So many liberals talk about freedom. They claim that conservatives, neocons especially, want to take away freedoms. They call them fascists, totalitarians (the latter of which is not true, by the way), whatever. But liberals want to take away freedom, too. They just want to take away a different freedom; that is, economic freedom.
Conservatives want stricter social, moral standards, but support free market capitalism, or at least a less regulated market. Liberals, on the other hand, are socially progressive, but, because they know nothing about economics, believe the only way to achieve economic fairness is through lots of regulation over the market. The radicals are socialists and communists, which means no economic freedom whatsoever.
Were these liberals to take an economics course, read some Adam Smith, whatever, they would learn that the free market does quite a nice job of achieving economic fairness (loosely defined) without hindering freedoms. Take health care, for example. Most liberals support socialized medicine. I agree that health care is an urgent issue, and that it is our moral obligation to ensure that the 44 million people, roughly 1/6 of the population, living without coverage get it. However, this can be achieved without socialized medicine, a hinderance on the free market. Let's say the government gives all 44 million uninsured Americans some money, and this money is only to be used to purchase coverage. The instant that a government official comes out and says that 44 million people are about to enter the market for insurance at the same time, the insurance companies will go nuts. They'll do anything they can to get as many of those customers as possible, because it means more money for them. And once they've got those customers, competition will keep coverage for low-income families affordable, because no company wants to lose their customers to another company.
So, you can see that all it takes is a little indirect action on the part of the government, not really interfering with the market, to get healthcare insurance for the millions of uninsured Americans. This works much like how the Federal Reserve affects interest rates. A change in the FFTR/FFR by the Fed is a very unnoticeable thing, really. It is just a change in the rate that banks loan to one another on overnight loans, changed indirectly by the buying or selling of securities at the New York Fed. The Fed doesn't actually change the rates, they just affect the money supply through the buying and selling of securities in the free market, resulting in banks raising or lowering their rates. This is just like what could be done with the healthcare crisis; a small, indirect action by the federal government results in a huge change without reducing economic freedom. Now that's efficient.
>>38 means that the Chinese do another kind of work.
You can work with your body but you can also use your mind.
The former doesn't require a high educational level and can be done by almost everybody.
Since China and India are poor countries their workers are cheap.
Western workers can't compete because the standard of living is higher.
That's why he says that the West should concentrate on higher quality that means work for which you need more than just your body.
I say there 2 problems with that:
1. The Chinese aren't dumb.
2. Not everybody wants to or is able to become an academic.
no, and no matter how smart we'd all like to be, there'll always be a need for manual labour, we should then have the environment and education which allows them to be the best manual labourers. And it is likely that since we pay more for workers, the well educated workers will move to where they get paid the most, america. However even if they didn't do that, an increase in chinese wealth would lead to an increased import, especially of luxury goods, which america can supply. and a general increase in wealth and chinese education would reduce their advantage at unskilled labour.
You contradict yourself and what you write is totally incoherent.
Ever worked on an assembly line?
The only quality improvement here is: do it faster and without errors.
Harvesting also doesn't need a high school diploma, does it?
Most jobs need little to no education be it driving a truck or selling french fries at McDonalds.
Will the quality improve with better education? No, a more educated person will be just be more expensive.
There's no "The Art of Making a Hamburger".
So the best manual labourers are poor and dumb or a machine.
Because others are poorer and dumber than most US citizen and cheaper than a machine they get all the jobs.
The only type of work which improves in quality through education requires few years at college.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 21:29 ID:IKA9CfZN
A brief glimpse at the next 20 years:
American growth grinds to a halt due to weak leadership and backwards idealism spread throughout the public by our universities. People expect lives far greater than what they've earned and "rights" to other people's property through unfair and extreme taxation. China with it's mixture of heavy-handed government and crazy gung-ho "let's get things done" pseudo capitalism springs forward while America's two-party system rips the country apart from within. China wins... all they have to do is wait. Unless we get some new and better ideas tossed out there.
Also
The free market is the best system of democracy ever invented: Every time you make a purchase you make a vote with your dollar.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 21:47 ID:4IbYZLk1
>>41
Eventually we will have to drop minimum wage which will be good for an economy which will always be the epitome of technological progress unless there is a political disaster or a war. Eventually Chinese industries in order to continue growth will need workers who are more skilled who tend to be in shorter supply and have to compete for such workers by paying higher wages aswell as begin to compete with the west for our high academics. This new and diverse skilled workforce will be in small enough numbers to eventually form unions and threaten strikes unless they pay higher wages especially seeing western workers getting paid more. Workers with lower wages will follow suite and do the same. The authoritarian chinese government is too saturated with communists to use it's police state powers to resist the formation of unions, unless those unions begin to dabble in democracy which is unlikely to happen.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 22:01 ID:SMreJbXt
>>45
Are you linking to me because you want know my opinion on fortune-telling or is this some kind of criticism which I don't understand?
