Bush never knows anything...

[Echewta]

"Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility — and Bush was worried too."

[Documad]

It's pretty astonishing what he knew, what his highest staff knew, what the feds knew, and how little anyone cares right now about holding them accountable.

Harry Shearer is the only one trying to hold the feds accountable. Harry Shearer.

[ms.peachy]

Interesting how Micheal Brown is now emerging as looking like the only one who was actually vaguely competent in his role.

[Documad]

I know that I posted it before, but our local free paper ran an in depth article right after Katrina saying that Brown was an idiot but that it wasn't his fault -- it was the fault of Bush for gutting FEMA and putting everything in the hands of Homeland Security. FEMA was intentionally and systematically dismantled which is how someone like Brown winds up in charge.

[SobaViolence]

i saw this on BBC world.

i'm just glad it reached america. the first thing i thought was...'no one is gonna see this down there...'

[enree erzweglle]

i saw this on BBC world.

i'm just glad it reached america. the first thing i thought was...'no one is gonna see this down there...'
I just read/watched it from BBC news. It's on CNN's front page.

Interesting how Micheal Brown is now emerging as looking like the only one who was actually vaguely competent in his role.Yes, he (Brown) specifically points out that the Superdome is ~12' below sea level and goes on to question the integrity of its roof to withstand a category 5 hurricane. GW: silence.

I was in Texas/Louisiana after Katrina & Rita hit and as Wilma was approaching and eventually hit land. People there directed their anger at FEMA and then to the Red Cross, yet throughout, it was unreal to me to see how much love and loyalty there was for GW. I don't quite know how he does it.

[cosmo105]

^that's just mind boggling.

let's blame the people that are trying to help us, not the ones that are tying their hands and taking away their resources! god is american!

[valvano]

this is an example of why you dont want the govt, either under a rep or dem administration, running health care, retirement, etc.....

get the govt out of your everyday life as much as possible, cut govt spending, cut taxes, and people will be able to take care of themselves instead of being made fools of by the govt and a bunch of politicians / bureaucrats blaming each other...

this is yet another example in the long history of govt action making a problem worse than it was prior to govt involvement.....

[cookiepuss]

hummm...what's the big surprise here? that he knew about the danger or that no one is actally going to hold them accountable?

Of course he knew, but he's a big fat LIAR. He's been LYING to us since he started campaigning for office. Big daddy bush wasn't that much better. In fact Hunter S. Thompson called Bush Senior the biggest criminal in office since Nixon, and knowing how much Thompson hated Nixon that's pretty bad.

[Ace42X]

this is an example of why you dont want the govt, either under a rep or dem administration, running health care, retirement, etc.

Hah, like you are in any position to lecture people about healthcare when you have one of the least efficient in the world.

[Pres Zount]

He didn't know anything??!!

What a coincidence! John Howard didn't know anything about the 'children overboard' scandal or the "habbib torture' scandal or the 'AWB/Iraq' scandal!

[SobaViolence]

how can the president of the united states not know anything?


how many intelligence agencies does he have at his control, like 19? plus advisors, specialists and other non-intelligence, specialist departments like agriculture, EPA, meteorologists...


what a fucking knob.

[cosmo105]

uh...right...that would be my profile, all right...except for that last incoherent part.

edit: oh great, he was banned. now i look ridiculous. :mad:

[ASsman]

Let's not play the Blame Game.

[Ace42X]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46007

[Schmeltz]

What's better, valvano? Entrusting vital services like health care and emergency services to elected officials responsible to the public, or entrusting them to private agencies with no accountability to anybody? Perhaps if your government was halfway competent this situation wouldn't have descended to the anarchic depth it eventually reached and we wouldn't have ideologues like yourself parroting the same jive about how people with profit on their minds should be in charge of the public good.

It strikes me that the concept of government accountability has all but disappeared in the USA. I can't think of another government besides the Bush administration so riven with controversy, failure, incompetence, and total lack of political acumen. When I was in Florida a couple of weeks ago everybody I talked to agreed on one thing: George Bush is a fool and a buffoon who is running the country into the ground. And yet he is still in power. It's mind-boggling. Isn't the Constitution supposed to safeguard against this kind of thing? What gives? I think this will be a very interesting question for the historians of a century hence.

[D_Raay]

What's better, valvano? Entrusting vital services like health care and emergency services to elected officials responsible to the public, or entrusting them to private agencies with no accountability to anybody? Perhaps if your government was halfway competent this situation wouldn't have descended to the anarchic depth it eventually reached and we wouldn't have ideologues like yourself parroting the same jive about how people with profit on their minds should be in charge of the public good.

It strikes me that the concept of government accountability has all but disappeared in the USA. I can't think of another government besides the Bush administration so riven with controversy, failure, incompetence, and total lack of political acumen. When I was in Florida a couple of weeks ago everybody I talked to agreed on one thing: George Bush is a fool and a buffoon who is running the country into the ground. And yet he is still in power. It's mind-boggling. Isn't the Constitution supposed to safeguard against this kind of thing? What gives? I think this will be a very interesting question for the historians of a century hence.


It's very disconcerting, but see what having big money on your side can do?

[EN[i]GMA]

What's better, valvano? Entrusting vital services like health care and emergency services to elected officials responsible to the public, or entrusting them to private agencies with no accountability to anybody?

Well, look how well entrusting anything to our public officials is going.

Katrina, Iraq, shooting people in the face.

Need I go on?


Perhaps if your government was halfway competent this situation wouldn't have descended to the anarchic depth it eventually reached and we wouldn't have ideologues like yourself parroting the same jive about how people with profit on their minds should be in charge of the public good.

Perhaps.

But the fact is, they are incompetent and I have the sneakingest feeling that they will be for some time more.

To quote Chernyshevsky, what is to be done?

I no longer think it's realistic (Or even desirable) to entirely extricate government from health care, but I'm also not completely sold on the state-run model but I also don't think demonizing markets is the answer.

Governements are certainly not inherently better than markets, and I doubt that there are better in general; I also dislike government, in principal.


It strikes me that the concept of government accountability has all but disappeared in the USA. I can't think of another government besides the Bush administration so riven with controversy, failure, incompetence, and total lack of political acumen. When I was in Florida a couple of weeks ago everybody I talked to agreed on one thing: George Bush is a fool and a buffoon who is running the country into the ground. And yet he is still in power. It's mind-boggling.

It's depressing.

My misanthropy is further aggravated each passing day.

I think I'm only beggining to realize how just how manifestly horrific this administration is.

I mean, I've thought Bush sucked the square one, but I think I just now realize the depth of the malfeasance.

It's like, you don't realize how deep the hole is until you hit the bottom.


Isn't the Constitution supposed to safeguard against this kind of thing?

I think so.

I actually have a pocket copy of the Constitution. I doubt anyone in the Bush Administration does.


What gives?

Decency and logic.


I think this will be a very interesting question for the historians of a century hence.

I think it's an interesting question now. I think it's a horrific answer too.

[Schmeltz]

Governements are certainly not inherently better than markets


Maybe not. But in principle I would prefer to see widespread social structures like health care and education handled by people directly accountable to the public. Politicians, at the very least, face re-election if not impeachment. The market is accountable to nobody. Of course, this is all theoretical and hinges on government actually being accountable to the citizenry in some way. Which, it is increasingly apparent, it is not.

I might also point out that I don't harbour the same dislike for government that you do, though I can understand your position. As a lifetime wage slave, I do however harbour strong dislike for the exploitative mechanisms of the market in general. You might feel the same if your experience had been similar.

[Echewta]

I seem to remember George W. Bush saying that he was very impressed with how Clinton had setup FEMA. I remember because I thought it was very odd for GW to praise anything Clinton did. The Homeland Security absorbed and made a mess of FEMA. Sounds like Clinton's FEMA might have been able to do a much better job than Bush. In that case, I wouldn't have minded my tax dollars going to being prepared to assist people in emergency situations.

[EN[i]GMA]

Maybe not. But in principle I would prefer to see widespread social structures like health care and education handled by people directly accountable to the public.

So would I.

But I don't think that's realistic.

In theory, it sounds great: give people control.


Politicians, at the very least, face re-election if not impeachment. The market is accountable to nobody.

Customers.

Debating the efficacy of voting in elections vs. 'voting' with dollars is a large, difficult issue, to say the least, but the state of the US political system (And really political systems around the world) is not reassuring.


Of course, this is all theoretical and hinges on government actually being accountable to the citizenry in some way. Which, it is increasingly apparent, it is not.

Even if it would be, would people take the effort to make things better?


I might also point out that I don't harbour the same dislike for government that you do, though I can understand your position. As a lifetime wage slave, I do however harbour strong dislike for the exploitative mechanisms of the market in general. You might feel the same if your experience had been similar.

Maybe.

But I find it interesting that you don't dislike the government taking 20-35% of your wages or at least you don't seem to make an issue out of it.

Presumably you're happy with the return on your investment? 60,000 mobile homes sitting in Texas, empty, at a supreme cost, for example.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
Debating the efficacy of voting in elections vs. 'voting' with dollars is a large, difficult issue, to say the least

Rubbish. Under an ideal electoral system, there is one person - one vote. If you are voting with dollars, one individual's say can be worth the same as MILLIONS of other "voters."

Common sense should point that out to you.

[EN[i]GMA]

Rubbish. Under an ideal electoral system, there is one person - one vote.

Which means nothing.

Look where 'one person, one vote' got us.

Ideally it probably is the best system, but the world is far from ideal.


If you are voting with dollars, one individual's say can be worth the same as MILLIONS of other "voters."

I don't have a problem with that. It's exactly how the market works now.

There is no fundamental reason why such a system would produce worse results than a 'one person, one vote' system.

Market voting is fundamentally different from electoral voting, and I would argue superior.

In a market, everyone can vote for different things and everyone can still win.

For example, different people can vote for different restaraunts to patronize, and both of the restaraunts can exist. Conversely, people can choose not to eat at either, and both will go out of business.

You don't see many rich people buying millions of hamburgers a day just to keep their favorite store in business, do you?

They may invest the money, or offer a loan or something, but they aren't 'voting' by spending their money on the product, and if none does that, the company fails.

Yes, a rich guy could endlessly keep an unpopular restaraunt afloat, but so what? He would have a lot more votes and he would be using them to counteract something the general market wants (The restaraunt to shut down) but, and this is the important part, what you're missing, his actions, his votes, don't influence yours.

You aren't adversely affected by his votes.

If you voted, democratically, to see if the restaraunt should stay open, you could piss of as much as 49% of the population, a large enough percentage to keep afloat the restaraunt, if given the chance, in a market voting system.

In this sense, democratic voting is authoritarian and dictatory in nature.

Do you see the basic difference here?

In an election, the winner wins it all. Bush won, Kerry lost, Nader lost, Badnarik lost, etc. People that voted for those candidates can't do anything about it: they have no recourse, except to vote (And probably lose) again.

But let's portray this as a market: If you were able to 'vote with your dollars', you would be able to live under the rules of your ideal candidate.

Bush voters could vote for Bush, Kerry voters for Kerry, Nader voters for Nader, etc., and none of them need lose. They would all get what they 'voted for'. Just as you get what you buy when you purchase something. Imagine if you went to buy something from the store, and instead of getting what you wanted, you got what the majority wanted.

In this way, markets can exist to serve small sections of the population, sections that would be ignored under a democratic system.

This is somewhat simplistic as I didn't go into what role prices play, rights, etc, but I think you get the idea.

So to bring this all back in again, I don't think your criticism is valid.

If the system were entirely 'democratic' in nature, it would be manifestly unfair to give one person millions of votes. But since market 'voting' works differently than electoral voting, it's really not a valid point.



Common sense should point that out to you.

I understand the concept fully. I just don't think it matters.

I know what you're trying to say, I just disagree.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
There is no fundamental reason why such a system would produce worse results than a 'one person, one vote' system.

Yes there is, it marginalises anyone who is poor and empowers the rich. Anyone who isn't rich automatically loses their voice.

In a market, everyone can vote for different things and everyone can still win.

Rubbish, the richest dozen people in the US control more wealth than the rest of the entire population put together.


They may invest the money, or offer a loan or something, but they aren't 'voting' by spending their money on the product, and if none does that, the company fails.

Except the rich don't CARE if the US "fails." Because it doesn't EFFECT them because they are already RICH. There is no incentive for them to make the US controlled industries efficient, or beneficial to the people.

You aren't adversely affected by his votes.

Nonsense. If the twelve richest people used their assets to vote, every single person in the US except for them would have to go along with it, and would have no recourse whatsoever.

If you voted, democratically, to see if the restaraunt should stay open, you could piss of as much as 49% of the population, a large enough percentage to keep afloat the restaraunt, if given the chance, in a market voting system.

In this sense, democratic voting is authoritarian and dictatory in nature.

Do you see the basic difference here?

Yes, that you have lost your grip on reality again. Running public services is not the same as being a customer at a restaurant. The two are in no way shape or form analagous.


But let's portray this as a market: If you were able to 'vote with your dollars', you would be able to live under the rules of your ideal candidate.

Rubbish. Would the Kerry voters only be able to use "Kerry" roads? Paid for by Tax dollars collected by Kerry from his supporters, and spent by his government?

What would happen in reality is that the Richest 12 people would control 90% of the country, with the remaining millions and millions of people having autonomy over less than one state's worth.

Oh, and as far as "winner takes all" democracy goes, you are conflating your country's backwards electoral system with "democracy".

Under parliamentary systems, other parties can wield varying degrees of power. For Blair to push through legislation, he needs support from a significant number of MPs, every single one of those MPs has been democratically elected by their local constituents. If a sizeable group of people vote for the Green party here, they will get a green MP, and that MP is not obliged to support the government in any way shape or form. The Prime Minister is reliant on the support of his party (and to a less extent, rival MPs) to make law here. So, if, theoretically, there was a different party for every seat, but one party had two seats, as a majority party, they would be in charge, however the disparate opposition parties would be able to dictate what policy gets pushed through. Technically, such a party would be hung, and they would have to form a coalition government (comprised of members of other parties). But, that coalition would still be dependant on the individual MP's leanings.

Furthermore, under a proportional representation system, this would be more pronounced. Ideally, we would have that, rather than our archaic "first past the post" system, however that is another debate right there.

[b i o n i c]

hummm...what's the big surprise here? that he knew about the danger or that no one is actally going to hold them accountable?

Of course he knew, but he's a big fat LIAR. He's been LYING to us since he started campaigning for office. Big daddy bush wasn't that much better. In fact Hunter S. Thompson called Bush Senior the biggest criminal in office since Nixon, and knowing how much Thompson hated Nixon that's pretty bad.


you see the similarities because nixon and bush are the bitches of the same master.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yes there is, it marginalises anyone who is poor and empowers the rich. Anyone who isn't rich automatically loses their voice.

Which isn't what happens in markets now.

And again, the 'one person, one vote' system is not exactly producing desirable results.



Rubbish, the richest dozen people in the US control more wealth than the rest of the entire population put together.

Yet the economy still functions exactly as I pointed out.

What you said may be true, but it is also irrelevent.


Except the rich don't CARE if the US "fails." Because it doesn't EFFECT them because they are already RICH. There is no incentive for them to make the US controlled industries efficient, or beneficial to the people.

If the US failed, they would soon find that their money isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I don't think you exactly understand what I'm arguing.


Nonsense. If the twelve richest people used their assets to vote, every single person in the US except for them would have to go along with it, and would have no recourse whatsoever.

I'm not proposing they use their assets to vote in a governement run election or anything of the sort, so your point isn't one.


Yes, that you have lost your grip on reality again. Running public services is not the same as being a customer at a restaurant. The two are in no way shape or form analagous.

Of course they're analagous.

They are methods of rendering a service.

They are not the 'the same', obviously; if they were, we wouldn't be having a discussion.

Are you honestly saying there is no analogue whatsoever between running health care as a public service and getting health service from a private company? What an absurdly stupid statement.

In one you vote for a politician to make decisions, say install a new X-Ray machine.

In the other, you may 'vote' for a hospital that installed new X-Ray machines.

Are you honestly saying there is no analogy here?


Rubbish. Would the Kerry voters only be able to use "Kerry" roads? Paid for by Tax dollars collected by Kerry from his supporters, and spent by his government?

I didn't mean literally, that the government itself could be run in this fasion, I was using the names to illustrate a point.

Replace the president names with restaraunts or stores. That's my point. I was just using the election schema.


What would happen in reality is that the Richest 12 people would control 90% of the country, with the remaining millions and millions of people having autonomy over less than one state's worth.

I'm not actually advocating a system where people vote, 'democratically', based on their money.

I was advocating replacing democratic decision making with market decision making whenever possible.

If what you're saying is true, state run, democratic companies and economies would be paragons of efficiency and effectiveness, and countries without democratic control of the economy would be completely owned by a few private citizens, with nary a government at all.



I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Any allusions to 'market voting' or 'voting with your dollars' were not meant to be taken as an endorsement of replacing 'one person, one vote' voting with 'one dollar, one vote' voting, but as replacing democratic voting with market based decision making. Voting, in this context, was an allusion, an analogy. Replace at your leisure with 'spending'.


Oh, and as far as "winner takes all" democracy goes, you are conflating your country's backwards electoral system with "democracy".

Indeed you are correct in pointing out that are particularly system is particularly bad form of 'democracy'.

Perhaps a parliamentary system would allieve some of the issues, but my point remains.


Under parliamentary systems, other parties can wield varying degrees of power. For Blair to push through legislation, he needs support from a significant number of MPs, every single one of those MPs has been democratically elected by their local constituents. If a sizeable group of people vote for the Green party here, they will get a green MP, and that MP is not obliged to support the government in any way shape or form. The Prime Minister is reliant on the support of his party (and to a less extent, rival MPs) to make law here. So, if, theoretically, there was a different party for every seat, but one party had two seats, as a majority party, they would be in charge, however the disparate opposition parties would be able to dictate what policy gets pushed through. Technically, such a party would be hung, and they would have to form a coalition government (comprised of members of other parties). But, that coalition would still be dependant on the individual MP's leanings.

A parliament is generally superiour, I understand, but it would not cure the main problem.

It would be better, but it wouldn't be ideal.


Furthermore, under a proportional representation system, this would be more pronounced.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Proportional representation, alternative voting systems like Instant Runoff Voting, etc, are all very intriguing and would likely help solve a number of problems that plague the current system.

But I hold out no hope for anything like this occuring.


Ideally, we would have that, rather than our archaic "first past the post" system, however that is another debate right there.

Indeed it is.

The least bad system, I think, would be a form of instant run-off voting, in a parliamentary system, with proper safeguards.

I would say the current American system is nearly as bad as it could be.

[Ace42X]

GMA']Which isn't what happens in markets now.

Oh it isn't? So you are saying people WANT Sony to prevent them from being able to run homebrew software? They WANT Sony to put rootkits onto their CDs? They WANT Microsoft to put in digital rights management technology into windows, limiting what they can do with the OS?

Pull the other one. They are OBLIGED to go along with these decisions because the company is in a position to dictate terms. By giving these corporations even more power to dictate terms, you give them more leverage to use against consumers.

And again, the 'one person, one vote' system is not exactly producing desirable results.

There. It is not producing desirable results THERE. But that is generally because your electoral system is an anachronstic and undemocratic farce, which owes more to (corporate controlled) media than it does actual policy. And you are all for handing more power to these corporations.

Yet the economy still functions exactly as I pointed out.

Not "exactly" as you pointed out. You chose to ignore the countless examples of "the market" exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. And I don't doubt that companies can make a really strong economy. However, the people will be poorer, the air more toxic, and society more barren. I don't doubt that a massive corporation could make the trains more PROFITABLE. However, the *assumption* (and it is nothing more than an assumption) that profitability to the company must coincide with benefit to the customer is quite frankly a nonsense.

If the US failed, they would soon find that their money isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

The rich control assets too. Would they soon find that the only food available, which they control, isn't worth anything to the population? Would they find that people wouldn't accept any hardship put upon them in return for assets that they need to live?

I don't think you exactly understand what I'm arguing.

Damn straight I don't. It is so totally cockied that I can't see how anyone could think it is a sensible proposition.

Are you honestly saying there is no analogue whatsoever between running health care as a public service and getting health service from a private company? What an absurdly stupid statement.

I am saying there is no analogue between wealthy people controlling assets, and wealthy people buying hamburgers. Which is what you said.

In one you vote for a politician to make decisions, say install a new X-Ray machine.
In the other, you may 'vote' for a hospital that installed new X-Ray machines.
Are you honestly saying there is no analogy here?

No, but your analogy is certainly flawed. When you "vote with your cash" you have no say in how it is used. When you vote for a politician, you vote for them on the strength of their policy. If a politician then doesn't use the money to buy new x-ray machines, there is recourse in law to remedy it, and at the very least the option to vote for someone who will. You can't get your cash back from the hospital if it then uses that money to pay for a bonus to its board of directors and / or shareholders.

I was advocating replacing democratic decision making with market decision making whenever possible.

So you replace a system where people make conscious decisions on how their world is run, to a system where they get what they're served. Well, sure sounds good to me.

If what you're saying is true, state run, democratic companies and economies would be paragons of efficiency and effectiveness, and countries without democratic control of the economy would be completely owned by a few private citizens, with nary a government at all.

In the UK, all of the nationalised industries were more efficient than their modern day private rivals. All of the rail services cost more for inferior quality. Trains run less frequently, stop at less stations, are old and dirty, and cost more. Water companies are boasting record profits, while peoples bills have gone through the roof. We STILL get hit by hosepipe bans in the summer, because they refuse to invest in refurbishing leaky pipes which lose insane quantities of fresh water *all the time*. According to your beliefs, none of this should happen. Well it does. And let's look at countries without democratic control... Repressive military juntas each and every one, controlled by an elitist oligarchy.

but as replacing democratic voting with market based decision making.

The market can't make decisions, and as such it is totally ammoral. I know that I don't want an ammoral system dictating my lifestle.

[D_Raay]

Enigma you really have to get over yourself man.

You must realize that probably 80 -90 % of the population is not as intelligent as you, and could probably care less what you have to say.

We don't need overthinking and high brow philosophical arguments. We need honesty and transparency from our elected officials, which, at present, we do not get.

Your undying and superfluous arguments for the free market system don't get anyone anywhere either. You know more know if it is actually helping us or hurting us any more than some random clod somewhere.

Not trying to start an argument or debate with you because I rather enjoy your posts most of the time, it is just the capitalism debate has really worn thin and has been discussed at nausea.

One little point I will make on the subject however; what on earth makes you think that big money has YOUR best interests at heart?

[Ali]

what on earth makes you think that big money has YOUR best interests at heart?corporate commercials (duh) :)

[Schmeltz]

Customers.


If you think the market is actually accountable to customers, you don't know the market as well as you think you do. I can tell you that out on the floor the market sure doesn't seem accountable to anybody.


Even if it would be, would people take the effort to make things better?


Of course they would, if they weren't a bunch of complacent sheep. People have taken the effort to make things better before - in fact, I seem to recall a revolution occurring in your own country some generations ago, when people decided they weren't going to take any more shit from an unaccountable government. What we often forget is that we made all this shit up and we can, in theory, change it any time we want to. The trick is to discern that our interests are not the interests of those in power, they never have been and never will be, and therefore the people in power ought to fear what we can do to them if they don't represent our interests properly. We're losing sight of that idea very rapidly, but it used to be just as real as the current mess afflicting our societies.


Presumably you're happy with the return on your investment?


Absolutely. Two years ago I had my shoulder reconstructed for free. That procedure, in the USA, would have been absolutely beyond my grasp if I was one of the forty million Americans without health insurance. If that's what paying my taxes gets me I won't utter one word of complaint.


We don't need overthinking and high brow philosophical arguments. We need honesty and transparency from our elected officials, which, at present, we do not get.


*Applause*

[ChrisLove]

A lot of these arguments seem to the usual free market vs Governemnt intervention ones.

My view is this.

Free markets always result in some form of market failure. The reason is simple - free transparent markets generally encourage competition and competition prevents firms making profit. Therefore firms are motivated (even legally bound) to seek to create imperfect market conditions as a source of profit - information asymmetries, price/supply collusion, create barriers 2 entry etc.
This is why free markets almost never produce a satisfactory outcome and government intervention (whether through regulation or complete state ownership) often produces better outcomes than the private sector would if left to operate unchecked.

As Ace points out, in the UK the privatisation of its major natural monopolies has been something of a disaster in most cases - privately run trains and utilities tend to suck ass - It is my observation that while private firms tend to be better at eleiminating operating costs, they are not so good at efficient capital investment because their investments are usually aimed at instigating a market failure (such as creating a monopoly). The telecoms industry is a great example of this.


With regard to democracy, I can certainly appreciate the point that electing a head of state in a winner takes all style is horribly inefficient - I also must admit that I thin I have missed the point of this market based election thing - I think what Enigma is saying is that the most democratic way of running a country is to strip government back to the point of non existance and let the free market provide for whatever it deems our needs to be? As I said - I dont find that such markets deliver efficient outcomes and as such I find this to not be particularly democratic.

Proportional representation seems to be a pretty fair way of doing things I think.

[EN[i]GMA]

Oh it isn't? So you are saying people WANT Sony to prevent them from being able to run homebrew software? They WANT Sony to put rootkits onto their CDs? They WANT Microsoft to put in digital rights management technology into windows, limiting what they can do with the OS?

Pull the other one. They are OBLIGED to go along with these decisions because the company is in a position to dictate terms. By giving these corporations even more power to dictate terms, you give them more leverage to use against consumers.

They aren't obliged to do anything.

I for one refuse to use anything with DRM on it. It's why eMusic is the only online music store I'll use.

If the need arises, I'll switch to Linux. I don't buy CDs that aren't 'Audio CDs' only, to prevent DRM installs.

I'm not defending what Sony did either, because it was clearly illegal. I hope they lose a lot of money over it.


There. It is not producing desirable results THERE. But that is generally because your electoral system is an anachronstic and undemocratic farce, which owes more to (corporate controlled) media than it does actual policy. And you are all for handing more power to these corporations.

How is the media at fault here?


Not "exactly" as you pointed out. You chose to ignore the countless examples of "the market" exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. And I don't doubt that companies can make a really strong economy. However, the people will be poorer, the air more toxic, and society more barren. I don't doubt that a massive corporation could make the trains more PROFITABLE. However, the *assumption* (and it is nothing more than an assumption) that profitability to the company must coincide with benefit to the customer is quite frankly a nonsense.

The only assumption I make is that market does what the people spending money direct it to do. This is obvious and incontravertible.

Trains, specifically, are a poor example because it's hard to make a competing train system. A monopoly is almost necessary, so in this narrow area, you may have a point.



The rich control assets too. Would they soon find that the only food available, which they control, isn't worth anything to the population? Would they find that people wouldn't accept any hardship put upon them in return for assets that they need to live?

But it's not the same 'rich' that control everything else.

If you take all 'the rich' that control all the valuable assets, like food factories, stores, etc. you're dealing with a very large number of people.

Hardly an elite cabal anymore.



I am saying there is no analogue between wealthy people controlling assets, and wealthy people buying hamburgers. Which is what you said.

You clearly misunderstood the essence of my analogy.


No, but your analogy is certainly flawed. When you "vote with your cash" you have no say in how it is used.

Of course you do.

If you don't like how it's used, stop giving them money.

You could also purchase stock, but that's another matter entirely.


When you vote for a politician, you vote for them on the strength of their policy.

Which is exactly what you do in a market.

Do you think people choose at random?


If a politician then doesn't use the money to buy new x-ray machines, there is recourse in law to remedy it, and at the very least the option to vote for someone who will.

And in a market, you can buy from someone who does what you want.


You can't get your cash back from the hospital if it then uses that money to pay for a bonus to its board of directors and / or shareholders.

And you can't get your vote back from the politician if he lies and does something else.

Either way it's a wasted resource.


So you replace a system where people make conscious decisions on how their world is run, to a system where they get what they're served. Well, sure sounds good to me.

Actually, I want to move away from a system where they get what they're served and towards a system where people make concious decisions on how their lives are run.

Funny how this rhetoric can be turned around.



In the UK, all of the nationalised industries were more efficient than their modern day private rivals.

The coal industry? Didn't it suffer horrible losses under nationalization, to the tune of 1.3 billion dollar government subsidy?

Telephone survice was horrible under the state-monopoly.

According to the book here on my desk (The Commanding Heights) privitization was very good for Britain.

Look at what happend to British Steel, in the process of privatization.



All of the rail services cost more for inferior quality. Trains run less frequently, stop at less stations, are old and dirty, and cost more.

Run less frequently? Is there less demand?

Cost more? Do they really cost more, or has the cost just been transferred from taxes to fees?


Water companies are boasting record profits, while peoples bills have gone through the roof. We STILL get hit by hosepipe bans in the summer, because they refuse to invest in refurbishing leaky pipes which lose insane quantities of fresh water *all the time*.

I'll have to take your word for it.


According to your beliefs, none of this should happen. Well it does.

The fact remains the same the the economy was an absolute wreck before privatization, because of Keynesian economics and nationalization.

Higher water prices vs. a depression. Tough choice.


And let's look at countries without democratic control... Repressive military juntas each and every one, controlled by an elitist oligarchy.

I'm not advocating that.


The market can't make decisions, and as such it is totally ammoral. I know that I don't want an ammoral system dictating my lifestle.

Better an amoral system than an immoral system.

[EN[i]GMA]

Enigma you really have to get over yourself man.

Where's the enjoyment in that?


You must realize that probably 80 -90 % of the population is not as intelligent as you, and could probably care less what you have to say.

Go higher.

And I thought I was the cynical misanthrope of the forum.


We don't need overthinking and high brow philosophical arguments. We need honesty and transparency from our elected officials, which, at present, we do not get.

Really, I think the problem is that our leaders are too transparent.

But I presume a play on words and a turn-around on my part is actually indicitive of your point. But whatever.




Your undying and superfluous arguments for the free market system don't get anyone anywhere either. You know more know if it is actually helping us or hurting us any more than some random clod somewhere.

Which is exactly I think I should just be allowed to run things.


Not trying to start an argument or debate with you because I rather enjoy your posts most of the time, it is just the capitalism debate has really worn thin and has been discussed at nausea.

I agree.

But I enjoy it.


One little point I will make on the subject however; what on earth makes you think that big money has YOUR best interests at heart?

Nothing.

But I'm not concerned with interests, only effects.

[EN[i]GMA]

A lot of these arguments seem to the usual free market vs Governemnt intervention ones.

My view is this.

Free markets always result in some form of market failure. The reason is simple - free transparent markets generally encourage competition and competition prevents firms making profit. Therefore firms are motivated (even legally bound) to seek to create imperfect market conditions as a source of profit - information asymmetries, price/supply collusion, create barriers 2 entry etc.
This is why free markets almost never produce a satisfactory outcome and government intervention (whether through regulation or complete state ownership) often produces better outcomes than the private sector would if left to operate unchecked.

Hmm. I see what you're saying.

Certainly in flawed markets, the government must prevent collusion.


As Ace points out, in the UK the privatisation of its major natural monopolies has been something of a disaster in most cases - privately run trains and utilities tend to suck ass - It is my observation that while private firms tend to be better at eleiminating operating costs, they are not so good at efficient capital investment because their investments are usually aimed at instigating a market failure (such as creating a monopoly). The telecoms industry is a great example of this.

Well, privitization (or the breakup of AT&T, a government created monopoly) has been very good for phone service in America, and from what I understand, in Britain too.

I agree that utilities are sort of a special case, because competition is very difficult to foster.


With regard to democracy, I can certainly appreciate the point that electing a head of state in a winner takes all style is horribly inefficient - I also must admit that I thin I have missed the point of this market based election thing - I think what Enigma is saying is that the most democratic way of running a country is to strip government back to the point of non existance and let the free market provide for whatever it deems our needs to be? As I said - I dont find that such markets deliver efficient outcomes and as such I find this to not be particularly democratic.

Basically.

I would like to have a decent sized state, but I would like to be regulatory, and to enhance existing instiutions, not create new ones.

Whenever possible move away from government monopoly.




Proportional representation seems to be a pretty fair way of doing things I think.

More fair than anything else, at least.

Take that for what you will.

[EN[i]GMA]

If you think the market is actually accountable to customers, you don't know the market as well as you think you do. I can tell you that out on the floor the market sure doesn't seem accountable to anybody.

But of course it is.

Stockholders, customers, the government.


Of course they would, if they weren't a bunch of complacent sheep. People have taken the effort to make things better before - in fact, I seem to recall a revolution occurring in your own country some generations ago, when people decided they weren't going to take any more shit from an unaccountable government. What we often forget is that we made all this shit up and we can, in theory, change it any time we want to. The trick is to discern that our interests are not the interests of those in power, they never have been and never will be, and therefore the people in power ought to fear what we can do to them if they don't represent our interests properly. We're losing sight of that idea very rapidly, but it used to be just as real as the current mess afflicting our societies.

Very true. To quote Mises (I believe) 'people should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people'.

Apply that principal to any sort of power structure.


Absolutely. Two years ago I had my shoulder reconstructed for free. That procedure, in the USA, would have been absolutely beyond my grasp if I was one of the forty million Americans without health insurance. If that's what paying my taxes gets me I won't utter one word of complaint.

I assumed you were from America.

Because if you were, you would be pissed.

We pay more in taxes, for health care, and get less.

It's pitiful.

[Ali]

As Ace points out, in the UK the privatisation of its major natural monopolies has been something of a disaster in most cases - privately run trains and utilities tend to suck ass - It is my observation that while private firms tend to be better at eleiminating operating costs, they are not so good at efficient capital investment because their investments are usually aimed at instigating a market failure (such as creating a monopoly). The telecoms industry is a great example of this.Let's not forget all the US air carriers in chapter 11...

A fair mix of private and state run companies is what a healthy economy needs, IMHO. The state should maintain most of the larger companies and the smaller to mid-size companies should be privately owned.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
I for one refuse to use anything with DRM on it.

Unless you are using 100% open source software, I seriously doubt that is the case. And with the next generation of operating systems, that will be even less of an option. If you are using XP, it has DRM, and the DRM will be stronger in each subsequent OS.

If the need arises, I'll switch to Linux. I don't buy CDs that aren't 'Audio CDs' only, to prevent DRM installs.

DRM doesn't stop at rootkits, you know. And Vista is FULL of DRM, so you better learn how to repack linux Kernels pretty damn pronto, as you'll soon find yourself in the exciting world of applications that "aren't properly compatible with Windows software."

Seriously, I am looking forward to you switching, as I will be very very amused by your inability to do the things that Windows users take for granted. And while you are waiting for the "market shift" that will ahve everyone jumping ship to linux and making it as viable as windows, I'll be sipping margharitas on the beach.

I hope they lose a lot of money over it.

Due to government agencies stepping in, AGAIN, to regulate companies and prevent them from working against the public.

How is the media at fault here?

The two words that won Bush an election - "Flip-flopper", for starters. And then there is that Guckert, Ganon fellow. And the Bush administration buying news reports (little Free Market capitalism at work there....)

The only assumption I make is that market does what the people spending money direct it to do. This is obvious and incontravertible.

It is a complete misrepresentation of what actually happens. The only individuals who have the clout to "direct" the market are they very very elite. The market doesn't "do" anything. The market is what happens when people do what they were going to do anyway, and what they do is limited by their choices. People do NOT have the luxury to make a series of one-man-stands against trillion dollar markets. Even in a formally organised and well-publicised boycott (for example the Nestle baby-killer boycott) people still do not have either the force or the conscious ability to make a difference. According to you, this is a conscious choice. They said "Hmmmm, well I could boycott this company, and punish them for killing African babies... But I'd rather have some creamy white chocolate."

That is not the case. People buying Nestle products are NOT consciously making a choice picking their desire to eat white chocolate over the lives of people in Africa.

When people buy a product, they are not "VOTING" - they are *JUST BUYING THE PRODUCT*. All other concerns are secondary, and *don't enter people's heads*. They care about the product itself and the price, that is all. The political leanings of the individual don't come into it. People do not have the time, inclination, or resources to do a "policy check" on every company producing every item in their shopping basket.

The number of people who "Only buy fair trade coffee" and "only get free-range chicken" are incredibly slim. Most of this is because only a very small minority can AFFORD to. And this is because, dun dun dun, bigger companies hold a monopoly (or a duopoly or Tripoli) and use this leverage to make consumers do what they want.

A politician voted into power (is successful in elections) is sucessful based on their ability to convince their electorate about their policies. Their power comes from a mandate from the people.

A corporation isn't "voted" into power, it has power solely through wealth - which can be ill gotten just as easily (logically, more easily) through crime. Their power comes from their ability to control the people.

specifically, are a poor example because it's hard to make a competing train system. A monopoly is almost necessary, so in this narrow area, you may have a point.

By this "narrow point", you mean every public service in the UK, then?

But it's not the same 'rich' that control everything else.

If you take all 'the rich' that control all the valuable assets, like food factories, stores, etc. you're dealing with a very large number of people.

Hardly an elite cabal anymore.

I don't know which rock you've been living under, but take a quick look around. I don't think you'll find that Walmart funnels all its profits to the meet & greeters. And it sure as hell isn't the producers who get a fair deal.

If you don't like how it's used, stop giving them money.

Not an option. The vast majority of people do not have the disposable income available to spend extra on buying products that are more equitably made. People living hand-to-mouth (paycheque to paycheque, of which Dick Cheney estimates makes up the vast majority of people living in America today) cannot afford to spend more and go without just to teach a multinational a message so small and quiet that they won't be able to hear anyway.

It's a nice theory, but *it doesn't work*.

You could also purchase stock, but that's another matter entirely.

As again, it presupposes the disposable income to spend on this.

Which is exactly what you do in a market.

Do you think people choose at random?

I know how they choose, and if you did a little research, you would too. Which items sell is based on purely psychological factors. The layout of a supermarket, including where items are placed, has a massive impact on what gets sold and what doesn't. People choose based on position in the supermarket, smell, colour, subliminal advertising, addiction to various artificial ingredients, and price. They do not, repeat, they do NOT choose based on conscious political factors. This is immutable fact, I'm afraid. It is also another way powerful companies user their leverage to diddle consumers. By positioning objects in unpopular positions, they can hurt the producer's profits. This means they can force exclusivity deals, etc with the producer being obliged to aquiesse.

And in a market, you can buy from someone who does what you want.

Try it, then come back and say that. Why not find apoor family's shopping budget (including transportation costs, etc) - and see if you can keep within that budget, buying only products you are certain are equitably made. That means no additives, no factory-farming, no imports leveraged from impoverished nations, nothing from corporations which have employed questionable marketing, etc etc.

Come back and tell me how easy that is.

And you can't get your vote back from the politician if he lies and does something else.

Actually, in my political system, at least, a vote of no-faith can force a by-election, where the people get precisely that. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Actually, I want to move away from a system where they get what they're served and towards a system where people make concious decisions on how their lives are run.

Funny way of doing it. Replacing a conscious selection process based on political issues with one based solely on a person's preference for jam, crisps or hamburgers. It's certainly original, I'll give you that.

The coal industry? Didn't it suffer horrible losses under nationalization, to the tune of 1.3 billion dollar government subsidy?

It did, the government was subsidising it to keep people in their jobs. However, the problem was not "inefficiency due to nationalisation." All the private coal-mines folded too. It was due to the economy moving away from industry. If it were nationalisation - then why haven't all these private companies lept into the fray to make the most of this great niche market, eh?

According to the book here on my desk (The Commanding Heights) privitization was very good for Britain.

Heh, as someone living in Britain, I can tell you that is a nonsense. You might as well tell me that nuclear waste is a good cure-all if ingested.

Look at what happend to British Steel, in the process of privatization.

Yes, tell me what happened to British Steel in the process of privatisation. Other than it folding, and the british steel industry becoming non-existant, along with massive unemployment? It made some fat-cats very rich? Whup-dee-fucking-do.

Run less frequently? Is there less demand?

Demand has increased by over 50%.

Cost more? Do they really cost more, or has the cost just been transferred from taxes to fees?

They really cost more. British Rail collected fees, and distributed this throughout the whole rail network to subsidise the less profitable trainlines, keeping rural people connected to the country and thus helping the economy by providing remote areas with a backbone link to the rest of the country. Private rail STILL receives massive subsidies from the government (because having a rail network that is at a standstill just isn't a viable option, even if it is making a lot of rail companies poor in the process) and costs us more in taxes *and* fares.

Furthermore, in an effort to use private companies to "cut down on costs" and "trim the fat" - numerous sub-contracting companies cut corners, which lead to the numerous rail disasters (Potter's Bar, Hatfield, Selby, etc etc.) that have cost us even more. Under a nationalised service, the people who worked on the rail were all under direct scrutiny of elected officials. Now they answer to an entirely private chain of command who care only about the profits to their company, and not the safety of the people who have to use the service.

According to you, this shouldn't've happened. Well it does, and all your theorising doesn't change the fact that a lot of people have died because your theories don't hold up in real life.

I'll have to take your word for it.

Or you could search the Guardian for it, or the BBC, or any one of a number of news sources which will testify to the fact that leaky pipes lose gallons of water, to the point where Ken Livingstone is telling Londoners not to flush their toilets after having a pee to conserve the stuff.

The fact remains the same the the economy was an absolute wreck before privatization, because of Keynesian economics and nationalization.

Higher water prices vs. a depression.

Hah, yeah, it has nothing to do with the collapse of the British Empire, emerging markets in the east under-cutting labour costs (by using forced-labour in China), twenty years of repaying war debt and reconstruction, the move to a service economy, and a whole heap of other pragmatic factors. It's all because of (more efficient) nationalised industries (that behave much more closely to how you imagine a free market should than the free market actually does, incidently), and some words some guy said once. You sure have that pegged.

I'm not advocating that.

You're advocating a system which has nothing to stop it becoming that.

Better an amoral system than an immoral system.

Yes, but democracy isn't intrinsically immoral. A free market intrinsically is amoral.

[Ali]

Some more examples of corporations with our best interests at heart (and that of the shareholders!).

Enron (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8G7864O0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db) Enron's mounting problems caught up with the company by the second half of 2001, Fastow told jurors in the fraud and conspiracy trial of his former bosses -- company founder Kenneth Lay and former CEO Jeffrey Skilling.

Assets were overvalued. Fragile financial structures backed by Enron stock that hid hundreds of millions in losses were imploding. Retail energy and broadband divisions were failing.

Partnerships he said he set up with Skilling's blessing to manipulate earnings -- prompting his boss to say "get me as much of that juice as you can" -- to buy Enron's loser assets and wipe millions in debt from the energy company's books could no longer stem the tide.
"I thought the foundation was crumbling and we were doing everything we could to prop it up as long as we could," Fastow said. "We were in pretty bad shape."

In mid-October 2001 Enron disclosed hundreds of millions of dollars in third-quarter losses and slashed shareholder equity by $1.2 billion. Six weeks later, Enron collapsed into bankruptcy protection.Parmalat (http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2006/03/07/parma-060307.html) Italian prosecutors allege that Parmalat used financial trickery to cover up losses and raise cash, tactics that investigators said began shortly after the company went public in 1989.

The fraud was exposed in December 2003 when Parmalat acknowledged that a $5.4 billion Cdn account with Bank of America, supposedly held by a Cayman Islands-based subsidiary, did not exist.

The company then revealed that its debt was more than $19.1 billion Cdn, eight times higher than previously claimed.

Tens of thousands of small investors lost savings in the scandal. Greed. There's nothing to stop it except the ability to vote, which is why government MUST own or have the ability to control major utilities (provided it's in a true democracy).

[yeahwho]

I am still of the opinion that Brown did not have the background and skills that should be required to be the head of FEMA, but it is pretty clear from the tape referenced above (+here (http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=128757)) and facts that have been coming out that he certainly did not have administration support that would be have allowed him to do his job better, and the early picture of him as completely out-of-touch was apparently incorrect.


Some people like Brownie now that he's dumping on the President.
You don't have to be right, you just have to hate who I hate.
Slippery slope this whole fucking administration is fucked.
Now how many thousands died form Monicas blowjob? I forget.

[EN[i]GMA]

Unless you are using 100% open source software, I seriously doubt that is the case. And with the next generation of operating systems, that will be even less of an option. If you are using XP, it has DRM, and the DRM will be stronger in each subsequent OS.

As an online music store, I'll use eMusic (Which actually has the songs I want, unlike the others), which is DRM free.

I doubt I'll buy Vista. I can't see why I would need to.


DRM doesn't stop at rootkits, you know. And Vista is FULL of DRM, so you better learn how to repack linux Kernels pretty damn pronto, as you'll soon find yourself in the exciting world of applications that "aren't properly compatible with Windows software."

Seriously, I am looking forward to you switching, as I will be very very amused by your inability to do the things that Windows users take for granted. And while you are waiting for the "market shift" that will ahve everyone jumping ship to linux and making it as viable as windows, I'll be sipping margharitas on the beach.

I've used Linux before. I could use it. It would be an annoyance, switching, but I could do it.


Due to government agencies stepping in, AGAIN, to regulate companies and prevent them from working against the public.

Actually, due to a lawsuit, but whatever.


The two words that won Bush an election - "Flip-flopper", for starters. And then there is that Guckert, Ganon fellow. And the Bush administration buying news reports (little Free Market capitalism at work there....)

As if the rhetoric was totally one-sided.

I seem to remember certain memos, anti-Bush, memos, being fakes. THat pissed a lot of righties off and to them it seemed like a 'librul conspiracy'.


It is a complete misrepresentation of what actually happens. The only individuals who have the clout to "direct" the market are they very very elite.

If only.

The very elite cannot go against market signals without quickly losing their elite status.

If people refuse to buy your product, you can't do anything.


The market doesn't "do" anything. The market is what happens when people do what they were going to do anyway, and what they do is limited by their choices. People do NOT have the luxury to make a series of one-man-stands against trillion dollar markets. Even in a formally organised and well-publicised boycott (for example the Nestle baby-killer boycott) people still do not have either the force or the conscious ability to make a difference. According to you, this is a conscious choice. They said "Hmmmm, well I could boycott this company, and punish them for killing African babies... But I'd rather have some creamy white chocolate."

People can't take the time to make market decisions, but can take the time to make political decisions?

If the politicians were killing people in Africa (And they are) not corporations, would that invariably sully the reputation of government, period?

Governments kill people all the time, for reasons almost exactly the same, and people allow them to do it.

So your entire argument relies on people being better political actors than they are market actors, which is entirely unteneble.


That is not the case. People buying Nestle products are NOT consciously making a choice picking their desire to eat white chocolate over the lives of people in Africa.

If they know about it they are.


When people buy a product, they are not "VOTING" - they are *JUST BUYING THE PRODUCT*. All other concerns are secondary, and *don't enter people's heads*. They care about the product itself and the price, that is all. The political leanings of the individual don't come into it. People do not have the time, inclination, or resources to do a "policy check" on every company producing every item in their shopping basket.

Except for the people that do care about these decisions.

Are they fundamentally different? A seperate type of human?

I take the record of the company into account when I purchase things, as I'm sure you do too.


The number of people who "Only buy fair trade coffee" and "only get free-range chicken" are incredibly slim. Most of this is because only a very small minority can AFFORD to. And this is because, dun dun dun, bigger companies hold a monopoly (or a duopoly or Tripoli) and use this leverage to make consumers do what they want.

The trade, in and of itself, is beneficial to all parties.

Buying 'non free-range chicken' is not something I particulary care about. If you do care about that, you have to weigh the price for your belief.

Is it worth it to you to spend the extra? If it isn't, don't do it.

'Free range chicken' is a superfluity. People can easily do without.


A politician voted into power (is successful in elections) is sucessful based on their ability to convince their electorate about their policies. Their power comes from a mandate from the people.

Bush stated a diasterous war without even having a mandate.


A corporation isn't "voted" into power,

The corporation, as in its executives, are voted in, by stockholders, but whatever.


it has power solely through wealth - which can be ill gotten just as easily (logically, more easily) through crime. Their power comes from their ability to control the people.

I think you're vastly overstating this power.


I don't know which rock you've been living under, but take a quick look around. I don't think you'll find that Walmart funnels all its profits to the meet & greeters. And it sure as hell isn't the producers who get a fair deal.

'Fair'? Maybe not, but better than any alternative.


Not an option.

It is for some people, many people.

You have to do what you can.

The vast majority of people do not have the disposable income available to spend extra on buying products that are more equitably made.

You can change your buying habits. Do without something here or there.

Boycot what you can, consume less. They're viable options for most people.


People living hand-to-mouth (paycheque to paycheque, of which Dick Cheney estimates makes up the vast majority of people living in America today) cannot afford to spend more and go without just to teach a multinational a message so small and quiet that they won't be able to hear anyway.

People can send the message, if they choose to.


It's a nice theory, but *it doesn't work*.

It isn't working. But it certainly could.


As again, it presupposes the disposable income to spend on this.

Just as any argument for governmental control presupposes good, informed voters.

Are the voters as intellectually impoverished and bankrupt as they are financially? Are they moreso?


I know how they choose, and if you did a little research, you would too. Which items sell is based on purely psychological factors. The layout of a supermarket, including where items are placed, has a massive impact on what gets sold and what doesn't. People choose based on position in the supermarket, smell, colour, subliminal advertising, addiction to various artificial ingredients, and price. They do not, repeat, they do NOT choose based on conscious political factors. This is immutable fact, I'm afraid. It is also another way powerful companies user their leverage to diddle consumers. By positioning objects in unpopular positions, they can hurt the producer's profits. This means they can force exclusivity deals, etc with the producer being obliged to aquiesse.

So people's actual desires play no role at all. Gotcha.


Try it, then come back and say that. Why not find apoor family's shopping budget (including transportation costs, etc) - and see if you can keep within that budget, buying only products you are certain are equitably made. That means no additives, no factory-farming, no imports leveraged from impoverished nations, nothing from corporations which have employed questionable marketing, etc etc.

Come back and tell me how easy that is.

Additives, depends on the additive.

Factory-farming, I have no problem with.

Imports from poor countries, no problems.

You're superimposing your morality with those of others.


Actually, in my political system, at least, a vote of no-faith can force a by-election, where the people get precisely that. Sorry, but you're wrong.


Depends on the country.

In mine, I'm perfectly correct. It's exactly what happend.


Funny way of doing it. Replacing a conscious selection process based on political issues with one based solely on a person's preference for jam, crisps or hamburgers. It's certainly original, I'll give you that.

Perhaps personal preference is better than concious selection of a moronic warstarter and Saxon lackey to him.

Who's to say?


It did, the government was subsidising it to keep people in their jobs. However, the problem was not "inefficiency due to nationalisation." All the private coal-mines folded too. It was due to the economy moving away from industry. If it were nationalisation - then why haven't all these private companies lept into the fray to make the most of this great niche market, eh?


The economy moving away, and the governement wanting it to stay.

That is, resources were not allowed to move to their most productive use because the government was pissing it away in a coal mine, which is the very definition of inefficiency, economically.



Heh, as someone living in Britain, I can tell you that is a nonsense. You might as well tell me that nuclear waste is a good cure-all if ingested.

Actually, I believe I've read that low-grade radiation, in some cases, can cure disease.

I think I saw it on Slashdot a while ago. Anway.


Yes, tell me what happened to British Steel in the process of privatisation. Other than it folding, and the british steel industry becoming non-existant, along with massive unemployment? It made some fat-cats very rich? Whup-dee-fucking-do.

Better than to continue wasting public money.

pquote]
They really cost more. British Rail collected fees, and distributed this throughout the whole rail network to subsidise the less profitable trainlines, keeping rural people connected to the country and thus helping the economy by providing remote areas with a backbone link to the rest of the country. Private rail STILL receives massive subsidies from the government (because having a rail network that is at a standstill just isn't a viable option, even if it is making a lot of rail companies poor in the process) and costs us more in taxes *and* fares.

Furthermore, in an effort to use private companies to "cut down on costs" and "trim the fat" - numerous sub-contracting companies cut corners, which lead to the numerous rail disasters (Potter's Bar, Hatfield, Selby, etc etc.) that have cost us even more. Under a nationalised service, the people who worked on the rail were all under direct scrutiny of elected officials. Now they answer to an entirely private chain of command who care only about the profits to their company, and not the safety of the people who have to use the service.[/quote]

As if politicans really care about 'the people' and not about moving up the beareacratic ladder?


According to you, this shouldn't've happened. Well it does, and all your theorising doesn't change the fact that a lot of people have died because your theories don't hold up in real life.

As I said, trains are very different than other commodities.

You can't really use a competing train if only one track runs through your town, for example.

A natural monopoly, like trains, might need to have significant government control.


Or you could search the Guardian for it, or the BBC, or any one of a number of news sources which will testify to the fact that leaky pipes lose gallons of water, to the point where Ken Livingstone is telling Londoners not to flush their toilets after having a pee to conserve the stuff.

I searched on the Guardian and found nothing.

I take your word for it.


Hah, yeah, it has nothing to do with the collapse of the British Empire, emerging markets in the east under-cutting labour costs (by using forced-labour in China), twenty years of repaying war debt and reconstruction, the move to a service economy, and a whole heap of other pragmatic factors. It's all because of (more efficient) nationalised industries (that behave much more closely to how you imagine a free market should than the free market actually does, incidently), and some words some guy said once. You sure have that pegged.

And none of these problems are occuring now? Britain has a robust economy (One of the better in Europe) and it's dealing with immigration, low-price jobs abroad, an expensive war, a move to a service economy and other 'pragmatic factors'. Whether it's easier now or then is immaterial; the worth of an economic system is how it deals with the actual problems. Britains' economy, in the 70s, did poorly.

Now it's doing quite well, much better than mainland Europe, the same mainland Europe that has many state-owned industries and onerous labor laws.

Britain privitizes and liberalizes and prospers, the mainland privatizes to much lesser extent and keeps labor markets closed. Look how they are performing now.


Yes, but democracy isn't intrinsically immoral. A free market intrinsically is amoral.

Democracy is intrinsically immoral. That's my position.

[Ace42X]

GMA']As an online music store, I'll use eMusic (Which actually has the songs I want, unlike the others), which is DRM free.

It is also irrelevant. Digital Rights Management doesn't start and end at where you get Mp3s from. I'm talking about software that is locked to a specific PC so that you cannot move it to a different PC if yours breaks, etc.

I doubt I'll buy Vista. I can't see why I would need to.

People said that about windows 3.1, 98 and XP, respectively.

It would be an annoyance, switching, but I could do it.

Precisely the point, it's an annoyance, and consumers don't WANT annoyances.

Actually, due to a lawsuit,

So law isn't made by the government?

As if the rhetoric was totally one-sided.

I seem to remember certain memos, anti-Bush, memos, being fakes. THat pissed a lot of righties off and to them it seemed like a 'librul conspiracy'.

It was an example. I am sure there are plenty of examples where corporations act nefariously in favour of other parties too. It is hardly an endorsement of your free-market Utopia.

If only.

The very elite cannot go against market signals without quickly losing their elite status.

Except in reality, where it happens all the time. I say again, people don't WANT digital rights management, they don't WANT Sony preventing them from using home-brew software, they don't WANT rootkits on their CD.

If people refuse to buy your product, you can't do anything.

Indeed, except there are many products people cannot "refuse to buy" and plenty more it is unrealistic to expect people to "refuse to buy."

People can't take the time to make market decisions, but can take the time to make political decisions?

Of course they can't, don't be a cretin. If you took as long to choose a single product as you do to vote, you'd never leave the super-market!

If the politicians were killing people in Africa (And they are) not corporations, would that invariably sully the reputation of government, period?

Many people do weigh up foreign aid and foreign policy when selecting a government. Very very few consider it as a significant factor when buying chocolate. If you think otherwise, then you are either delusional or being petulant.

Governments kill people all the time, for reasons almost exactly the same, and people allow them to do it.

You can't see the difference? When you select a government, you select it on the basis of these issues, it is the primary reason for selecting a government - policy.

When you select a chocolate bar, you select it on the basis of a lot of other criteria (addiction to chocolate and sugar, texture, advertising, product placement, availability, cost, etc etc). Policy is always going to be a secondary consideration.

You can stubbornly insist otherwise, and by all means you are entitled to do so, but you will just appear to be naive and a buffoon in the process.

So your entire argument relies on people being better political actors than they are market actors, which is entirely unteneble.

Uh, no, not really. My argument relies on pragmatism and empirical arguments, as opposed to some ideological day-dreaming and a heap of wishful thinking.

If they know about it they are.

No, they aren't. If they know about it, and it is fresh in their mind, and they equate purchasing the bar with supporting the policy, and they are consciously thinking about it when they make the purchase, and they aren't being affected by sub-conscious factors (marketing), then they are.

But, THIS NEVER HAPPENS. It just doesn't. No-one goes into a shop, makes a list of what they *would* buy, then *leaves the shop* and does a massive google for each and every single product that would be in their shopping trolley, finding out the exact nature of that product's (and the corporation's) construction, and global policy.

It doesn't happen, and it can't happen, it isn't practical. A lot of voters find turning out one year in every four an inconvenience, and you REALLY expect people to do this hundreds of times per shopping trip, *AND THEN GO WITHOUT FOOD* to make a point?

Wake up, for fuck's sake man.

Except for the people that do care about these decisions.
Are they fundamentally different? A seperate type of human?

In that they are fictional, yes they are very different. No-one spends the sort of effort you invisage into shopping. A very very small minority boycott a selection of *specific* products or companies for a reason, even they do not analyse every product they purchase. If we related that to an election analogy (as we have been) - it would be the equivalent of not voting for the Republicans or Democrats because you know how crap they are, and going for the Aryan Nations or KKK because you haven't heard of them and they don't get as many negative headlines.

I take the record of the company into account when I purchase things, as I'm sure you do too.

Firstly, that's bullshit. If you took 10 minutes to rifle through your cupboards, I bet you'll find plenty of foodstuffs that you do not know a damned thing about. Where did the beans come from, how much did the people picking them earn? What's their healthcare package like? What's the safety record of the mill where the bread was made? Where did the tin it is packaged in come from? Etc, etc.

Admit it, you don't have a clue, and you've ALREADY bought it. For all you know, it's soylent green.

Me? I don't have a clue where the things I eat from. I can't. If I go into a restaurant or a cafe and say "So, where did the bacon come from? Were the pigs free-range, what sort of antibiotics did they receive? How much did the farmer receive?" By the time they had found these answers (implausibly assuming they could) - the rest of the customers are outraged and being made to wait, and I'm late for work. And then I find out that the answer's "no, the meat doesn't meat any of these criteria" - what, I am going to go from cafe to cafe repeating the same rigmarole until I find one that is suitable? And if NONE of them are? Where's my choice then? "Starve, that'll teach them."

Yeah, that's right, I know, I'll starve!

And you really think that this scenario will happen frequently enough to make a company change its policy?

FFS, get over yourself man. IT WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN, NEVER. IT DOESN'T WORK. It should be self-obvious.

The trade, in and of itself, is beneficial to all parties.

Feh, you could use that to legitimise slavery. "The slaves do work, and the slave-owner has to feed them enough to keep them working. Can't mal-treat them, or they wouldn't work! Both people benefit! Perfectly equitable, no problems there!"

Bullshit. You might just as well say that Native Americans trading their land for beads was "beneficial to all parties" - They did get those shiney glass baubles afterall!

Buying 'non free-range chicken' is not something I particulary care about.

You should care about it. Non-free-range chicken has as much fat as as red-meat. Free range chicken has a fraction of this. Also, non-free-range chicken is considerably more likely to be filled with antibiotics which can (and does) get passed on to humans, leaving them vulnerable to stronger infections. Also, human growth hormone, which can cause sexual sterility in men, impotence, breast growth (in men), etc. Oh, and the chicken breasts then get injected with water, which means you pay the same amount of cash for less meat. This is before we look at the humanitarian concerns, of course.

But hell, you KNOW about this, right? Because you take *all of this* into consideration when making your purchases, right? I mean you, the epitome of the savvy and empowered consumer wouldn't be admitting to purchasing products through ignorance, thereby proving my point conclusively, right?

If you do care about that, you have to weigh the price for your belief. Is it worth it to you to spend the extra? If it isn't, don't do it.

See, and this is why all your economic arguments ring hollow. You assume people have the choice. IF YOU ARE POOR, YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO SPEND EXTRA, NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS WORTH TO YOU. EVEN IF IT WAS GOING TO SAVE YOUR LIFE, IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT, YOU CANNOT BUY IT.

(News just in - poor family mortgage home so kids can get decent quality meat, Walmart reeling from the blow...)

'Free range chicken' is a superfluity. People can easily do without.

So, when I say that 12 rich men can do without an extra yacht or mansion, I am being authoritarian and a communist idelogue, dictating how people can live. When you say that millions and millions of the world's poor can do without healthy and nutritious food, you are being perfectly reasonable?

Wake up, man.

Bush stated a diasterous war without even having a mandate.

He was duly elected with a majority. That gives him the mandate. Now, if you want to argue that your archaic and inneffectual electoral system is a joke, by all means, no arguments here. That is not an argument against democracy, though.

The corporation, as in its executives, are voted in, by stockholders, but whatever.

No, a corporation does not receive power by voting. It's power comes from its assets and capital. And no, a corporation's CEO and board of directors are not voted into power. Stockholders very seldom, if ever, get a say in how a company is run.

I think you're vastly overstating this power.

And you are wrong. Do some research into it. Walmart can very easily dictate terms to both supplier and consumer. Microsoft do all matter of underhanded things and get away with it.

'Fair'? Maybe not, but better than any alternative.

Nonsense. How can a scenario where only Walmart benefits be better than a scenario where the producers and the consumers benefit? What, the middle man deserves the biggest cut, pull the other one. Seriously, how on earth can you justify the production and consumption getting the raw deal, while the person who just stands in the middle makes a killing? Do you have dreams of becoming a car salesman or something?

It is for some people, many people.

No, it is for the upper-middle-class or richer, which you clearly identify with and seem to erroneously believe are the majority. Presumably because that is where you fit into the pyramid. It is for *few* people.

You have to do what you can.

Like starve to death?

You can change your buying habits. Do without something here or there.

Yeah, if everyone poked their eye out in protest, that would work too. "Jab a needle in your foot for fair trade!"

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, IT WON'T WORK.

Boycot what you can,

Ah, so this great freemarket choice is reduced to "make smart choices in the few choices that are left to you by the corporation." And when these corporations close the doors on those choices?

consume less.

Which is the antithesis of *consumerism*. You might as well expect capitalists to choose to make less profit. Not going to happen.

They're viable options for most people.

And simply "not fighting" is a viable option for most people. Wars still happen.

People can send the message, if they choose to.

Nope, people don't have the means to do so. You might as well expect the silent 60% of apathetic voters in the US to rise up and vote Green. IT WON'T EVER HAPPEN.

But, by all means, create "consumer's unions", organise, and give consumers the power. Start picketing super-markets. I'd like that.

It isn't working. But it certainly could.

Yeah, if you fudged it enough. But then, I'd rather have an ideal system that falls short, rather than a corrupt system which needs constant support to stop it crushing those under it.

Just as any argument for governmental control presupposes good, informed voters.

Not "any" argument. The whole point of the US's "electoral college" system is that it DOESN'T presuppose informed voters.

Are the voters as intellectually impoverished and bankrupt as they are financially? Are they moreso?

It is easier for voters to make one informed choice once every four years, than to all be made wealthy enough to make clever choices, and be informed about the intricate pros and cons of every single product on a supermarket shelf.

So people's actual desires play no role at all. Gotcha.

Strawman. People's desires are paramount. But people's desires are at odds with their conscious wills. That is the whole point of it. People's desires are based on sub-conscious factors.

Factory-farming, I have no problem with.

You have no problem with companies misrepresenting products which are demonstrably unhealthy? You have no problem with wide-spread antibiotic resistance, spread solely through the desire of corporations to make a buck?

You might change your mind when your leg gets cut off because an otherwise treatable infection makes a small wound potentially lethal.

You're superimposing your morality with those of others.

Down with morality, how futurist. Viva la exploitation.

Depends on the country.

In mine, I'm perfectly correct. It's exactly what happend.

I expect there are plenty of failsafe method's in your country too. I'd wager it is just that they are not being used.

Perhaps personal preference is better than concious selection of a moronic warstarter and Saxon lackey to him.

Who's to say?

I'll go on record right now as saying that subconscious preference for confectionary is a "worse" criteria for making choices about the world you want to live in, than making a conscious selection of an elected representative.

Are you going to say otherwise?

The economy moving away, and the governement wanting it to stay.

That is, resources were not allowed to move to their most productive use because the government was pissing it away in a coal mine, which is the very definition of inefficiency, economically.

"Pissing it away" ? What a naive understanding. If the government had closed to coal mine, those workers would STILL be receiving the government money, in the form of welfare. And they would be sitting on their asses while doing it. By subsidising a coal-mine, the government was able to offset the cost to them with the materials produced in the coal mine.

However, while closing down the coal-mines may well have made more economic sense, you are misrepresenting the intention of the system. While a corporation can close down and move its assets to Chinese labour camps to save running costs, that does not benefit the people back in England. As a nationalised industry is designed to benefit the nation, even though doing so would be an economic "success" - it would convey no benefits to the nation.

Now, THEORETICALLY, a nationalised company that moves its assets to another nation could use the profits it made overseas to offset the government's assets, that is not the point of a nationalised industry. The government is not supposed to "go into business" and make cash for itself. That is not the purpose, nor the goal of government. It is supposed to levy its funds from taxation, etc.

To merge state and corporation is, according to Musolini, the very definition of facism, and it is no surprise that it hasn't taken root in this country.

Better than to continue wasting public money.

Again, unemployed people *still* cost the public money. However, you might be well aware that private companies receive "wasted" public money (The US Airports, as pointed out in the SOuth Park gyroscope episode, Lockheed martin as pointed out in one of Michael Moore's books, etc etc.) in the form of subsidies. So, as this is clearly not limited to *nationalised* industries, we can see it is not a facet of nationalised industries. Any company can be mismanaged, and that goes for private just as much as nationalised.

As if politicans really care about 'the people' and not about moving up the beareacratic ladder?

Depends, plenty of politicians are concerned individuals. My MP, for example, is excellent. Top fellow, gets a lot of practical and useful things done for his constituents.

As I said, trains are very different than other commodities.

You can't really use a competing train if only one track runs through your town, for example.

A natural monopoly, like trains, might need to have significant government control.

Can't use a competing water-pipe if only one pipe runs under your house. Apply that to gas, electricity, cable, etc. However, I am gratified to see that you accept there are plenty of areas where nationalisation makes sense.

the worth of an economic system is how it deals with the actual problems. Britains' economy, in the 70s, did poorly.

Indeed, and you are trying to argue that it was because of nationalised industries, which is completely irrational.

Now it's doing quite well, much better than mainland Europe, the same mainland Europe that has many state-owned industries and onerous labor laws.

Fallacy right there. You might equally argue that it is doing much better than mainland Europe, the same mainland Europe that doesn't speak English as a first language. Could just as easily put it down to tea, cricket and muffins.

Britain privitizes and liberalizes and prospers, the mainland privatizes to much lesser extent and keeps labor markets closed. Look how they are performing now.

Again, fallacy. Britain also has a reputation for football hooliganism, going to say that is to blame? Maybe it is the stress and pressure of working under an unfair privatised economy that has lead to the culture of binge drinking, which isn't found on the continent. Going to throw that into the mix too? Privatisation leads to binge-drinking and yobbism!

Democracy is intrinsically immoral. That's my position.

How so? Democracy is "rule by the people" - how is that "intrinsically immoral"? It strikes me that, unless you are saying people are intrinsically immoral, and thus the system must be, you cannot make that claim. And if you are saying people are intrinsically immoral, sure that must then apply to the free-market too?

[EN[i]GMA]

My how obfuscatory this debates become. I think we've managed to scare everyone else off yet again.


It is also irrelevant. Digital Rights Management doesn't start and end at where you get Mp3s from. I'm talking about software that is locked to a specific PC so that you cannot move it to a different PC if yours breaks, etc.

No, it's an example of making an informed decision about what I purchase.

It's very relevent to your point about consumers not being able to do this sort of thing.


People said that about windows 3.1, 98 and XP, respectively.

So they did.

But that doesn't change the fact that, as of now, Vista has nothing I want.



Precisely the point, it's an annoyance, and consumers don't WANT annoyances.

Windows has plenty of annoyances as well.


So law isn't made by the government?

It is, but this isn't an example of 'regulation' as you said.


It was an example. I am sure there are plenty of examples where corporations act nefariously in favour of other parties too. It is hardly an endorsement of your free-market Utopia.


Except in reality, where it happens all the time. I say again, people don't WANT digital rights management, they don't WANT Sony preventing them from using home-brew software, they don't WANT rootkits on their CD.

If people don't want DRM products, don't buy DRM products. What's so hard about that?

You don't need, at all, to be DRM products. If people refuse to buy them, the producers would have no option but to not install them.

Sony acted dispicably in its use of the rootkit, that is without question.


Indeed, except there are many products people cannot "refuse to buy" and plenty more it is unrealistic to expect people to "refuse to buy."

There are.

But there are also many products where it is realistic for people to assume responsibility and not purchase something that goes against their interests.

I refuse to buy DRMd products, for example.


Of course they can't, don't be a cretin. If you took as long to choose a single product as you do to vote, you'd never leave the super-market!

It wasn't a difficult or time consuming decision of mine not to use DRM. I realized very quickly that I don't want onerous restrictions on my software, so I don't use products with DRM schemes that prevent me from completing basic tasks, like ripping a CD or something.


Many people do weigh up foreign aid and foreign policy when selecting a government. Very very few consider it as a significant factor when buying chocolate. If you think otherwise, then you are either delusional or being petulant.

Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that people thought about Bush's policies and actively voted for them, presumably out of malice and not sheer ignorance.

I think this is an even harsher indictment; that people will take the time to study the candidates and intentinally pick a murderous, thuggish brute.

People had 4 years to right their mistake and they voted for Bush, in greater numbers than before.

Our government is shit, precisely because people thought about it. I very much doubt picking at random could have created a worse government than our current one.



You can't see the difference? When you select a government, you select it on the basis of these issues, it is the primary reason for selecting a government - policy.

When you select a chocolate bar, you select it on the basis of a lot of other criteria (addiction to chocolate and sugar, texture, advertising, product placement, availability, cost, etc etc). Policy is always going to be a secondary consideration.

Only if you make it one.

If there were a Nazi candy bar company, most people would refuse to buy it, even if it were pretty good.

None is going to buy 'Swastika Bar', for political (or societal) reasons.

People refuse to buy thigns all the time because they against their morals.

If people would change their morality to include other products, that is, do what they already do, we wouldn't even have this discussion.

People refuse to buy things for political purposes all the time.


You can stubbornly insist otherwise, and by all means you are entitled to do so, but you will just appear to be naive and a buffoon in the process.

I'll appear as neither, because as much as your bullyish prose would like to convey, consumers do make actual decisions, at least on occasion.


Uh, no, not really. My argument relies on pragmatism and empirical arguments, as opposed to some ideological day-dreaming and a heap of wishful thinking.


So are you denying the validity of my statement? Or just side-stepping the issue?


No, they aren't. If they know about it, and it is fresh in their mind, and they equate purchasing the bar with supporting the policy, and they are consciously thinking about it when they make the purchase, and they aren't being affected by sub-conscious factors (marketing), then they are.

But, THIS NEVER HAPPENS. It just doesn't. No-one goes into a shop, makes a list of what they *would* buy, then *leaves the shop* and does a massive google for each and every single product that would be in their shopping trolley, finding out the exact nature of that product's (and the corporation's) construction, and global policy.

One need not be required to do all of that.

It's relatively easy to pick up news stories on large issues, to amass a list of 'good' and 'bad' corporations through your daily life.

Make a list, take some initiative.

Write down a list of companies that do something wrong and refuse to buy from them.

You need only do one a week, or whatever.

Entire websites are dedicated to listing good and bad companies. It's not hard to find them.




It doesn't happen, and it can't happen, it isn't practical. A lot of voters find turning out one year in every four an inconvenience, and you REALLY expect people to do this hundreds of times per shopping trip, *AND THEN GO WITHOUT FOOD* to make a point?

Wake up, for fuck's sake man.

They would hardly need to go without food, period, just go without certain kinds of food.


In that they are fictional, yes they are very different.

Would be a witty statement if it were in fact true.


No-one spends the sort of effort you invisage into shopping. A very very small minority boycott a selection of *specific* products or companies for a reason, even they do not analyse every product they purchase. If we related that to an election analogy (as we have been) - it would be the equivalent of not voting for the Republicans or Democrats because you know how crap they are, and going for the Aryan Nations or KKK because you haven't heard of them and they don't get as many negative headlines.

Or voting for the Greens, or the Socialists or whatever.

Equating 'other corporations' with 'the Aryan Nation' makes for nice rhetoric but does nothing to further your non-point.

People buy from good companies all the time, actively. Some people make a quest out of demonizing bad companies.

I believe GEA ran a site dedicated to this, for instance.


Firstly, that's bullshit. If you took 10 minutes to rifle through your cupboards, I bet you'll find plenty of foodstuffs that you do not know a damned thing about. Where did the beans come from, how much did the people picking them earn?

More than they would have otherwise.


What's their healthcare package like?

Better than what it would be if they didn't have a job.


What's the safety record of the mill where the bread was made?

If it's in the West, probably pretty good.


Where did the tin it is packaged in come from? Etc, etc.

Yes, you could go on.

But it isn't really an issue unless you can prove that governments do this better.

Are bread mills run by the government better? Can you prove it? Do governments invariably buy better products? WOuld people vote for governments that promised to?

This is all such a non-issue, because as much as you'd like to avoid the fact, you have no proposal, no idea, other than that, magically, people would care about these issues, people would vote for politicians would carry them out and that no corners would be cut in the process.

I know of no evidence that tin purchased by the government is 'better' than tin purchased by corporation X, and neither do you.



Admit it, you don't have a clue, and you've ALREADY bought it. For all you know, it's soylent green.

For all I know, it's manna from heaven.


Me? I don't have a clue where the things I eat from. I can't. If I go into a restaurant or a cafe and say "So, where did the bacon come from? Were the pigs free-range, what sort of antibiotics did they receive? How much did the farmer receive?" By the time they had found these answers (implausibly assuming they could) - the rest of the customers are outraged and being made to wait, and I'm late for work. And then I find out that the answer's "no, the meat doesn't meat any of these criteria" - what, I am going to go from cafe to cafe repeating the same rigmarole until I find one that is suitable? And if NONE of them are? Where's my choice then? "Starve, that'll teach them."

Yeah, that's right, I know, I'll starve!

And you really think that this scenario will happen frequently enough to make a company change its policy?

FFS, get over yourself man. IT WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN, NEVER. IT DOESN'T WORK. It should be self-obvious.

And it should be equally obvious that the exact some process would not happen under a realistic government.

As if people would vote for policies that exactly mirror your own, have viewpoints that mirror your own, show your same dedication to these issues.

When people vote and invariably give no thought to these issues, what will you then say? Better luck next time?

THere is no evidence that government would give more credence to the plight of pigs, or that people would even care.

In a political system, with a handful of parties (Because any more would be quite a chose to keep track of), how can you expect one that fits with your policies?


Feh, you could use that to legitimise slavery. "The slaves do work, and the slave-owner has to feed them enough to keep them working. Can't mal-treat them, or they wouldn't work! Both people benefit! Perfectly equitable, no problems there!"

Except that it ignores the basic fact that it isn't equitable, at all, because one of the parties is a slave.


Bullshit. You might just as well say that Native Americans trading their land for beads was "beneficial to all parties" - They did get those shiney glass baubles afterall!

They certainly thought it was a beneficial deal, at the time.

THey were wrong, but what can you do?


You should care about it. Non-free-range chicken has as much fat as as red-meat. Free range chicken has a fraction of this. Also, non-free-range chicken is considerably more likely to be filled with antibiotics which can (and does) get passed on to humans, leaving them vulnerable to stronger infections. Also, human growth hormone, which can cause sexual sterility in men, impotence, breast growth (in men), etc. Oh, and the chicken breasts then get injected with water, which means you pay the same amount of cash for less meat. This is before we look at the humanitarian concerns, of course.

But hell, you KNOW about this, right? Because you take *all of this* into consideration when making your purchases, right? I mean you, the epitome of the savvy and empowered consumer wouldn't be admitting to purchasing products through ignorance, thereby proving my point conclusively, right?

Your point being that consumers aren't all-knowing? Point taken.




See, and this is why all your economic arguments ring hollow. You assume people have the choice. IF YOU ARE POOR, YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO SPEND EXTRA, NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS WORTH TO YOU. EVEN IF IT WAS GOING TO SAVE YOUR LIFE, IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT, YOU CANNOT BUY IT.

(News just in - poor family mortgage home so kids can get decent quality meat, Walmart reeling from the blow...)

Yes, the very poor lack the capacity to effectively vote with their dollars.

I'm not denying that.



So, when I say that 12 rich men can do without an extra yacht or mansion, I am being authoritarian and a communist idelogue, dictating how people can live. When you say that millions and millions of the world's poor can do without healthy and nutritious food, you are being perfectly reasonable?

Wake up, man.

The market can and does provide health, nutritious food.

If people would demand more of it, more would be supplied, more cheaply.


He was duly elected with a majority. That gives him the mandate. Now, if you want to argue that your archaic and inneffectual electoral system is a joke, by all means, no arguments here. That is not an argument against democracy, though.


He wasn't elected with a majority the first time around, when he started the war.


No, a corporation does not receive power by voting. It's power comes from its assets and capital. And no, a corporation's CEO and board of directors are not voted into power. Stockholders very seldom, if ever, get a say in how a company is run.

They do all the time.

If a company or person buys a controlling interest in the corporation, they own it and can do with it what they will.

Stockholders own the company, that's how the deal works.


And you are wrong. Do some research into it. Walmart can very easily dictate terms to both supplier and consumer. Microsoft do all matter of underhanded things and get away with it.

I know of what you're speaking, but again, your point is overstated.

SOme companies, like Walmart, can and do do this. But not all can or do.

The market isn't as distorted as you'd like us to believe.


Nonsense. How can a scenario where only Walmart benefits be better than a scenario where the producers and the consumers benefit? What, the middle man deserves the biggest cut, pull the other one. Seriously, how on earth can you justify the production and consumption getting the raw deal, while the person who just stands in the middle makes a killing? Do you have dreams of becoming a car salesman or something?

The person in the middle plays the role of transferring the good. They provide a service by taking the products, advertising them to the public, putting them in a location where consumers have access to them.

In this age of the internet, I would think stores like Wal Mart superflous. I see no reason why producers can't sell directly to consumers, in an online marketplace.


Like starve to death?

Be my guest.


Yeah, if everyone poked their eye out in protest, that would work too. "Jab a needle in your foot for fair trade!"

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, IT WON'T WORK.

Except for all the times it has.

When Greenpeace called for a lightning boycott of Shell in June 1995 over the company's decision to dump the Brent Spar oil platform at the bottom of the Atlantic, sales plummeted by 70% in some countries, prompting a dramatic change of heart within days.

First link off Google.

I really could go on, but it would pointless.


Ah, so this great freemarket choice is reduced to "make smart choices in the few choices that are left to you by the corporation." And when these corporations close the doors on those choices?

The number of corporations need not stay the same.


Which is the antithesis of *consumerism*. You might as well expect capitalists to choose to make less profit. Not going to happen.

Consumers can and should buy less.


And simply "not fighting" is a viable option for most people. Wars still happen.


Good point.


Nope, people don't have the means to do so. You might as well expect the silent 60% of apathetic voters in the US to rise up and vote Green. IT WON'T EVER HAPPEN.

Which makes our entire discussion nothing but intellectal theorycraft, I presume.

If our apathetic consumers never act, and our apathetic voters never act, than we're just completely fucked, a position I find rather likely.


But, by all means, create "consumer's unions", organise, and give consumers the power. Start picketing super-markets. I'd like that.

I just might.



Yeah, if you fudged it enough. But then, I'd rather have an ideal system that falls short, rather than a corrupt system which needs constant support to stop it crushing those under it.


Not "any" argument. The whole point of the US's "electoral college" system is that it DOESN'T presuppose informed voters.

And incidently, it sucks.


It is easier for voters to make one informed choice once every four years, than to all be made wealthy enough to make clever choices, and be informed about the intricate pros and cons of every single product on a supermarket shelf.

Easier? Probably, but see what that got us last time?

I'm not certain that voting for a candidate is that easy, because Bush v. Kerry was no real choice at all, and a 3rd party vote was essentially wasted.

You really had none to vote for; it's like picking a way to commit suicide.


Strawman. People's desires are paramount. But people's desires are at odds with their conscious wills. That is the whole point of it. People's desires are based on sub-conscious factors.

Getting very psychological here.

If people conciously choose things that go against their 'best interest' what is to be done?


You have no problem with companies misrepresenting products which are demonstrably unhealthy?

Yes I do. I support strong fraud laws.


You have no problem with wide-spread antibiotic resistance, spread solely through the desire of corporations to make a buck?

You might change your mind when your leg gets cut off because an otherwise treatable infection makes a small wound potentially lethal.


Down with morality, how futurist. Viva la exploitation.


I expect there are plenty of failsafe method's in your country too. I'd wager it is just that they are not being used.

I honestly wouldn't know about any such laws.

I don't think they exist, I haven't heard about them, but they may.


I'll go on record right now as saying that subconscious preference for confectionary is a "worse" criteria for making choices about the world you want to live in, than making a conscious selection of an elected representative.

Are you going to say otherwise?

'Worse', consequentially?

I think that you could, at random, choose a Presedential candidate better than the majority of voters did by thinking.

Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, Nader, a few other fringers, pick at random, and you would have a higher chance of 'not picking Bush' than the majority of voters did via their reason.

So, in this case, picking a random name on the ballot is better, for most people, than actively deciding on who to vote for.

I'm not saying thinking is worse, as a rule; it obviously isn't, but look who's traipsing about the Whitehouse...


"Pissing it away" ? What a naive understanding. If the government had closed to coal mine, those workers would STILL be receiving the government money, in the form of welfare. And they would be sitting on their asses while doing it. By subsidising a coal-mine, the government was able to offset the cost to them with the materials produced in the coal mine.

It's more expensive to run a mill AND hand out money than to just hand out money.

FUrthermore, if they didn't have to run a mill, taxes could be lowered which would give them more disposable income and would increase investment, which would improve their chances of getting new jobs.

By subsidising the coal-mine, the government was using resources in a less-efficient manner.


However, while closing down the coal-mines may well have made more economic sense, you are misrepresenting the intention of the system. While a corporation can close down and move its assets to Chinese labour camps to save running costs, that does not benefit the people back in England.

If it results in cheaper still being sold to England, as it does, it does.


As a nationalised industry is designed to benefit the nation, even though doing so would be an economic "success" - it would convey no benefits to the nation.

You're misunderstanding simple economics here.

Nationalized countries hurt a countries economy, because of the high taxes required to sustain a loss-making industry.

These companies LOSE MONEY which is bad for the economy.

International trade is demonstrably good for individual countries. It's basic economics and logic.


Now, THEORETICALLY, a nationalised company that moves its assets to another nation could use the profits it made overseas to offset the government's assets, that is not the point of a nationalised industry. The government is not supposed to "go into business" and make cash for itself. That is not the purpose, nor the goal of government. It is supposed to levy its funds from taxation, etc.

Which is an economically ignorant thing to do.


Again, unemployed people *still* cost the public money. However, you might be well aware that private companies receive "wasted" public money (The US Airports, as pointed out in the SOuth Park gyroscope episode, Lockheed martin as pointed out in one of Michael Moore's books, etc etc.) in the form of subsidies. So, as this is clearly not limited to *nationalised* industries, we can see it is not a facet of nationalised industries. Any company can be mismanaged, and that goes for private just as much as nationalised.

I don't support subsidies, as a rule.


Depends, plenty of politicians are concerned individuals. My MP, for example, is excellent. Top fellow, gets a lot of practical and useful things done for his constituents.


Good for him.


Can't use a competing water-pipe if only one pipe runs under your house. Apply that to gas, electricity, cable, etc. However, I am gratified to see that you accept there are plenty of areas where nationalisation makes sense.


It's true.

Nationalism can be a valid choice in areas of natural monopoly. It's something I'm willing to concede.


Indeed, and you are trying to argue that it was because of nationalised industries, which is completely irrational.


No, it's exactly what happend.

Read The Commanding Heights. It's an excellent book.


Fallacy right there. You might equally argue that it is doing much better than mainland Europe, the same mainland Europe that doesn't speak English as a first language. Could just as easily put it down to tea, cricket and muffins.


I know, it's inductive reasoning, yadda yadda yadda.

If you really want to press the issue, than fine, it was muffins.

I really don't care enough to spend the time to craft a proof based entirely on deductive reasoning.

Such papers exist, search for them. Books were written on the topic, one of which, the Commanding Heights, I own. Read it.


Again, fallacy. Britain also has a reputation for football hooliganism, going to say that is to blame? Maybe it is the stress and pressure of working under an unfair privatised economy that has lead to the culture of binge drinking, which isn't found on the continent. Going to throw that into the mix too? Privatisation leads to binge-drinking and yobbism!

Or maybe it's the high taxes, caused by the loss-making industries.

Or the tarrifs.


How so? Democracy is "rule by the people" - how is that "intrinsically immoral"? It strikes me that, unless you are saying people are intrinsically immoral, and thus the system must be, you cannot make that claim. And if you are saying people are intrinsically immoral, sure that must then apply to the free-market too?

Well, people may very well be intrinsically immoral.

'Rule by the the people, rule of me'.

The majority has the right to dictate what I can and cannot do. It's coercive.

It's better than most alternatives, it's one of the only workable systems, I realize, but it's a means to an end, not a desirable end itself.


Damn, that took me more than an hour.

Hmm.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
No, it's an example of making an informed decision about what I purchase.

Which is ironic considering, whether you know it or not, you machine currently has plenty of DRM on it.

So they did.
But that doesn't change the fact that, as of now, Vista has nothing I want.

Hah, and how many people are using windows 3.1 for that self same reason? The illusion of choice.

Windows has plenty of annoyances as well.

Yes, except we are talking about the annoyance of migrating away from the predominant operating system, not just using it. However, Linux is, by default, more convaluted. And judging by Window's "Fisher-price" mode, it will be even more so with Vista. This is all beside the point though.

It is, but this isn't an example of 'regulation' as you said.

Urm, it is. A company being brought to bear by law is quite literally an example of it being regulated.

If people don't want DRM products, don't buy DRM products. What's so hard about that?

Considering your machine is full of DRM products as it stands, and you seem to be oblivious to it, I find that a little ironic. However, you'll see soon enough.

I refuse to buy DRMd products, for example.

Well, I assume like most people you have a lot of pirated software, which neatly side-steps the "buying" issue. But, assuming that you don't intend people to be breaking the law in order to make your system work, even so you have plenty of DRM software on your PC. Windows XP on its own is chock to the gills with digital rights management. Half the file types associated with it are too.

It wasn't a difficult or time consuming decision of mine not to use DRM. I realized very quickly that I don't want onerous restrictions on my software, so I don't use products with DRM schemes that prevent me from completing basic tasks, like ripping a CD or something.

I assume you have software that plays WMA files? That has DRM in it, and I daresay that you don't have any software that could circumvent that. What you mean is that "so far I haven't been caught out by the numerous pieces of software that have hidden and subtle DRM mechanisms built throughout them." A situation which is reliant solely on felicity.


Our government is shit, precisely because people thought about it. I very much doubt picking at random could have created a worse government than our current one.

Except your system isn't "picking it at random" - it is giving power to big business. And who is in bed with big business? That's right, Bush and his cronies. Yes your electoral system may well be a farce, but under your system, all you would be saving is them the effort of putting on the puppet show. The opposition to Bush may be ineffectual, but under your system it would be non-existant.

If there were a Nazi candy bar company, most people would refuse to buy it, even if it were pretty good.

Yeah, it's not like a well known soft-drinks company, that traded with the enemy during world war two, would still be popular today.

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/fanta.asp

None is going to buy 'Swastika Bar', for political (or societal) reasons.

And yet a drink made in Nazi Germany, for Nazi Germans, from a company that sponsored the Berlin olympics, has plenty of people buying it.

People refuse to buy thigns all the time because they against their morals.

Like Coca-cola, Windows, Nike and McDonalds? Yah, those companies are all really poor and hard-done-by. They're the hobos of the corporate world...

I'll appear as neither, because as much as your bullyish prose would like to convey, consumers do make actual decisions, at least on occasion.

No, they don't. All the important decisions are made for them, the illusion of control over the process is part of the mechanism that makes the process work. You might as well say that Winston loves Big Brother through his own free will and conscious choice.

So are you denying the validity of my statement?

Yep. If you think people's shopping is based on rational thinking rather than subliminal pressures, you are just plain wrong. Even just the layout of a supermarket is intrically designed to coerce people to spend as much as humanly possible. According to you, that wouldn't work because "people would only buy what they were going to get anyway." Fact of the matter is, that's wrong. Anyone who has worked high up in the supermarket industry will tell you as much.

Simple test - how many parents do you think go into a shop thinking "and I'll buy some sweets at the check-out for my kid." Next to none. They buy them because of the well known "nag factor" - which is precisely why they are placed at the check-out. It is a well known fact that kids will nag most at that point, when they are the msot divorced from the shopping process, and it is when the parent is least able to resist the nagging from their child, due to wanting to concentrate on bagging the shopping, and making sure the cash is right, along with the social pressures of not holding up the line, and not being able to leave the line in order to discipline the child.

It isn't coincidence, and this is one of the crudest and most obvious manipulations.

Now, if parents can be manipulated into buying products that rot their beloved offspring's teeth (and you aren't seriously going to tell me that the parent's consciously weighed up the agony of tooth-decay for their children, and the vicarious pleasure of seeing their brat sucking on a sugary lollypop) which is one of the most retrograde activities to their desires - are you seriously telling me that they cannot be manipulated when there is more at stake?

Seriously, you are just being naive.

One need not be required to do all of that.

Yes, one does need to do that for your system to work. How many people know that Rowntree is a subsidiary of Nestle? Probably very few. How many people connect Schweppes and Coca-Cola? And "occasional activisim" wouldn't have any impact whatsoever. Boycotting a different company one time in ten would have 0 effect.

Entire websites are dedicated to listing good and bad companies. It's not hard to find them.

<sigh>

And yet you take an active interest in these matters, and seem to know little to nothing of these corporations' activities and methodologies. Hardly bodes well.

They would hardly need to go without food, period, just go without certain kinds of food.

They would have to go without whatever they were boycotting, which gives the companies they AREN'T boycotting the power to dictate terms. Every additional product they boycott increases the customer's reliance on the remaining products exponetially. They boycott Coca-Cola, and turn to the nearest alternative, "super-coke." Super-coke then pulls the same shit as Coca-Cola, making massive and massives of cash in the process, and as soon as people start boycotting that, they move onto "hyper-coke" which can do the same thing. So, when the consumer has boycotted every single soft-drinks company one after the other, what then? Switch to water? And when they have boycotted every water company? They die of dehydration? Or they go back to Coke, which hasn't dropped its price by a single cent, but has now become the most viable alternative by a process which has left them in the same position they were before?

The boycott escalator, how to make yourself poorer in one easy lesson.

People buy from good companies all the time, actively. Some people make a quest out of demonizing bad companies.

I believe GEA ran a site dedicated to this, for instance.

Yes, there is a very very small minority of people who do this. Now, would you care to estimate what percentage of market share these companies have? Now tell me what percentage of market share Walmart has? In the UK, the "big four" supermarket chains, which are all bad as each other, have it stitched up, holding pretty much all of the market share between them. 'Cause I am very interested to find out how you can use less than 3% of the population to justify your position. "Hey, three people out of a hundred don't buy from the biggest and most notoriously bad companies, it's a victory for intellectual consumerism!".

More than they would have otherwise.

Stupid.

Better than what it would be if they didn't have a job.

Pathetic.

If it's in the West, probably pretty good.

And little black folks don't count, right? They're just lucky to have a job.

But it isn't really an issue unless you can prove that governments do this better.

Ah, so you've given up on your "clever consumer" argument, and reverted to your flimsy "Yeah, but <sniff> governments are just as evil and crooked, man... At least with capitalism the head honchos are cooler..." argument.

Do governments invariably buy better products? WOuld people vote for governments that promised to?

Governments often have limitations put on them by the general public which (legally) prevent them from doing things which are deemed against public interest, or generally unacceptable. For example, the government is unable to trade military equipment that various UK weapons companies sell to the highest bidder as a matter of course. One of the reasons why nationalised industries often have higher over-heads is because the general public hold them to a higher level of scrutiny that private companies (which they have no authority over.) The general public are entitled to see the safety records of a nationalised industry, and they have a say in those standards. They do not have any input into how a private company runs its affairs, not a right to know.

An example of this is, again, rail privatisation. Under British Rail, the network was under a great deal of scrutiny, and as such had an exemplary safety record, which reflected in the costs. Now that it has been privatised, maintenance is sub-contracted too all manner of private companies, who are by and large innaccesible to the public. These companies, in the interests of their share-holder's profit margins, and sound economic principles, employ the cheapest workforce they can muster, and use the cheapest materials they can find. This has led to a fall in the quality of the rail network, and is a contributing factor to the numerous rail disasters of the recent past.

Now, presumably you think this is ok because the "savings" made on those materials ultimately benefit the consumer in the form of cheaper rail travel (not that this will comfort the dead, or the families of the dead, much.) - however, here is the central flaw of the lie that privatisation is more efficient than a national industry, the extra cash freed up by cutting these corners goes to the share-holders and the management first and foremost (afterall, shareholders do not invest in order to build a railroad, they do it to get money back). Under a nationalised industry, it would go back into updating the infrastructure.

Under privatisation, the capitalist interests of the corporation are a blackhole for money, as much so, if not more so, than the theoretical inefficiency you choose to attribute to nationalised industries.

I know of no evidence that tin purchased by the government is 'better' than tin purchased by corporation X, and neither do you.

There is plenty of evidence to show that railway lines maintained by a nationalised industry are "better" (safer, sturdier, cheaper, more reliable) than railway lines maintained by any one of a number of private corporations. I could point you to some grave stones if you want, there enough of them after Hatfield, Selby, Potter's Bar, etc etc.

For all I know, it's manna from heaven.

So much for the "informed consumer" then...


When people vote and invariably give no thought to these issues, what will you then say? Better luck next time?

THere is no evidence that government would give more credence to the plight of pigs, or that people would even care.

That's bollocks. However, that to one side, it is amusing that now your argument has gone to "Well, yes, ok, so corporations might be unaccountable, unfair, exploitative, manipulative, soulless and dangerous, but DAMMIT I'd rather be fucked over by them than fucked over by a system which I might be able to influence! That'll teach the stinking proles!"

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face, as my granny would say.

In a political system, with a handful of parties (Because any more would be quite a chose to keep track of), how can you expect one that fits with your policies?

Pretty much anyone is entitled to stand for election, hardly anyone can have the dominant market share in an industry.

Except that it ignores the basic fact that it isn't equitable, at all, because one of the parties is a slave.

Hah, and so is that bean farmer who is "just lucky to have a job." You're double-standards are wearing thin, again.

They certainly thought it was a beneficial deal, at the time.
THey were wrong, but what can you do?

Sigh, libertarianism. "They were weak, they deserved to be exploited. It's natural."

What you can do is take steps to prevent the exploitation of the weak by the powerful. Which is precisely the point of government, and precisely why it shouldn't be put in the hands of the powerful.

That is why your government is failing so badly, and why your system is doomed to failure.

It's like in Starwars - you're saying "The Republic Senate was weak and inneffective, but fortunately for all concerned, planet's are under the control of the regional governers, who answer directly to the Emperor!"

Happy days are here again!

Your point being that consumers aren't all-knowing? Point taken.

My point being that people know less about what they are consuming than they do about politics, which isn't saying much.

Yes, the very poor lack the capacity to effectively vote with their dollars.

I'm not denying that.

But hell, they don't count right? Libertarianism again...

The market can and does provide health, nutritious food.
If people would demand more of it, more would be supplied, more cheaply.

That is a very interesting intepretation of the laws of supply and demand. Usually increased demand gives the supplier *greater* leverage... It is novel to suggest the inverse would happen.

He wasn't elected with a majority the first time around, when he started the war.

Well, that is debateable. If he was not properly elected, then he is a tyrant and a usurper, and hardly counts against the democratic system. You cannot hold an undemocratically installed leader against democracy. And, if he was illegally in power for the first term, it should be no surprise that he won the second one. It has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with the concentration of power. If you don't like it, then don't support capitalism, as you'll just get more of the same, and to the Nth degree. A capitalistic power doesn't have a limit on its second term, nor is it obliged to (at least in theory) risk its dominant position every four years. You seem to want to replace a failing system with the same system, minus any sort of safeguard, no matter how ineffectual it is.

They do all the time.

If a company or person buys a controlling interest in the corporation, they own it and can do with it what they will.

Stockholders own the company, that's how the deal works.

No, it isn't. A corporation has a board of directors, who are trustees. These representatives have a control over the corporation. The stockholders can, theoretically, have a vote of no confidence and demand the corporation consult them over issues. However, as in government, a vote of no-confidence (or an impeachment) is a convaluted process, and very seldom does it occur. For example, a takeover bid of Marks and Spenser could've made shareholders a massive instant profit, seeing some INSTANT and SERIOUS cash returns to all shareholders, after the company was failing terribly and suffering a serious downturn. The board of directors voted against the takeover (presumably because they liked their managerial jobs) and the interest parties (shareholders) failed to bring this case up with the relevant ombudsman, or exert any influence. In effect, they were either unable or unwilling to turf out the entrenched management.

This is because, in most major multi-national corporations, the shareholders are a silent partner. They leave the running of the company to a select few, even when the steady flow of dollars takes a down turn. There is a resistance to revolution within a company, mainly because such managerial instability will instantly destroy the value of their shares, doing them out of money. Shareholders flexing their muscles is an easy way to devalue their shares, and as such it DOESN'T HAPPEN.


SOme companies, like Walmart, can and do do this. But not all can or do.

Yes, you're right, small companies do not have the power to do this. Because they are small. And insignificant. And that is the point, they are unable to precisely because they are insignificant. So you trying to emphasise their significance is really quite inane. If they were as significant as you'd like "us" to believe, then they would logically have enough power to dictate terms. As their significance grows, so does their leverage.

The market isn't as distorted as you'd like us to believe.

Like *you* to believe. Everyone else here KNOWS how it works. You're the only one who is unaquainted with these practices.

The person in the middle plays the role of transferring the good. They provide a service by taking the products, advertising them to the public, putting them in a location where consumers have access to them.

Except they don't. The public visit a super-market, not the other way around. Advertising is paid for by the producers (Coca-cola advertise Coca-cola, not the super-markets). And shareholders don't "transfer the goods" and neither do the management. They get paid for an abstract concept of proprietary, not for any physical action that they perform, or anything tangible that the bring to the transaction.

In this age of the internet, I would think stores like Wal Mart superflous. I see no reason why producers can't sell directly to consumers, in an online marketplace.

Power.

Be my guest.

Hmmm, I suppose I could starve to death in order to prove your point. Or I could simply choose not to, and prove mine, as well as forgoing the unberable discomfort and fighting the strong survival instincts.

Except for all the times it has.

First link off Google.

I really could go on, but it would pointless.

Yes it would, considering that Shell have been boasting record profits in the face of increased costs, and are still one of the least popular companies in the world, receiving regular criticism from environmentalists to hauliers.

Easier? Probably, but see what that got us last time?

I'm not certain that voting for a candidate is that easy, because Bush v. Kerry was no real choice at all, and a 3rd party vote was essentially wasted.

You really had none to vote for; it's like picking a way to commit suicide.

And it would be exactly the same under a free market capitalist system, but without 3rd party people even on the ballot.

If people conciously choose things that go against their 'best interest' what is to be done?

They don't, consciously, choose these things. They sleep-walk into these decisions, which is the whole point of the system. To combat it, remove manipulations which prey on people's subconscious. Banning the use of sex in alcohol adverts, and banning tobacco advertising are laws to achieve precisely this.

I think that you could, at random, choose a Presedential candidate better than the majority of voters did by thinking.

Yes, but giving power to people based on confectionary isn't *at random.* It is subject to a number of factors which all mean that the most powerful corporate interest will end up being selected. You'd still end up with Bush, but the difference is, you wouldn't know why.

It's more expensive to run a mill AND hand out money than to just hand out money.

Stupid. People who are employed in a nationalised industry are not *also* on the dole. There is no "and."

FUrthermore, if they didn't have to run a mill, taxes could be lowered which would give them more disposable income and would increase investment, which would improve their chances of getting new jobs.

No, if the government didn't run a mill, people would be unemployed which means they would have *no* income, disposable or otherwise. Furthermore, the unemployment benefits would cost considerably more, as the unemployed people wouldn't be producing *any* steel to offset the costs, no matter how small.

By subsidising the coal-mine, the government was using resources in a less-efficient manner.

Than giving them the same amount of money for producing nothing? How does that work, Bob?

If it results in cheaper still being sold to England, as it does, it does.

No, it doesn't. Unemployed people are not in a position to buy "cheaper" steel. By your argument, the whole country could be out of work, but that's ok as long as foreigners are producing materials cheaper than you could. That's just stupid.

You're misunderstanding simple economics here.

No, I'm refusing to buy into a lot of nonsensical, contradictory, and patently absurd dogma. There's a difference. Your "simple economics" is a lot of theoretical bullshit based solely on assumption, speculation, and self-satisfied posturing. It is theorising so sloppy that in any other field it would be ridiculed. The only reason people tolerate it is that the only people who care enough to scrutinize it are already <spits> economists. You might as well ask a Jesuit to bring forward a scientific and damning rebuttal of the Christian faith.

Nationalized countries hurt a countries economy, because of the high taxes required to sustain a loss-making industry.

Based on the assumption that a nationalised industry must be loss-making. Capitalist propoganda, there is no reason to assume that a nationalised industry must be making a loss. Infact, many nationalised industries were more efficient than their privatised counter-parts, as has been pointed out repeatedly, and as you have, in part, conceded.

These companies LOSE MONEY which is bad for the economy.

Gross simplification. All public services "lose money" - the point is that the benefits supposedly outweigh the costs. For example, the government laying down roads "loses money." - However you'd hardly say that a sound traffic infrastructure "is bad for the economy."

Also, paying welfare to the unemployed "loses the government money." And having people sitting around idle instead of working "loses money" and is the very yardstick for deciding if the economy is bad.

International trade is demonstrably good for individual countries. It's basic economics and logic.

Which is an economically ignorant thing to do.

Which is why economics is such a worthless and meaningless subject. While a government's funding being levied from taxes is not economically sound, it is the most prudent thing a society can do. When the government has an independant source of revenue, it gains autonomy from the people. Your economically sophisticated government becomes big brother overnight. "It's our money, levied by our own enterprises, we'll spend it on what we like, and you voters can't say anyhting about it. It isn't YOUR taxes that paid for it, after all."

What's to stop them using their own money to build their own army, and use it against the voters?

Or maybe it's the high taxes, caused by the loss-making industries.
Or the tarrifs.

Yes, that's it, despite the UK's nationalised industries having been privatised well over a decade ago.

The majority has the right to dictate what I can and cannot do. It's coercive.

So you favour anarchy? As capitalism certainly isn't any different.

[EN[i]GMA]

Which is ironic considering, whether you know it or not, you machine currently has plenty of DRM on it.

I'm sure it does.

But it doesn't impinge on my daily use, so it's not really a problem.

If it becomes a problem (And admittedly, it probably will.) I will likely change my position.

I must admit, Palladium and it's ilk are so disgustingly nefarious and potentially harmful that I have good reason for not allowing it to exist.

The biggest problem I have with DRM now is that we aren't allowed to break it, by law.

Thanks the DMCA, we can't get around any sort of 'protection' schemes, legally.


Hah, and how many people are using windows 3.1 for that self same reason? The illusion of choice.


You can still use 3.1

It hasn't degraded at all, just everything else has advanced.


Yes, except we are talking about the annoyance of migrating away from the predominant operating system, not just using it. However, Linux is, by default, more convaluted. And judging by Window's "Fisher-price" mode, it will be even more so with Vista. This is all beside the point though.


Much of this debate was beside the original point. Eh.


Urm, it is. A company being brought to bear by law is quite literally an example of it being regulated.


I was presuming you meant regulated, as in regulated by a government agency, the general use of the term in the context.


Considering your machine is full of DRM products as it stands, and you seem to be oblivious to it, I find that a little ironic. However, you'll see soon enough.

I'm only oblivious to the DRM's existence because it doesn't really disrupt anything I do.

Should it become a problem, I know of recourse to take.

No CD cracks, warez, CD image burning software, etc.

There are numerous ways to foil copy protection.

I don't disagree that things may soon change, if Palladium is as onerous as it could be.

Palladium could do more than anything to convert me to the cause, as it were.

I absolutely abhor shit like that.


Well, I assume like most people you have a lot of pirated software, which neatly side-steps the "buying" issue.

Indeed it does.


But, assuming that you don't intend people to be breaking the law in order to make your system work, even so you have plenty of DRM software on your PC.

Essentially everyone breaks the law to make their PC work, if you follow the strict lettering of the DMCA.

Every time you do something with copyrighted material that isn't exactly what was proposed by the author, or if you break any sort of copy protection scheme, you are potentially running foul of the law.


Windows XP on its own is chock to the gills with digital rights management. Half the file types associated with it are too.

It depends.

None of the music files on my computer are DRMd, though many of them could be, because the format supports it.


I assume you have software that plays WMA files? That has DRM in it, and I daresay that you don't have any software that could circumvent that.

Circumvent WMA DRM?

I could do it.


What you mean is that "so far I haven't been caught out by the numerous pieces of software that have hidden and subtle DRM mechanisms built throughout them." A situation which is reliant solely on felicity.

No, it's because, as of now, DRM isn't sufficiently onerous to impinge on my daily usage.

Plus I'm able to crack most DRM should it become a problem.

But as I said earlier, with Palladium, things could change.


Except your system isn't "picking it at random" - it is giving power to big business. And who is in bed with big business? That's right, Bush and his cronies. Yes your electoral system may well be a farce, but under your system, all you would be saving is them the effort of putting on the puppet show. The opposition to Bush may be ineffectual, but under your system it would be non-existant.

Perhaps.


Yeah, it's not like a well known soft-drinks company, that traded with the enemy during world war two, would still be popular today.

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/fanta.asp


People in America weren't buying it at the time.

Now Fanta does not support Nazis.

Therefore, people buying Fanta now are not supporting Nazis.

And Fanta isn't really very popular, at least here in the States.


And yet a drink made in Nazi Germany, for Nazi Germans, from a company that sponsored the Berlin olympics, has plenty of people buying it.


Like Coca-cola, Windows, Nike and McDonalds? Yah, those companies are all really poor and hard-done-by. They're the hobos of the corporate world...


Many people refuse to buy from those companies because of moral reasons.

Not many in the grand scheme of things, but a few.


No, they don't. All the important decisions are made for them, the illusion of control over the process is part of the mechanism that makes the process work. You might as well say that Winston loves Big Brother through his own free will and conscious choice.

'All the decisions have been made for them'? By whom?

The rich? The rich that are competing with one another?

How can they both consort and compete?


Yep. If you think people's shopping is based on rational thinking rather than subliminal pressures, you are just plain wrong. Even just the layout of a supermarket is intrically designed to coerce people to spend as much as humanly possible. According to you, that wouldn't work because "people would only buy what they were going to get anyway." Fact of the matter is, that's wrong. Anyone who has worked high up in the supermarket industry will tell you as much.

Again, I think you're completely overstating the effects.

Shopping for food is not a very rational thing for most people. It's very dependent on subjective tastes, marketing, etc.

There is no reason why it couldn't be rational, however.


Simple test - how many parents do you think go into a shop thinking "and I'll buy some sweets at the check-out for my kid." Next to none. They buy them because of the well known "nag factor" - which is precisely why they are placed at the check-out. It is a well known fact that kids will nag most at that point, when they are the msot divorced from the shopping process, and it is when the parent is least able to resist the nagging from their child, due to wanting to concentrate on bagging the shopping, and making sure the cash is right, along with the social pressures of not holding up the line, and not being able to leave the line in order to discipline the child.

It isn't coincidence, and this is one of the crudest and most obvious manipulations.

And many stores now have aisles that aren't stocked with candy, because it pissed off the shoppers.


Now, if parents can be manipulated into buying products that rot their beloved offspring's teeth (and you aren't seriously going to tell me that the parent's consciously weighed up the agony of tooth-decay for their children, and the vicarious pleasure of seeing their brat sucking on a sugary lollypop) which is one of the most retrograde activities to their desires - are you seriously telling me that they cannot be manipulated when there is more at stake?

Seriously, you are just being naive.

I'm not denying that there are machinations, I'm doubting the severity and power of them.

People can, easily, refuse to buy candy, or refuse to buy items that are promintly displayed, or refuse to buy items placed at eye level on the racks, or refuse to buy food they freely sampled.

People can and do all the time.

The fact that Oreo brand cookies are placed at eye level and the identical knock-off is on the bottom shelf does nothing to dissuade me, and others, to buy the knock-off product.




Yes, one does need to do that for your system to work. How many people know that Rowntree is a subsidiary of Nestle? Probably very few. How many people connect Schweppes and Coca-Cola? And "occasional activisim" wouldn't have any impact whatsoever. Boycotting a different company one time in ten would have 0 effect.


<sigh>

And yet you take an active interest in these matters, and seem to know little to nothing of these corporations' activities and methodologies. Hardly bodes well.




They would have to go without whatever they were boycotting, which gives the companies they AREN'T boycotting the power to dictate terms.

Not really.

Firms that are boycotted for a long enough period of time go under.

None will invest in a company, none will buy from the company, it goes under, unless it changes policy.

For your example to be true, Coca Cola would have to keep its policy the same, during the entire boycott, and not cave into consumer demands.

What would really happen is the company in question would cease it's activity as soon as it realizes it's losing money and its competitors are gaining money.

People could drink water with no problem, water that is plentiful, from their faucet.

The idea that every company would take up every nefarious scheme possible is absurd on its face, because it isn't happening.

If what you're saying were true, Coca Cola and Pepsi would be having bloodwars on the streets due to the constant escalation.

You're also forgetting that new firms could enter the competition, and that companies that refrained from commiting the undesired action would gain consumer loyalty.


Yes, there is a very very small minority of people who do this. Now, would you care to estimate what percentage of market share these companies have? Now tell me what percentage of market share Walmart has?

Between 1-2%, nationwide, I believe.


In the UK, the "big four" supermarket chains, which are all bad as each other, have it stitched up, holding pretty much all of the market share between them. 'Cause I am very interested to find out how you can use less than 3% of the population to justify your position. "Hey, three people out of a hundred don't buy from the biggest and most notoriously bad companies, it's a victory for intellectual consumerism!".

How are they all 'nearly as bad as one another'?

What is it that they do that is so horrific?


And little black folks don't count, right? They're just lucky to have a job.


What else do you propose?


Ah, so you've given up on your "clever consumer" argument, and reverted to your flimsy "Yeah, but <sniff> governments are just as evil and crooked, man... At least with capitalism the head honchos are cooler..." argument.


No, I'm merely pointing that you can't use an ignorant, gullible population as an indictment of capitalism without admitting that a gullible, ignorant population is just as liable to fall for the deceits of the politicians as the deceits of the corporation.


Governments often have limitations put on them by the general public which (legally) prevent them from doing things which are deemed against public interest, or generally unacceptable.

And we see what this assurance is worth.


For example, the government is unable to trade military equipment that various UK weapons companies sell to the highest bidder as a matter of course.

I believe we have and have had similar laws here in America, but that's never seemed to prevent arms sales from happening.

I'm sure the UK has illegally traded arms before.


One of the reasons why nationalised industries often have higher over-heads is because the general public hold them to a higher level of scrutiny that private companies (which they have no authority over.) The general public are entitled to see the safety records of a nationalised industry, and they have a say in those standards. They do not have any input into how a private company runs its affairs, not a right to know.

Safety records are made public because safety issues are brought up with a government agency.


An example of this is, again, rail privatisation. Under British Rail, the network was under a great deal of scrutiny, and as such had an exemplary safety record, which reflected in the costs. Now that it has been privatised, maintenance is sub-contracted too all manner of private companies, who are by and large innaccesible to the public. These companies, in the interests of their share-holder's profit margins, and sound economic principles, employ the cheapest workforce they can muster, and use the cheapest materials they can find. This has led to a fall in the quality of the rail network, and is a contributing factor to the numerous rail disasters of the recent past.

Now, presumably you think this is ok because the "savings" made on those materials ultimately benefit the consumer in the form of cheaper rail travel (not that this will comfort the dead, or the families of the dead, much.) - however, here is the central flaw of the lie that privatisation is more efficient than a national industry, the extra cash freed up by cutting these corners goes to the share-holders and the management first and foremost (afterall, shareholders do not invest in order to build a railroad, they do it to get money back). Under a nationalised industry, it would go back into updating the infrastructure.

Under privatisation, the capitalist interests of the corporation are a blackhole for money, as much so, if not more so, than the theoretical inefficiency you choose to attribute to nationalised industries.

Only because there's no competition in the train industry.

If there sufficient competition, the company that hoarded its money and handed it all away would not be using it to invest, that is, it would be at a disadvantage to a company that did invest, and it wouldn't rake in the cash for long.


There is plenty of evidence to show that railway lines maintained by a nationalised industry are "better" (safer, sturdier, cheaper, more reliable) than railway lines maintained by any one of a number of private corporations. I could point you to some grave stones if you want, there enough of them after Hatfield, Selby, Potter's Bar, etc etc.

I'll concede that British Rail is worse.

Amtrak, however, is terrible and it is government owned.

But yes, privization did not do what is billed to do, that is, increase performance and reduce cost.


That's bollocks. However, that to one side, it is amusing that now your argument has gone to "Well, yes, ok, so corporations might be unaccountable, unfair, exploitative, manipulative, soulless and dangerous, but DAMMIT I'd rather be fucked over by them than fucked over by a system which I might be able to influence! That'll teach the stinking proles!"

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face, as my granny would say.

No, I'm simply pointing out an inconsistency in you reasoning.


Pretty much anyone is entitled to stand for election, hardly anyone can have the dominant market share in an industry.

Nice try, inserting the word 'dominant' in there.

Anyone is entitled to run, but you probably won't get more than a handful of votes unless you run under one of the 6 or largest parties.

Someone starting a restaraunt business would have a much larger market share than someone putting his name up for Presedential election, or even local election.

If you aren't one of the local politicos, getting a job higher than dog catcher is nearly impossible, as most people vote strictly on party lines.

You stand a much greater chance of starting a powerful multinational corporation than you do of winning the presidency, simply because there are more corporations.

Add in the fact that unless you are a rich, well-connected, elite you cannot win the presidency, while you can start up a company no matter who you are; many have.


Hah, and so is that bean farmer who is "just lucky to have a job." You're double-standards are wearing thin, again.

Taking a contentious opinion, such as that a worker is a 'slave' and chastising me because I don't agree with it is not going to persuade me.

There's no double standard involved.


Sigh, libertarianism. "They were weak, they deserved to be exploited. It's natural."

Interestingly, perhaps, I think I've just realized the sheer idiocy of the libertarian position on many issues.

It was a debate totally unrelated to this one, on another forum, where I encountered, much to my disbelief, supposed 'libertarians' who argued, seriously, that people had a right to sell themselves into to slavery, to be enslaved and that I, by telling them they couldn't be slaves, was enslaving them.

It was, perhaps, a moment of epiphany.

Never before did I realize just how fucking deluded some of those people are. I feel stupid for ever consorting with them or associating myself with them.


My point being that people know less about what they are consuming than they do about politics, which isn't saying much.

It'll suffice.


But hell, they don't count right? Libertarianism again...

No, they matter.


That is a very interesting intepretation of the laws of supply and demand. Usually increased demand gives the supplier *greater* leverage... It is novel to suggest the inverse would happen.

It gives current suppliers more leverage, but if the increased demand increases the number of suppliers (As it would), it could have the opposite effect.


Well, that is debateable. If he was not properly elected, then he is a tyrant and a usurper, and hardly counts against the democratic system. You cannot hold an undemocratically installed leader against democracy. And, if he was illegally in power for the first term, it should be no surprise that he won the second one. It has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with the concentration of power. If you don't like it, then don't support capitalism, as you'll just get more of the same, and to the Nth degree. A capitalistic power doesn't have a limit on its second term, nor is it obliged to (at least in theory) risk its dominant position every four years. You seem to want to replace a failing system with the same system, minus any sort of safeguard, no matter how ineffectual it is.

'Properly elected'.

He was elected according the Electoral College, not via an actual majority.

This is, of course, ignoring any possible 'irregularities' in the voting.

Whether being elected by the Electoral College is being 'democratically elected' is, perhaps, a matter for debate, but I don't think it really matters.

Anyway, he was elected the 2nd time.


No, it isn't. A corporation has a board of directors, who are trustees. These representatives have a control over the corporation. The stockholders can, theoretically, have a vote of no confidence and demand the corporation consult them over issues. However, as in government, a vote of no-confidence (or an impeachment) is a convaluted process, and very seldom does it occur. For example, a takeover bid of Marks and Spenser could've made shareholders a massive instant profit, seeing some INSTANT and SERIOUS cash returns to all shareholders, after the company was failing terribly and suffering a serious downturn. The board of directors voted against the takeover (presumably because they liked their managerial jobs) and the interest parties (shareholders) failed to bring this case up with the relevant ombudsman, or exert any influence. In effect, they were either unable or unwilling to turf out the entrenched management.

This is because, in most major multi-national corporations, the shareholders are a silent partner. They leave the running of the company to a select few, even when the steady flow of dollars takes a down turn. There is a resistance to revolution within a company, mainly because such managerial instability will instantly destroy the value of their shares, doing them out of money. Shareholders flexing their muscles is an easy way to devalue their shares, and as such it DOESN'T HAPPEN.

There are cases when it can increase value though, and it does happen sometimes.


Yes, you're right, small companies do not have the power to do this. Because they are small. And insignificant. And that is the point, they are unable to precisely because they are insignificant. So you trying to emphasise their significance is really quite inane. If they were as significant as you'd like "us" to believe, then they would logically have enough power to dictate terms. As their significance grows, so does their leverage.

No, Wal Mart is rather unique in its power.

Most other stores don't have the clear power to dictate terms, because they have close rivals and competitors.

Kroger, a grocery store, and some of the others in this area are in direct competition and don't have the ability to dictate prices, as Wal Mart does.

But I would hardly call Kroger insignificant.


Like *you* to believe. Everyone else here KNOWS how it works. You're the only one who is unaquainted with these practices.


Good turnaround, but it doesn't prove anything.


Power.


Eh?





Yes it would, considering that Shell have been boasting record profits in the face of increased costs, and are still one of the least popular companies in the world, receiving regular criticism from environmentalists to hauliers.



And it would be exactly the same under a free market capitalist system, but without 3rd party people even on the ballot.


They don't, consciously, choose these things. They sleep-walk into these decisions, which is the whole point of the system. To combat it, remove manipulations which prey on people's subconscious. Banning the use of sex in alcohol adverts, and banning tobacco advertising are laws to achieve precisely this.

Those are, perhaps, very good ideas.

I don't have a problem with this sort of action, in principal, I merely need evidence that it is effective.


Yes, but giving power to people based on confectionary isn't *at random.* It is subject to a number of factors which all mean that the most powerful corporate interest will end up being selected. You'd still end up with Bush, but the difference is, you wouldn't know why.

Yes, the 'most powerful corporate interest' played such a decisive role in supplying me candy bar. What's the problem? The Mars Candy Bar company is espescially egregious?

Consumers have no real choice? What, in your opinion, is the problem in the candy bar industry?

It really is interesting how you can twist anything into a Machiavellian scheme.

It's such an absurd line of argumentation, these dastardly corporations scheming and cabaling to beat us down with their candy bars.

Again, I don't see how real life is at all like that.

Perhaps I'm just naive, but I don't see it.


Stupid. People who are employed in a nationalised industry are not *also* on the dole. There is no "and."

They are receiving government money, which means they are on the government dole.

It just so happens that dig in the ground instead of sit at home.


No, if the government didn't run a mill, people would be unemployed which means they would have *no* income, disposable or otherwise. Furthermore, the unemployment benefits would cost considerably more, as the unemployed people wouldn't be producing *any* steel to offset the costs, no matter how small.

But the steel they produce is LOSING MONEY.

If I'm doing something that is UNPROFITABLE, I should stop, in order to save money.

That these companies were losing money, were unprofitable, means that the workers were not making money on their work.

They were producing goods, but selling that steel did nothing to offset the cost, in fact, it made the cost worse, because it's more economical to allow an unprofitable business to *not run* than to run.


Than giving them the same amount of money for producing nothing? How does that work, Bob?

Yes.

Because if they just give them the money, they don't have the pay them their wages PLUS pay for a mill, for machinery, for shipping, etc., all the costs of a business that aren't wages.

Plus, if the business was unprofitable to begin with, shutting it down will be a positve effect.


No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

If steel were not cheaper abroad than at home, people would not buy their steel abroad, they would buy it at home.


Unemployed people are not in a position to buy "cheaper" steel.

They don't need to be.

That wasn't my point.


By your argument, the whole country could be out of work, but that's ok as long as foreigners are producing materials cheaper than you could. That's just stupid.

That wasn't my point at all.

My point was that foreign made steel is cheaper than domestical steel, so it's more economical to buy it in that manner.

Obviously if none had jobs, there would be no functioning economy and none would be buying much of anything.


No, I'm refusing to buy into a lot of nonsensical, contradictory, and patently absurd dogma. There's a difference. Your "simple economics" is a lot of theoretical bullshit based solely on assumption, speculation, and self-satisfied posturing. It is theorising so sloppy that in any other field it would be ridiculed. The only reason people tolerate it is that the only people who care enough to scrutinize it are already <spits> economists. You might as well ask a Jesuit to bring forward a scientific and damning rebuttal of the Christian faith.

And so we reach the pith of the matter.

Though we've already obfuscated I great deal, I can't help but note that further this line of argumentation would probably be pointless.


Based on the assumption that a nationalised industry must be loss-making. Capitalist propoganda, there is no reason to assume that a nationalised industry must be making a loss. Infact, many nationalised industries were more efficient than their privatised counter-parts, as has been pointed out repeatedly, and as you have, in part, conceded.

Many were, many weren't.

IN some cases, privitization was very successful.


Gross simplification. All public services "lose money" - the point is that the benefits supposedly outweigh the costs. For example, the government laying down roads "loses money." - However you'd hardly say that a sound traffic infrastructure "is bad for the economy."

I would say that roads facilitate economic expansion, which stimulates tax growth, which ultimately helps pay for roads.

I see your point, I just don't think it wholly relevent to our discussion.


Also, paying welfare to the unemployed "loses the government money." And having people sitting around idle instead of working "loses money" and is the very yardstick for deciding if the economy is bad.

This is presupposing that those people would be idle, if taxes were lower.


International trade is demonstrably good for individual countries. It's basic economics and logic.


Indeed it is.

But loss-making is loss-making.


Which is why economics is such a worthless and meaningless subject. While a government's funding being levied from taxes is not economically sound, it is the most prudent thing a society can do. When the government has an independant source of revenue, it gains autonomy from the people. Your economically sophisticated government becomes big brother overnight. "It's our money, levied by our own enterprises, we'll spend it on what we like, and you voters can't say anyhting about it. It isn't YOUR taxes that paid for it, after all."

What's to stop them using their own money to build their own army, and use it against the voters?

The real army.


Yes, that's it, despite the UK's nationalised industries having been privatised well over a decade ago.

I was referring the countries of Europe, not the UK.

France, for example, has many state owned industries.


So you favour anarchy? As capitalism certainly isn't any different.

This is actually interesting, because it goes back all the way to my original point.

We've obfuscated so much that we're starting anew with the original debate, presumably because we lost it somewhere along the way.

Amusing.