Comment Re:R.I.P., good man. (Score -1, Troll) 311
Indeed. Only a mere twenty years ago, South Africa was a merely nuclear power with a space program, and now it's a....
Oh, never mind....
Indeed. Only a mere twenty years ago, South Africa was a merely nuclear power with a space program, and now it's a....
Oh, never mind....
A man truly worthy of the title 'hero'. Rest in Peace. You achieved the goal to which you devoted your entire life.
In this week’s issue of Radish, the Carlyle Club tries to fathom the motives of an ethno-nationalist terrorist and political mass-murderer. And when we’re done talking about Nelson Mandela, we’ll discuss Anders Breivik.
http://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/volume-3-issue-2-breiviks-norway/
By "money is left to its own," one of course means "the rich are left to their own" (being the ones with the most money, which controls how money is used to produce more money for the rich, etc.).
Why shouldn't the rich be left to their own?
"Capitalism" left to its own is an inevitable slide into oligarchy, with an oppressive tiny elite at the top.
Ok, name me a system that isn't an oligarchy with an oppressive tiny elite at the top. Government is always small group with power over a large group without power. Capitalism, at least, is something of a meritocracy, even if not perfect.
The "invisible hand of the free market" is not a beneficent God working for the good of all if only entrusted with our full hearts; it is the manipulating iron fist of whoever has the most money, squeezing the labor and life out of those with less.
I call bullshit. Show me anywhere in the capitalist western world where anyone is forced to labor. If you've taken a job, I suspect it's because you're better off taking it than not taking it. If you have a valuable skill to sell, then you have options. If you have a lack of options, that indicates you have a lack of valuable skills. Your failure to better your skills isn't the fault of the market economy.
Even if it ends badly, it'll still pay off in the acquired expertise. The first few attempts by Russia and the US didn't pan out so hot, either. It may be an expensive education, but it's an education nonetheless.
What you're ignoring is that with our for-profit health care, we also lead development of medical treatments, largely because of the profit incentive. See Nature, April 2007, Price controls seen as key to Europe's drug innovation lag
For those hoping that Europe might be redressing the imbalance in R&D innovation compared with the United States, two recent reports make gloomy reading. According to a competitiveness report published in November 2006 by the European Commission's high-level Pharmaceutical Forum, the US has established itself firmly as the key innovator in pharmaceuticals since 2000.
Also see the New York Times, Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and Innovation.
Advocates of national health insurance cite an apparently devastating fact: the United States spends more of its gross domestic product on medical care than any nation in the world, yet Americans do not live longer than Western Europeans or Japanese. More Americans lack insurance coverage as well. It is no wonder that so many people demand reform.
But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.
Half of the country believes Kennedy was assassinated as part of a conspiracy. The other half of us know it for sure, because we were in on it.
You aren't obliged to discuss anything with me. However, as to you're claim to being the arbiter of whether I'm welcome here, I'll point out I've been posting here since the inception of Slashdot, which I suspect is a damn sight longer than you have. And I don't recollect extending an invitation to you, either.
But the point of what "freedom" means in regard to transactions between humans and what "freedom" means in regard to transactions between corporations and humans, and corporations and other corporations is what's very hard to pin down.
What, effectively, is the difference? In each case, both parties have something of value the other one wants. In each case, they agree on terms under which the exchange takes place. That's just as true whether I'm dealing with an individual or a corporation.
For example, our "most free" economy here in the US occurred during a period about a half-century ago, and that happened to be the very height of the organized labor movement. It also happened to be the period during which the federal government was exercising some rather new and rather large influence over the actions of the marketplace. We see the beginnings of the regulatory regime we still live under today, for example.
Well, let's see here - about a half century ago, Europe was still recovering from the world wars, as was Japan, and China and India were producing nothing but famines. So what happened to the organized labor movements, such as in manufacturing? Automobiles and steel? Oops! As soon as the aforementioned countries were sufficiently able to compete with us, those industries fled offshore! Guess the labor movement sure showed 'em, ain't it?
Yet, the employers and corporations would say that this was an indication of decreasing freedom for them to treat employees as they damn well please.
They never had the freedom to treat them as they damn well please: at least since 1865, workers can quit whenever they damn well please. If the workers don't quit, I'd consider that a strong indication they're better off having the job than not having it.
Seriously, does anyone work at a job where they'd be better off not working? I sure wouldn't!
So a "free" market for one person might not be a "free" market for another.
Either party is free to walk away from a transaction where the terms are unacceptable. What you're arguing is not that the market is not free to all parties, your complaint is that in a free market you're not getting terms as good as you'd like. Boo hoo.
So, my notion is not that we just abandon the idea of a free market and embrace systems that grant the government more power, but rather that we should accept that "free markets" are an impossible state that cannot and do not exist in nature, and instead we should focus on agency for individuals rather than for "the market".
Rather a silly statement. Assume an anarchy where there's no regulation (i.e. the default state of nature). All transactions would by definition have to be free. As for agency, as I've already pointed out - everyone is free to walk away from a transaction where the terms are not acceptable. If you agree to the terms, I'd consider that evidence that you're still better off making the transaction than not making.
You might want to keep in mind, in the mid-20th century the US was the only game in town. Europe was recovering from 2 world wars, made in Japan was synonymous for cheap junk, Korea had just emerged from a civil war, and China and India were mostly known for mass famines. If you wanted to play in the big leagues, you played in the US.
Try charging those kind of tax rates now, and see if you can count to 10 before a major amount of capital flees to friendlier shores.
Perhaps someone could explain what gets accomplished by capping salaries in the first place. I can tell you for sure, if the salary of the CEO at my company were capped, I wouldn't be a nickel richer for it. I don't see how anyone else gets richer, either. Assuming a company generates just as much revenue with or without the caps, where do you suppose the money not paid to the CEO will end up, anyway?
No, but while they can't be outsourced overseas, they can be purchased thru 3rd party services, and usually are. Meaning those positions usually aren't performed by workers on the company payroll, anyway. Which means they wouldn't affect the CEO's salary.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
