I seem to recall

[Tantal]

Believe it or not that would be the capitalist logic, but it would repay him in the end!! So You agree capitalist theory is a joke?

Once again:

[Midas]

Perhaps we are not bringing our children up to think that any job is better than none? Our little Princes and princesses expect to be just that, when we should be saying - you do what it takes to earn.

Going off topic I know, but this is surely one of the reasons why we have so many immigrants pouring in to the country; far too many of our own citizens, youngsters in particular, have this attitude that they somehow deserve a 'better' job, so they won't even look to taking more menial ones. Either that or they're almost as well off on benefits so they just can't be bothered working for minimum pay in the first place.

[Tourmaline]

For once I'm inclined to agree with you! However I would add a number of caveats to that insofar as the government should:-

• confine its activities solely to governing the country on the wider basis, not try to micromanage it
• severely control its own expenditure in order to give far better value for money on those services it does retain control of
• allow private enterprise to take over many areas where government presently does such an inefficient job, and
• only charge people the absolute minimum of tax necessary to perform its much reduced services.

Only then would society be much fairer in that everyone would have the freedom of choice to take up what services they so wished rather than be bound to paying over the odds for inefficient and expensive government ones, and they'd have far more money in their pay-packets with which to be able to so do. Coincidentally it would also give many people back their sense of self-dependency, personal responsibility and their right to determine their own future.

Just a recap: confine government activities, control spending, encourage private enterprise, and minimize taxes. That sounds like free market capitalism. I don't think this is what CitizenSmith has in mind, however. His definition of fair seems to be that everyone should have equal ends. My definition of fair is giving everyone the same opportunity. It falls upon the individual to turn the opportunity into something more.

[Tourmaline]

Ok if we are going to be simplistic about it.... Surely a society with a high degre of inequality does not make for very good markets?? Reducing inequality should make markets more fruitful and so be a benefit to all...according to liberal economic theory that is....

I think this interpretation is actually incorrect. Economic liberalism argues that the state has a legitimate role in providing certain common goods i.e. roads, canals, schools and bridges that cannot be efficiently implemented by private entities. I do not believe that it argues the redistribution of wealth. You may be thinking of Keynesian economics; however, I tend to disagree with this school of thought.

[Tourmaline]

No it does not normativley argue FOR redistribution, of course, however it does rest on the assumption of perfect competition which requires equal entry to markets which in turn implies increased equality is good for the market

I am not an economist, and it has been some time since I have read books on economic theory. Nonetheless, the equality you may be referring to I would think would be equality to enter the marketplace. This is not the same as equality in purchasing power.

The "perfect competition" assumption you stated, I believe, is that there are many producers, and no single one may influence pricing. In this instance, any producer may enter into the market equally. The following implication you state is true; however, equality in the market is not the same as equality to enter the market.

[Tourmaline]

The two 'equalities' are related. If you have huge amounts of capital then you can block entry to the Market, of you do not have any capital it is near impossible to enter the market as a producer. Obviously the amount of capital you have affects the demand side as much as the supply side.

Please explain how equality in the market place is any different from purchasing power as money is money. In order to create the conditions of perfect competition one cannot ignore the role of capital ownership in entering markets. Thus increased equality in terms of capital ownership affects (potentially) both purchasing power and market entry.

I apparently made a typo in my post thank you for catching it. I have edited my original post to make it accurate (and to make sense).

If you have huge amounts of capital (so much as to have control over the market) than you are a monopoly. This is one of the small roles that the government should have in the economy. In the US, it usually results in the company that exercises such control to be broken up into smaller companies. If you have no capital then one must seek financing from those who have the capital, i.e. banks or venture capitalists. It is not "near impossible" to enter the market. It actually happens every day.

[Some statistics]
In fact, small businesses account for the majority of employment in the US. Last figure I saw was a 2004 statistic that said 99.9% of all businesses in the US are small businesses (fewer than 500 employees), with 77% of all businesses being sole proprietorships, and 36% of all employees employed by firms smaller than 100. These statistics were derived form the US Census.

Now, I believe that the original argument was for demand side and not supply side. The converse simply does not exist (at least in a fiat based system). No single person can hold that much wealth, and it would make no sense to. People can be broke, though. Redistribute programs make no economic sense. They do not benefit the producers (those who create the wealth), because, in the end, the producers pay for it. This is why it is almost always argued from a moral or quality of life perspective. The problem I have from this perspective is that they do not encourage those who suffer to become productive members of society, especially when the government runs the programs. In too many instances it breeds leeches that are a drain on society.

Equality on the supply side would require taking money from the productive members of society in order to give it to less or non-productive ones. This limits the amount of capital available that would produce a better society (business ventures, loans, etc.). Therefore, it is not beneficial.

[pauli007001]

Whilst theorists are discussing theory people are suffering, politically discussing political theory is the equivalent of a General refusing to issue orders and instead wringing his hands and rocking back and forth.

