I'm ready for class war. Bring on the socialism!

Great Debates
121

It leans in whatever direction is in the regulators best interest.

Bear Sterns was a public company. If they run themselves out of business that should be their problem and their shareholders problem. Their alumni are free to pursue other work based on their experience and achievements.

Smart regulation would limit their ability to bring down half the banking system with them.

I don’t know what you are talking about.

[quote=“elucidator, post:118, topic:492044”]

You are outlining a number of mistakes that result from poor regulation, this has no direct bearing on regulation itself Like Idaho’s ethereal Free Market, it has no qualities, it isn’t “inherently biased”, it isn’t “inherently” anything. Smart people regulate, results probably good, dumb people regulate (or disdain to regulate), Dems win next election.

Who decides “what’s best for the people”? Which people? What is best for the people is to have badly run companies go out of business so their assets can be used elswhere in the economy.

Then why are we even discussing monopolies?

122

Obviously, the market doesn’t care about equality or inequality, and wages in the greater labor market are subject to more complex influences than my post suggested. I was making a simplistic point, or trying to, concerning the reasons used to justify deregulation, specifically as they pertain to wage and price liberation.

123

In fairness, I am the one who brought up inequality. I find it relevant in a thread discussing the free market, wage, and concentrated wealth.

To clarify my comment, I didn’t use the word should to make a value judgment. I am not suggesting the market should reduce inequality because it’s moral. I used the world *should *to suggest that based on the free market justification for wage and price liberation – efficiency --one would expect to observe lessened inequality in a highly competitive free market.

124

That is my point - no, one wouldn’t. There is no correlation between competitiveness and equality, and equality is not an end-point towards which a free market trends. The two have no correlation to each other.

That which is in demand, and perceived to be in short supply, tends towards inequality, not equality, whether that is wages or prices. Companies compete to gain market share, not to achieve equality.

You are mistaking (I think) equilibrium with equality.

Regards,
Shodan

125

That’s not obvious to me at all.

What the free market will do is remove any potential restrictions on movement of wages to their supply/demand equilibrium…from high to low, or low to high. The actual value of a worker’s wages will be determined by the skills they bring to the market. Government intrusion inevitably creates stickiness in the movement of wages, by creating artificial barriers that prevent voluntary transactions from occurring.

So for example, if a janitor in a public-sector schools union receives $80,000 per year plus 7 weeks of vacation for sweeping up floors, and the governmental protections for his job are removed, it’s possible that his wage may move quickly to a different equilibrium.

If Slovakian workers assembling small, diesel cars that are wonderfully fuel-efficient (and might have demand in the US) were able to sell them here by having import restrictions removed, it’s possible that their wages would move to a different equilibrium. Same with Brazilian sugar farmers.

Whether or not that movement results in decreased inequality, I don’t know.

126

As others have pointed out already, you pretty clearly don’t have a good feel for what The Market™ can and can not do. One who understand the market would NOT ‘expect to observe a lessening of inequality in a highly competitive free market’ since this isn’t what the market does. It’s not a social construct that will make everyone equal, or increase equality. Simply put a free market is us, collectively…and all it does is allocate goods and services and set pricing on those goods and services at levels that collective ‘we’ are willing to pay for them. If you are a highly skilled brain surgen and your skills are in demand then ‘the market’ (a.k.a. us) are probably going to reward you with higher pay due to that demand. If you are an unskilled worker then ‘the market’ is going to set your wages fairly low…not because you are a bad guy but because your skill set makes you very easy to replace, and there would be a lot of folks who could potentially replace you. If you create a product that is this years hot item that everyone wants then the market is going to drive up the price of that product (supply and demand)…while if you create a product that no one wants you won’t be able to sell it.