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 22:02 ID:4IbYZLk1
>>42
Truth, but what happens if the amount a person can be paid is less than the amount needed to keep them alive? We must keep populations low so that no one finds themselves in that position.
>>43
Education improves the efficiency of some very expensive industries. The level of educated workers a country has access to can mean the difference between them having these industries or not. Therefore if China wants to grow it needs educated workers. When they get their PHD they won't stay at McDonalds flipping burgers for the rest of their lives, they will go out and get the job they studied for and some will demand to be paid the same as an American or they'll emigrate there. The only reason you think his argument doesn't make sense is because you don't know anything about economics, which incidentally is why you are a socialist.
>>44
No. People will vote libertarian once they realise every republican term stamps out more of their personal human rights and right to bear arms human rights and every democrat term stamps out more of their property human rights.
">>43
Education improves the efficiency of some very expensive industries. The level of educated workers a country has access to can mean the difference between them having these industries or not. Therefore if China wants to grow it needs educated workers. When they get their PHD they won't stay at McDonalds flipping burgers for the rest of their lives, they will go out and get the job they studied for and some will demand to be paid the same as an American or they'll emigrate there. The only reason you think his argument doesn't make sense is because you don't know anything about economics, which incidentally is why you are a socialist."
You somehow misunderstood me or something.
I'm the guy defending free marked economy.
I recommend you to read the whole story.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 22:13 ID:SMreJbXt
I'm even a libertarian.
You must have missed the context.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 22:28 ID:4IbYZLk1
>>46 >>48
I'm seeing things because I drank too much coca tea and absinthe.
Trogdor: Our workers can't compete because our taxes are too high.
He: There's no need to compete with China. We should concentrate on better quality.
Trogdor: I agree that higher education and more academics will help us for now but it doesn't solve anything in the long run because the Chinese are not dumb. They learn and copy very fast.
He: You understood me wrong. I don't want more academics but a higher education for manual labourer.
Trogdor: That doesn't make sense. A cleaner wouldn't clean your toilet better if he had a college degree.
So yeah, I'm namefag now.
It makes things easier since this isn't /b/.
A few things that seem to be true, take them, leave them, or improve upon them:
1.) America needs a president that can blow off their constituency and do what is right for America as a country. It would also require a majority of Congress to do the same, and for Americans to be willing to sacrifice some of their artifical standard of living. This will probably not happen.
2.) No third party will ever rise to power without the implosion or splintering of either major party. Even then, this party will likely assimilate most of the major aspects of the weakened party, good and bad.
3.) Capitalist democracies are currently the best systems for providing for its citizens wants most adequately, but not necessarily its needs. America in particular has taken this form of government into increasingly risky waters.
4.) Unless it becomes profitable, those in control of America's future will likely not do what is best for America. As much as the Fed can attempt to balance things with monetary policy, political fiscal policy is still populist and prone to misdirection.
We have? all I've seen "increasingly" in any fashion is America's progression to socialized healthcare and just socialism in general. We are no longer the Laissez_faire capitalism of the 1800's and early 1900's we are moving closer and closer to Autocratic collectivism wiht each passing president and their failed pet-projects.
No one is talking about lower education for academics, you dumbass.
The point is: A better educated manual labourer doesn't work better, he is just more expensive and can't compete with workers from poor countries.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-30 9:05 ID:lToUaqoG
I'm not talking about cutting education for poor famility but that we need less taxes so they won't lose their jobs to mexicans or other poor fucks.
Stupid namefaggotry.
For the people who don't know what the ID next to the date means:
It means that >>63&>>64 and probably >>65 came from the same person.
>>37
If you want to base your political oppinion on that you deserve to go to the hell you and your country are on it's way to.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-30 16:36 ID:D9uSdZsU
>>67
So we should only buy oranges from the government?
Name:
Otakutai2007-03-31 2:49 ID:CyJvxKfb
no, we shouldnt 68, however we cant allow companies to have practice without governmental oversight. government is created because it protects citizens from each other. thats why governments are created. if we make everything a private concern, then we lack the forsight and the control over it to protect the citizens.
Name:
sdfgh!C/cGUHMV5M2007-03-31 3:30 ID:07QPsPIR
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-31 6:57 ID:Ig4VjOnu
>>68
Thinking free market is the only working option is retarded.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-31 7:51 ID:YupD+AbM
>>68
I would not buy an orange not certified by the government.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-31 14:43 ID:Ae/gjN9F
>>72
Would you buy it from the government? >>71
grammar pls >>69
Correct. The government should only interfere to preserve justice.