Real world solutiond for real world issues needs real world action not theories and hand wringing.

[pauli007001]

I'm not sure to which typo you refer, but thanks anyway!!

This is an argument based in extremes (as was mine to be fair) however there are plenty of monopolies or oligarchies in the private sector. Having huge amounts of capital prevents market entry in complex ways one is advertising - example: Fast food market to enter this you'd have to compete with the McDonalds marketing machine the cost of this would be billions thus preventing poorer businesses from competing on an equal footing.

Banks and venture capitalists lend money (with high interest expected) so essentially without your own capital it costs loads to enter the market making it near impossible in many markets, although as you say it does happen. None of this seems to really affect my argument tho, unless I am being thick!
Thanks for this. It is interesting I doubt figures in the UK would be anything like that!! And as you say if small business enter the market everyday also everyday monopolies are not broken up and left in tact.

It was but my point was to question your separation between supply and demand side as th two are so interwoven. I disagree that producers create wealth. I actually think wealth creation is a myth of a Western world that ignores that most people in the world are dying in poverty. Redistribution has been shown in to actually benefit markets - (the crisis of Keynesian model was actually to do with employment levels and not to do with people costing the state or business too much) - as the cost to business in tax to deal with the excesses of capitalism and the crime created by poverty.
I challenge that those with capital (not very often actually producers of anything but rather people who just do no work and let their capital work for them) are in any way productive to society. Surely factory workers, social workers, fire fighters etc are far more productive to society than capital owners ??

Social workers?
What do they do apart from the obvious( we all read the papers dont we)!!!

[Tourmaline]

I'm not sure to which typo you refer, but thanks anyway!!

This is an argument based in extremes (as was mine to be fair) however there are plenty of monopolies or oligarchies in the private sector. Having huge amounts of capital prevents market entry in complex ways one is advertising - example: Fast food market to enter this you'd have to compete with the McDonalds marketing machine the cost of this would be billions thus preventing poorer businesses from competing on an equal footing.

Banks and venture capitalists lend money (with high interest expected) so essentially without your own capital it costs loads to enter the market making it near impossible in many markets, although as you say it does happen. None of this seems to really affect my argument tho, unless I am being thick!
Thanks for this. It is interesting I doubt figures in the UK would be anything like that!! And as you say if small business enter the market everyday also everyday monopolies are not broken up and left in tact.

It was but my point was to question your separation between supply and demand side as th two are so interwoven. I disagree that producers create wealth. I actually think wealth creation is a myth of a Western world that ignores that most people in the world are dying in poverty. Redistribution has been shown in to actually benefit markets - (the crisis of Keynesian model was actually to do with employment levels and not to do with people costing the state or business too much) - as the cost to business in tax to deal with the excesses of capitalism and the crime created by poverty.
I challenge that those with capital (not very often actually producers of anything but rather people who just do no work and let their capital work for them) are in any way productive to society. Surely factory workers, social workers, fire fighters etc are far more productive to society than capital owners ??

The info about the typo is in my editing remarks on my post two posts ago.

I don't know what country you live in; however, I don't know to which monopolies you refer. In the US, I am not aware of any true monopolies, off the top of my head. There are several sectors that could use significantly more competition, however. These sectors are generally heavily regulated and, in a sense, have competition limited by the government. Again, in the US there is a large amount of competition among fast food chains. Regional chains are very abundant. For example, within 5-10 minutes of my house I have the option of: Kentucky Fried Chicken, The A&W Root-beer Store, Dairy Queen, McDonald's, Arby's, Burger King, Chick-Fil-A, Long John Silver's, Moe's Southwest Grill, Panda Express, Popeye's Chicken, Sonic, Whataburger, Braum's, Carl's Jr., Taco Bell, Qdoba, Taco Bueno, and Taco Mayo, Jimmy Johns, Domino's, Mexican Grill, Pizza Hut, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Panda Express, Panera Bread, Subway, Steak 'n Shake, Buffalo Wild Wings, Jamba Juice, Little Caesar's Pizza, Quiznos, Wendy's, Earl's Rib Palace, Billy Sims BBQ, and Steve's Rib. I don't know how I could have more options than that. In short, in the US it is very easy to take on the big corporations, because we generally keep the government out of industry. Moreover, this practice businesses (both small and large). It is exactly this kind of low government involvement that allows many of those restaurants to exist. (I suspect that many on the list are not even remotely familiar.)

The interest on loans (especially small business) is usually very small (0-5% typically). I agree venture capital is usually, from my knowledge, in the 20% range, but then think about what those people are doing. In addition, there are many cases where a person starting a business leverages their assets (house, for example) for funding.

So, the entire first portion of your post is basically false (in the US anyway, I have no idea how it is wherever you live, I presume the UK).

