Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative?
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 160 of 254 (138838)
09-01-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by ThingsChange
09-01-2004 1:15 PM


It's interesting that some Evolutionists argue like Creationists on some topics of this forum (especially the political topics).
Most human beings nurse some form of irrationality, regardless of how rational the field they work in is. Many academics tend to nurse "libertarian leftism" as their pet irrationality.
In the real world, I'd argue that "libertarian leftism" is an oxymoron. Redistribution of wealth and politicized economic planning is necessarily coercive to at least some degree. The closest thing might be social democracy, but the capital-generating classes still get coerced in these systems, leading in the long term to economic disincentives and decline. It's happening in Old Europe as we speak.
I'd even wonder if the below-replacement birth rates in these countries are influenced by the systemic economic disincentives built into their political economies. Sounds like this might be worth studying.
I know to many here "capital" is a dirty word. But there has to be some means of allocating resources and production in an economy. I'd like to hear what alternatives some of our "libertarian leftists" advocate (that haven't largely failed in practice).
BTW I scored +3.53 on the Economic scale and -0.5 on the Social scale. Sounds about right, I'm an unapologetic free market advocate with mild libertarian views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ThingsChange, posted 09-01-2004 1:15 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 210 of 254 (139108)
09-02-2004 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by contracycle
09-02-2004 6:00 AM


If a firm makes profit, it has succesfully passed all its cost to its customers (99% of wehom are workers), and has furthermore extracted from them even more wealth than the service was worth.
The service was worth what was paid for it by the consumers, otherwise they would have gone with a lower cost competitor, or done without. The profit is the difference between value added and the market cost of the inputs. Profit is what allows a company to invest in expansion of the business.
True, it also allows for abuses, the executives can use the profit to throw lavish parties. But guess what? It's a bad business strategy, and competition and the marketplace tend to eliminate such firms.
Are you suggesting a system in which all firms are operated on a break-even basis and run by workers?
Two words for you. Soviet Union.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by contracycle, posted 09-02-2004 6:00 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by contracycle, posted 09-02-2004 9:52 AM paisano has replied
 Message 212 by Chiroptera, posted 09-02-2004 9:53 AM paisano has not replied
 Message 213 by nator, posted 09-02-2004 9:53 AM paisano has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 215 of 254 (139124)
09-02-2004 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by contracycle
09-02-2004 9:52 AM


Thats irrelevant - if the sale was made, all costs have been passed to the consumer. Even if they went with a lower cost competitor, then they paid all those lower costs. It doesn't matter if the consumers pick and choose - ALL costs are passed on to the consumer, including those of production and investment.
What's your point ? If the consumer wanted a lawnmower engine, he could buy raw bauxite, setup a small aluminum foundry and machine shop in his garage, buy electricity (or build a generator, but we won't go there) , make the aluminum and cast and machine it into an engine, all with the costs of raw materials, his own labor, etc.
He isn't going to get the lawnmower engine for free, however.
There is no necessary relationship between "value added" and profit; it is quite possible to find yourself obliged to sell at under cost.
It may even be advantageous to do so, for a short term, e.g. to gain market share. But if you are forced to sell below cost indefinitely, you either go out of business or must be subsidized.
Run by workers, for profit yes.
So you advocate a system in which a firm's workers are majority stockholders. This can work, but limits the amount of capital that can be raised , and the individual worker still has little influence.
And external market forces, beyond the worker's control, still are operative.
It is no panacea. United Airlines is an example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by contracycle, posted 09-02-2004 9:52 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by contracycle, posted 09-02-2004 11:16 AM paisano has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 216 of 254 (139127)
09-02-2004 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
09-02-2004 9:58 AM


Re: health care
Why shouldn’t every person in a company get the same amount from the net profits and if the company is doing well they all benefit? Would that not be a good inducement to do good work?
There should be differential rewards for performance and for skill sets that contribute more or less to the company performance, in primary compensation. Nothing wrong with a profit-sharing program as secondary compensation.
I see nothing wrong with paying airline pilots and mechanics more than ticket agents, for example, because I want the perople in the most safety-critical positions to be the most highly paid.
As to executives, if an executive convinces an venture capitalist to invest $ 10 million in a company over cocktails at the club, enabling it to hire 100 more widget makers at 50K annual wages, I see nothing wrong with that executive being well compensated for their superior marketing and negotiation skills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2004 9:58 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by contracycle, posted 09-02-2004 11:21 AM paisano has not replied
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2004 12:38 AM paisano has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 217 of 254 (139130)
09-02-2004 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
09-02-2004 9:58 AM


Re: health care
The cost of health insurance is artificially high with private companies because they are paying extra people to manage the system and they are taking a profit (a healthy profit?) from it as they go. Look at some CEO salaries in this field.
The cost of US health care is artificially high across the board because of many inefficiencies in the system, some of which you've mentioned. Compensation is excessive across the board relative to economic value, from medical secretaries to MDs to hospital administration to those HMO CEOs. Excessive litigation is another factor increasing cost (trial lawyers, IMO, are far worse than CEOs). Excessive and fraudulent billing for products and services (10.00 per pill Tylenol in the hospital) enabled by this system.
I advocate the establishment of medical savings accounts, caps on litigation, and, most radically of all, making all forms of health insurance, public and private, illegal. This would remove much excess cash and overhead from the system. For example, MDs would be forced to charge more reasonable rates that are actually affordable and accept the more modest compensation of DVMs.
I am sure there are counterarguments to this scheme, but I really think socialized medicine will just make the current inefficiencies
a new government agency.
BTW, use of invective and pejoratives ( "scam", "shrubbie") is usually a good indication of someone who cannot engage an argument factually and logically. From what I have seen, you can and should do better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2004 9:58 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by contracycle, posted 09-02-2004 11:25 AM paisano has replied
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2004 12:42 AM paisano has not replied
 Message 234 by nator, posted 09-03-2004 10:55 AM paisano has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 223 of 254 (139150)
09-02-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by contracycle
09-02-2004 11:25 AM


Re: health care
Well? Isn't calling your opponents prima facie irrational indicative of someone who cannot carry an argument factually and logically?
By no means. If I assert that a position is "irrational", I am asserting it has been arrived at via one or more logical fallacies.
This is not a pejorative or invective.
I do, of course, assume the burden of pointing out the fallacies involved. I did so, by pointing out that leftist economic systems, in practice, are always coercive, in that they have involved using state power to expropriate wealth and property from their rightful owners.
To my knowledge, no one has challenged the point, and indeed have argued that this form of coercion is morally justified (e.g. the "human", "decent" thing to do).
Calling President Bush "shrubbie" , on the other hand, is content free in terms of facts, logic, or argument and is simply pejorative labeling. A conservative saying "I'm not voting for Kerry because he's a terrorist-loving Massachusetts pinko" is engaging in similar content-free invective. I'd be equally critical of such a conservative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by contracycle, posted 09-02-2004 11:25 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2004 12:11 PM paisano has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 238 of 254 (139588)
09-03-2004 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by nator
09-03-2004 10:55 AM


Re: health care
What if I need a bone marrow transplant that costs 50,000 and I don't have that much in my medical savings account?
Why does it cost 50K now ? Could it cost less with a more efficient system of medical funding and delivery ?
If not, then you have a counterargument to my proposed scheme. Perhaps instead of abolishing health insurance, it needs restructuring to cover only catastrophic risk, and to eliminate inefficiencies in the current system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by nator, posted 09-03-2004 10:55 AM nator has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 239 of 254 (139590)
09-03-2004 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by crashfrog
09-02-2004 12:11 PM


In fact, your statement assumes what it's trying to prove; the system can only be called "coercive" if the targets of this system are the "rightful" owners; clearly it is the position of the leftist that they are not.
Assuming what you mean to prove is fallacious; it's Circular Reasoning.
Reread my post. You seem to think my argument is against government coercion per se. Rather, I argued that leftist economics (involving direct government intervention in markets and economic operations, and often government ownership of enterprises) and libertarianism (an absence of government coercion, except the minimal required to preserve social order) were inconsistent concepts.
At most, you have an issue with my defintions of the terms "leftist economics" and "libertarianism". If you have more precise definitions, propose them. Your charge of circular reasoning, however, does not hold here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2004 12:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by contracycle, posted 09-06-2004 7:05 AM paisano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024