This is a silly thread... what they are arguing for is.
- Fewer jobs
- Lower wages
- Hampered ability to borrow money for a house or a car.
- Decreasing value of money.
- Lowered inflation with increasing prices (I don't understand how this happens).
These not just the negative consequences of their economic policy.... this is what LivingLava says are the goals of his economic policy.
I kind of like how the economy works now.
I think it is funny that you are railing against "socialism" in the same post that you are suggesting that people should be limited in the number of hours we work, or the amount of money we can demand.
When I want more money, I can go in an ask for a raise and if my employer isn't willing to pay what I am worth, I can find an employer that will. I recently did this, I demanded a large raise and when I didn't get it I found a new job.
In the past, when I wanted more money and didn't have the experience I have now, I had the option of getting a second job. If you want more money, working more hours is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Restricting people from demanding the highest salary possible, or working as many hours as possible, is the government control of the free market.
I think you are a socialist.
You are arguing that the free market is socialism. This is silly beyond belief.
I work hard because I have a few moderately expensive vices that make me happy. I have found a career that pays me very well, and I have negotiated my services to get the highest price.
Economically speaking, I believe that the free market does a fairly good job of setting the value for my work. I ask for as much as I think I can get, and my company pays me enough that they are pretty sure I will stick around for as long as they value my service. If these prices diverge, I look for another company and they look for another employee... and I can't find myself another company who is willing to pay the ridiculous amount I think I am worth, then I face reality and accept the lower pay. It all balances out.
In economics, I am a capitalist. I work to make myself more valuable so I can have more money and pay for the things that make life more fun for me. I look out for and take responsibility for my own self-interest. I demand to be paid fairly. I negotiate for good conditions. This is capitalism.
Of course there is another side. I do care about my society and think about the effects my capitalism has on other people. Sometimes, my socialist side comes into conflict with my capitalist side... and sometime I will make a decision that is not in my economic best interest.
Under capitalism workers demand to be paid as high a prices as they can get. We go to the highest bidder (not just money, also conditions and happiness... but self-interest is the key in capitalism). Under capitalism, companies compete for workers and the best companies thrive by producing value. Competition drives wages as much as cost, and the market finds a balance that allows the best companies to survive.
You are arguing for socialism by suggesting that people shouldn't be primarily working for their own economic self-interest.
Our present capitalist system works very well for me. Capitalism inspires my best work. I work very hard to make myself valuable both by studying to stay on top of my field and I will work extra hours when needed to provide value for my employer. Capitalism also has provided a very nice income for me, I can travel, buy the Scotch I like, take my daughter to Broadway plays.
Our economic system works pretty well.
If economic self-interest was the only motivation within a society of liberty, government would have to step in to correct for problems that result from people only pursuing economic self-interest and failing to exercise the liberty to govern themselves, including their economic pursuits, in the interest of a greater good.
Quote:If economic self-interest was the only motivation within a society of liberty, government would have to step in to correct for problems that result from people only pursuing economic self-interest and failing to exercise the liberty to govern themselves, including their economic pursuits, in the interest of a greater good.
This is the key statement you are making. It is an inherently socialist statement. I don't think you will find any conservatives agreeing with you on this. The people who feel this way support Bernie Sanders and AOC. Conservatives like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would be aghast by this statement... they would call this "collectivism".
I have no problem being labeled as socialist or a capitalist. My actual economic beliefs fall somewhere in between the two labels, and I don't see either as an insult.
You just made me chuckle by using "socialist" as a generic insult when you are far more of a socialist in your actual beliefs than I am. You can call me a "socialist" if you want, coming from you I don't deserve the label.
Nope. Liberty means I have no responsibility to anyone but myself. I can choose to value other people or things, but I have no responsibility accept the responsibility I choose to take on.
I do my job because it pays very well and I like it. This is in spite of the fact that my job is designing artificial intelligence that is replacing workers in a job that used to be done exclusively by human beings. The work I do costs jobs.
In a free market, everyone acts in their own self-interest... yet this often (not always, but often) leads to a result that is a net positive for society. The system works when it rewards people for doing things that benefit society as a whole.
The basic premise of capitalism is that when everyone acts in their own self-interest, the result is good for the society. This is not always true... but it is quite often true.
But sorry, I feel zero responsibility to you.
You're not a good person.
I agree with you on the balance between liberty and what you are calling "responsibility". The way we fix that in a free society is laws. The reason I don't collect stray cats is self-interest... people can take legal action. Most people still act mostly out of their own self-interest.
Liberty means I don't have to be a good person. I am not arguing for a lawless society where everyone can do what ever they want. In real life I choose what I think makes me a "good person", what anyone else thinks doesn't matter. There are a lot of people who don't think I am a good person. Liberty means they can **** themselves.
Bullshit! Liberty is something I have whether or not you respect it.
I don't care if you honor my liberty. I don't care if you respect my liberty. Sure, you can pass laws to take away my liberty and have the police enforce them. Sometimes I think laws that take away liberty are appropriate... by it isn't liberty. I have no reason to care at all what you think, or respect, or honor, or judge. It doesn't impact me at all.
I have no obligation to "act right" according to anyone's judgement. I do several things of which decent, responsible Americans don't approve. I have sexual tastes that some people would frown upon that I exercise outside of marriage. I enjoy Scotch, and gambling. This is what liberty means and if someone doesn't approve, that is their problem not mine.
But no... I have zero responsibility to to act ethically. I often choose to act ethically... and sometimes acting ethically is in my self-interest. But this is my business, and outside of legal restrictions I am at liberty to act as I see fit.
I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.
Let's have a current example. One leading Democratic nominee for president says that we should legalize prostitution.
Prostitution is a service for which a lot of people are willing to pay. However, there are laws prohibiting prostitution in every state (there is one that allows it in a couple of counties)... and yet the business of consensual prostitution (where both buyer and seller are willing participants) continues.
Liberty will allow people (both buyers and sellers) to choose for themselves whether prostitution is ethical.
The law is preventing people from doing what they would have done naturally, or punishing people for doing something they choose to do anyway. There are arguments for why society might want to restrict the practice. But it isn't liberty.
Preventing one person from doing what he or she wants because another person feels it is unethical is the opposite of liberty.
Liberty means leaving people to their own devices.
If people can:t make their own decisions, including when. You don't approve, then they don't have liberty.
Good thought! In time of inflation I get online loans. The main advantage of these loans is a significant time saving. In order to receive money before payday, I have to fill in the application online with a minimum of information to find unsecured personal loans online. In the I specify my full name, phone number, passport data. That was it - within a day from the moment of sending the request the required amount was sent to my card. The repayment procedure didn't take a lot of time either. I choose the most convenient and suitable way to pay my debts.