[Genghis Khan]

Why is it that you never have any facts to back up your statements?

Senseless and hateful partisan hacks never do.

[DanDaMan]

Why is it that you never have any facts to back up your statements?

Name a country that has had more immigrants looking for more religious and economic freedom than America?

[Rei Murasame]

What does the USA's abysmal lack of enforced immigration quotas and open borders have to do with this? You can certainly skew the debate in your favour if you'd like to count all the immigrants you invited into your country as, " immigrants looking for more religious and economic freedom".

Do you count the influx of violent Mexican gangs such as MS-13 in that category?

Do you see why immigration is a bad criteria to use for discussing this?

[DanDaMan]

What does the USA's abysmal lack of enforced immigration quotas and open borders have to do with this?

Where did I mention this?
I am talking about the desire of others to enter this country.

[Rei Murasame]

You want to pretend that the two things aren't directly connected?

[Cartertonian]

I'm sure there is an object and deeply instructive significance to the fact that two people who describe themselves as 'conservative' should so readily be knocking sparks off one another.

[Kapanda]

technology development and reducing the cost of wages. {reducing the cost of resources, means of production and maintenance is not possibly, because the resources are limited} The first leads to the loss of jobs, the second to reduce the wage. As a result, the some is richer, the other is poorer.

It's not true that technology leads to a loss of jobs, but it is obvious why it would seem so. Technology leads to a loss of jobs in the very short term, and in the long term it would if you thought that humans remained with the same skill set forever.

[Krivich]

It's not true that technology leads to a loss of jobs, but it is obvious why it would seem so. Technology leads to a loss of jobs in the very short term, and in the long term it would if you thought that humans remained with the same skill set forever.

But the new skill set can be need only in other sphere. For example in the business of further development of new technologies needed for society, but unnecessary for the capitalist, because as a certain level of development is adequate to owners of the production. So there appear excess people which are needed only to themselves and unnecessary in principle. Besides the development of technologies needed for society can be possible only by means of a investment in a education for this people. That is unnecessary costs and taxes. But liberalism and taxes are incompatible. This is not liberty when state and society requires owners to increase spending. This is already a socialism.
Besides increasing the level of education and technical training makes a person more far-sighted and dangerous for a person who owns a company but is not a direct participant in a production, as staff and management.
All this is very hard.
Blame myself for my English, but I hope to understand.

[Kapanda]

It's not your english, you're painting an odd picture of economics that I wonder where you could possibly have gathered such imagination.

Technical advancement is necessary because companies compete with one another. The better company, which having the best technology is a factor of, wins the competition.

[Krivich]

My arguments stem from the fact that today the value of profit is placed above the value of progress. Today, they go hand in hand by means of competition, but no tomorrow. Further weakening of the state's role may lead to increasing monopolization. Then we be able to forget about competition.
Besides competition itself leads to the concealment technology.

[Kapanda]

But none of that leads to the doomsday-like scenario you're imagining. Not all industries are monopolistic, and it doesn't seem like governments are getting so weak that they won't be able to regulate monopolies in the future...

[Krivich]

But liberalisation involves reducing the government's role in the economy, other variant is not relevant to the topic.

[DanDaMan]

But liberalisation involves reducing the government's role in the economy, other variant is not relevant to the topic.

synonyms liberal, generous, bountiful, munificent
Shall I point out the flaw in your thinking or can you see your error?

[Kapanda]

Like I said, even if there is no control of monopolistic behaviour, not all industries allow for monopolies to be created.

And your analogy was that technology destroyed jobs. There has never been any evidence of this.

[Krivich]

synonyms liberal, generous, bountiful, munificent

I'm not sure in it. I don't understand you.

[DanDaMan]

But liberalisation involves reducing the government's role in the economy,

Liberal and reduction are two words that are, fundamentally ,the opposite of each other.
Liberals take more and more control of the economy.
This is why Obama now runs the banks, car companies and owns half the mortgages in the USA.
Bush is also a liberal government man. He paved the way for Obama.

[Krivich]

Like I said, even if there is no control of monopolistic behaviour, not all industries allow for monopolies to be created..

This is so, but in virtue of a government and in spheres of the small production.

There has never been any evidence of this.

Better technology - fewer hands. No?

[Krivich]

Liberal and reduction are two words that are, fundamentally ,the opposite of each other.
Liberals take more and more control of the economy.
This is why Obama now runs the banks, car companies and owns half the mortgages in the USA.
Bush is also a liberal government man. He paved the way for Obama.

These measures have nothing to do with liberalism. This, I think, in the spirit of social democracy. Remember the Attlee reform in the UK after the WWII. He was laborist. There has been a nationalization of the power, transportation, etc.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
Liberal and reduction are two words that are, fundamentally ,the opposite of each other.
Liberals take more and more control of the economy.
This is why Obama now runs the banks, car companies and owns half the mortgages in the USA.
Bush is also a liberal government man. He paved the way for Obama.

These measures have nothing to do with liberalism.

Of course they do.
Obama has created a liberal (massive) government and wants liberal control of health care.

But you fail to understand defined words and believe political dogma. So I am wasting my time with you.
Buy a dictionary then come back to this forum.

[Kapanda]

This is so, but in virtue of a government and in spheres of the small production.

As far as I'm aware, there has never been evidence collected with the absence of government, but nothing indicates that it is so in virtue of government presence neither. Except, of course, for the obvious protection of property and life.

Better technology - fewer hands. No?

No. In fact, there's a nice, simple book called "Naked Economics". Very simple read, you should pick it up.