More liberal economy - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By smashthestate
#86861
Edric O wrote:But enough of that - let's get to the point. From what you just said, Smashthestate, I conclude that in your Libertarian Paradise it would be perfectly ok for companies to dump tons of toxic waste on public land where no one lives - like Antarctica, for example. Am I right?

You are not right. There would be no public property. They can dump it on their own property. But if in so doing it even slightly damages another person's private property, it will be stopped (which is almost always if it happens on the scale your are implying).

Edric O wrote:And what if ALL workplaces have equally bad conditions? What if ALL employers treat their workers like dirt and don't waste a penny over their safety? What "choice" do you have then?

Then all the workers die. And the producer has no one to sell goods to, and no workers to even produce those goods. Doesn't seem like a good plan for the producer, now does it?

Companies compete for workers to work for them in the same way that they compete to sell their products. If a type of worker is in low supply, then he is in high demand. For example, a rocket scientist is in low supply, so he will get a higher pay. Anyone can dig a ditch, so naturally the ditch-diggers will be in much higher supply, and will receive lower pay.

Edric O wrote:You should study 19th century history a bit more, and learn about the working conditions that were forced upon the people by their employers during those times.

I've read plenty about it. The working condition, by today's standards, were almost horrific. By the standards of those days, though, they were not bad at all. That's why so many people came to America. They didn't say "let's go to America so we can live miserable lives and be exploited." As much as the people of today abhor those conditions, it was a great improvement of the previous conditions of those days.

Plus, the market was just forming in that time. Capitalism achieves the greatest good by competition and production. It takes time, a lot of time. Hell, it took over 200 years for America to be where it is today, as far as living standards. Through constant competition to please the consumer (mostly working-class people), prices of products and services are driven down and are consequently made available to a more massive number of people.

Edric O wrote:Also, I see you neglect to mention that Libertarians want to give employers the right to fire any workers on the spot. Thus, anyone who goes on a strike is immediately fired.

Is that any different than highering somebody else while the union workers strike? You should read "Do Unions Really Raise Wages" by Henry Hazlitt.

Here's some of it:

The belief that labor unions can substantially raise real wages over the long run and for the whole working population is one of great delusions of the present age. This delusion is mainly the result of failure to recognize that wages are basically determined by labor productivity. It is for this reason, for example, that wages in the United States were incomparably higher than wages in England and Germany all during the decades when the "labor movement" in the latter two countries was far more advanced.

[…]

Let us say that these six groups of workers consist of (1) farm hands, (2) retail store workers, (3) workers in the clothing trades, (4) coal miners, (5) building workers, and (6) railway employees. Their wage rates, determined without any element of coercion, are not necessarily equal; but whatever they are, let us assign to each of them an original index number of 100 as a base. Now let us suppose that each group forms a national union and is able to enforce its demands in proportion not merely to its economic productivity but to its political power and strategic position. Suppose the result is that the farm hands are unable to raise their full wages at all, that the retail store workers are able to get an increase of 10 percent, the clothing workers of 20 percent, the coal miners of 30 percent, the building trades of 40 percent, and the railroad employees of 50 percent.

On the assumption we have made, this will mean that there has been an average increase of wages of 25 percent. Now suppose, again for the sake of arithmetical simplicity, that the price of product that each group of workers makes rises by the same percentage as the increase in that group’s wages. (For several reasons, including the fact that labor costs do not represent all costs, the price will not quite do that—certainly not in any short period. But the figures will nonetheless serve to illustrate the basic principle involved.)

We shall then have a situation in which the cost of living has risen by an average of 25 percent. The farm hands, though they have had no reduction in their money wages, will be considerably worse off in terms of what they can buy. The retail store workers, even though they have got an increase in money wages of 10 percent, will be worse off than before the race began. Even the workers in the clothing trades, with a money-wage increase of 20 percent, will be at a disadvantage compared with their previous position. The coal miners, with a money-wage increase of 30 percent, will have made in purchasing power only a slight gain. The building and railroad workers will of course have made a gain, but one much small in actuality than in appearance.


smashthestate wrote:And what happens when drug companies start bribing these private organizations to give favourable reports?

There's no real way to totally prevent this. But making the assumption that it doesn't already happen with the FDA (to a worse extent) is quite hard-pressed.