As far as the wealth creation idea goes, I think I understand your argument. First off, by "wealth creation" I generally mean, economic prosperity, opportunity, etc. Second, a nation cannot control really much outside its own boarders. The US gives somewhere in the neighborhood of $42 billion per year in foreign aid to developing countries, countries that have been victim of natural disasters, etc. That is not ignoring anything. As it turns out, it seems to have almost no impact on the quality of life of the countries we give aid to (on top of that there are numerous charities specifically for foreign aid).

The problem with Keynesian economics was the so called "stagflation" that the Keynesian policies caused. Where you had inflation and economic stagnation at the same time. In the 1970s there was an increase in oil prices (which caused inflation in the general market), then central banks attempted to increase monetary supply, combined with the over-regulation of the market place by the government caused a so-called run-away wage/price spiral. There are those who argue that the only fix for this is a severe recession (hence, the employment thing you mentioned). You could argue that a wage/price spiral is severally lessened (or fails to exist at all) when the markets are competitive. Therefore, the failure with the Keynesian theories are, effectively, the Keynesian theories. Moreover, I have never seen any evidence that redistribution programs benefit the markets (so I would not say that is "has been shown"). I can see that argument, but private charities would work better, and it is not forced in that method. If you wish to call that "redistribution" so be it.

Finally, those with capital actually do produce things. It may not be a chair, but they do use their money to create opportunity for others (they obviously benefit from the aforementioned interest rates of venture capitalists). In the US, there are relitivly few who are "old money". Most of the super wealthy are entrepreneurs, so they actually did create a tangible thing at some point.

I would say that they are far more productive. Think about how many jobs they create with their money (both directly, through employment, and indirectly, through spending and investment). Being a fire-fighter is a much more "noble" profession, but they only benefit a very small number of people. Whereas, a rich businessman can create a product or service that benefits a large number of people, can create jobs, and can fund the guy's firehouse. This does not diminish these few people who choose to perform these dangerous jobs. They do benefit society greatly; however, I would argue that it is somewhat less. Although, it is conjecture due to the fact that this really cannot be measured. Social work is a profession designed around a complex system of government bureaucracy, and I really don't see much of a need for it.

[Citizen Smith]

Social workers?
What do they do apart from the obvious( we all read the papers dont we)!!!

Yep and the papers are always right!
I'm not surprised you don't like social workers, they try to help unfortunate people.

[pauli007001]

Yep and the papers are always right!
I'm not surprised you don't like social workers, they try to help unfortunate people.

Define an "Unfortunate person"?

When i was a Kid i had socialworkers stick their noses into my life on more than one occasion.I was still beaten into the local A+E department on a weekly basis, was i not unfortunate enough?

I do recall spending a month or two at rivendell childrens home in Dewsbury when the old bird was getting a chunk of her head cut out.I saw what a few of the socialworkers got up to on the night shifts.It didnt look like they were helping the kids, more like helping themselves to the kids!
Were the kids more or less unfortunate after the social workers had raped them, or was it exactly the help they needed?

[uncon]

Define an "Unfortunate person"?

When i was a Kid i had socialworkers stick their noses into my life on more than one occasion.I was still beaten into the local A+E department on a weekly basis, was i not unfortunate enough?

I do recall spending a month or two at rivendell childrens home in Dewsbury when the old bird was getting a chunk of her head cut out.I saw what a few of the socialworkers got up to on the night shifts.It didnt look like they were helping the kids, more like helping themselves to the kids!
Were the kids more or less unfortunate after the social workers had raped them, or was it exactly the help they needed?

Why should he define one when you can do it for him?

For Heavens sake Paulli at least attempt to ask him a question that you are not prepared to answer on his behalf with your bias.
Your life experience is the most wonderful trip...have you considered a novel or approached Steven Speilburg? There is nothing that has happened to anyone that you have not had happen in your life.

You have my undying admiration at your ability to continue in this life.

p.s: Is it true about the nose thing? I never met pinocchio

[pauli007001]

Why should he define one when you can do it for him?

For Heavens sake Paulli at least attempt to ask him a question that you are not prepared to answer on his behalf with your bias.
Your life experience is the most wonderful trip...have you considered a novel or approached Steven Speilburg? There is nothing that has happened to anyone that you have not had happen in your life.

You have my undying admiration at your ability to continue in this life.

p.s: Is it true about the nose thing? I never met pinocchio

Still obsessed with me i see!!!
If you dont like it, keep your ****ing nose out, hows that sound you waste of ****ing oxygen!!

[pauli007001]

I could write about all the positive things I've seen social services do despite being under resource; however arguments based on personal experience are not a good way to go with Pauli, so I'll opt out now.

Besides Tourmaline and I were having a rather intelligent discussion that I really should get back to although it seems to now have migrated to another thread!

For some reason I can't seem to turn the bold off???

I am sure social workers do great work, they are however another trapping of government controll and are prone to failiour as are all other Government run entities!!

[uncon]

Just a little note Paulli...when people get THAT bored with you, then it's best to leave...night night

[pauli007001]

Just a little note Paulli...when people get THAT bored with you, then it's best to leave...night night

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice.