ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:40 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2002 6:33 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Less regulation should be the goal. I have no problem with punishing in harsher ways than are done now the companies that cheat out their people, but regulation itself only hurts business, which is bad. A highly regulated economy would be less successful than a loosely regulated economy.

Personally, I like most of how the economy is handled today. I just dislike people saying how the government should put a super-tight reign on business- that will only mesh the two further than they are already, which is already bad enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2002 6:39 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Quote:
On 2002-11-13 17:23, Mystical, Magical Low Quality Buckler wrote:
So, tell me if I'm wrong here (and I mean that honestly, not in some I'm-smarter-than-you-and-I'll-prove-that-by-saying-a-stupid-cliche way), but don't conservatives usually argue that business should be given more free reign? And aren't you a conservative, KC?


Depends on your version of conservative. People are all over. From a completely free market (very rare) to esentially a communist society (equally rare). What is more typical is either a free economy that has rules governing fair play and providing a semi-level playing field (Martin Freedman) to a regulated economy with competition and a mostly free market (FDR)

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2002 10:03 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
This was, at some point, a debate about capitalism vs. communism, so I should somewhat like to suggest my own humble opinion on the matter. (Please remember, though, that it is just that--opinion. If I state something in a factual manner, it's because the alternative is to end every sentance with some variation on "I believe," "in my opinion," "possibly," etc, not because I honestly think it's incontrovertible fact, or even the only good opinion out there.)

If we disregard philosophical attraction to one system over the other (I, for instance, am a fairly self-motivated guy, so I'm a big fan of capitalism on an ideological level), I think it safe to say that, were either system given the perfect world which they assume, capitalism stands a much better chance of sucess than communism. The difficulty with communsism is that, if every citizen of a communist nation truly and wholly believed in the system and worked for it 100%, there would need to always be more production than consumption. The primary tenant of the philosophy is, essentially, "from each according to his ability to each according to his need," meaning that everyone produces as much as they can, which is then organized and distributed to the people who need it the most. This runs into two fundamental problems:

1) Even assuming the most well-intentioned society in the world (as I said above, 100% dedicated to the ideal of communism) is going to run into trouble determining each citizen's need. Just for example, I have a much faster metabolism rate than my friend Chris. We'd need a government (or product distribution regulator) that could figure that out, and that's assuming we're doing a strict by-the-numbers calculation--factor in any luxuries the society can produce, and need becomes almost impossible to figure.

2) The second problem that arises is the total inability of a society based on an ability-to-need exchange to survive for an infinite period. Attrition will, at some point, destroy the community. As I mentioned, I need more food day-to-day than my friend; I'm also six foot seven and reasonably athletic while he's about five nothing and out of shape--put the two of us in the fields (or factories, or whatever) and at best he'll produce as much as me, but I need much more in return to continue producing effectivly. He, however, is less capable of producing for himself, and so warrants a greater share of the community's products than me. The attrition caused may not be enough to destroy the society within a generation (trying to avoid extreme doomsday propheting here), but it remains that, unless the strongest producers are capable of producing enough surplus to feed the weaker members and themselves as well with only minimal help, they will gradually wear down and the society will be incapable of supporting itself.

That said, a perfect capitalist society where every single person is 100% dedicated to capitalism does work, at least to some extent. Assuming everyone really does ascribe to the ruthless, biggest-bang-for-your-buck mentality, the issue of people going with big business products even in the face of better, cheaper alternatives from smaller ventures vanishes, and you get honest-to-god fair competition where every business has to do their best to balance production costs, quality, and fair pricing.

That said, the point other people have made is quite true. Neither system really does work in the real world, largely because people always want to cheat the system a little bit, and generally do. My point is simply that, taken as textbook systems and ignoring their real-world feasibilty, it seems to me that communism can't hold up internally anyway, whereas capitalism can. Whether or not that makes it better in the real world is another matter (I'd like to think so, but the evidence is against me...I guess humanity just isn't ready for a pure economic system from either end of the system).

Now, that's all for now...please be nice We're going for a "marketplace of ideas," not a "Colosseum of ideas" here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:49 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
But...but...but...its treespeaker!!!!

Image

...okay, so you did a good job. But I had to use that SOMEHOW right now, and you were the nearest guy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2002 7:51 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
::Shakes head::

KC, Treespeaker's better now . . .

And besides, he's right.

(I'm still unsure whether it's a good thing I've been agreeing with him so much lately . . . O.o)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2002 8:16 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
"...since no speech is ever considered, but only the speaker. It's so much easier to pass judgement on a man than on an idea."

-Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

'nuff said. Anyone want to actually respond to the post?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Treespeaker on 2002-11-20 19:20 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2002 10:43 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
Oh god. Please don't let this turn into another "Ayn Rand sucks" thread. We've had so many thanks to Goldstandard. Let's keep on topic.

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2002 11:48 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
Sorry...I just thought the quote was appropriate for KillsCommies response to my post. Wasn't particularly advocating Rand for the purposes of debate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2002 11:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
It was a joke, Treespeaker. I was commenting on you, but then I said your idea about hit the mark, imo. And now, I think this is warrented (sorry if you think it isn't...I need to use these pictures tonight...)

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 1:51 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 912
Location: Velvet Sea of San Angelo
Wait, wasn't it Theodore Roosevelt that ended Carnegie and all the other monopolies...

_________________
Two scientists racing for the good of all mankind
Both of them side by side
Hope against hope


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group