Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution

[Colanth]

mykcob4 wrote in part:

The fact is that the economy only works if a Democrat or something other than a republican/conservative is in the Whitehouse.

Then why were the economies good during the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations?

18% interest on mortgages is "working" to you?  The economy under Reagan was only "working" to enrich the wealthy.  The poor?  "Ketchup is a vegetable."  Anyone trying to get SS Disability under Reagan's administration couldn't - if you weren't too disabled to apply for it, you weren't too disabled to work.  The economy really "works" when the poor do all the heavy lifting and the wealthy get all the benefits.

Eisenhower, today, would be FAR to the left of Obama.  A couple of things helped the economy during his administration.  We were still rebounding from the Depression.  (People finally had money, the future was now [there were all sorts of new things coming to market], so people spent money.)  The fact that the market was flooded with "Japanese junk" also helped, it kept prices down.  We were still on a war footing, economically, when he took office (war is good for business).  The arms race was pretty much the same as being on a war footing, and that lasted right through the rest of his administration.  And Congress wasn't hell-bent on making him look bad regardless of the cost.

[josephpalazzo]

Writer posted a YouTube video

Xero: [usual argument]

Liberal: Your problem is that you don't understand the crucial importance of redistribution of wealth.

Xero: Is every bakery going to be a success? Obviously not...right? If that were the case then poverty would be eliminated because everybody who lacked money would be guaranteed money simply by starting a bakery. No need for redistribution.

Your logic doesn't go all the way. If everyone would be a baker, they would all go bankrupt, as they would have only one customer, themselves. So it's not an option for any society that every individual can become a baker. Secondly, not everyone has exactly the same skills, and this is a good thing since in any given society, you want different things to be produced. And therefore it goes without saying that not everyone will have the skills to run a business. Not everyone will be able to earn enough money to survive or have a decent lifestyle. And it's counter-productive for that society to ignore those who fall into the cracks, as history has shown time and time again, that you'll end up with a high rate of crimes.

[Bibliofagus]

Writer posted a YouTube video

Xero: [usual argument]

Liberal: Your problem is that you don't understand the crucial importance of redistribution of wealth.

Xero: Is every bakery going to be a success? Obviously not...right? If that were the case then poverty would be eliminated because everybody who lacked money would be guaranteed money simply by starting a bakery. No need for redistribution.

Your logic doesn't go all the way. If everyone would be a baker, they would all go bankrupt, as they would have only one customer, themselves. So it's not an option for any society that every individual can become a baker. Secondly, not everyone has exactly the same skills, and this is a good thing since in any given society, you want different things to be produced. And therefore it goes without saying that not everyone will have the skills to run a business. Not everyone will be able to earn enough money to survive or have a decent lifestyle. And it's counter-productive for that society to ignore those who fall into the cracks, as history has shown time and time again, that you'll end up with a high rate of crimes.

This is no problem in Xero's universe.
Somewhere there is a guy who makes the bestest investment choices and we should all hand over our business to him to reap vast benefits.

[Bibliofagus]

I'm saying that if people can't choose exactly how much positive feedback (money) they give to an organization.

You appear to think that money is the only/best way to give positive feedback.
Why?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Xero comes from somewhere in chess universe.

I enjoy stealing jokes too. :)

[Xerographica]

Your logic doesn't go all the way. If everyone would be a baker, they would all go bankrupt, as they would have only one customer, themselves. So it's not an option for any society that every individual can become a baker. Secondly, not everyone has exactly the same skills, and this is a good thing since in any given society, you want different things to be produced. And therefore it goes without saying that not everyone will have the skills to run a business. Not everyone will be able to earn enough money to survive or have a decent lifestyle. And it's counter-productive for that society to ignore those who fall into the cracks, as history has shown time and time again, that you'll end up with a high rate of crimes.

Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

Everyone can't save poor people, so we only want the best saviors to be saviors.  How do we determine who the best saviors are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

If it doesn't make any sense for bakers to be exempt from this vetting process...then why would it make any sense for saviors to be exempt from this vetting process?  

