You seem to be advocating for a mixed system wherein capitalism operates along with targetted socialistic approaches (i.e. many European states, some American regions, etc). Am I misunderstanding you?
You are misunderstanding me. But I do live in a mixed system. I was just wondering what you thought about those.
I'm not sure about Collin, but this is my thinking.........
I personally believe that a mixed system is best in that some things are too precious to trust entirely to market forces, while others too basic to trust to the individuals sense of collective enterprise. In other words, one can be over-motivated by self-interest to the detriment of others, just as surely as one can be under-motivated. Plus there needs to be some basic sense of justice built into the system.
And I'll go on record repeating what I told farfromglorified in a pm yesterday:
"I personally prefer mixed type systems. Along with what I've said (edit: on socialism), I also believe in people aspiring, via natural life laws and what they learn interacting with them, to progress, grow, create, etc, in ways that are reflected in capitalist systems".
I will add, that I'm not comfortable with any groups of people holding the power to decide what should be done, such as unions, and other worker's groups, governmnents etc. that supposedly represent the masses. I've found a lot of unenlightenment in such places, and I personally like a sense of freedom to work outside man's law, with natural law. Although I can't fathom the majority who thrives under authority (as per MBTI personality typing) doing without such systems at this time.
I tend to personally prefer the idea of the work of governments, represented with educated and informed experts in fields (psychologists, sociologists, etc. ) working alongside the elected choices of "common" individuals (heads of committees, etc) now, alongside natural law, given the whole of what we face at this time.
Humans mutate and distort the ideals in all systems, as they do in communism, socialism, capitalism, religios, family or educational systems, or anything else that they touch.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What alternative? Abolish slave conditions, that's it. That means a little less profits, a little more costs.
Abolishing slave conditions doesn't mean "less profits" or "less slaves". Corporations using slave labor are making bigger profts using more slaves than ever.
Use the same standard you used.
My standard is logical consistency. And you're arguing against capitalism using the effects of mixed economies. So, no, you're not using my standard.
You're absolutely right. I would live without a computer. What's your point exactly?
That you don't need one. "Need" also implies a standard.
That's true. It's just said you have to go to so much trouble to avoid it, because it's ubiquitous.
It's not very ubiquitous at all. Turn off your televsion and the effect of advertising on your brain drops to almost zero.
So as long as consumers don't complain or don't compete, capitalism does not punish waste?
The powers of complaint and competition certainly can punish waste, assuming the people you're complaining to or selling to have the same standards of "waste".
But, alright... why do I sound like Coca Cola?
Because you say "fuck it" to "seeking out systems that you feel work better for you".
Abolishing slave conditions doesn't mean "less profits" or "less slaves". Corporations using slave labor are making bigger profts using more slaves than ever.
Huh?
My standard is logical consistency. And you're arguing against capitalism using the effects of mixed economies. So, no, you're not using my standard.
I said:
"I also don't see how a purely capitalist system is better than a mixed economy."
You're reading a lot into my posts that isn't there. Also, when I said; use your own standards, I was referring to this:
But if I'm looking for an economic system that 1) punishes waste and inefficiency 2) holds consumers and producers accountable to their choices and 3) creates checks on consumption via prices, then capitalism is certainly far better than any other system available to us.
That you don't need one. "Need" also implies a standard.
Good point. A human being can survive without a computer. Not exactly relevant, but good point.
It's not very ubiquitous at all. Turn off your televsion and the effect of advertising on your brain drops to almost zero.
Really? You stay inside a lot don't you?
The powers of complaint and competition certainly can punish waste, assuming the people you're complaining to or selling to have the same standards of "waste".
Ah, I see. I'm becoming less and less convinced that capitalism is a good idea. I punishes waste, but waste is entirely subjective. So it might as well reward waste.
Because you say "fuck it" to "seeking out systems that you feel work better for you".
Doesn't sound like Coca Cola at all. I think they're definitely seeking out systems that work better for them.
"Capitalism" implies a certain system of values. "Mixed economy" impies nothing except for some combination of private and public ownership.
For instance, if I decided that all black people were owned by white people, and that white people were owned by no one, that too would be a "mixed economy".
Could you please define your use of the word "implies" as you are using it in terms of mixed economies?
When someone says "I like mixed economies", it tells you nothing aside from the fact that they like a mixture of public and private enterprise. It doesn't tell you anything about the standards they use to judge these things. America has a "mixed economy", as does Canada, as does Norway, as does Venezuela, yet most adherents to "mixed economies" will have serious problems with at least one of the above.
When someone says "I like mixed economies", it tells you nothing aside from the fact that they like a mixture of public and private enterprise. It doesn't tell you anything about the standards they use to judge these things. America has a "mixed economy", as does Canada, as does Norway, as does Venezuela, yet most adherents to "mixed economies" will have serious problems with at least one of the above.
All humans subscribe to various bits and pieces from various sytems. And from what I've seen, all systems have good points and serious problems,too.
I understand that if I say "I like mixed economies" it doesn't tell you what my underlying beliefs and views are and how I tie them together. At the same time, lack of understanding of another's view doesn't in any way show that view to be flawed, or how it may be flawed.
Myself, I generally rely on a current context and situation in order to define what my inner vision tells me is accurate based on what works given my purposes. So it depends on the dynamics at play in individual contexts. And I will approach discussions such as this theoretically, and yet, I don't confuse a theoretical context for what may be required in reality given situations that arise. I like to look at each situation realistically in the present moment in order to accurately and realistically assess it rather than assess it based on a thought process I acquired due to past circumstances.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
All humans subscribe to various bits and pieces from various sytems. And from what I've seen, all systems have good points and serious problems,too.
I understand that if I say "I like mixed economies" it doesn't tell you what my underlying beliefs and views are and how I tie them together. At the same time, lack of understanding of another's view doesn't in any way show that view to be flawed, or how it may be flawed.
Absolutely! I agree with all of the above.
However, it really plays into this statment:
Myself, I generally rely on a current context and situation in order to define what my inner vision tells me is accurate based on what works given my purposes. So it depends on the dynamics at play in individual contexts. And I will approach discussions such as this theoretically, and yet, I don't confuse a theoretical context for what may be required in reality given situations that arise. I like to look at each situation realistically in the present moment in order to accurately and realistically assess it rather than assess it based on a thought process I acquired due to past circumstances.
In response to this, I simply redirect you to my previous statement:
In response to this, I simply redirect you to my previous statement:
"I dislike systems without principle."
It sounds like you are saying you dislike systems without consistent, across the board principle. Or without principle you can see or comprehend the validity to.
With my own principles - in this context, which for me means given the whole situation, including the vast diversity within humans, their needs, their beliefs and principles - I like systems that can address all the variables contained within the wholeness of the system. Which means I don't like exclusive systems. My principles are outside the economic system, which then defines my beliefs, my logic and the rationale I use regarding said system. I recognize that natural law enables and supports all the variables that exist by allowing them to come into play within each moment. Therefore, logic tells me I need to address these variable, given the context, as they arise.
I also understand that those principles and belief systems which are maladaptive that are enabled by life come with consequences that are painful and feel conflicting to the individual they play out for, in varying degrees. Given nature exacts it's own checks and balances, my principles dictate that if life has brought certain dynamics into being, then so be it! I will not exclude any dynamics willfully, or I personally see that to do so would put ME at odds with or out of synch with life. Here, I refer to the aforementioned self/ego imbalance I referred to which indicates a lack of attunement with reality or life as it is.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It sounds like you are saying you dislike systems without consistent, across the board principle. Or without principle you can see or comprehend the validity to.
I dislike systems without consistent, across the board principles, yes. And while there certainly are failures in my comprehension at times, there are also systems and individuals devoid of principle or those with a multitude of corrupt and contradictory principles.
With my own principles - in this context, which for me means given the whole situation, including the vast diversity within humans, their needs, their beliefs and principles - I like systems that can address all the variables contained within the wholeness of the system. Which means I don't like exclusive systems.
Awesome!
My principles are outside the economic system, which then defines my beliefs, my logic and the rationale I use regarding said system. I recognize that natural law enables and supports all the variables that exist by allowing them to come into play within each moment. Therefore, logic tells me I need to address these variable, given the context, as they arise.
Absolutely.
I also understand that those principles and belief systems which are maladaptive that are enabled by life come with consequences that are painful and feel conflicting to the individual they play out for, in varying degrees. Given nature exacts it's own checks and balances, my principles dictate that if life has brought certain dynamics into being, then so be it! I will not exclude any dynamics willfully, or I personally see that to do so would put ME at odds with or out of synch with life. Here, I refer to the aforementioned self/ego imbalance I referred to which indicates a lack of attunement with reality or life as it is.
I'm totally cool with all you've said here. You certainly won't find any disagreement here.
I dislike systems without consistent, across the board principles, yes. And while there certainly are failures in my comprehension at times, there are also systems and individuals devoid of principle or those with a multitude of corrupt and contradictory principles.
Awesome!
Absolutely.
I'm totally cool with all you've said here. You certainly won't find any disagreement here.
That's cool that you are cool with what I've said.
For me, personally, what I thought were my principles have distinctly changed over time as I've uncovered who I really am. As I've let go of erroneous surface ego-based beliefs that I "inherited" that I once considered "principles", and as I've uncovered and developed my true purpose, potential and motivations, my own concept of principles has altered. Given the way I see this, I agree that it certainly seems that the principles and beliefs of people often seem contradictory or at odds with others that they possess. I've found that resolving such conflicts in myself has led me to finding my true principles. I believe many have been indoctrinated by human systems into beliefs that have kept them out of synch with their deeper principles that remain there, on deeper levels, even when people are unconscious of them. Individuals will unconsciously act in ways that are consistent with their true motivations, and yet they will often speak to a very different view. Within an argument, debate or logical process, they may come off as blatantly skewed, yet in the bigger picture of the individual, such opposing purposes in one system makes perfect sense.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When someone says "I like mixed economies", it tells you nothing aside from the fact that they like a mixture of public and private enterprise. It doesn't tell you anything about the standards they use to judge these things. America has a "mixed economy", as does Canada, as does Norway, as does Venezuela, yet most adherents to "mixed economies" will have serious problems with at least one of the above.
OK. Then what's your opinion on the mixed economy of Canada, Norway or Sweden, for example?
OK. Then what's your opinion on the mixed economy of Canada, Norway or Sweden, for example?
I think those three economies are fine examples of resource-rich nations correctly utilizing their resources for shared benefits to their small populations. Each is a fine example of a mixed system that wisely diversified their economies beyond state-controlled commodities and both Sweden and Norway wisely protected themselves from tying their economy too tightly to the Eurozone. The two Scandanavian nations and too a lesser extent Canada have suffered from overly extensive welfare systems but both have taken steps to limit the negative effects of these systems while keeping the positive effects, particularly in the case of Sweden. Both states have been aggressive in response to the budget crises created by those welfare systems and have largely kept their state from falling too deeply into budget deficits and currency inflation.
In other words, I think each of these states has a fine economy today. Norway in particular is likely headed for trouble as its oil exports begin to wane, but its government has shown that it is capable of transitioning the economy away from pretroleum and controlling expenditures accordingly.
I think those three economies are fine examples of resource-rich nations correctly utilizing their resources for shared benefits to their small populations. Each is a fine example of a mixed system that wisely diversified their economies beyond state-controlled commodities and both Sweden and Norway wisely protected themselves from tying their economy too tightly to the Eurozone. The two Scandanavian nations and too a lesser extent Canada have suffered from overly extensive welfare systems but both have taken steps to limit the negative effects of these systems while keeping the positive effects, particularly in the case of Sweden. Both states have been aggressive in response to the budget crises created by those welfare systems and have largely kept their state from falling too deeply into budget deficits and currency inflation.
In other words, I think each of these states has a fine economy today. Norway in particular is likely headed for trouble as its oil exports begin to wane, but its government has shown that it is capable of transitioning the economy away from pretroleum and controlling expenditures accordingly.
Thanks.
Do you think the mixed economy systems of those countries 1) punish waste and inefficiency 2) hold consumers and producers accountable to their choices and 3) create checks on consumption via prices?
Do you think the mixed economy systems of those countries 1) punish waste and inefficiency 2) hold consumers and producers accountable to their choices and 3) create checks on consumption via prices?
To some extent yes, to a greater extent no.
All three nations obviously contribute greatly to waste and inefficiency in many sectors of their economies, they systematically allow some consumers and producers to push the effects of their choices onto their neighbors, and allow excessive consumption relative to prices. At the same time, however, they do these things to a lesser extent than many of their European, American, or world counterparts.
if a country claims to be democratic why wouldn't they democratize the economy? And people spend a very large portion of their lives in the workplace why shouldn't that be democratized as well? Same goes for the military, why isn't that in the hands of the people?
Socialism has much to offer, while capitalism seems to breed only selfishness and war.
if a country claims to be democratic why wouldn't they democratize the economy?
Because democracy isn't an economic system.
And people spend a very large portion of their lives in the workplace why shouldn't that be democratized as well?
This happens all the time. It's called unionizing, it's called public ownership, it's called employee-operated.
Same goes for the military, why isn't that in the hands of the people?
It is in the hands of the people. That's the fucking problem.
Socialism has much to offer, while capitalism seems to breed only selfishness and war.
What? When's the last time you saw a corporation going to war? The primary axiom of capitalism is the respect of the individual's right to live, work, and own the products of their labor. If you see someone fighting a war, you're not looking at a capitalist.
What? When's the last time you saw a corporation going to war? The primary axiom of capitalism is the respect of the individual's right to live, work, and own the products of their labor. If you see someone fighting a war, you're not looking at a capitalist.
Ever done any research on south or central America? Currently the coca-cola company is hiring paramilitaries to assassinate union leaders. The numbers are rediculous, hundreds killed, if any hint of unionizing appears. Same is true for Dole, GE, Catepillar. These companies have direct links to terrorism.
And actually the primary axiom of capitalism is profit, and since when is profit the best thing for humanity?
Ever done any research on south or central America? Currently the coca-cola company is hiring paramilitaries to assassinate union leaders.
Hehe..."currently"??? That story is almost 10 years old, and it based on rumors. Nothing was ever proven in any court. The much more likely case is that these leaders were, like most union organizers in that part of the world, assassinated by Marxist paramilitary groups like the FARC and right-wing groups like that AUC.
However, let's assume this is true and Coca-cola institutionally killed these people. Are you actually going to argue that this compares to the wars fought by states?
The numbers are rediculous, hundreds killed, if any hint of unionizing appears. Same is true for Dole, GE, Catepillar. These companies have direct links to terrorism.
Good lord. A company that makes bulldozers used by the IDF is no more of a terrorist than the company that makes fancy berets for the socialists. And when Dole and GE actually start sending in Apache helicopters and carpet bombs to drop on union organizers, then we actually talk about a substantive comparison.
Certainly there are many companies that commit immoral and unethical acts. Furthermore, there absolutely are corporations that have used the state to incite violence and even push the state to war. But to suggest that capitalism is all about war and socialsm is not is to turn such a blind eye to history that I'm surprised you can remember your own name.
Granted the bottom line is profit, but since when is profit the best thing for humanity?
Considering that you do little more than advocate for people to receive value in exchange for nothing, creating for them a net profit, why don't you tell me?
And actually the primary axiom of capitalism is profit, and since when is profit the best thing for humanity?
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard of. Even the most foolish capitalist understands that there is no profit without individual effort and ownership. "Profit" isn't even an axiom -- it is simply an economic measure.
Hehe..."currently"??? That story is almost 10 years old, and it based on rumors. Nothing was ever proven in any court. The much more likely case is that these leaders were, like most union organizers in that part of the world, assassinated by Marxist paramilitary groups like the FARC and right-wing groups like that AUC.
However, let's assume this is true and Coca-cola institutionally killed these people. Are you actually going to argue that this compares to the wars fought by states?
Good lord. A company that makes bulldozers used by the IDF is no more of a terrorist than the company that makes fancy berets for the socialists. And when Dole and GE actually start sending in Apache helicopters and carpet bombs to drop on union organizers, then we actually talk about a substantive comparison.
Certainly there are many companies that commit immoral and unethical acts. Furthermore, there absolutely are corporations that have used the state to incite violence and even push the state to war. But to suggest that capitalism is all about war and socialsm is not is to turn such a blind eye to history that I'm surprised you can remember your own name.
Considering that you do little more than advocate for people to receive value in exchange for nothing, creating for them a net profit, why don't you tell me?
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard of. Even the most foolish capitalist understands that there is no profit without individual effort and ownership. "Profit" isn't even an axiom -- it is simply an economic measure.
When hundreds of laborers for coca-cola, pushing for organization- turn up dead, you have to be blind not to see the connection.
Why are we in Iraq? think capitalism has anything to do with it? Think anyone is making money from this? How high up the chain of command are these capitalists? How's Haliburton doing? How's the Carlyle group doing?>
If profit doesn't drive policy then what the hell are we fighting for in Iraq?
The primary axiom of capitalism is the respect of the individual's right to live, work, and own the products of their labor. If you see someone fighting a war, you're not looking at a capitalist.
Is it possible (or have you considered the idea) that too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability in a society?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Is it possible (or have you considered the idea) that too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability in a society?
Not only is it possible, it would for all practical purposes guarantee that fact.
When hundreds of laborers for coca-cola, pushing for organization- turn up dead, you have to be blind not to see the connection.
You would have to be blind to think that Coca-cola would be the only possible suspect in such killings.
Why are we in Iraq?
Because our government decided that it would be in the "common good" to remove Saddam Hussein and generally fuck up that country. Like most people who invoke "common good" arguments, they were very foolish.
think capitalism has anything to do with it?
Not really. You have to abandon nearly every principle of capitalism to send hundreds of thousands of publicly financed individuals carrying taxpayer-purchased guns off to a foreign nation based on the fears of a few racist fools.
Think anyone is making money from this?
So let me understand this. Anytime anyone makes any money from anything, they must be a capitalist?
How high up the chain of command are these capitalists? How's Haliburton doing? How's the Carlyle group doing?
So Halliburton can start a war but they can't even keep their government contracts?
If profit doesn't drive policy then what the hell are we fighting for in Iraq?
Not only is it possible, it would for all practical purposes guarantee that fact.
The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest. So you disagree with this doctrine?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest. So you disagree with this doctrine?
The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism believes that "common good" is a term that is almost always meaningless.
If you wish to ask me if I feel that a certain good is best served by the "uninhibited pursuit of self-interest", just name that good.
Comments
You are misunderstanding me. But I do live in a mixed system. I was just wondering what you thought about those.
naděje umírá poslední
Ok, fairly omnious.
What alternative? Abolish slave conditions, that's it. That means a little less profits, a little more costs.
Use the same standard you used.
You're absolutely right. I would live without a computer. What's your point exactly?
That's true. It's just said you have to go to so much trouble to avoid it, because it's ubiquitous.
And there I thought I sounded like you.
But, alright... why do I sound like Coca Cola?
naděje umírá poslední
"I personally prefer mixed type systems. Along with what I've said (edit: on socialism), I also believe in people aspiring, via natural life laws and what they learn interacting with them, to progress, grow, create, etc, in ways that are reflected in capitalist systems".
I will add, that I'm not comfortable with any groups of people holding the power to decide what should be done, such as unions, and other worker's groups, governmnents etc. that supposedly represent the masses. I've found a lot of unenlightenment in such places, and I personally like a sense of freedom to work outside man's law, with natural law. Although I can't fathom the majority who thrives under authority (as per MBTI personality typing) doing without such systems at this time.
I tend to personally prefer the idea of the work of governments, represented with educated and informed experts in fields (psychologists, sociologists, etc. ) working alongside the elected choices of "common" individuals (heads of committees, etc) now, alongside natural law, given the whole of what we face at this time.
Humans mutate and distort the ideals in all systems, as they do in communism, socialism, capitalism, religios, family or educational systems, or anything else that they touch.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I dislike systems without principle.
Abolishing slave conditions doesn't mean "less profits" or "less slaves". Corporations using slave labor are making bigger profts using more slaves than ever.
My standard is logical consistency. And you're arguing against capitalism using the effects of mixed economies. So, no, you're not using my standard.
That you don't need one. "Need" also implies a standard.
It's not very ubiquitous at all. Turn off your televsion and the effect of advertising on your brain drops to almost zero.
The powers of complaint and competition certainly can punish waste, assuming the people you're complaining to or selling to have the same standards of "waste".
Because you say "fuck it" to "seeking out systems that you feel work better for you".
Huh?
I said:
"I also don't see how a purely capitalist system is better than a mixed economy."
You're reading a lot into my posts that isn't there. Also, when I said; use your own standards, I was referring to this:
Good point. A human being can survive without a computer. Not exactly relevant, but good point.
Really? You stay inside a lot don't you?
Ah, I see. I'm becoming less and less convinced that capitalism is a good idea. I punishes waste, but waste is entirely subjective. So it might as well reward waste.
Doesn't sound like Coca Cola at all. I think they're definitely seeking out systems that work better for them.
naděje umírá poslední
Please elaborate.
naděje umírá poslední
"Capitalism" implies a certain system of values. "Mixed economy" impies nothing except for some combination of private and public ownership.
For instance, if I decided that all black people were owned by white people, and that white people were owned by no one, that too would be a "mixed economy".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
When someone says "I like mixed economies", it tells you nothing aside from the fact that they like a mixture of public and private enterprise. It doesn't tell you anything about the standards they use to judge these things. America has a "mixed economy", as does Canada, as does Norway, as does Venezuela, yet most adherents to "mixed economies" will have serious problems with at least one of the above.
I understand that if I say "I like mixed economies" it doesn't tell you what my underlying beliefs and views are and how I tie them together. At the same time, lack of understanding of another's view doesn't in any way show that view to be flawed, or how it may be flawed.
Myself, I generally rely on a current context and situation in order to define what my inner vision tells me is accurate based on what works given my purposes. So it depends on the dynamics at play in individual contexts. And I will approach discussions such as this theoretically, and yet, I don't confuse a theoretical context for what may be required in reality given situations that arise. I like to look at each situation realistically in the present moment in order to accurately and realistically assess it rather than assess it based on a thought process I acquired due to past circumstances.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Absolutely! I agree with all of the above.
However, it really plays into this statment:
In response to this, I simply redirect you to my previous statement:
"I dislike systems without principle."
With my own principles - in this context, which for me means given the whole situation, including the vast diversity within humans, their needs, their beliefs and principles - I like systems that can address all the variables contained within the wholeness of the system. Which means I don't like exclusive systems. My principles are outside the economic system, which then defines my beliefs, my logic and the rationale I use regarding said system. I recognize that natural law enables and supports all the variables that exist by allowing them to come into play within each moment. Therefore, logic tells me I need to address these variable, given the context, as they arise.
I also understand that those principles and belief systems which are maladaptive that are enabled by life come with consequences that are painful and feel conflicting to the individual they play out for, in varying degrees. Given nature exacts it's own checks and balances, my principles dictate that if life has brought certain dynamics into being, then so be it! I will not exclude any dynamics willfully, or I personally see that to do so would put ME at odds with or out of synch with life. Here, I refer to the aforementioned self/ego imbalance I referred to which indicates a lack of attunement with reality or life as it is.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I dislike systems without consistent, across the board principles, yes. And while there certainly are failures in my comprehension at times, there are also systems and individuals devoid of principle or those with a multitude of corrupt and contradictory principles.
Awesome!
Absolutely.
I'm totally cool with all you've said here. You certainly won't find any disagreement here.
For me, personally, what I thought were my principles have distinctly changed over time as I've uncovered who I really am. As I've let go of erroneous surface ego-based beliefs that I "inherited" that I once considered "principles", and as I've uncovered and developed my true purpose, potential and motivations, my own concept of principles has altered. Given the way I see this, I agree that it certainly seems that the principles and beliefs of people often seem contradictory or at odds with others that they possess. I've found that resolving such conflicts in myself has led me to finding my true principles. I believe many have been indoctrinated by human systems into beliefs that have kept them out of synch with their deeper principles that remain there, on deeper levels, even when people are unconscious of them. Individuals will unconsciously act in ways that are consistent with their true motivations, and yet they will often speak to a very different view. Within an argument, debate or logical process, they may come off as blatantly skewed, yet in the bigger picture of the individual, such opposing purposes in one system makes perfect sense.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
OK. Then what's your opinion on the mixed economy of Canada, Norway or Sweden, for example?
naděje umírá poslední
I think those three economies are fine examples of resource-rich nations correctly utilizing their resources for shared benefits to their small populations. Each is a fine example of a mixed system that wisely diversified their economies beyond state-controlled commodities and both Sweden and Norway wisely protected themselves from tying their economy too tightly to the Eurozone. The two Scandanavian nations and too a lesser extent Canada have suffered from overly extensive welfare systems but both have taken steps to limit the negative effects of these systems while keeping the positive effects, particularly in the case of Sweden. Both states have been aggressive in response to the budget crises created by those welfare systems and have largely kept their state from falling too deeply into budget deficits and currency inflation.
