|
Post by teri on Mar 8, 2014 17:55:27 GMT -5
heroes?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 8, 2014 23:53:16 GMT -5
Steve Jobs for one. He transformed the way we all live and created over 30,000 new jobs. He "made money." In other words, he created things of value as opposed to the Crony Capitalists who just shuffle papers back and forth. You know how a Crony accumulates money? They issue junk bonds. Then they use that money to buy back company stock. The stock price goes up. They sell out at a big profit and stick the poor investors with a loss. When the bonds are due, they issue some more bonds to pay off the old ones.
What is being created? Nothing. Steve Jobs was a creator.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by teri on Mar 9, 2014 15:29:06 GMT -5
you on a junk bonds jag, eh?
Steve Jobs, OK. Rich guy. (I won't get into sweatshops, child Labor and human rights violations at China's Apple facilities....)
Do you think you could consider a poor person as a hero?
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Mar 9, 2014 16:00:27 GMT -5
Do you think you could consider a poor person as a hero? Dear Terri: I am curious. By that same token, do you think you could consider a rich person as a hero? Being poor does not equate with being virtuous, any more than being rich equates with being a scoundrel. In my experience, there are good and bad people at all economic levels. I think people get into real trouble when they begin assigning "personality characteristics" based on the contents of people's wallets. --Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 20:08:59 GMT -5
Deb, I honestly don't think that Teri was asking the question as a general attitude about everyone. It really was specific to Bob because of the views he expressses on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by teri on Mar 9, 2014 20:47:36 GMT -5
many rich people i see as successful....mainly due to their talents and accomplishments. my are not in the most part in the business world, like bob. i tend more to admire people in the arts....artists like warhol,banksy.... musicians. and, i agree with deb that there are people to be admired across the economic spectrum.
perhaps my approach is wrong in asking for whom bob admires....better question....why do you think people are poor?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 9, 2014 21:00:25 GMT -5
How about the guy who INVENTED the web, Bob? And made it available to everyone FREE?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 9, 2014 22:25:37 GMT -5
How about the guy who INVENTED the web, Bob? And made it available to everyone FREE? Yes. He's a hero too. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 9, 2014 22:38:05 GMT -5
many rich people i see as successful....mainly due to their talents and accomplishments. my are not in the most part in the business world, like bob. i tend more to admire people in the arts....artists like warhol,banksy.... musicians. and, i agree with deb that there are people to be admired across the economic spectrum. perhaps my approach is wrong in asking for whom bob admires....better question....why do you think people are poor? A better question is how is poverty to be reduced? In the last 200 years, the Capitalist system has reduced poverty from the vast majority to a minority. China did this by freeing a good part of its economy from government control and letting in foreign investment capital. The same is true in India. That's hundreds of millions of people raised out of poverty in three decades. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 13:48:44 GMT -5
A better question is how is poverty to be reduced? In the last 200 years, the Capitalist system has reduced poverty from the vast majority to a minority. It still boggles my mind that you keep trotting out China as the poster child for successful capitalism. I bet that when the Chinese bubble inevitably bursts, you will it's all the fault of the Chinese government, not the capitalists who drove that bubble.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 13:50:07 GMT -5
Social welfare has raised millions of people out of poverty all over the world. Why aren't you mentioning that, Bob?
Or can't you acknowledge that something that you consider utterly evil could conceivably benefit people?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 10, 2014 14:05:40 GMT -5
Social welfare has raised millions of people out of poverty all over the world. Why aren't you mentioning that, Bob? Or can't you acknowledge that something that you consider utterly evil could conceivably benefit people? Robbing Peter to pay Paul is the wrong way to raise Paul out of poverty. Between them, India and China raised over 400 million people out of poverty in three decades. Do you have any evidence that social welfare has even come close to matching this? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 20:11:31 GMT -5
I'm curious Bob, if people get pushed back into poverty in a capitalist system, would you consider that the fault of capitalism as well?
Is it possible for the free market to not always work, or is the Invisible Hand infallible and omnibenevolent?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 20:27:41 GMT -5
BTW, Bob, it's interesting to see you so fanatically defending crony capitalism against concepts like rule of law and democracy.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 11, 2014 21:49:03 GMT -5
I'm curious Bob, if people get pushed back into poverty in a capitalist system, would you consider that the fault of capitalism as well? Of course. I never said that people don't get pushed back into poverty in a capitalist system. What I am saying is that, in the long term, that is less likely to happen than in other systems. I used to be a chemist, remember? I am quite familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No material system is ever 100% efficient. What I am saying is that the free market is better than any other economic system ever devised. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 9:40:41 GMT -5
I'm curious Bob, if people get pushed back into poverty in a capitalist system, would you consider that the fault of capitalism as well? Of course. I never said that people don't get pushed back into poverty in a capitalist system. What I am saying is that, in the long term, that is less likely to happen than in other systems. What do you mean "less likely to happen"? Aren't you saying all the time that welfare and unemployment subsidies are evil and should be cut? You're argueing that people should be pushed into poverty harder and more often, because preventing it is evil! And yet, whenever something bad happens to the economy you reflexively home in on "it's the government's fault" regardless of what happened. Heck you aren't even distinguishing between different governments there, as if governments all over the world and all through history have always been the exact same monolithic entity that just hovers over people and arbitrarily forces them to do terrible things that no sane human being would approve of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 9:53:03 GMT -5
Speaking of heroes... Fun fact: Steve Jobs skipped two grades ahead because of his exceptional intelligence, but never finished college because his parents couldn't afford tuition for more than a semester.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 12, 2014 11:56:01 GMT -5
Speaking of heroes... Fun fact: Steve Jobs skipped two grades ahead because of his exceptional intelligence, but never finished college because his parents couldn't afford tuition for more than a semester. Didn't seem to hamper his success though, did it? BTW, Bill Gates, whose parents were easily able to finance his tuition, dropped out of Harvard in his senior year (!) because he couldn't wait to start Microsoft. Ed Land, founder of Polaroid, did the same thing. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 12, 2014 12:25:39 GMT -5
Of course. I never said that people don't get pushed back into poverty in a capitalist system. What I am saying is that, in the long term, that is less likely to happen than in other systems. What do you mean "less likely to happen"? Aren't you saying all the time that welfare and unemployment subsidies are evil and should be cut? I never said they are evil. I said that when the government runs them that they are evil. Wrong. You are assuming that ONLY THE GOVERNMENT can prevent poverty and take care of the poor. Private charities can do the job and they will do it with voluntary contributions instead of forced taxation. With taxes reduced, the economy will get a boost and there will be fewer poor to take care of to begin with. "Reflexively?" But isn't that what you do when you blame the free market and the greedy rich for all problems? BTW, I almost always provide evidence and links to support the fact that it is usually the government's fault. And history usually backs me up on that. The simple fact is that economies cannot be "planned" without causing unintended consequences. That is the same for tyrannies like the old Soviet Union or modern welfare-state democracies. On top of that, there is the issue of Power. A government is and will always be the instrument of the most powerful groups and they will use it relentlessly to increase their own power and wealth. While they are doing this, they will never admit their true motives. Instead, they pretend that they are taking their actions to help the poor and the sick. Example: The "Affordable" Care Act, which actually raises premiums. Not to worry, government subsidies will ay the premiums for the poor. What they do not tell you is that this will cost almost a trillion dollars. Guess where that money goes? Right. To the insurance companies! Take a look: So much for government "compassion." Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 14:14:16 GMT -5
What do you mean "less likely to happen"? Aren't you saying all the time that welfare and unemployment subsidies are evil and should be cut? I never said they are evil. I said that when the government runs them that they are evil. Which is an utterly ridiculous statement to make unless you value the notion of property more than you value people. You keep saying that. Where is your evidence that private charities can provide for more than a small fraction of the people currently on welfare or unemployment subsidies in the Western world? And where are these "voluntary contributions" going to come from? Do you think charity volunteers live on good feelings alone? But it's telling that your surefire solution to the problem of poverty is to suggest that people work for free! This is magical thinking akin to Marxist predictions that once the workers take over, production will simply rise to the level where everyone can be provided for. There is zero evidence that this ever came true in real world history. "Reflexively?" Yes, reflexively. Unconsciously, without deliberation or rational thinking. In your worldview there is no way a problem is not in some way, somehow, entirely the fault of "government". You're becoming a one-trick pony Bob, and it's honestly getting a bit tiresome. You used to be cool, y'know? I'm not blaming the free market and the greedy rich for all problems. Free markets would be great if people were omniscient and entirely rational, but they aren't. We know for fact that people are fallible, often shortsighted, and sometimes irrational to the point where it's detrimental to their own long term interests. This means that by logical necessity, every market based system will see faults, failures and losses. And market based systems are always, always rigged in favor of people with superior assets, superior information, and superior ability to manipulate others to do their bidding. That's not to say that non-market based alternatives are always better than that - all systems that are run by humans have their faults by logical necessity. But they have different faults, and different strengths. And we can use these to mitigate the faults of other systems. The reason why I keep pointing out how bad markets are is because you completely ignore the potential faults of a market based approach while blowing the influence and coherence of public institutions completely out of proportion.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 12, 2014 18:11:31 GMT -5
I never said they are evil. I said that when the government runs them that they are evil. Which is an utterly ridiculous statement to make unless you value the notion of property more than you value people. All you are doing here is name-calling. And there is nothing in what I wrote that can be construed as valuing property over people. Before 1929, the great majority of welfare was provided by private charities. The voluntary contributions will come from volunteers, of course. Here is where contributions are already coming from: Ho hum. Another strawman. But actually, a lot of people here in America do charity volunteer work for free! You're wrong again. This isn't magical thinking, and there is plenty of evidence that this has come true before. More later. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 12, 2014 20:10:56 GMT -5
But I do deliberate and do research as well. Most of my posts are backed up with supporting links. And in your worldview, there is no problem a government cannot solve. Any and all side-effects are blamed on the greedy rich. WHAT! I'm not cool any more? Oh please Mr. McAnswer, don't say that! I'm so devastated. I'll believe anything you want me to. Only PLEASE say I'm cool again! You have just listed the reasons why intervention by government "experts" doesn't work. These "experts" are fallible too. But their mistakes are not subject to quick correction which is what happens in the free market. There have been plenty of cases where government programs failed miserably but the bureaucrats were able to just say "The problem is worse than we thought, so we will need more money." And they got it. Again and again. Sure. That's why Apple Computers was driven out of business by IBM and Microsoft. That's also why a tiny startup company like Amazon had no chance against the huge Barnes and Noble Bookstore chain. And why Mike Dell who started his computer business in his dorm room couldn't succeed against IBM and Hewlett Packard. Or why a startup like Netflix had no chance against Blockbuster Video with its large chain of stores. Oh wait. They all did succeed, didn't they? Yes, all systems run by humans have faults. But some have far more faults than others. There are simply too many factors in an economy for government "experts" to come up with continually optimized solutions. When government gets involved, then routine business decisions become political. And politics is run by the group with the most power at any given moment. That's no way to run a business. All I am saying is that a market based approach, with all of its faults, is a much better solution than government interference. The influence of public institutions has been steadily growing, so I don't think that I am blowing it out of proportion. As for the coherence of public institutions, well I never said that they were coherent at all. Bob
|
|
|
Post by teri on Mar 12, 2014 20:44:40 GMT -5
china's rapid development,it's "economic miracle", has become an environmental disaster. record growth requires the giant consumption of resources, but in china energy use has been especially unclean and inefficient, with dire consequences for the country's air, land, and water.
the damaged land in china cannot even sustain its own population and china is converging on africa and south america to use their land to feed its population.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 12, 2014 21:48:29 GMT -5
china's rapid development,it's "economic miracle", has become an environmental disaster. record growth requires the giant consumption of resources, but in china energy use has been especially unclean and inefficient, with dire consequences for the country's air, land, and water. the damaged land in china cannot even sustain its own population and china is converging on africa and south america to use their land to feed its population. It's an environmental disaster because China didn't rigorously enforce property rights. Polluters violate the property rights of the entire population. That economic miracle could have still taken place with anti-pollution laws in place. Incidentally Teri, do you know the country with the worst pollution record? It's the old socialist Soviet Union. Take a look at these pictures: www.gerdludwig.com/stories/soviet-pollution-a-lethal-legacy/#num=content-308&id=album-37Or you can read about it here: Bob
|
|
|
Post by teri on Mar 13, 2014 14:42:07 GMT -5
"That economic miracle could have still taken place with anti-pollution laws in place".
No, global corporations chose china precisely BECAUSE of their lax environmental laws (and their low wage labor.) now the higher paid labor is revolting and pushing the government to raise standards for labor and improve environmental standards. 2 reasons for multinational corporations to move on....
the 22 year old article you posted on soviet union as worst environmental record has surely been surpassed by china.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 13, 2014 15:38:16 GMT -5
"That economic miracle could have still taken place with anti-pollution laws in place". No, global corporations chose china precisely BECAUSE of their lax environmental laws (and their low wage labor.) now the higher paid labor is revolting and pushing the government to raise standards for labor and improve environmental standards. 2 reasons for multinational corporations to move on.... No Teri. Companies do not relocate because of lax environmental laws. They relocate for cheaper labor. And look what happened. Those Chinese workers were poverty stricken at the start of the reform. Now their pay is rising. This is what always happens when a poor nation starts to industrialize. Could we even imagine workers protesting wages and working conditions under Mao? He would have had them all shot. Democratic values follow the free market. Do you have any evidence for that claim? The Soviet Union's pollution record was the worst in the world at the time. And there were no greedy capitalists to blame. How do you suppose that happened? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 16:34:32 GMT -5
Democratic values follow the free market. How come that India has been a democracy since 1947, then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 16:40:14 GMT -5
Do you have any evidence for that claim? The Soviet Union's pollution record was the worst in the world at the time. And there were no greedy capitalists to blame. How do you suppose that happened? Bob It's pretty bad even by Soviet standards: "China’s impressive economic growth has come at a high cost: according to estimates by the World Bank and China’s Environmental Protection Administration (World Bank 2007), the environmental fallout from China’s growth miracle may cost the economy as much as 5.8 percent of GDP per year. China’s environmental pollution has been making headlines for some time now: the PRC is home to some of the most badly polluted cities in the world; about half of the country’s sweet water reserves are toxic from contaminants, and the air quality in many areas is threatening the health of China’s citizens. In some areas, the situation is so dire that laundry hung out in the open will reportedly turn black before it dries. China’s capital city Beijing is regularly smothered in smog – in early 2013, the air pollution there reached levels 30 times higher than what the World Health Organization considers to be safe."www.politicseastasia.com/studying/chinas-environmental-pollution/They didn't have a great track record under Mao either, but they simply weren't industrialized enough for that to make much of an influence. It's with the industrialization fuelled by Western capital that the problems became obvious on a national scale.
|
|
|
Post by teri on Mar 13, 2014 18:45:00 GMT -5
"Companies do not relocate because of lax environmental laws." Whaaaaat? Ever heard of "pollution havens"? these corporations want to lower production costs. this includes low wages AND minimal responsibility for the externalities of that production. google it, bob. the internet is full of references to the allure of lax environmental regs for manufacturing. "...not surprisingly, the lack of a basic regulatory and legal system is viewed as a great virtue by foreign corporations that want to evade much harsher regulatory and legal regimes in their own countries. Indeed, as China has flapped its laissez faire butterfly wings, foreign capital and foreign companies have flocked to its shores—often bringing their own lobbyists to ensure that the rules do not change. In this way, countries as near as Korea, Japan, and Taiwan and countries as far away as the United States have been able to “export” effectively their pollution and workplace risks to China." www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=683056&seqNum=3 multinationals explicitly choose to manufacture in China to avoid environmental standards they otherwise would have to meet: “The first thing some business representatives ask when they meet local officials has been, ‘what is the lowest standard for environmental protection?’” May was informed by representatives of multinationals that two reasons to set up plants in China were cost of labor and the fact that environmental protection was much lower than in developed countries." seedmagazine.com/content/article/chinas_environmental_blacklist/and right now China is the top polluter nation in the world, followed by the US.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 13, 2014 18:49:28 GMT -5
Democratic values follow the free market. How come that India has been a democracy since 1947, then? What I meant was that if you begin with a tyranny and start a free market, the free market will generate values that will eventually undermine and overthrow the tyranny. That happened in Chile and it is happening now in China. I did not mean that free markets had to happen first. Bob
|
|