Obviously there's a demand for helping poor people.  Which is great.  But I want taxpayers to choose where their taxes go because there's nothing more absurd than arguing that any two saviors are equally effective.  You might as well argue that any two bakers are equally effective.  Then there's no reason for anybody to shop at all.  

Let me share with you my perspective on the only real effective method to help lift people out of poverty.  

I've lived in and studied developing countries for many years.  People aren't lifted out of poverty because charities and governments do so much good.  They are lifted out of poverty because profit driven foreign companies are allowed to set up factories.  It's obvious that working in a sweatshop isn't a good option.  It's not even a great option.  In fact, it's a terrible option.  So what does it mean when so many people voluntarily choose to work in sweatshops?  It means that it's a sufficiently better option than their second best option...subsistence agriculture.  

US companies set up factories in foreign countries because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.  And people choose to work in those factories because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.

As the demand for cheap labor increases...workers' options increase as well...so the wages that factories pay eventually rise.  If you increase the demand for labor it's a given that wages are eventually going to rise.  

The moral of the story is that profit seeking greedy bastards have unintentionally lifted infinitely more people out of poverty than any intentional poverty reduction efforts by governments or charities.  

And what do liberals want to do?  Because they fail to think things through, rather than do what factory owners inadvertently do and give workers better options, they simply want to shut sweatshops down which does nothing but eliminate workers' best options.  

If you want to help improve people's standard of living, then you have to figure out how to use society's limited resources in a way that gives consumers sufficiently better options...which will allow you to give workers sufficiently better options.  It's not easy...there's a lot of risk and no guarantees...but this is exactly what capitalists do.  There's absolutely nothing altruistic about it but the results are infinitely beneficial.  

So on one hand we have morally superior liberals causing harm and morally inferior capitalists creating benefit.  That's what you'll come to understand if you think things through.

Basically, the quantity and quality of options is a function of how well people are using society's limited resources.  In order to determine who's doing better things with society's limited resources...we absolutely must have consumer sovereignty.  Right now the public sector is half the economy.  If we want everybody to be better off, then we have extend consumer sovereignty to the public sector by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.

[mykcob4]

Your logic doesn't go all the way. If everyone would be a baker, they would all go bankrupt, as they would have only one customer, themselves. So it's not an option for any society that every individual can become a baker. Secondly, not everyone has exactly the same skills, and this is a good thing since in any given society, you want different things to be produced. And therefore it goes without saying that not everyone will have the skills to run a business. Not everyone will be able to earn enough money to survive or have a decent lifestyle. And it's counter-productive for that society to ignore those who fall into the cracks, as history has shown time and time again, that you'll end up with a high rate of crimes.

Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

Everyone can't save poor people, so we only want the best saviors to be saviors.  How do we determine who the best saviors are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

If it doesn't make any sense for bakers to be exempt from this vetting process...then why would it make any sense for saviors to be exempt from this vetting process?  

Obviously there's a demand for helping poor people.  Which is great.  But I want taxpayers to choose where their taxes go because there's nothing more absurd than arguing that any two saviors are equally effective.  You might as well argue that any two bakers are equally effective.  Then there's no reason for anybody to shop at all.  

Let me share with you my perspective on the only real effective method to help lift people out of poverty.  

I've lived in and studied developing countries for many years.  People aren't lifted out of poverty because charities and governments do so much good.  They are lifted out of poverty because profit driven foreign companies are allowed to set up factories.  It's obvious that working in a sweatshop isn't a good option.  It's not even a great option.  In fact, it's a terrible option.  So what does it mean when so many people voluntarily choose to work in sweatshops?  It means that it's a sufficiently better option than their second best option...subsistence agriculture.  

US companies set up factories in foreign countries because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.  And people choose to work in those factories because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.

As the demand for cheap labor increases...workers' options increase as well...so the wages that factories pay eventually rise.  If you increase the demand for labor it's a given that wages are eventually going to rise.  