In other words, I think each of these states has a fine economy today. Norway in particular is likely headed for trouble as its oil exports begin to wane, but its government has shown that it is capable of transitioning the economy away from pretroleum and controlling expenditures accordingly.
Thanks.
Do you think the mixed economy systems of those countries 1) punish waste and inefficiency 2) hold consumers and producers accountable to their choices and 3) create checks on consumption via prices?
naděje umírá poslední
To some extent yes, to a greater extent no.
All three nations obviously contribute greatly to waste and inefficiency in many sectors of their economies, they systematically allow some consumers and producers to push the effects of their choices onto their neighbors, and allow excessive consumption relative to prices. At the same time, however, they do these things to a lesser extent than many of their European, American, or world counterparts.
Socialism has much to offer, while capitalism seems to breed only selfishness and war.
Because democracy isn't an economic system.
This happens all the time. It's called unionizing, it's called public ownership, it's called employee-operated.
It is in the hands of the people. That's the fucking problem.
What? When's the last time you saw a corporation going to war? The primary axiom of capitalism is the respect of the individual's right to live, work, and own the products of their labor. If you see someone fighting a war, you're not looking at a capitalist.
Ever done any research on south or central America? Currently the coca-cola company is hiring paramilitaries to assassinate union leaders. The numbers are rediculous, hundreds killed, if any hint of unionizing appears. Same is true for Dole, GE, Catepillar. These companies have direct links to terrorism.
And actually the primary axiom of capitalism is profit, and since when is profit the best thing for humanity?
Hehe..."currently"??? That story is almost 10 years old, and it based on rumors. Nothing was ever proven in any court. The much more likely case is that these leaders were, like most union organizers in that part of the world, assassinated by Marxist paramilitary groups like the FARC and right-wing groups like that AUC.
However, let's assume this is true and Coca-cola institutionally killed these people. Are you actually going to argue that this compares to the wars fought by states?
Good lord. A company that makes bulldozers used by the IDF is no more of a terrorist than the company that makes fancy berets for the socialists. And when Dole and GE actually start sending in Apache helicopters and carpet bombs to drop on union organizers, then we actually talk about a substantive comparison.
Certainly there are many companies that commit immoral and unethical acts. Furthermore, there absolutely are corporations that have used the state to incite violence and even push the state to war. But to suggest that capitalism is all about war and socialsm is not is to turn such a blind eye to history that I'm surprised you can remember your own name.
Considering that you do little more than advocate for people to receive value in exchange for nothing, creating for them a net profit, why don't you tell me?
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard of. Even the most foolish capitalist understands that there is no profit without individual effort and ownership. "Profit" isn't even an axiom -- it is simply an economic measure.
Why are we in Iraq? think capitalism has anything to do with it? Think anyone is making money from this? How high up the chain of command are these capitalists? How's Haliburton doing? How's the Carlyle group doing?>
If profit doesn't drive policy then what the hell are we fighting for in Iraq?
Is it possible (or have you considered the idea) that too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability in a society?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Not only is it possible, it would for all practical purposes guarantee that fact.
You would have to be blind to think that Coca-cola would be the only possible suspect in such killings.
Because our government decided that it would be in the "common good" to remove Saddam Hussein and generally fuck up that country. Like most people who invoke "common good" arguments, they were very foolish.
Not really. You have to abandon nearly every principle of capitalism to send hundreds of thousands of publicly financed individuals carrying taxpayer-purchased guns off to a foreign nation based on the fears of a few racist fools.
So let me understand this. Anytime anyone makes any money from anything, they must be a capitalist?
So Halliburton can start a war but they can't even keep their government contracts?
The public good, of course.
The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest. So you disagree with this doctrine?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism believes that "common good" is a term that is almost always meaningless.
If you wish to ask me if I feel that a certain good is best served by the "uninhibited pursuit of self-interest", just name that good.
No, objectivism believes that 'common good' is a term that is almost always meaningless. So you disagree with the laissez-faire doctrine?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein