Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Samuelson's introductory economics textbook uses the sleight of hand of describing the operation of the market as involving dollar votes to use the emotional attachment of the impressionable teenage reader to person votes in order to push the marketista ideology.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 07:27:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, a "free market" could be a viable (actually, not sure abour the viable part), democratic way of allocating resources if everybody had the same amount of money...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 07:50:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you gave everyone the same amount of money. Certain people would always end up with more in the end.  That is because certain people have skills that are more valuable than others.  Others, may prefer to work less but have more free time.  Some people have frugal needs, others more lavish.  Different people have different values.  

What way do you propose that better allocates resources?  Socialism? Pure socialism exists on the kibbutz.  These systems have failed because they ignore human nature.  Some people work hard, others dont. Yet, everyone gets the same earnings.  It's known as the freeloader or freerider effect. At some point,the hard workers get fed up and leave. That's exactly what's been happening in Israel.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 02:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Holy cow.  You're hard core, aren't you?  

Who are you going to vote for, if I may ask?

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 02:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't love many of the candidates. Thompson or Giuliani if I have to. Perhaps, the libertarian candidate (again).

Terry
by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Alrighty then.  Gotcha.  There's no point in me disagreeing with you further; we will always be of two minds.

I've decided to write in Putin.  That's my plan until someone successfully sells me on Edwards.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, you're quite right. We are never going to agree. The point of debating, however, is not always to persuade but to have people challenge your beliefs.  I have come to the right place. There's a nest of socialists here.  And socialism is totalitarian in nature.  Most socialists are envious of other people's wealth. They feel rather helpless in a capitalist economic system so they seek to destroy it.  Interesting how all the people you could choose to right in, you chose someone who seems to have those leanings.

Edwards is not totalitarian though.  His "Two Americas" is probably in line with your politics. Of course, I like how he is carving out his multi million dollar mansion in a forest miles away from civilization.  He will live in a large estate off the beat track while all the commoners live in the suburbs and cities.  All while he is preaching about two americas.

Vote Obama. I dont agree with anything he says. But there is no doubt that he genuinely believes in his philosophy. I can respect that at least, as to say, Hillary or Edwards.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:46:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Internaut Terry sealed the helmet on his General Electric Tubesuit then ran through the final checks, testing his BFG-1100 Red Roaster Flame Gun on a stack of copies of Das Kapital before launching himself onto the Interwebs, shouting "I'm gonna smoke me a nest of socialists."
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:55:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which still doesn't make the free market democratic in any way.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 02:38:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some people work hard, others dont. Yet, everyone gets the same earnings.

and capitalism is better how? in that it is possible for the person who works hard to earn much less than the person who hardly works at all, just happens to have had money to start with.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 02:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
People are paid with relation to how much their skill is worth.  

Please explain how your system is better.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That isn't true, I'm not advocating any particular system, I'm just saying that your argument is deeply flawed and packed with assumptions.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:56:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, well maybe someday you will take a stand and make an argument on how some other economic system is better.

I have at least done so.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:19:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Q: "Buffett, why are you a Democrat?"

A: "I have what I call the minus 24 hour genie test. Imagine a genie poofed up 24 hours before you were born and asked you what kind of world you would want to live in. And you being the smart minus 24 hour baby would ask, "what's the catch?" And the genie would respond that you would have to participate in the "ovarian lottery" and draw one of 6 billion tickets. Things such as born United States or Bangladesh; white, brown, or black; male or female; smart or dumb; these would all be completely up to chance. Well then, what kind of world would you create? And my [Buffett's] world would be a society with equality that treated everyone fairly. And the Democrats seem to be better at doing that."


You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Most of the extreme disparities in wealth really come from people being lucky - born in the right place and time, given the right education, inheriting wealth and a good start in life, just plain getting lucky. The free-market based systems magnify that luck with more access to opportunities for wealth.

What would work better was a balanced system that recognised the justice shortcomings of market based systems and balanced them against the need for incentives for the good of society. Redistribution is required to even make the theoretical models underlying free trade or free markets work.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 03:19:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What nonsense.  Maybe that's how it works in Europe.

Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, T. Boone Pickens, Rockfeller-I could go on.  Why dont you look them up and see what these people started with.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well Bill Gates was definitely Lucky, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and according to some sources succeeded by using ripped off versions of other peoples software.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
LOL. I'm hardcore??

If Bill Gates ripped off somebody's software, someone would have sued him. It's not too hard to find a lawyer in the US.

Luck always helps.  But let's face it, he created something from nothing.  

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 07:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is not how they started, it's how they acquired their wealth. The acquisition of great wealth is almost more obscene than being born with it.  

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"The acquisition of wealth is obscene".

My my, you socialists are so envious of other people.  If you want to tell me some soccer player makes way too much, I might go a short distance with you.  

Some of you just dont like reality.  People create things, produce things, provide services to make money. They do this to feed their family and buy things they want.  Some do so well that they amass a lot of wealth. So what? The additional wealth creates more jobs and provide great things like that computer your typing on. The computer helps doctors, business and other industries provide better services and products.  How do think that computer got in front of you?  Elves didnt make it.  Because of profit motive.  You should probably thank these people rather than sneer at them.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 07:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So it is your opinion that only profit motivates people?

I live in a well functioning society where the differential between the top and bottom salaries is something of the order of 48:1. In your country it is 480:1. My well functioning society produced Nokia.

I only sneer at the people who want too much and who will trample on the rights of anyone else to get it.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 06:01:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where did I say that only profit motivates people?

Most individuals want to achieve something with their lives by using the talents they have. They also have obligations, like the need to eat, the need to live somewhere and perhaps, a family to educate and take care of.  

In my opinion, developing your talents to the best of your ability (ayn rand would call it "productive work") is one of the most important factors to happiness.  Family, recreation, friends, love are some of the others.

48 to 1? 480 to 1?  Are you saying it should be 1 to 1?  10 to 1? 5 to 1?  What is fair? Who is to decide what a doctor should make and a janitor should make? Should they make equal salaries? Incomes do vary greatly in the US.  The real question is what is the living standard of our poor.  The answer is that the living standard of the poor is quite a bit better than most people in the world.  The majority of the poor have 2 televisions, a phone, a computer, a place to live and, often, a car.  That doesnt mean their life is as comfortable as say, mine.  Thankfully, the US system allows for a lot of upward mobility and opportunity for those that apply themselves.

Your country may have produced Nokia. But the telephone was invented in the United States.  Ironically, it was invented by a Scotsman who came to find opportunity.  I wonder why he didnt stay in Europe?


Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:35:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Terry:
 Thankfully, the US system allows for a lot of upward mobility and opportunity for those that apply themselves.

Unfortunately that is a myth, the US alongside the UK come at the bottom of measures of Social mobility. all of those socialist countries that you criticise come way above both of those countries.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 10:32:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's why everyone flocks here.  The "myth" of opportunity and social mobility.  

When I was in college, I worked at a bagel store. The store hired some Polish immigrant cheap to clean the floor. A grim task with all the fish we also sold. Within in a year, he was a baker. Two years later, he owned his own store.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 01:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's why everyone flocks here.  The "myth" of opportunity and social mobility.  

A succinct summary of the situation. Well done.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 01:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One anecdote dosn't ammount to proof,

if you go and look at Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America (pdf warning) a report by the centre for economic performance, you'll see that you're far more likely to have a chance to improve yourself in Europe than you are in the US.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 02:08:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Redistribution.

So, it's ok for the government to take what I earn by force to give it to another person?  Is that what your saying?

I work hard for what I earn. Why should my family have less just because someone thinks someone else should have more?  Indeed, this is the language of socialism. That what someone makes belongs to everyone else. Society can take what you make and give it to other people.  That sounds quite totalitarian to me.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:39:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who gives a flying fuck if you think this is the language of socialism? What is your obsession with socialism?

If you believe you have what you have solely because you worked hard for it then you are far removed from reality. Why hasn't someone stolen it all?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:44:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you against taxation in general, or just in the case where it may be given to the 'undeserving' poor?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 02:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series