The moral of the story is that profit seeking greedy bastards have unintentionally lifted infinitely more people out of poverty than any intentional poverty reduction efforts by governments or charities.  

And what do liberals want to do?  Because they fail to think things through, rather than do what factory owners inadvertently do and give workers better options, they simply want to shut sweatshops down which does nothing but eliminate workers' best options.  

If you want to help improve people's standard of living, then you have to figure out how to use society's limited resources in a way that gives consumers sufficiently better options...which will allow you to give workers sufficiently better options.  It's not easy...there's a lot of risk and no guarantees...but this is exactly what capitalists do.  There's absolutely nothing altruistic about it but the results are infinitely beneficial.  

So on one hand we have morally superior liberals causing harm and morally inferior capitalists creating benefit.  That's what you'll come to understand if you think things through.

Basically, the quantity and quality of options is a function of how well people are using society's limited resources.  In order to determine who's doing better things with society's limited resources...we absolutely must have consumer sovereignty.  Right now the public sector is half the economy.  If we want everybody to be better off, then we have extend consumer sovereignty to the public sector by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.

You are spewing the same old myth that conservatives have told, well since there where conservatives.
"Supply and demand" as if that is a natural and realistic situation. For more than a thousand years business has known that they can create a false demand and control the supply. Take tupips. They were valued so highly that they created an empire. It was a false market and a false demand. The crave soon passed and the empire vitually crumbled. You might say it was the onset of pop culture.
There is no such thing as "consumer soveriegnty." There is only the new monarchy which are the giant corrupt corporations. Those corporations manipulate supply, demand, consumer psychology, the markets, wealth, and governments. Since there are very few that make purchases based on NEED, the consumer as a whole is manipulated like a pro wrestling fan. The outcome is predetermined.

[Colanth]

Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.

In your world that means that everyone buys from the best baker.  In the real world almost everyone buys from the cheapest baker, even if his bread isn't all that good.  So unless best=cheapest, your "logic" fails the reality test.

[Xerographica]

Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.

In your world that means that everyone buys from the best baker.  In the real world almost everyone buys from the cheapest baker, even if his bread isn't all that good.  So unless best=cheapest, your "logic" fails the reality test.

It's kind of a good point.  But you're really not at all destroying my argument by pointing out that "best" is often a balance between quality and cost.  Values are subjective...so the "best" bread will be pretty much whatever consumers decide to spend their money on.  

When it comes to steak...sure I love a filet mignon...but more often than not...I prefer a larger less costly steak that will actually satisfy my hunger.  

My argument is that we maximize value by allowing consumers to give producers feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.  This is true whether we're talking about the private sector or the public sector.  Eliminate this vetting process and it's impossible for producers to supply the optimal quantities of bread, steak, public education, national defense and so on.

[josephpalazzo]

Your logic doesn't go all the way. If everyone would be a baker, they would all go bankrupt, as they would have only one customer, themselves. So it's not an option for any society that every individual can become a baker. Secondly, not everyone has exactly the same skills, and this is a good thing since in any given society, you want different things to be produced. And therefore it goes without saying that not everyone will have the skills to run a business. Not everyone will be able to earn enough money to survive or have a decent lifestyle. And it's counter-productive for that society to ignore those who fall into the cracks, as history has shown time and time again, that you'll end up with a high rate of crimes.

Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

Everyone can't save poor people, so we only want the best saviors to be saviors.  How do we determine who the best saviors are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

If it doesn't make any sense for bakers to be exempt from this vetting process...then why would it make any sense for saviors to be exempt from this vetting process?  

Obviously there's a demand for helping poor people.  Which is great.  But I want taxpayers to choose where their taxes go because there's nothing more absurd than arguing that any two saviors are equally effective.  You might as well argue that any two bakers are equally effective.  Then there's no reason for anybody to shop at all.  

Let me share with you my perspective on the only real effective method to help lift people out of poverty.  

I've lived in and studied developing countries for many years.  People aren't lifted out of poverty because charities and governments do so much good.  They are lifted out of poverty because profit driven foreign companies are allowed to set up factories.  It's obvious that working in a sweatshop isn't a good option.  It's not even a great option.  In fact, it's a terrible option.  So what does it mean when so many people voluntarily choose to work in sweatshops?  It means that it's a sufficiently better option than their second best option...subsistence agriculture.  

US companies set up factories in foreign countries because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.  And people choose to work in those factories because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.

As the demand for cheap labor increases...workers' options increase as well...so the wages that factories pay eventually rise.  If you increase the demand for labor it's a given that wages are eventually going to rise.  

The moral of the story is that profit seeking greedy bastards have unintentionally lifted infinitely more people out of poverty than any intentional poverty reduction efforts by governments or charities.  

And what do liberals want to do?  Because they fail to think things through, rather than do what factory owners inadvertently do and give workers better options, they simply want to shut sweatshops down which does nothing but eliminate workers' best options.  

If you want to help improve people's standard of living, then you have to figure out how to use society's limited resources in a way that gives consumers sufficiently better options...which will allow you to give workers sufficiently better options.  It's not easy...there's a lot of risk and no guarantees...but this is exactly what capitalists do.  There's absolutely nothing altruistic about it but the results are infinitely beneficial.  

So on one hand we have morally superior liberals causing harm and morally inferior capitalists creating benefit.  That's what you'll come to understand if you think things through.

Basically, the quantity and quality of options is a function of how well people are using society's limited resources.  In order to determine who's doing better things with society's limited resources...we absolutely must have consumer sovereignty.  Right now the public sector is half the economy.  If we want everybody to be better off, then we have extend consumer sovereignty to the public sector by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.

Your experiment was ACTUALLY carried... starting in the 19th century, and we know what it led to. It was so bad that the reaction was Karl Marx laying down the foundation of communism. If that is not to your taste for you to consider getting more knowledge on this matter, you can read Charles Dickens to get a glimpse of 19th century living in England. It wasn't pretty for the low wagers. In the 20th century, unfettered capitalism led to the 1920's follies and the Great Depression of 1929-45. Today we see the big corporations corrupting the American system - just about every decision from SCOTUS has been on the side of big corporations, and democracy in America is a sick cow. What you're forgetting is that economic power spills over to the political arena, and those who have the money tend to corrupt politicians to bid for their own interests. That has been true throughout the ages, if anything that history has taught us. So forgive me if I don't want to drink from your kool-aid.

[LikelyToBreak]

Seems to me, that both sides of this debate are falling for a false dichotomy.

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.

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

We don't have to choose between Ayn Rand or Karl Marx.  Or the Dems and the Reps for that matter.  We could look at other ways of doing things.  Picking and choosing the best from both Rand and Marx.  Which again won't work if corruption is not addressed.

josephpalazzo mentioned the Great Depression.  Which many economists think was caused by the Federal Reserve.

Essentially, the Great Depression, in their view, was caused by the fall of the money supply.

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
Keep in mind the Federal Reserve is a cabal of bankers.  If the big banks' bankers decided they wanted to get rid of the small banks, they could control the money supply through the Fed to make it rough on the small banks.  The small banks would have to close or sell out to the big banks.  Something which happened during the Great Depression.  While not proof of corruption, it sure stinks of it.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that until we get people in government willing to go after those who misuse their government offices, no system will work to help most people.  And then by picking and choosing ideas from the "conservatives" and the "liberals" the majority of people could live good productive lives.

It will never happen though.  Such people are bought off or assassinated.

[josephpalazzo]

josephpalazzo mentioned the Great Depression.  Which many economists think was caused by the Federal Reserve.

Essentially, the Great Depression, in their view, was caused by the fall of the money supply.

