From: Suresh Naidu (snaidu@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca)
Date: Wed Nov 06 1996 - 21:07:15 MST
On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> Suresh Naidu wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Ian Goddard wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > IAN: Govt regulations and taxes raise the price of consumer goods,
> > > while laissez-faire competition lowers it. Yet, while you support
> > > the former you condemn the latter for the effects of the former.
> > > Illogical.
> >
> > Okay. Government regulation is "trying" to keep the businesses from
> > hurting the public. I think things like environmental regulations and
> > health safety standards try, at least, to help the consumer. If there
> > weren't any such regulations, companies could easily get away with doing
> > dumping and selling hazardous products. Which they would. Companies are
> > adept enough at manipulating media that they can paint a benevolent image
> > of themselves with one hand and hurt people with the other. Nestle, for
> > example.
>
> And government is the master at media manipulation. THey don't promise
> they'll clean it up, they just want to LOOK like they are advocating
> regulation that have the apparent purpose of makeing someone else clean
> things up, when the reason things were dumped before was because
> government gave them tax breaks to invest in certain industries, then
> refused to build the waste disposal facilities that the businesses
> needed to get rid of the waste. Sotring it was an OSHA health hazard, so
> they had to get rid of it somewhere. Where they put is was not the
> governments responsibility, so long as they didn't dump any where IN MY
> BACKYARD.
The government was as short sighted as can be, as usual. But the
businesses are still the ones who dumped the waste. The businesses made
profit off the polluting industries, then, when told they had to take care
of the harmful side effects. If the taxpayers gave these people money in
order to make a profit (admittedly, jobs were created, but there is a
better way than environmental degradation), then why should the taxpayers
pay for the byproducts. It's like giving them money twice for them to
make even more money.
>
> >
> > Businesses are subsidized more than taxed. During Reagan's "regime", they
> > had a large tax cut for businesses, but the poor were still worse off than
> > before.
>
> Excuse me, but income taxes have gone down, and anyone in the US who
> makes less than 20,000 dollars a year pays no net taxes at all, on
> average. Business taxes have gone up, especially on small businesses,
> typically owned by a husband and wife, employing less than 50 people.
> Big monopolistic, non-laissez faire corporations get all the tax breaks.
>
That I can believe. But as soon as a business gets powerful, the government
accepts them as part of the elite, and gives them tax breaks. Taxes,
however, do not generally starve people.
>
> > >
> > > > Look at a company like Shell. They give us nice products like oil, right?
> > > > They get it at the expense of people who can't afford to buy any of it.
> > > > THe Ogoni in Nigeria. Yet, because they have our economic support, they
> > > > don't need anybody else's.
> > >
> > > IAN: Africa has followed socialism far far more than laissez
> > > faire, yet you condemn laissez faire for the problems there.
> >
> > I can't thik of a single socialist government in Africa, especially not
> > Nigeria. Nigeria is a fine capitalism, regardless of the military regime.
>
> You are obviously blind. Try Ethiopia, Botswana, Angola just to name a
> few off the top of my head. Due to the long history of tribal tradition,
> paternalistic, socialist regiemes experience high popularity.
Angola is currently waging war against it's people. I don't know much
about Botswana. Ethiopia is doing relatively well, if it wasn't dealing
with internal breakup with Eritea. Tribalism would not lead to socialism,
as least not the type you see. YOu might get socialism within a tribe,
but a doubt tribalism would accede to a centralize socialist government.
Which is a good thing.
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > > Socialism does not imply totalitarianism. It's completely different.
> > >
> > > IAN: Socialism = universal social debt = totalitarianism.
> > >
> >
> > That's an excellent blanket statement, but not much logic behind it. I
> > don't see many socialist democracies having a much oppression.
>
> Officially, no. Instead, dissidents are branded as lunatics. If you
> conception of reality does not concord with the official majority
> concept of reality, them you must be insane (that is the accepted
> definition of insanity). So consequently, you get "socialized", or
> "helped", or "reeducated" or simply drugged and electroshocked "for your
> own good". See our way is so fine and good that you must agree that we
> are helping you get along. You do want to get along don't you..... Here
> in the US, one is not "politically correct", or is a sexist, racist,
> homophobe, "capitalist" (as if thats a bad thing), or baby seal killer,
> even though one is not any of those things.
Do you have any evidence? I've talked to many people from those
countries(Netherlands, other europeans countries like that) , even rabid
skinheads from those places, and they don't compain of any ministry of
truth. I don't hear any reports of the ministry of love coming to pick
people up. This could be because I hang out on the wrong side of the net,
but that's my experience.
> >
> > They left the economy alone, which I think means laissez-faire in the
> > traditional sense. In fact, most of these geographic areas that are
> > considered "good investing", have a history of human rights violations.
> > A bank teller tried to convince me to put my money in Latin America or
> > South East Asia, two areas that haven't had the best track records for
> > freedom.
> > Funny, huh.
>
> yeah funny like: Cuba, Sandinista Nicaragua, Totalitarian El Salvador,
> Guatamala, and Chile. None of which are ( or were in the case of
> Nicaragua), laissez faire economies
El Salvador certainly was. If the U.S. hadn't pumped 6 billion into
keeping the rich in power, there would be a popular government. Chile was
since pinochet came into power, but
under the socialist democratic government, there weren't the same blatant
disregard for human rights. Nicaragua had a far better record for human
rights under the Sandinistas than under Somoza. Guatamala is a U.S.
puppet state, so companies like United Fruit can exploit the labour,
prevent any attempt at social reform, and make more money.
>
> >
> > If you're going to have capitalism, you're going to have government. I
> > still say we drop both of them.
> >
> > >
> What then? How are people going to live? Is everyone going to have their
> own farm, their own factory that makes everything, and their own power
> plant? Granted, if (and thats still a big IF) nanotechnology fufills
> its sci-fi promise, then we can each have all those things, and the only
> two bases for trade will be information and relationships/entertainment,
> but that still requires free trade )i.e. laissez faire capitalism to
> work for maximum benefit for all, but that is still at a very minimum
> 20-50 years down the road. Don't hold your breath.
You can still have trade. Under any system that allows it, people are going
exchange stuff. It's when people who have capital dictate terms to those
who don't that trade fails. Fair trade works, free trade doesn't, Yes, I
agree that people should take care of themselves
first, but they shouldn't do it at the expense of other people.
I would like people to become self-sufficient, but that's not going to
happen anytime soon. Factories and farms are owned by the community, thus
everybody gets a say on what activities the business is doing. No this is
not state socialism. It's a business run democratically, so both the
consumers and the workers have input, as to the residents of the area of
the factory.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:49 MST