There is no equality there. It’s not designed for equality, at least not the way you are using the term. A worker with few skills or skills that pretty much come with the standard model (i.e. two hands, two feet, the ability to push a broom, etc etc) are going to be in low demand…and so the market is going to (or would if left to it’s own devices) set the compensation for that worker low. If you are Michael Jordan then your skills are fairly unique and in demand…so, the market is going to set your compensation high.

Of course, we find this, as a society, unacceptable…so we put in safety nets and other constructs to make things more equatable. We put in minimum wage laws which distort the market but that ‘we’ feel are necessary, etc etc. Equality, such as it is, comes from the dictates of the government, who mandate, on our behalf, equality. The market (you will note that it’s not ‘free’ due to these distortions…not saying that’s a good or bad thing, just pointing it out) is simply how we, the people, interacting together, allocate goods and services (including labor) and set pricing for those goods and services. That’s it.

-XT

127

We put in safety nets and other constructs (or should) so that temporary setbacks don’t become permenantly life-crippling events. Or to provide opportunities for education and training to potentially productive people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford. The elucidators of the world (perhaps it should be elootidator) seem to think that everyone should be compensated the same regardless of their contribution to society.

There should only be equality of opportunity. Not equality of reward. Why should people like me have their hard-earned money taken away to go to people who didn’t make the right decisions or who don’t work as smart or as hard? That’s essentially what socialism is. It doesn’t matter if you take the money directly out our pocket or the government prints it and reduces the value of all our wealth through inflation.

128

Sure…I agree. I even agree that in many cases it’s necessary, even if it does distort the market. I’m just saying that it DOES distort it…and that sometimes those distortions can have unintended (and bad) consequences, even with the best of intentions.

Well…he probably wouldn’t go that far. And it’s a noble sentiment. My only issue is that people attempt to talk about the market without actually understanding what it is, what it does…and what it doesn’t do. Or point at supposed market failures (by which they really mean business failures, or failures on Wall Street, or problems with the STOCK markets, COMMODITIES markets, etc etc) and thus claim that a market system doesn’t work, should be tossed out, or that such failures happen in a sort of vacuum, by themselves, and are indications of flaws in market theory…without bothering to find out how the distortions we (or the government at our behest) have intentionally or unintentionally put into the system that cause or contribute to the supposed failures. The recent lash up with AIG and the housing market/hedge funds being a perfect example of this.

Because we, as a society, decided that at some level we won’t let people fall completely through the cracks, regardless of the bad decisions they may have made. We are a wealthy enough society that we can afford to at least minimally support people who, through bad luck or bad decisions would otherwise be completely destitute. During the Great Depression (at least the early days), while few people starved a LOT of people were right on the edge…and it was decided at a society level that we wouldn’t allow that to happen (at least on a large scale) again.

Not really…it’s more a sort of hybrid of socialism, democracy and a market based economy. Sort of Capitalism with a Heart(all rights reserved). It’s a sliding scale where the citizens and their government set the scale somewhere between absolute Capitalism and absolute Socialism. In the US I think we set the slider bar somewhat in the middle…which gives us a somewhat dynamic Capitalist system (except during downturns like today) and a somewhat decent Social safety net. In Europe they set the bar perhaps more toward the Socialist side to give them a somewhat less dynamic economy but a greater degree of social safety net and social engineering. In the US we seem to be moving our bar more towards the European model today…I am guessing due to the supposed way the Republican and Bush moved it the other way during the last 8 years (frankly I think that they didn’t really move the bar at all, but that’s just me).

We’ll have to see how that plays out if in fact Obama et al are moving the bar in the other direction today…it will certainly have some non-zero impact on our economy and on The Market, as whether you move one way or the other you are going to incur distortions and unintended consequences. The Republican’s unintended consequence of attempting selective deregulation lead us to the current crisis (this doesn’t even get into what the Dems did of course)…it’s hard to judge what effects the Dem’s moving things in other directions will have today or some time a decade or so down the line.

-XT

129

Be so kind as to let me speak for myself, won’t you?

I say, and have said, we need a discussion about work and value, we need to examine our preconceptions more rigorously. We claim to admire the firefighter, the policeman and the teacher, but we shower our monetary rewards on the salesman and the huckster. Just recently, we are exposed to the appalling spectacle of men being lavishly overcompensated for epic failure. You justify this by invoking the magic of the Free Market, when we both know that such a thing doesn’t really exist, the fix is in and the game is rigged.

At no point have I suggested that “everyone should be compensated the same regardless of their contribution to society”. I will say, without hesitation, that in a society as wealthy as ours, no citizen should be left in want or misery simply to satisfy some twisted Calvinism, on the presumption that some divine mechanism snsures that only the lazy and/or stupid are ever poor. That is moral retardation, that is the two year old child seizing a toy firetruck from his playmate and screaming “Mine!”.

Is there? And if there is not, what steps are you taking to change that?

Smart isn’t a virtue, smart is a characteristic, like being blessed with freckles. If I am taller than my brother, it is so I can help him reach higher.

Again with the quaint, old-fashioned retorts. Being unable to contend with the modern left, you prefer to argue with Norman Thomas and Lord Russel. Are you going to favor us with a blistering critique of the Fabians, or anarcho-syndicalism?

But you have that one point: if God had wanted men to be equal, why, He would have created them that way, and given them some gifts that could not be taken away. Of, if He should avert His eyes, perhaps we can do it? We are the Americans, are we not? The difficult we do at once, the impossible takes a bit longer. And if not us, who? If not now, when?

We’re working on it, and its taking longer than we thought. We could use your help, if you’ve nothing better to do.

130

That’s the whole point. It’s not “we”. COMPANIES reward salesmen and other positions because they generate a disproportionate amount of value for the organization. If products don’t get sold, a lot of people lose their jobs.

If men are being lavishly overcompensated for epic failures, then that is a failure to apply free market, not an indictment of it. These CEOs aren’t compensated based on market forces. They enter into contracts that include lavish bonus schedules and golden parachutes.

131

But your brother should not forget that he only reaches that top shelf by virtue of your charity. Does your brother have the right to demand your help at his whim? What are are obligated to forgo in order to help him?

You’re right. Smart isn’t a virtue. And I’m totally fine with that because your value shouldn’t be based on your possession of some “virtue” arbitrarily decided by others. Maybe next week freckles are the virtue de jure and we’ll have a speculative bubble of gingers? No one pays me as a reward for proving how smart I am. They pay me to use my brain to solve problems for them.

For someone who doesn’t like Atlas Shrugged, you seem to have the language of Rand’s looters and moochers down pat. You’ll forgive me if I’m only vaugely familiar with your references. I’m a product of an old-fashioned engineering and business education. (And don’t think I’m a huge Ayn Rand fan either. Atlas Shrugged is one of the most arduous books I’ve ever slogged through.)

I do actually. It’s called going to work.

132

I think the OP is the exception that proves the rule. What percentage of non-conservatives do you suppose are on board with Mosier’s agenda point-by-point?

133

Your obligations are a question only you can answer. But what is this “at his whim” crap? Are you hoping that by stretching my point to an absurdity, you can make it an absurdity? Kinda weak.

Certainly not! It should be based on the dictates of the Sacred Free Market! Nothing arbitrary about that, nosiree! The fact that it doesn’t exist and isn’t likely to should not hinder our trust in its wonders.

Well, whoopty fucka doo! If you won’t lead and won’t follow, could you at least get out of the way?

134

Oh, very few, I’m sure. Most of us on the progressive front have very different agendas, mostly differences in terms of priorities. Some of us think that undermining the whole Judeo-Christian morality is of prime importance, some would prefer to focus our attention on corrupting our youth with drugs, sex, and rock 'n roll.

Its more like a common direction than a common agenda.