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
Keep in mind the Federal Reserve is a cabal of bankers.  If the big banks' bankers decided they wanted to get rid of the small banks, they could control the money supply through the Fed to make it rough on the small banks.  The small banks would have to close or sell out to the big banks.  Something which happened during the Great Depression.  While not proof of corruption, it sure stinks of it.

The prevailing view is that the Federal Reserve inacted the wrong policies to stem the fall of the economy, not that it caused the Great Depression.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that until we get people in government willing to go after those who misuse their government offices, no system will work to help most people.  And then by picking and choosing ideas from the "conservatives" and the "liberals" the majority of people could live good productive lives.

It will never happen though.  Such people are bought off or assassinated.

True, but in time big money always finds itself buying the politicians. And in large part, the citizenry is not vigilant to twart that. Most people are complacent until all hell breaks loose, and then they take to the streets. By then, it's either repression or a breakdown of fabrics that used to make up that society. History abounds with riots and revolutions. We're not going to change human nature. Most people don't give a damn until their little corner is turned upside down.

[The Whit]

18% interest on mortgages is "working" to you? The economy under Reagan was only "working" to enrich the wealthy.  The poor?  "Ketchup is a vegetable."  Anyone trying to get SS Disability under Reagan's administration couldn't - if you weren't too disabled to apply for it, you weren't too disabled to work.  The economy really "works" when the poor do all the heavy lifting and the wealthy get all the benefits.

Eisenhower, today, would be FAR to the left of Obama.  A couple of things helped the economy during his administration.  We were still rebounding from the Depression.  (People finally had money, the future was now [there were all sorts of new things coming to market], so people spent money.)  The fact that the market was flooded with "Japanese junk" also helped, it kept prices down. We were still on a war footing, economically, when he took office (war is good for business).  The arms race was pretty much the same as being on a war footing, and that lasted right through the rest of his administration.  And Congress wasn't hell-bent on making him look bad regardless of the cost.

Who is "business"?  And who is it that fights these wars?

[The Whit]

The problem with people that advocate "free enterprize" is that it isn't free and it isn't fair. The fact is that the wealthy start out with an unfair advantage. They deny opportunity to the unwealthy and the poorly capitalized, thus excluding competition. Therefore you end up with corrupt corporate monopolies. This corrupt corporate monopoly business world is what the conservatives call free enterprize.

It's real definition is crony capitalism, and should not be confused with free market enterprise.

I have seen the arguements, the bumper sticker mentality that generate misleading slogans like "redistribution of wealth" as if they are true. They are anything but the truth.
If you could gauranty fair opportunity and fair compitition, then and only then would you and could you have a true "free enterprize" system.

You're right.  So we must find a way to hold people accountable for fraud and deception to keep the market place honest.  For this we have the judicial branch of the government.

The truth is that corrupt corporate monopolies don't pay fair wages, they don't pay taxes, they aren't responsible to the environment, they don't have safe work places, and they don't allow fair free compitition.

And if you look closely you'll see that all of these monopolies are getting money from government subsidies in some form.

So don't bore me with bumper-sticker mentality buzzword lying slogans. Don't lie to my face about capitalism and socalled "free enterprize". And don't lie about "redistribition of wealth".

I agree with you about redistribution of wealth but you misunderstand the free market.

The fact is that wealth has been redistributed to the top 1% wealthy for decades and the conservatives have lied about that distribution. It's classic propaganda.

The fact is that there are very few politicians on both sides who aren't in the pockets of big business.  I do remember before 2007 the Democrats downright denying there was any chance of a financial collapse.  Who helped pass the 800 BILLION DOLLAR banker bailout?  Both parties.  

If you're still a fan of the two party system you're just as delusional as the guy on the other side of the fence.

[josephpalazzo]

So we must find a way to hold people accountable for fraud and deception to keep the market place honest. For this we have the judicial branch of the government.
.
.

If you're still a fan of the two party system you're just as delusional as the guy on the other side of the fence.

Third parties in the US don't fare well. And the judiciary is mostly in the hands of big corporations. The system is so rigged that there is little chance it can ever be reformed.