False advertising, however, would be illegal and punishable under laissez faire capitalism. If such action is discovered, it will be dealt with.
By Astaroth
#87656
smashthestate, you are doing great...I'd like to throw in some support if I may (but you don't need much so far!)

About working conditions. I'd like to add that healthy and safe workplaces actually are PROFITABLE conditions for employers. The healthier and safer your workforce is, the more productive they are. However, you will note that almost the entire Libertarian philosophy revolves around that key phrase that we just don't hear anymore in America: Personal Responsibility!! It is because of legal actions and torts that has given rise to restrictive regulations through regulatory agencies like the ADA or FDA..etc ad nauseum.

In many respects, we can take some good lessons from 'developing' countries like Costa Rica (I've lived there, so I speak from experience). In many regards, Costa Rica is pretty libertarian. (not all regards mind you). Personal responsibility in the culture is central. I lived near this tiny 15' wide vehicle bridge over a 20' deep ravine right in the middle of a residential area with lots of young children. This bridge could not afford more than one vehicle at one time with no room for pedestrian traffic either. There were no railings. Suppose I had a child that was playing near the bridge, went on it, and a car swooped in from nowhere and she fell off the bridge to her death...In Costa Rica, there is no pretense (let alone precedence) of suing the local, provincial or federal government for this tragedy. In the US, our bridges are SUPER wide and have regulations as long as my arm on how to properly protect the safety of pedestrian traffic. Why? Lawsuits. In Costa Rica, it's all about personal responsibility--you teach your child to avoid the bridge, you ensure he/she is supervised...

Many say this is heartless, but it frees us up from government the VERY expensive process of entertaining regulations that free people from personal responsibility. Look, I have no problem with regulations governing public safety, it's just an example...but we have regulations that are now allowing the public to sue for their vices and petty problems (obesity, nicotine related problems, even if I spill hot coffee on myself).

One thing I also heard was the class warfare argumentation that Marxists/Socialists/Communists like to spout...There is something that is rarely said in the pro-capitalist defense that Libertarians also understand is that with economic freedom, the only person responsible for your 'lot' in life (have or have-not) is you. If you are a 'have-not', get a job, a new one, or a different one. Work harder. Invest smarter. Save instead when else you would spend, spend instead when else you would save. No one has a gun to your head, the opposite is true. This is not anarchy where we pursue to allow people to live by their own rules--no crook will have free reign to plunder the have-nots. Instead, in a libertarian (capitalist) system, people have the ABILITY to move in and out of their own wealth brackets. They can "change their stars". The diametric opposite of this would be permanent hereditary driven classes (the ruling class vs. the working/serving class)

Anyways...that's all for now...interesting topic...
Astaroth
User avatar
By Todd D.
#87730
Edric O wrote:And now for the translation:

Libertarians are in favor of Laissez Faire capitalism, where the state is separated from the economy in the same way and for the same reasons it is separated from religion. Libertarians live in their own private 18th century fantasy land, where the economy is a personal issue just like religion. Their dogma refuses to acknowledge the existence of social interactions and social forces, while claiming that the perfect society is a Social Darwinist inferno where the strong live in luxury and the weak suffer in poverty and misery.
Remember: There is no God but the Free Market, and Ayn Rand is His Prophet.

And now for the LOGICAL translation.
As I sit here typing on my Pentium computer on the Internet, I marvel at what wonders the 18th century has given us.
Regardless, the state is seperated from religion to prevent influence that infirnged upon the rights of citizens, be it government telling the public where they can and can't worship, or the church demanding laws that violate the rights of citizens. This is completely different than the reason that the State is seperated from the economy, and that is the fact that the State is inneficient. In every case, the state will always act in their own self interest, in the very same way that consumers will, only by doing this they by defenition must increase the price that consumers pay. They create and run agencies that meddle in businesses that the Constitution gives them no right to, and badly I might add. Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Is there any doubt that all of those agencies are running at subpar level right now?
Libertarians are also more than happy to aknowledge the social interactions and their result on the econonmy. It's called Externalities, market forces due to cultural values and norms. Institutionalist economics is devoted to this very nature. Nice straw man though

While they want no government in the economy, they do not favor the absense of government overall. After all, the rich ubermenschen need armed thugs to protect them from the starving masses. Libertarians want to make sure that the rights of each citizen---especially the right to work like a slave or starve to death---are not violated. In order to ensure this, a government is needed. Libertarians say that the only purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the rich and powerful, not to grant any privilages to the poor souls that the rich and powerful are exploiting. The government is basically only there to prevent the poor from hurting the rich in desperation. And to drown revolutions in blood.