135

Your point is absurd. You’re saying “If I am taller than my brother, it is so I can help him reach higher”. That’s great. So why do you help him? Out of some sense of shame or guilt? Over some desire to be perceived as a swell guy? Regardless of your motivations, you only provide help to your brother WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE IT.

But soon he will always expect it. What happens when you say “sorry, brother. I’m just too tired to help you reach higher today.” Or “Sure brother, but why don’t you get me a Coke first in exchange for my time and effort.” Why you’d be derided as selfish! A capitalist! An opportunist! How dare you take advantage of your brother by making him get you a soda! How lazy of you to not help a brother in need!

That is the point you don’t seem to get. Everything around you, every product, every service, every stitch of clothing and splinter of construction is the result of someone else’s labor and intellect. So when you say you want to help the poor or whoever, tell me whose labor should be used to help them? And what if I can make more helping the not so poor? Are you going to force me at gunpoint to help them?

Well then, instead of continuing to demonstrate your disturbing lack of understanding on how markets work, simply tell me who, specifically, should decide how much my skills, knowledge or labor are worth. And then explain to me why that individual’s decision is more fair and equitable than me offering my services to whoever can pay me the most.

I’ll do whatever you like if you want to compensate me for it.

136

I suppose. Haven’t yet not felt like it, but that could be a problem. Maybe. How about you, do you ever get the urge to commit a random and senseless act of kindness? Do you lie down until it passes?

Oh, right, we’ve corrupted his self-sufficiency and made him dependent. Well, what I expect is that if I’m too tired, somebody else will step in. Not you, but someone…

Dreadful prospect, to be sure, but I’ll take my chances.

Because I do not share your faith is not proof that I don’t grasp it, its quite simple, really. Not a challenge.

I don’t think I’ve suggested that being a prick should be a capital crime. One must follow one’s nature, I suppose. Our faith is that, over all, most people can be pretty decent, given the chance.

Not agreeing with you is not proof of ignorance.

Its not that simple. You insist on taking this only from the individual perspective…my money, my labor, my goodies, my rubber ducky, mine mine mine! No one is going to run you out of town, we will simply try to ensure that you are not empowered to make decisions about the welfare of other people.

So, to paraphrase Churchill, we’ve already settled what you are, we are now haggling over price.

137

And this is why I do not fear you. One way or another, you will either fail, give up, or saw off the branch which holds you up. Such is life.

Anyway, as to a previous point: Free Markets have been empirically determined to reduce inequality compared to the alternatives. This reduction is a major part of development economics, in fact. A lot of people want something moreso, but no good solution, particularly in a diverse socio-economic world, has yet been devised.

138

Well, 'luci is right about one thing though…there really is no (completely or even mostly) ‘free’ market. Doesn’t exist and never has.

The irony though is that while there are a lot of left leaning 'dopers on this board who advocate Socialism, in the last few decades the Euro’s have moved from nearly absolute Socialism (the bounden desire and fervent wish of many 'dopers) to a more market based economy (to drive their Socialist programs…SOMEONE has to pay for all that goodness after all)…while we are moving more towards a European model whether it’s Republican’s or Democrat’s behind the wheel.

So bring on the class war! Bring on that good ole fashioned Socialism like grandpa used to have! Let’s see how it works out in the long run, ehe?

-XT

139

I’m doing it now.

Ahhh…and now we see it. The insults. The pleas. The emotional blackmail. The self-dilusions. Do you honestly think people should feel guilty about being better off? Or that they should feel compelled to do things against their will or be blackmailed (emotionally or otherwise) to perform work? You’re like a friend who gets bent out of shape because I won’t help him move or drive him to the airport. Oh but I better help because otherwise I’m just a big ole prick. Well that’s fine by me. I don’t need “friends” (metephorical or otherwise) who only see value in me as a source of free labor. If that makes me a prick then I gladly accept the title.

Somehow, I doubt that you will ever be in any position to ensure I do or do not do anything .

140

Why can’t we do both? :wink: