny thing is, once you live in a free market economy for a while, you will shake your head and wonder what you were so afraid of before. That's the thing that kills me, all of these people who argue tooth and nail against having a free market economy and yet you fight so vigorously against a system in which you'd be sooo much better off. Truth of the matter is...nearly everyone is a libertarian, including you...you just don't know it yet. And don't worry about this Easterm Bastard's pride....I don't take anything from the oil pumping foothills too seriously...Just pump the oil and make us some money.... Who's "us", you or the State? Quote mapleleafalliance.blogspot.com Join Maple Leaf Alliance group on Facebook!
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Got it... Free market is total freedom... Film at 11... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Thats right its the peoples money, not the governments. If a government decides not to collect taxes from corporations, they are making a decision to decrease the revenue of the state. In decreasing the revenue of the state that government is DEPRIVING the state of those monies and therefore is placing a greater burden on the people. It never fails to amaze me that americans aren't willing to pay for their exceptionalism, their superiority, their military dominance, their wars, their massive mistakes. they'd rather borrow money and burden the future and cut spending to programs that actually help people (although getting rid of subsidies and waste is always a good thing). When is somebody going to tell them slashing spending isn't going to reduce the debt and its impossible to slash spending to equal current tax holiday revenue levels. Its pretty easy to do the math, but for some reason americans can't quite grasp the concept of paying for the wins and sins of their country. Not just Americans my friend, not just Americans... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Prove it? Are you serious? What are you trying to say, that there is no debt crisis? That the US and many if not all of the States therein are hugely in debt? I'm saying show us the numbers. If it's really that obvious we should be able to examine those. Given that there is in fact a debt crisis...where do you think this debt has come from? It didn't arrive out of thin air...it is the result of decades of poor management. Poor management means running a government that has been inefficient, and wasteful and has subsequently piled on debt. Or a government that hasn't fulfilled its obligations. I don't have to prove that to you...it's as apparent as the nose on your face. Even folks who don't pay attention to the news on a regular basis know governments around the world are in trouble with debt. And yes, honouring contracts is important in the private sector...in the free market...agreed. Part of the government's responsibility in my eyes would be contract enforcement through the courts. But no, that does not mean I agree that civil servants should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain. To me, that idea needs to be done away with if governments are serious about getting rid of debt for once and for all. The can has been kicked down the road long enough. Why not just have the government appropriate funds from the rich ? That could work, couldn't it ? It's starting to look like there is no rationale for this, given that we've gone this long on the thread without seeing one. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Canadian health care is not a good example of government successfully administering anything. Our health care system is lousy compared to what we would have in a free market economy. Rationed care, hospital bed shortages...governments faced with choices between cuts in education or cuts in health care...who wins there? Even our own politicians will venture south of the border for superior care. What is sustainable? Government spending that the private sector can afford without going into debt. The free market doesn't work for something like health care, as the poorest can't afford care. Middlemen have a disproportionate amount of power and cost society too much. As I pointed out, our system is cheaper per capita and provides better coverage overall. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Look for the ones in our society who live in the most destitute of conditions and you can be sure the hand of government isn't too far away. You have missed the point: there was a low or non-existent amount of social care at the time of the Industrial Revolution. Laissez-faire economics threw many low income earners under the bus. They had no money to retrain, there was nothing left for them to do for a living, and they couldn't take advantage of the economic benefits of industrialization as they were left behind. This would happen again in a heartbeat and I'm not sure why you want to revisit those times. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) It's easy when you're in debt, and you realize part of the reason is because we live in a system that necessitates one be in debt to do just about anything. Part of the reason I'm in debt is because government subsidies have made the cost of living extraordinarily high, and all the while I'm taxed within an inch of my life. Would I be in debt were I living in a free market economy? No. That's ridiculous. Many people live in the same society you do, and they live without debt. I have no debt overall if I take my savings into account. It's just a matter of looking at your balance sheet. What's good for the Keynesian goose is good for the Von Mises gander. Edited February 24, 2011 by Michael Hardner Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 MapleLeafAlliance, I'm glad to see you here, and it occurs to me that your belief in a completely free market warrants its own thread, as it's not directly related to Wisconsin's situation. I like the topic, but we're drifting on Wisconsin here - what do you say about starting a new one with that topic in mind ? Something like "Statism versus Dickensian society which is better ?" Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
pinko Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I don't need to read the Wisconsin Labor Code to understand why public sector unions are a damaging entity. I don't need to read the entire Patriot Act to know it needs to be repealed, do you? I don't need to read the entire NAFTA agreement to know that it stinks to high heaven. Do you? The teachers in WI can and will strike if their union is not given the concessions any union expects come contract renewal time. Do you really need to read an onerous book of legalese to figure that concept out? Union workers strike...they hold out for more...it's been done for a long time. And I argue it should not be an option for those being paid by taxpayers...it amounts to extortion. Are you new? The US is in the middle of a massive debt crisis and Wisconsin is not immune...they're bleeding red ink all over the place. In the face of that crisis, it is unsustainable to keep giving raises to those who are being paid by an ever more indebted entity. That's not conjecture...there is a debt crisis...it is happening...no amount of ignoring it will change that. I don't need to give you proof that there's a problem, by now it should be apparent to you and everyone else with a pulse. I find that when discussing a given subject it is helpful to read information relevant to the topic being discussed. In this case we are discussing the manner in which the Governor of Wisconsin has chosen to deal with public sector employees within the State of Wisconsin. Becoming aware of the legislative framework of collective bargaining in Wisconsin is a first step (at least for me) in determining the adequacy of the legislation as it stands. I don't see the Patriot Act bearing on these discussions. I am conversant with NAFTA as well as the original FTA but I see a discussion on those documents as a seperate discussion. Maybe you could start a new thread on that topic. If I am not mistaken collective bargaining involving teachers is done at the municipal level so I would expect that contract issues could be dealt with at that level consistent with the legislation (Labour Code) I have previously referred you to. No doubt there are fiscal issues that need to be addressed in the State of Wisconsin but those can be dealt with through the normal channels. Once you grow up I am hopeful you will become a more rational person. Quote
pinko Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Of course I am...very few people aren't in today's economy. But I don't worry about it as some failing of virtue, I recognize debt has become a necessary evil for most people in the face of an ever-rising cost of living that comes with over-reaching government. I see so your debt has nothing to do with your conduct whereas the debt incurred by government is caused by the evils of a less than free market system. Quote
Pliny Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I see so your debt has nothing to do with your conduct whereas the debt incurred by government is caused by the evils of a less than free market system. One lives in a system and does what he has to to keep his head above water. The economic system is designed to keep people in debt. It isn't about one's conduct. The debt of government is not different it is the design of the economic system. Essentially, both are the result of the evils of a less than free market system. Since government fosters the current system it is the source of debt and the individual must succumb to it - Escape means accepting poverty as your chronic condition. You are expected to play the game and that means being in debt. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Clinton also ran deficits and the national debt increased overall. He also balanced the budget, which is more than any Republican has been able to do. Clinton was more of a fiscal conservative than Bush. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 He also balanced the budget, which is more than any Republican has been able to do. Clinton was more of a fiscal conservative than Bush. Yep...and we know what Clinton was doing with all that extra time. So did Al Qaeda. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 60% of their entire budget goes to pay wages and, benefits and pensions. Cite? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 If we lived in a free market economy no one would want unions except for those who are asking for wages/benefits higher than what their skills/labour were actually worth. And if the employer offers, say, a computer programmer $10hr and no benefits he could just say no, right? But in your nirvana world for business, the business owner could simply contract the work to India, or bring in guest workers who will live in a shipping crate and do the job for virtually nothing. So when every business you go to can do that how much is your masters in computer engineering worth? $10 hr. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 New Jersey public workers have a defined benefit pension plan. The reason New Jersey wasn't able to make payments is because they didn't have the money. For thirteen years? Gee, I wonder if I could simply not pay my bills because I "don't have the money". I wonder if the courts would look kindly on that. So for the last thirteen odd years New Jersey has negotiated contracts and then not paid into the pension funds. And somehow, they're to be excused because they 'didn't have the money'. And the reason why employees were making their payments, is because they essentially pay almost nothing. So it really isn't very difficult to pay almost nothing, and expect the tax payer to pick up the rest of the 95% of the tab. I'm sure you have some cites to back that up, right? Because in the cite I listed it stated the New Jersey Teachers had contributed some $7 billion to their pension fund, which sounds like rather more than nothing. If this was only five percent then you're saying New Jersey owes its teachers pension fund ALONE some $96 billion? Also. New Jersey public workers paid ZERO dollars for full medical benfits. And how much do the employees of large corporations usually pay for medical benefits? For example, Toyota, a large organization without unions, also gives free medical coverage to its workers in return for ZERO payments from those workers. I believe Google does the same. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 In a free market if a doctor or lawyer were charging more than a competitor for inferior service they'd lose customers. Right, so they all charge a fortune, and they don't lose customers. What part of that do you think is complicated? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 You're not thinking this through... In a free market where all companies are in a sink-or-swim environment, it would be detrimental to treat workers poorly because a competitor could enter the market place at any time and become more competitive by attracting all of the best workers with better pay, better benefits. In the interest of competition, and not going bankrupt, companies would be interested in attracting the best workers and thus creating arduous conditions for employees would not be good for their bottom line. That's an interesting fantasy but it doesn't seem to have much in common with the real world. Companies are not in competition to pay ever higher salaries. Quite the reverse. That's why so many jobs have been offloaded to Mexico or China. Are you going to suggest the workers in those places are better than the workers in north America? I put it to you they're not better, they're simply cheaper. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 That's great...Clinton had a budgetary surplus...what difference did that make if the US was still massively in debt? It's all just twisting semantics to make Clinton appear somehow better at managing the economy...which is a farce. He was just as much a big-government advocate as every President going back many decades has been. Clinton had a surplus, and on an ongoing basis that surplus would have paid back the debt. Then Bush came in and brought in a massive tax cut - while not cutting spending, actually while increasing spending. The current mess in the United States is the result. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Clinton had a surplus, and on an ongoing basis that surplus would have paid back the debt. Then Bush came in and brought in a massive tax cut - while not cutting spending, actually while increasing spending. The current mess in the United States is the result. Nonsense....the projected surpluses never would have happened...there was a recession gift to President Bush. And a little problem with "terrorists". America's national debt increased overall under Clinton's tenure. Edited February 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 There are people living in Canada and the U.S. today that will give Dickens a run for his money. We're no better today than we ever were. There will always be people who have less than others...for various reasons...but a free market economy gives the most amount of people the greatest chance at living well. Would you care to explain this theory in relation to how people lived during Dickens' time? Wasn't that a free market economy with minimal or no intervention from government? It seems to me that your view that this would lead to 'the most amount of people' living well did not play out very well. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) It's easy when you're in debt, and you realize part of the reason is because we live in a system that necessitates one be in debt to do just about anything. Part of the reason I'm in debt is because government subsidies have made the cost of living extraordinarily high, and all the while I'm taxed within an inch of my life. Would I be in debt were I living in a free market economy? No. Debt is part of a free market economy. It's how people afford houses, and other large cost items, for one thing, and how business operates. I am 'in debt' for my mortgage and car payments. And it's a debt which is easily affordable. Nothing wrong with that. Edited February 24, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 That's OK...it's not the government's money. He "gave" nothing. Whose money was it? Walkers? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.