16 Oct 05
Originally posted by bbarrAs the thread is just beginning, I'd like to take the opportunity to repeat something that I've continually harangued on here and elsewhere on the internet. Almost every market is restrained. Certainly every national market is restrained to a greater or lesser degree.
Why not let the wisdom of the market sort everything out? It works pretty well on this side of the border!
Markets take laws as given. It was actually an exploration of this fact and an ingenious examination of the sensitivity of the market to law that earned Coase the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991.
When economists speak of free markets, they are referring to markets in which the gov't does not directly manipulate or control prices.
From this perspective most markets are not "free."
I'll go ahead a take a side seat for a while before coming in suddenly with my usual condescending polemic. 🙂
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by bbarrBecause Canada is ruled by a tinpot dictator, and a corrupt regime. The Liberals were so busy protecting the Canadian way of life that they ended up destroying it, and stifling any real growth.
Why not let the wisdom of the market sort everything out? It works pretty well on this side of the border!
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by widgetNo, it works great. People get what they deserve here in United States. Why should I have to pay taxes to support lazy folk who can't hold down jobs? Why should I have to pay taxes to subsidize folk who simply won't put in the effort necessary to be a useful contributing member of society? Every society needs their ditch-diggers, after all. The beauty of unrestrained capitalism is that it is perfectly meritocratic.
Wrong, bb... it doesn't. 😞
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by widgetWell of course those people too lazy or stupid to work are going to disagree, but they get what they deserve, in the end. Quality of life here in the United States is wonderful for those willing to put in a full days work!
Not everyone that side of the border agrees with you
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=31641
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by CanadaguyExactly, and they spend too much money helping those who won't help themselves. If you don't want to work for your living, move to Canada!
Because Canada is ruled by a tinpot dictator, and a corrupt regime. The Liberals were so busy protecting the Canadian way of life that they ended up destroying it, and stifling any real growth.
16 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThe beauty of [/i]unrestrained[/i] capitalism is that it is perfectly meritocratic.
No, it works great. People get what they deserve here in United States. Why should I have to pay taxes to support lazy folk who can't hold down jobs? Why should I have to pay taxes to subsidize folk who simply won't put in the effort necessary to be a useful contributing member of society? Every society needs their ditch-diggers, after all. The beauty of unrestrained capitalism is that it is perfectly meritocratic.
And when “unrestrained” capitalism includes slavery, it ought not to be restrained? Was slavery an example of a system that is "perfectly meritocratic?" A prohibition of slavery is not a restraint on unfettered capitalism? How about child labor laws? Insider trading?
As telerion notes, few markets are not subject to restraint—governance structures such as laws of contract, fiduciary responsibility, etc. Where are you going with this, bbarr? You seem to be making some very "loose" statements here; not like you...
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by bbarrWhy does the workforce have to not rise up and demand proper pay?
No, it works great. People get what they deserve here in United States. Why should I have to pay taxes to support lazy folk who can't hold down jobs? Why should I have to pay taxes to subsidize folk who simply won't put in the effort necessary to be a useful contributing member of society? Every society needs their ditch-diggers, after all. The beauty of unrestrained capitalism is that it is perfectly meritocratic.
16 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI've been teaching this class on the philosophy of human rights, and in this thread I've been repeating, pretty much verbatim, some of the claims made by my students (eep!). Of course I don't believe any of this.
[b]The beauty of [/i]unrestrained[/i] capitalism is that it is perfectly meritocratic.
And when “unrestrained” capitalism includes slavery, it ought not to be restrained? Was slavery an example of a system that is "perfectly meritocratic?" A prohibition of slavery is not a restraint on unfettered capitalism? How about child labor laws? In ...[text shortened]... here are you going with this, bbarr? You seem to be making some very "loose" statements here.[/b]
Up with Rawls, down with Nozick!
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by bbarrThought it must be something like that... Carry on!🙂
I've been teaching this class on the philosophy of human rights, and in this thread I've been repeating, verbatim, some of the claims made by my students (eep!). Of course I don't believe any of this.
Up with Rawls, down with Nozick!
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by shavixmirIt is perfectly consistent with unrestrained capitalism for the workforce to assemble, rise up, and demand more money. It is inconsistent with unrestrained capitalism for the state to infringe upon the rights of workers to use their labor as a tool of negotiation. The state has no business interfering with the rights of citizens to engage in contractual exchanges.
Why does the workforce have to not rise up and demand proper pay?