Libertarians favor the government to protect the rights of the citizens that it is representing. Anybody, and read that again very carefully, ANYBODY whose rights are being violated are entitled to police protection. You make it sound like just because someone is rich they deserve to get their house broken into, or their car stolen. The rights of each citizen is to use and sell their labor and skill for a wage that they feel is fair. If you think the wage is too low, then don't work there. It really is that simple.
As for your second little rant, I will only say that it is a sad political system that you live in where you solve your problems with violence. Of course the police are their to prevent a revolution, because a revolution would mean murder to citizens.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15158860
Astaroth wrote:
One thing I also heard was the class warfare argumentation that Marxists/Socialists/Communists like to spout...There is something that is rarely said in the pro-capitalist defense that Libertarians also understand is that with economic freedom, the only person responsible for your 'lot' in life (have or have-not) is you.



If this was actually true there would be no social need for government *whatsoever*, because whether or not a government administration existed, the same rhetoric as above would be used, that of 'individual responsibility', and that the only person responsible for your 'lot' in life is you, the individual.

Those who raised a fuss with a minimalist 'caretaker' libertarian-type administration over someone dumping something toxic on their private property could just as easily be told the same rhetoric, that they shouldn't be worrying about such 'externalities' like random anonymous toxic chemicals being dumped on their property, because their future is up to them alone, and that you deserve what you get, including toxic dumping, because your life is entirely yours.

So, obviously, the libertarian ideology only recognizes *property* rights, and supports an administration-in-common for the protection of private property, but not for the protection of the individual's right to access the materials of modern life and living, like food and housing, etc.


Astaroth wrote:
If you are a 'have-not', get a job, a new one, or a different one. Work harder. Invest smarter. Save instead when else you would spend, spend instead when else you would save. No one has a gun to your head, the opposite is true.



Since the economic interests of the employer, for paying out less money for wages for work done, are directly *opposed* to the interests of the worker -- for getting *more* money out of the employer for the same work done -- who in this fraught economic relationship should get the benefit-of-the-doubt if and when some ambiguity and conflict arises -- ?

Perhaps the worker thinks that he or she wasn't paid enough, considering the time and effort put in for certain hours of work, yet the boss *contests* this claim and says that the worker *was* paid sufficiently -- how would a supposedly nonpartisan, even-handed egalitarian libertarian government administration *decide* in this kind of situation? Did the worker work adequately, with enough effort, during those hours in question, or didn't they?

How would these government administrators be compensated, exactly, and how would we know that they wouldn't favor their paymasters' interests with their official decision-making / rulings?


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Astaroth wrote:
This is not anarchy where we pursue to allow people to live by their own rules--no crook will have free reign to plunder the have-nots. Instead, in a libertarian (capitalist) system, people have the ABILITY to move in and out of their own wealth brackets. They can "change their stars". The diametric opposite of this would be permanent hereditary driven classes (the ruling class vs. the working/serving class)

Anyways...that's all for now...interesting topic...
Astaroth



Even though the practice of equity capital investments, for enlarging the scope of production and commerce, vastly supersedes the economics of hereditary-based privileges (feudalism), the mere use of equity capital itself doesn't automatically *supplant* the class division -- it just changes the *mechanism* of it, and now the privileged elite use private capital generated from the exploitation of wage-labor, to justify their privileged status, instead of making claims based on family lineage or religious precept.

You're being disingenuous with your 'pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps' line of bullshit because you *know* that the best catalyst to new riches is the ownership of *past* riches, which can be leveraged as finance, for ongoing capital returns. My favorite example is the multi-millionaire who will receive an income of tens of thousands of dollars every year just by putting those millions in a bank account at 1% interest, with no work effort required whatsoever on their part.

It has already been explained that this type of c[…]

For me Republicanism is masculine and monarchism i[…]

Please provide it again. You have no problem aski[…]

Sure, keep thinking that. Election year is caus[…]