I was reading a newspaper article written by a British teacher whose
opinion is that private schools in the UK should be banned. When all the
wordy argumentation is distilled down to its very basics, it comes down
to be, basically, "it's unfair that some children are getting a better
education solely because their parents happen to be rich; this kind of
elitist snobbery is completely inappropriate to the modern world we are
living in".

  This got me thinking: *Why* shouldn't at least some children get a better
education, if their parents can afford it? What's so wrong with that?

  The complaint would make sense if *all* children could be given a much
higher level of education if the private vs. public schooling system was
dismantled and replaced with a public-schooling-only system. However, given
that children in private schools form a very small minority, and the reason
why they get a better education is because these private schools have better
funding (because the rich parents are funding them), banning the private
schools is not going to increase the funding of public schools in any
significant way. (In other words, even if the funding/student which now
goes to private schools was distributed among public schools, the overall
funding/student in public schools would not increase significantly.)

  So basically what this teacher wants is to deny a better education from
these children and force them to go to public schools which have lower
funding for the sole reason that it's more "fair", basically forcing *all*
children to the same lower level of education, insted of having at least
*some* of them in better schools.

  Given that a significant majority of children who go to private schools
end up going to Universities and becoming university-level professionals
(such as teachers, doctors, surgeons, etc.), deliberately dumbing down
their basic education just for the sake of "fairness" feels completely
counter-productive.

  Ok, it might not be "fair" that all children are not given the same
opportunities, but do you really want to lower the overall education level
of your entire country just in the name of "fairness"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I was reading a newspaper article written by a British teacher whose
> opinion is that private schools in the UK should be banned. When all the
> wordy argumentation is distilled down to its very basics, it comes down
> to be, basically, "it's unfair that some children are getting a better
> education solely because their parents happen to be rich; this kind of
> elitist snobbery is completely inappropriate to the modern world we are
> living in".
> 
>   This got me thinking: *Why* shouldn't at least some children get a better
> education, if their parents can afford it? What's so wrong with that?
>

[Snip]

That is the start of the slippery slope.


>   Ok, it might not be "fair" that all children are not given the same
> opportunities, but do you really want to lower the overall education level
> of your entire country just in the name of "fairness"?
> 

The idea is that all those posh, rich and concerned parents will do 
something to bring up the level of state education by forcing 
politicians to fund state schools properly.
Public that is Private schools in the UK foster elitism and that 
promotes our class system.  It is still war, you know. ;)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> The idea is that all those posh, rich and concerned parents will do 
> something to bring up the level of state education by forcing 
> politicians to fund state schools properly.

  As if that's likely to happen. There's only just so much money that can
be poured into schools. No matter how much they would lobby the government,
the government cannot conjure money from nowhere in order to get all the
schools to the same level as the best private schools. It's impossible.

> Public that is Private schools in the UK foster elitism and that 
> promotes our class system.  It is still war, you know. ;)

  It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
mind.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> The idea is that all those posh, rich and concerned parents will do 
>> something to bring up the level of state education by forcing 
>> politicians to fund state schools properly.
> 
>   As if that's likely to happen. There's only just so much money that can
> be poured into schools. No matter how much they would lobby the government,
> the government cannot conjure money from nowhere in order to get all the
> schools to the same level as the best private schools. It's impossible.
> 

Well that is an opinion.

>> Public that is Private schools in the UK foster elitism and that 
>> promotes our class system.  It is still war, you know. ;)
> 
>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
> mind.
> 

It probably does to you.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> >   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
> > because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
> > mind.
> > 

> It probably does to you.

  Me having that opinion would be really obnoxious if I were a rich snob,
but I'm certainly not. I barely make a living.

  But I honestly don't feel any kind of jealousy towards rich people. If they
want to put their kids to expensive private schools, then why not? Does it
hurt me in any way if they do that? No. Then why should it bother me? It
doesn't make sense.

  What *would* be unfair is to pass some ridiculous law which would forbid
them from doing that and instead force those kids to get a lesser education,
just because the majority is jealous of them being rich. *That* would be
obnoxious, IMO.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>>>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
>>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
>>> mind.
>>>
> 
>> It probably does to you.
> 
>   Me having that opinion would be really obnoxious if I were a rich snob,
> but I'm certainly not. I barely make a living.
> 

That’s a shame. I feel that you could do better.


>   But I honestly don't feel any kind of jealousy towards rich people. If they
> want to put their kids to expensive private schools, then why not? Does it
> hurt me in any way if they do that? No. Then why should it bother me? It
> doesn't make sense.
> 


I think it does but then I don’t live in Finland. It does in Britain, IMO.

>   What *would* be unfair is to pass some ridiculous law which would forbid
> them from doing that and instead force those kids to get a lesser education,
> just because the majority is jealous of them being rich. *That* would be
> obnoxious, IMO.
> 

Lots of things are unfair. Especially privilege.

To miss quote Abe Lincoln “for those who like that sort of thing that is 
the sort of thing they like”


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-12-2009 17:50, Warp wrote:
>   I was reading a newspaper article written by a British teacher whose
> opinion is that private schools in the UK should be banned.

[snip]

There are too many subtleties involved about the British social 
structure in this case, so I won't comment. Not on this specific 
situation nor in general as every country has it's own culture and 
history of education. We don't really have such private schools and 
those that may come closest have no impact on the social structure of 
the country, so I won't even comment on whether it is sensible or 
desirable in the Dutch situation.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> There are too many subtleties involved about the British social 
> structure in this case, so I won't comment. Not on this specific 
> situation nor in general as every country has it's own culture and 
> history of education. We don't really have such private schools and 
> those that may come closest have no impact on the social structure of 
> the country, so I won't even comment on whether it is sensible or 
> desirable in the Dutch situation.

  I don't even know if there are private schools in Finland. Even if there
are, they aren't really part of the Finnish culture or society. It's kind
of given that everybody goes to regular school.

  (This is probably for the best, given how jealous the average Finnish
mentality is. This is a country where your house may get vandalized (with
insulting graffitti, etc) if you win the lottery. Actual case.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 24-12-2009 23:43, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> There are too many subtleties involved about the British social 
>> structure in this case, so I won't comment. Not on this specific 
>> situation nor in general as every country has it's own culture and 
>> history of education. We don't really have such private schools and 
>> those that may come closest have no impact on the social structure of 
>> the country, so I won't even comment on whether it is sensible or 
>> desirable in the Dutch situation.
> 
>   I don't even know if there are private schools in Finland. Even if there
> are, they aren't really part of the Finnish culture or society. It's kind
> of given that everybody goes to regular school.

Then you don't know what it is to live in a country where almost the 
entire elite is recruited from a few schools that are only open to the 
elite. I don't live in such a system either, hence my reluctance to 
interpret any comment from a British citizen about his own system as 
mainly jealousy.
Btw, you interpreted yourself a letter you read without a reference to 
the source. Without that nobody can judge if you correctly got the main 
point or that this is an inadvertent straw man argument.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
> mind.

The general reaction I've observed from people in the US about this 
whole healthcare debacle also boils down to "what's in it for ME?  If 
*I'm* not the one benefiting from the change, it's evil in the purest 
sense".

Humans, eh?

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 24-12-2009 23:43, Warp wrote:

>>   I don't even know if there are private schools in Finland. Even if 
>> there
>> are, they aren't really part of the Finnish culture or society. It's kind
>> of given that everybody goes to regular school.
> 
> Then you don't know what it is to live in a country where almost the 
> entire elite is recruited from a few schools that are only open to the 
> elite. I don't live in such a system either, hence my reluctance to 
> interpret any comment from a British citizen about his own system as 
> mainly jealousy.

You got it :) ;)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4b341689$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:

> >   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
> > because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
> > mind.

> The general reaction I've observed from people in the US about this
> whole healthcare debacle also boils down to "what's in it for ME?

That's a very, possibly the only, legitimate question.

> Humans, eh?

Yes, *humans*. Not the Borg.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-12-2009 14:27, somebody wrote:
> "Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4b341689$1@news.povray.org...
>> Warp wrote:
> 
>>>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
>>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
>>> mind.
> 
>> The general reaction I've observed from people in the US about this
>> whole healthcare debacle also boils down to "what's in it for ME?
> 
> That's a very, possibly the only, legitimate question.

Only in the US, on this side of the Atlantic things are different*. 
Besides we take that 'ME' a bit wider, including more complicated 
concepts like: If health care improves for a group I do not belong to 
now, do I know people who do and might I one day be part of that group?
Indeed that Buxton index at work again.

* strangly often for religious reasons, but that is a different story.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4B3### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 25-12-2009 14:27, somebody wrote:
> > "Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:4b341689$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Warp wrote:
> >
> >>>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges
just
> >>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes
to
> >>> mind.
> >
> >> The general reaction I've observed from people in the US about this
> >> whole healthcare debacle also boils down to "what's in it for ME?
> >
> > That's a very, possibly the only, legitimate question.

> Only in the US, on this side of the Atlantic things are different*.
> Besides we take that 'ME' a bit wider, including more complicated
> concepts like: If health care improves for a group I do not belong to
> now, do I know people who do and might I one day be part of that group?

That's still *me*. Do not make the all too common mistake of assuming "me"
stands for "shortsided", or worse, "self destructive". Now, different
peoples have different projections for the future, and that's normal. Maybe
Europeans are more pessimistic about their futures than Americans, or maybe
Americans think such long term plans have too much uncertainity in them to
plan for, or maybe they prefer to invest their money the way they like it to
take care of possible future hardships, I don't know - although the latter
would be mainly my stance, for instance. But differences in opinion result
from not one side being more selfless or more selfish, but from initial
conditions and situations being different. What works for Finand will not
work for USA, and vice versa, for any number of
socio/economic/political/geographical/natural-resourse/...etc reasons.

In any case, modern economies and government are based on the expectation
that people wish to maximize the benefit to themselves, even though,
naturally, there won't be a single strategy that fits all. Democracy and
capitalism will take care of finding compromises that somewhat satisfies
significant numbers of people each with selfish goals, although the
"solutions" may be far from optimal, from an irrational point of view.

When you ask people to make unselfish decisions, and, worse, when you assume
they will do so, you can expect nothing but utter failure. Climate accords
will fail spectacularly for this simple reason. Humans are too rational to
"fall for" maximizing benefit to all to their own detriment.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-12-2009 21:20, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4B3### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 25-12-2009 14:27, somebody wrote:
>>> "Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
>>> news:4b341689$1@news.povray.org...
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges
> just
>>>>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes
> to
>>>>> mind.
>>>> The general reaction I've observed from people in the US about this
>>>> whole healthcare debacle also boils down to "what's in it for ME?
>>> That's a very, possibly the only, legitimate question.
> 
>> Only in the US, on this side of the Atlantic things are different*.
>> Besides we take that 'ME' a bit wider, including more complicated
>> concepts like: If health care improves for a group I do not belong to
>> now, do I know people who do and might I one day be part of that group?
> 
> That's still *me*. Do not make the all too common mistake of assuming "me"
> stands for "shortsided", or worse, "self destructive". 

I don't, that is why I referred to the Buxton index.

> Now, different
> peoples have different projections for the future, and that's normal. Maybe
> Europeans are more pessimistic about their futures than Americans, or maybe
> Americans think such long term plans have too much uncertainity in them to
> plan for, or maybe they prefer to invest their money the way they like it to
> take care of possible future hardships, I don't know - although the latter
> would be mainly my stance, for instance. But differences in opinion result
> from not one side being more selfless or more selfish, but from initial
> conditions and situations being different. What works for Finand will not
> work for USA, and vice versa, for any number of
> socio/economic/political/geographical/natural-resourse/...etc reasons.
> 
> In any case, modern economies and government are based on the expectation
> that people wish to maximize the benefit to themselves, even though,
> naturally, there won't be a single strategy that fits all. Democracy and
> capitalism will take care of finding compromises that somewhat satisfies
> significant numbers of people each with selfish goals, although the
> "solutions" may be far from optimal, from an irrational point of view.
> 
> When you ask people to make unselfish decisions, and, worse, when you assume
> they will do so, you can expect nothing but utter failure. Climate accords
> will fail spectacularly for this simple reason. 

In the case of the ozone hole they seem to be working however.

> Humans are too rational to
> "fall for" maximizing benefit to all to their own detriment.

Again you should replace 'humans' with 'US citizens'. You'd be surprised 
how many people think different all over the globe. Don't make the 
mistake that because all humans you know think in a certain way that 
will be the case for all humans.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4B3### [at] hotmailcom...

> > When you ask people to make unselfish decisions, and, worse, when you
assume
> > they will do so, you can expect nothing but utter failure. Climate
accords
> > will fail spectacularly for this simple reason.

> In the case of the ozone hole they seem to be working however.

It was a trivial situation compared to greenhouse emissions, did not
noticably affect ordinary people, and maybe more importantly, with expired
patents on CFCs and a fresh market to sell alternatives, chemical industry
supported CFC phase out.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 25-12-2009 21:20, somebody wrote:
>> Humans are too rational to
>> "fall for" maximizing benefit to all to their own detriment.
> 
> Again you should replace 'humans' with 'US citizens'. You'd be surprised
> how many people think different all over the globe. Don't make the
> mistake that because all humans you know think in a certain way that
> will be the case for all humans.

Not even with 'US citizens' as I have seen people in the USA "fall for"
that. Other things they "fall for":

Benefit of a group they hope to one day be a part of, but to own
detriment now.
Benefit of all by detriment to most.
Benefit to group they feel sorry for, but detriment to self.
Benefit to self, but detriment to group they dislike.

Face it, no individual is 'too rational' to 'fall for' something, all
the time. People are going to do things I disagree with, for reasons
that I will find irrational. I am sure that applies for all values of
'I' and 'people'.

Post a reply to this message

Private schools shouldn't be banned...
because little girls look cute in school uniforms.

Post a reply to this message

Not everything immoral needs to be illegal, and the difficulty in making
something illegal is no indication of its morality.  That is where I think
you're headed on the wrong track with this.

Of course, "posh" parents putting their kids into private schools is indeed a
direct cause of public schools deteriorating.  It's not a matter of jealousy but
of direct consequences, negative externalities if you will.

In my county, there's two school districts side by side. The kids from one high
school earn all kinds of accolades, the other one has a 46% dropout rate.
Whenever I meet a decent, involved family who happens to move into the bad
district, sho 'nuff they send their kids to the private school.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Not everything immoral needs to be illegal, and the difficulty in making
> something illegal is no indication of its morality.  That is where I think
> you're headed on the wrong track with this.
> 
> Of course, "posh" parents putting their kids into private schools is indeed a
> direct cause of public schools deteriorating.  It's not a matter of jealousy but
> of direct consequences, negative externalities if you will.
> 
> In my county, there's two school districts side by side. The kids from one high
> school earn all kinds of accolades, the other one has a 46% dropout rate.
> Whenever I meet a decent, involved family who happens to move into the bad
> district, sho 'nuff they send their kids to the private school.
> 
Sadly, in the US, schools are part of the culture war going on. There 
are people on boards, like the one in Texas, that **admit** to having 
gotten elected so they can destroy the public system. The only 
"standards" are set by the same state boards, who are often unqualified, 
and make choices about what and how things are taught that have 
*nothing* to do with what works. This is in contract to private schools, 
which take on of two tacks - The ones that care at all have the teachers 
work out what needs to be taught, and hire from a pool that is *noted* 
for doing well. The ones that are ideology driven use the old school 
"Rote" learning system, which sidesteps the need to understand the 
ideas, by satisfying the only thing that can be easily tested, "Whether 
or not the can give the right answers, whether they understand why they 
are right or not, even even, sometimes *if* they are right or not (in 
the case of those things that fall into the 'stuff we want them to take 
as truth' category)."

There is a strong rise in the US of institutions like Liberty 
University, and "home schooling", the former of which will let you turn 
in dissertations on biology, which contain nothing but whining about 
god, gods creation, and the vast global conspiracy of Darwinists. The 
later.. You can buy specialized "pro-creationist" texts for, which 
teach, "How to answer the questions the way other schools and the 
government want you to, without corrupting yourself with belief in those 
things." Its the #1 best selling "home schooler" kit in the country, 
last I heard. Which should tell you, right off, who is doing 90% of the 
home schooling in the US. Their reason for it? Most of them buy the kits 
because they are a) not close enough to, b) can't afford, or c) don't 
trust the *type* of private school closest to them (FSM forbid a 
Protestant land in a Catholic school, and actually have to learn 
something, for example), to teach the *truth (tm)*.

Their torpedoing the public schools via *intentional* sabotage, neglect, 
and defunding, even as most of the new "private" schools have been fundi 
in nature recently, and most of the people sinking the public schools 
don't even **have** kids in the program, since they are busy teaching 
them, at home, how Jesus invented toothpaste.

To the original question... I think we need stricter guidelines as to 
what sort of BS happens, and not based on more "multiple choice" tests 
to assess what is being taught, no matter what country is involved. The 
moment you make something private, it creates a gap between what is 
"intended" and what is actually happening, from the perspective of 
anyone believing it should be "universal". But, whether or not they need 
to be banned is **hugely** dependent one which country you are talking 
about, or even, as in the US, which *state* its in. In some places, the 
only difference between the public and private schools are that the 
public ones could *theoretically* be sued for the things being taught in 
them, if you ever got a federal judge to look at it, since the local 
ones don't think there is a single thing wrong, and support what is 
being taught in them. Its that bad, in some places.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Ok, it might not be "fair" that all children are not given the same
> opportunities, 

I think the whole "unequal opportunities" thing is confusing. It *used* to 
be that kids didn't get equal opportunities. (E.g., in the USA, the black 
kids were prevented from going to the same schools as the white kids by 
law.) Now people have equal opportunities, and the complaint is actually 
that it's unfair that everyone who succeeds has to *work* at it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> did not noticably affect ordinary people, 

Well, unless you were in a third-world country relying on freon refrigeration.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I was reading a newspaper article written by a British teacher whose
> opinion is that private schools in the UK should be banned. When all the
> wordy argumentation is distilled down to its very basics, it comes down
> to be, basically, "it's unfair that some children are getting a better
> education solely because their parents happen to be rich; this kind of
> elitist snobbery is completely inappropriate to the modern world we are
> living in".
>
>   This got me thinking: *Why* shouldn't at least some children get a better
> education, if their parents can afford it? What's so wrong with that?
>
>   The complaint would make sense if *all* children could be given a much
> higher level of education if the private vs. public schooling system was
> dismantled and replaced with a public-schooling-only system. However, given
> that children in private schools form a very small minority, and the reason
> why they get a better education is because these private schools have better
> funding (because the rich parents are funding them), banning the private
> schools is not going to increase the funding of public schools in any
> significant way. (In other words, even if the funding/student which now
> goes to private schools was distributed among public schools, the overall
> funding/student in public schools would not increase significantly.)
>
>   So basically what this teacher wants is to deny a better education from
> these children and force them to go to public schools which have lower
> funding for the sole reason that it's more "fair", basically forcing *all*
> children to the same lower level of education, insted of having at least
> *some* of them in better schools.
>
>   Given that a significant majority of children who go to private schools
> end up going to Universities and becoming university-level professionals
> (such as teachers, doctors, surgeons, etc.), deliberately dumbing down
> their basic education just for the sake of "fairness" feels completely
> counter-productive.
>
>   Ok, it might not be "fair" that all children are not given the same
> opportunities, but do you really want to lower the overall education level
> of your entire country just in the name of "fairness"?
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp



I agree with warp.
When you take from the haves and give to the have nots without regard to the
effort of acquisition then both die.
Free money is not free. Somebody had to work for it.
I have what I have because I did what it took to have it. Why should my hard
work now become a sin in the eyes of the world? It sounds like socialism is
becoming the new irrational religion based on the myth that everyone should be
equal.
In the US in the past we understood the starting point was all the same but what
you got after that was up to you. As of late our government keeps listening to
the myths of socialism.

Post a reply to this message

On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
[snipped warp text]
> 
> 
> I agree with warp.
> When you take from the haves and give to the have nots without regard to the
> effort of acquisition then both die.

American?

> Free money is not free. Somebody had to work for it.

Yes I think so

> I have what I have because I did what it took to have it. Why should my hard
> work now become a sin in the eyes of the world? 

Quite confident now

> It sounds like socialism is
> becoming the new irrational religion based on the myth that everyone should be
> equal.

Definitely American

> In the US in the past we

Yes \o/ I knew it.

>  understood the starting point was all the same but what
> you got after that was up to you. As of late our government keeps listening to
> the myths of socialism.

Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US 
propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it 
makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman 
and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
> It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US 
> propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it 
> makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman 
> and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.

  Personally I think socialism (meaning that private property and private
enterpreneurship is banned, and everything is controlled by the government
and, in an ideal/utopistic situation, the government shares all capital
equally with all citizens) might be an enticing ideology because it's "fair"
(after all, it's unfair that some people can live in multi-million dollar
mansions, own one expensive sports car for every day of the week, and travel
regularly to the Bahamas in their own private jet, while so many people
are living in cardboard boxes on the streets). However, from a pragmatic
point of view socialism just doesn't work. It causes progress stagnation,
which ends up lessening everybody's quality of life in the long run.

  Capitalism endorses competition. People will strive for bettering their
own lives (to get rich, famous or otherwise in a better position in life).
While this sounds (and somewhat is) a sign of greed, in the grand scale of
things it's actually greed that benefits the society as a whole: By bettering
his own life, this person is pushing forward progress, indirectly bettering
everyone's life in average.

  Someone might want to get rich and famous by making a beneficial invention
or developing something useful in order to sell it for millions. If he
succeeds, he gets filthy rich (which was his goal), but as a side effect
the overall quality of the society got increased because now there's a new
invention which makes everyone's life easier.

  Socialism, on the other hand, deters innovation and progress. There's
nothing personal to be gained by making new inventions or bettering your
own quality of life. You can't sell your invention to others for money
because the government owns whatever you make. So why bother? There's nothing
to be gained, and everything to be lost: All your hard work will be
"hijacked" by the government and you get nothing.

  What people want is unreasonable. Basically they want to eat the cake and
keep it too: They want all the benefits of innovation and progress which
comes from competitive capitalism, but without the competitive capitalism,
so that everyone owns the same amount. This just doesn't work.

  It's not a coincidence that the best technological innovations are created
in capitalist countries which endorse free commerce and private ownership and
entrepreneurship.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 29-12-2009 21:46, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
>> It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US 
>> propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it 
>> makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman 
>> and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.
> 
>   Personally I think socialism (meaning that private property and private
> enterpreneurship is banned, and everything is controlled by the government
> and, in an ideal/utopistic situation, the government shares all capital
> equally with all citizens) might be an enticing ideology because it's "fair"
> (after all, it's unfair that some people can live in multi-million dollar
> mansions, own one expensive sports car for every day of the week, and travel
> regularly to the Bahamas in their own private jet, while so many people
> are living in cardboard boxes on the streets). However, from a pragmatic
> point of view socialism just doesn't work. It causes progress stagnation,
> which ends up lessening everybody's quality of life in the long run.
> 
>   Capitalism endorses competition. People will strive for bettering their
> own lives (to get rich, famous or otherwise in a better position in life).
> While this sounds (and somewhat is) a sign of greed, in the grand scale of
> things it's actually greed that benefits the society as a whole: By bettering
> his own life, this person is pushing forward progress, indirectly bettering
> everyone's life in average.
> 
>   Someone might want to get rich and famous by making a beneficial invention
> or developing something useful in order to sell it for millions. If he
> succeeds, he gets filthy rich (which was his goal), but as a side effect
> the overall quality of the society got increased because now there's a new
> invention which makes everyone's life easier.
> 
>   Socialism, on the other hand, deters innovation and progress. There's
> nothing personal to be gained by making new inventions or bettering your
> own quality of life. You can't sell your invention to others for money
> because the government owns whatever you make. So why bother? There's nothing
> to be gained, and everything to be lost: All your hard work will be
> "hijacked" by the government and you get nothing.
> 
>   What people want is unreasonable. Basically they want to eat the cake and
> keep it too: They want all the benefits of innovation and progress which
> comes from competitive capitalism, but without the competitive capitalism,
> so that everyone owns the same amount. This just doesn't work.
> 
>   It's not a coincidence that the best technological innovations are created
> in capitalist countries which endorse free commerce and private ownership and
> entrepreneurship.
> 

In general I agree with you, as would almost anybody in the first world. 
A few remarks: you mention "best technological innovations" this (and 
some of your other statements) imply that innovation is or can be good. 
This is an assumption not shared by everybody everywhere*.
Second, socialism (in the standard sense, not the one used by m1j) does 
not work because, as you said, it goes against human nature. OTOH pure 
capitalism does not work either. Although sometimes somebody gets rich 
by doing something beneficial, in most cases the easiest and fastest way 
to get rich is finding a way to make money in a way that somebody else 
pays the bill. Either in money or in reduced lifetime or in a broader 
sense the environment. You need to have rules to weed out the parasites 
without killing the good entrepreneurs. Anybody remembers the money crisis?

Slightly related: we have a discussion here on raising the retirement 
age to 67. For jobs that require physical labour it should stay at 65. 
Which raises the question which jobs are the hardest. A couple of lists 
circulate and most people are convinced that they should be on that 
list. A labour organisation proposed to simply use a monetary cut off. 
Everybody earning less than a certain amount should be able to retire at 
65 because most of those jobs are below that. What does it say about a 
society when there is a negative correlation between working hard and 
income?

* There is that parable of a man sitting under a tree that catches just 
enough to feed himself and family. A man comes by and says: why are you 
lying under that tree. You could be cathing more fish and make money. 
man under tree: why would I want that?
other man: so you can buy a bigger boat and catch more fish
man under tree: why would I want that?
other man: in a few years you get still a bigger boat and make even more 
money.
man under tree: why would I want that?
other man: Then after a couple of years you would be so rich that you 
would not have to work again and sit the the whole day under a tree
man under tree: ...

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> What does it say about a society when there is a negative correlation between
working hard and 
> income?


Work smarter, not harder?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

m1j wrote:
> 
> I agree with warp.
> When you take from the haves and give to the have nots without regard to the
> effort of acquisition then both die.

Who said anything about having no regard for the effort?

> Free money is not free. Somebody had to work for it.

You are right, it isn't free and someone did work for it.

> I have what I have because I did what it took to have it.

And had all of the benefits of modern society, that provided the chance
for you to survive infancy, have the chance at a good education,
possibly attend university at a decreased rate. Then you expended some
effort doing what? Building an entire industry from scratch, or more
likely building on top of what someone else had done before.

> Why should my hard
> work now become a sin in the eyes of the world? It sounds like socialism is
> becoming the new irrational religion based on the myth that everyone should be
> equal.

Opinion, and absurd.

> In the US in the past we understood the starting point was all the same but what
> you got after that was up to you. As of late our government keeps listening to
> the myths of socialism.
> 
> 

Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?

Really, what is the difference between 'socialist' health care and the
USA medicare/medicaid programs? Between socialist police and city run
police? Or city run water/trash/sewer. Or a city/state paid fire
department. Or taxes to pay for the interstate, the internet, TV.

Give up all of those, all of the benefits of modern society, and build
an industry from scratch against a monopoly without the help of
government tax breaks or enforced rules of capitalism. Then, as a fellow
American, I will listen to the anti-socialist rants without giggling.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 1:01, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> What does it say about a society when there is a negative correlation 
>> between working hard and income?
> 
> 
> Work smarter, not harder?
> 

Does that apply that everybody has that choice?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 1:01, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> What does it say about a society when there is a negative correlation 
>>> between working hard and income?
>>
>>
>> Work smarter, not harder?
>>
> 
> Does that apply that everybody has that choice?

I suppose only the smart people. Then we're back where we started.

As an aside, that was a joke, not a serious suggestion.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> A few remarks: you mention "best technological innovations" this (and 
> some of your other statements) imply that innovation is or can be good. 
> This is an assumption not shared by everybody everywhere*.

  Thanks to innovations in medicine and technology people's life expectance
and overall quality of life has increased significantly. Someone could oppose
the idea, but that someone would be wrong.

  (And for some reason when speaking about innovation and progress in
capitalist countries, many people only think about the huge gap between
rich and poor people... in the United States. There are other capitalist
countries in this world besides the United States, you know. They might
not call themselves "capitalist" because that's nowadays a curseword, but
if they are based on free commerce and private ownership, that's capitalism
by definition. They might want to play with terminology in other to avoid
the hated C-word, but that doesn't change anything.)

> OTOH pure capitalism does not work either.

  I think that with the word "pure" you are implying that there's zero
governmental control. I think that's an unfair assumption.

  No economic system (or, more generally, any form of society with a
significant amount of people) can work without governmental control (because
of the nature of humans). Governmental control can always be implied.

  Of course a capitalist society needs a strong government to regulate
what people can and cannot do, in order to stop exploitation. However,
that's true for *all* forms of economy and society. It's not something
exclusive to capitalism. Thus I think it's unfair to say that "pure"
capitalism doesn't work, as if only capitalism could be "pure" in the
sense of no-governmental-control.

> Slightly related: we have a discussion here on raising the retirement 
> age to 67.

  There has been for some time discussion about retirement ages here in
Finland as well. I find it amusing how completely differing opinions there
are.

  Some people think that retirement age should be increased. The reasoning
is that in many fields there's a labor shortage, and people who get retired
are usually the people with the most expertise and experience on that
specific field. In many fields a 65-years-old is perfectly capable of keeping
working for a couple of years more.

  Other people think the exact opposite: Retirement age should be lowered.
The reasoning is that old people should give way to younger people.

  I think that the problem is that neither view works in *all* possible
fields of labor. There are some fields where there's a huge labor shortage
(eg. jobs related to eg. programming and web development) while in other
fields there's a huge amount of unemployment (eg. construction work and
similar). Often the former would benefit from older people with years of
experience, while the latter would benefit from younger people.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 2:22, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 30-12-2009 1:01, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> What does it say about a society when there is a negative 
>>>> correlation between working hard and income?
>>>
>>>
>>> Work smarter, not harder?
>>>
>>
>> Does that apply that everybody has that choice?
> 
> I suppose only the smart people. Then we're back where we started.
> 
> As an aside, that was a joke, not a serious suggestion.
> 
Well, you never know with Americans. Some seem to religiously believe 
that everybody has at birth the same possibilities*. Which is of course 
in stark contrast to communism, where they believe that everybody has at 
birth the same possibilities.

* It is just that some take those and some don't, but that is their own 
fault.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 9:02, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> A few remarks: you mention "best technological innovations" this (and 
>> some of your other statements) imply that innovation is or can be good. 
>> This is an assumption not shared by everybody everywhere*.
> 
>   Thanks to innovations in medicine and technology people's life expectance
> and overall quality of life has increased significantly. Someone could oppose
> the idea, but that someone would be wrong.

I know that almost everybody wants themselves and their loved ones to 
live longer. That does not imply that all these people also think 
everybody should pass that time wearing digital watches.
There may be a gap between what is good for you and what is good for 
society. People running a country (or church) have to think about such 
issues. And as they in general have control of the media they will be 
able to convince a group of people. They may even be right sometimes.

>   (And for some reason when speaking about innovation and progress in
> capitalist countries, many people only think about the huge gap between
> rich and poor people... in the United States. There are other capitalist
> countries in this world besides the United States, you know. 

Yes I know, why do you ask?

> 
>> OTOH pure capitalism does not work either.
> 
>   I think that with the word "pure" you are implying that there's zero
> governmental control. I think that's an unfair assumption.
> 
>   No economic system (or, more generally, any form of society with a
> significant amount of people) can work without governmental control (because
> of the nature of humans). Governmental control can always be implied.

That is what I said, yes. The reason I brought it up is that there are 
people that will refer to any government control as 'socialism'.

> Thus I think it's unfair to say that "pure"
> capitalism doesn't work, as if only capitalism could be "pure" in the
> sense of no-governmental-control.

Hmm, not sure if you would win a logical contest with that, but I 
understand what you mean. Or actually I don't. What type of economical 
system do you know that preaches absence of government control, other 
than extremist capitalism?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Well, you never know with Americans. Some seem to religiously believe 
> that everybody has at birth the same possibilities*.

No, it's more like everyone should get the same opportunities. But if you're 
unable to take advantage of the opportunity, you don't get to leech off 
someone else.

Everyone should be allowed to buy a house. That doesn't mean we take houses 
from people who own two and give them to people who are too poor to buy 
their own, you see.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> if they are based on free commerce and private ownership, that's capitalism
> by definition.

Technically, I think "capital" has to be included in there. You can have 
(say) nomadic hunter/gatherer tribes that have free trade and private 
ownership without capital.

>   Of course a capitalist society needs a strong government to regulate
> what people can and cannot do, in order to stop exploitation. However,
> that's true for *all* forms of economy and society. 

It's mostly minimal for capitalism, because capitalism tends to go along 
with what people want to do anyway. Contrast with communism, where Marx even 
recognised you'd have to have a brutal and repressive government to make it 
work.

And there isn't any "pure" communism, either. Even in the depths of the 
"communist" part of China's history, you still had to pay for food and pay 
to use the subway. You'd think something like the subway, where carrying an 
additional rider is practically free given you've already invested in the 
capital of building the thing, would be free under communism.  Show me a 
communism that doesn't have a currency before you tell me it's "pure 
communism". :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I know that almost everybody wants themselves and their loved ones to 
> live longer. That does not imply that all these people also think 
> everybody should pass that time wearing digital watches.

The two go together.

> Hmm, not sure if you would win a logical contest with that, but I 
> understand what you mean. Or actually I don't. What type of economical 
> system do you know that preaches absence of government control, other 
> than extremist capitalism?

Extremist capitalism doesn't preach no government control. That would be 
anarchy. I don't know of any capitalist who thinks having the government not 
in control of enforcing contracts (for example) is a good thing.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
> [snipped warp text]
>>

>  It is just like talking to a Scotsman 
> and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.
> 

Oi! Is that an interesting use of the word “interesting”? ;)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
> 

It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of “Communism”

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a sy
nonym of “Communism”

What do *you* think the difference is?  They sound pretty similar, except
 
one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by "the peop
le".

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 11:54, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of 
>> “Communism”
> 
> What do *you* think the difference is?  They sound pretty similar, 
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by 
> "the people".

In the Netherlands communism is associated with Russia and China. We had 
a communist party (now part of a larger alliance). It was closely linked 
to Moscow, very dogmatic and very surprised when it became known what 
Russian communism actually meant in practice.
Socialism is a much broader term. Our labour party (in size number 1,2 
or 3 of our political parties over the last decades) is a socialist 
party. Socialist parties are very well represented in the European 
parliament as well. The main characteristic is that they will always 
think first about what a proposal means for the working class, those 
without the money to buy political influence (or that is the theory).
In short: to Europeans the difference is huge. Americans using the term 
'socialism' are generally regarded with a friendly sort of paternalism. 
They clearly don't know what they are talking about, but that is OK, 
they are Americans.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 11:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Well, you never know with Americans. Some seem to religiously believe 
>> that everybody has at birth the same possibilities*.
> 
> No, it's more like everyone should get the same opportunities.

I don't have a problem with 'should'. I do have problems with people 
implying that it is already the current state.

> But if 
> you're unable to take advantage of the opportunity, you don't get to 
> leech off someone else.

As a socialist ;) I should reply that quite a lot of people are unable 
to take advantage, simple because in practice they don't get the 
opportunity. It is economically sound to kill everybody with a 
disability and with an IQ of less than 80, but you can also take your 
responsibility as a society to act as an extended family and take care 
of them. You might call that leeching, I don't. In most cases it is not 
that extreme, but we feel that it is sensible to prevent people to sink 
down deep in poverty, because if they do, they and their children (ad 
infinitum?) will never contribute to society again. Besides, the one who 
is accused of leeching may be you in ten years time, struggling to feed 
your family.

> Everyone should be allowed to buy a house. That doesn't mean we take 
> houses from people who own two and give them to people who are too poor 
> to buy their own, you see.

I am not aware that anybody suggested that.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 11:16, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I know that almost everybody wants themselves and their loved ones to 
>> live longer. That does not imply that all these people also think 
>> everybody should pass that time wearing digital watches.
> 
> The two go together.

That is what you think ;)

>> Hmm, not sure if you would win a logical contest with that, but I 
>> understand what you mean. Or actually I don't. What type of economical 
>> system do you know that preaches absence of government control, other 
>> than extremist capitalism?
> 
> Extremist capitalism doesn't preach no government control. That would be 
> anarchy. I don't know of any capitalist who thinks having the government 
> not in control of enforcing contracts (for example) is a good thing.

I was a bit sloppy there.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 11:35, Stephen wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
>> [snipped warp text]
>>>
> 
>>  It is just like talking to a Scotsman and don't hear a word because 
>> he has such an interesting accent.
>>
> 
> Oi! Is that an interesting use of the word “interesting”? ;)
> 
Why? I really love listening to it. Trying to figure out what they do to 
their vowels and consonants. What phrases and words they use. Really 
fantastically interesting. Sorry, what were you saying?

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
> > It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US
> > propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it
> > makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman
> > and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.
>
>   Personally I think socialism (meaning that private property and private
> enterpreneurship is banned, and everything is controlled by the government
> and, in an ideal/utopistic situation, the government shares all capital
> equally with all citizens) might be an enticing ideology because it's "fair"
> (after all, it's unfair that some people can live in multi-million dollar
> mansions, own one expensive sports car for every day of the week, and travel
> regularly to the Bahamas in their own private jet, while so many people
> are living in cardboard boxes on the streets). However, from a pragmatic
> point of view socialism just doesn't work. It causes progress stagnation,
> which ends up lessening everybody's quality of life in the long run.
>
>   Capitalism endorses competition. People will strive for bettering their
> own lives (to get rich, famous or otherwise in a better position in life).
> While this sounds (and somewhat is) a sign of greed, in the grand scale of
> things it's actually greed that benefits the society as a whole: By bettering
> his own life, this person is pushing forward progress, indirectly bettering
> everyone's life in average.


What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.

The key point here is nagging. "Capitalists" are tired of nagging about what
they do in the marketplace and, to echo Scrooge, say, "I wish to be left alone."
 Capitalists seek some idyllic realm where they can be free to practice their
wares (and warez), free of not only state intervention but also the actual
social and scientific consequences (ozone depletion) of what they are doing.
We don't necessarily need a world where the hand of capitalists are restrained
by the state, but we desperately need more nagging.

Socialism is three wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Capitalism is one sheep telling three others that fences deprive wolves of
liberty.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 11:08, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Well, you never know with Americans. Some seem to religiously believe 
>>> that everybody has at birth the same possibilities*.
>>
>> No, it's more like everyone should get the same opportunities.
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'should'. I do have problems with people 
> implying that it is already the current state.

Certainly. But there's a delicate balance between freedom and "should get 
the same opportunities."  We have a set of laws that cover it, and that set 
of laws are constantly being argued and refined. We have equal opportunity 
employment laws (outlawing discrimination in hiring based on a particular 
list of factors), disabled person access laws (mandating that buildings open 
to the public have to have ramps, for example), and so on.

>> But if you're unable to take advantage of the opportunity, you don't 
>> get to leech off someone else.
> 
> As a socialist ;) I should reply that quite a lot of people are unable 
> to take advantage, simple because in practice they don't get the 
> opportunity.

Note how I phrased it. They have the opportunity, but they're unable to take 
advantage of it. Nothing *external* is stopping someone with an IQ of 80 
from winning a Nobel prize. Nothing *external* is stopping someone with no 
arms from being a carpenter.

> responsibility as a society to act as an extended family and take care 
> of them. You might call that leeching, I don't. 

It depends, really. I have no problem with supporting the relatively small 
number of people who are really physically incapable of being gainfully 
employed.

I haven't any problem with public schooling. I have a problem with 
*removing* opportunities from those who *can* take advantage of them 
*because* there are people who *cannot*, you see. Which is what this thread 
started as a discussion of.

>> Everyone should be allowed to buy a house. That doesn't mean we take 
>> houses from people who own two and give them to people who are too 
>> poor to buy their own, you see.
> 
> I am not aware that anybody suggested that.

No. It was an example of extremism in the other direction.

I think a middle ground is reasonable, in this and most things. The problem 
with stereotypes of Americans is that you only hear, for the most part, the 
extreme ends of the spectrum, because of the economics and politics of 
getting people fired up. If you're already happy with the middle-ground we 
have, you don't get on the radio and try to work people up to support it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 11:16, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I know that almost everybody wants themselves and their loved ones to 
>>> live longer. That does not imply that all these people also think 
>>> everybody should pass that time wearing digital watches.
>>
>> The two go together.
> 
> That is what you think ;)

Of course I'm talking figuratively. You don't get more food and longer 
lifespans without things like artificial fertilizer, genetically engineered 
crops, and MRI machines.

And I'm not sure that everyone wants themselves and their loved ones to live 
longer. Certainly many religions preach that it's a good thing to be dead, 
and religions that utterly reject material wealth (like extreme monks of 
various religions) also tend to be stereotyped as not dying.

Of course, in practice, folks generally are uncomfortable with death, 
regardless of what they claim to believe religiously.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> The key point here is nagging. "Capitalists" are tired of nagging about what
> they do in the marketplace and, to echo Scrooge, say, "I wish to be left alone."

I think capitalism works if you can impose the costs of externalities and 
distribute them to those it costs. If you could actually charge companies 
making Freon with the costs of the damage caused by the ozone hole, you 
could make that work.

It just so happens that government regulations on stuff like that (say, 
"carbon tax") is how that gets implemented. Of course the people making 
money would rather not pay that cost.

And capitalism really only works perfectly in a perfect-knowledge world. I 
would rather have building inspectors making sure buildings are safe than to 
have to do that myself with every building I go into. There are some 
"tragedy of the commons" type problems where it really is more efficient to 
have something like that enforced by force rather than the market, because 
it's much cheaper overall.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> In short: to Europeans the difference is huge. Americans using the term 
> 'socialism' are generally regarded with a friendly sort of paternalism. 

It doesn't seem that way to an American.

You're talking about the political differences. There doesn't seem to be 
much *economic* difference, except in the way the government manages to take 
the capital to be redistributed.

I think the Americans are talking about economics and you're talking about 
government forms.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 13:45, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> In short: to Europeans the difference is huge. Americans using the 
>> term 'socialism' are generally regarded with a friendly sort of 
>> paternalism. 
> 
> It doesn't seem that way to an American.
> 
> You're talking about the political differences. There doesn't seem to be 
> much *economic* difference, except in the way the government manages to 
> take the capital to be redistributed.
> 
> I think the Americans are talking about economics and you're talking 
> about government forms.
> 

Might be. I wouldn't know if there is a standard definition of socialism 
that everybody agrees to, but for me the economic policies of socialism 
are conceptually hard to separate from the economic policies of our 
socialists. Wikipedia does not seem to support your view of what a 
socialist economics is, but that is just one source.

The US does not have or had a socialist party that plays any significant 
role. So I don't think an American can comment on what socialism is or 
should be, at least not when Europeans are present ;) Or would you want 
me to refer to all Christians and neo-conservatives in the states as 
Mormons?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 11:35, Stephen wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
>>> [snipped warp text]
>>>>
>>
>>>  It is just like talking to a Scotsman and don't hear a word because 
>>> he has such an interesting accent.
>>>
>>
>> Oi! Is that an interesting use of the word “interesting”? ;)
>>
> Why? I really love listening to it. Trying to figure out what they do to 
> their vowels and consonants. What phrases and words they use. Really 
> fantastically interesting. Sorry, what were you saying?

LOL ;)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message