why that was nice

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

The direction the United States is heading in, is unfortunate. With the explosion of the size and scope of the US government in the post-great depression era, it has been slowly chipping away at the American citizens' liberty.
With an increased amount of government spending and entitlement programs, comes a necessity to raise taxes on citizens, especially those on the upper end of the earning spectrum. These funds subsidize, and lower taxes on those on the lower end of the spectrum. This transfer of wealth creates a disincentive for the movers and shakers of our society to continue to produce and innovate.

What if, back in the days of Manifest Destiny, the people who ventured out west were told prior to leaving "Hey, at least 50% of the land you claim, will belong to the government, and 50% of the cattle you raise will, too," do you think there would have been an incentive to do that? I doubt people would be willing to put forth the effort, only to have their efforts leeched by the government.

The way to stimulate the economy is not through tighter restrictions, higher taxes and more regulations. It is for the government to go back into its shell and let the people prosper without a monkey on their back.

I am aware that it's wishful thinking, but what the government is doing now, sure isn't working.

Visit the homestead act. the government gave them land and provided subsidies.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

The instance in which the individual would be protected from all risks is minimal. The individual, the basic unit of society, would still be subject to the destructive and blind forces of the market. This alone, in my opinion would justify protection. What is good for the largest portion of society cannot be bad for the whole.

Not according to Shiller (the economist who started the Case-Shiller real estate study) He believes eventually that financial instruments can be created to protect consumers from all financial risks.

We both know i am way out of my area of knowledge here, and perhaps this is naive, but i do not believe that such markets could even mature to the point which you describe before society itself was destroyed and the system collapsed. Further i fail to see how they could have developed to the level you described without some intervention from a governmental forces. This could explain why the interests outlined above joined forces in the protectionist movement with the individual. The joining of their interests was the most efficient means to gain their ends and intervention/regulation held a greater advantage to all parties than a SRM

You do need a marriage of regulation and markets to ease the fear of markets. although people have a distrust of government, they trust the market even less. And markets REQUIRE regulation in some form, if only to enforce the rules.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Like I said, I don't think there is anything inherently special about being a human being. The only "goal" is reproduction and continuation of the species. Everything else is either to achieve that goal, or make the time doing so more pleasant.
It's a very rational outlook.

The fact that people have the ability to critically think about their circumstance is no more than a parlor trick and serves no useful purpose. Not saying we shouldn't employ any skill available, just that in the scheme of things, it isn't important.

This I agree with. I am often confounded by people's decision making skills. If Polanyi is correct, people are not intended to be rational by nature, yet we force them to be rational to fit an economic system. Although I don't like it, I can find strong anecdotal evidence to support this.

So people aren't rational but you use a rational argument to justify why humanity isnt important?

Our ability to critically think, and immense other aspects of humanity have been instrumental in our evolution and the development of society. Further, the idoisyncratic aspects of the human experience leave innate desires to try to be filled. We strive for comfort, joy, satisfaction, justice, and countless other things that can only be filled by society.

Your argument about the ultimate inconsequntial nature of humanity fails on a more personal level. Humanity probably isn't important in a context of all time and space, yet this examination offers little in our day to day lives and does little to fulfill our innate human desires.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

The direction the United States is heading in, is unfortunate. With the explosion of the size and scope of the US government in the post-great depression era, it has been slowly chipping away at the American citizens' liberty.
With an increased amount of government spending and entitlement programs, comes a necessity to raise taxes on citizens, especially those on the upper end of the earning spectrum. These funds subsidize, and lower taxes on those on the lower end of the spectrum. This transfer of wealth creates a disincentive for the movers and shakers of our society to continue to produce and innovate.

What if, back in the days of Manifest Destiny, the people who ventured out west were told prior to leaving "Hey, at least 50% of the land you claim, will belong to the government, and 50% of the cattle you raise will, too," do you think there would have been an incentive to do that? I doubt people would be willing to put forth the effort, only to have their efforts leeched by the government.

The way to stimulate the economy is not through tighter restrictions, higher taxes and more regulations. It is for the government to go back into its shell and let the people prosper without a monkey on their back.

I am aware that it's wishful thinking, but what the government is doing now, sure isn't working.

this discussion is above your head. Go back to posting your Glenn Beck style rantings on facebook.

Come back once you've finished your freshman year and intro classes.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

So people aren't rational but you use a rational argument to justify why humanity isnt important?
Our ability to critically think, and immense other aspects of humanity have been instrumental in our evolution and the development of society. Further, the idoisyncratic aspects of the human experience leave innate desires to try to be filled. We strive for comfort, joy, satisfaction, justice, and countless other things that can only be filled by society.

Your argument about the ultimate inconsequntial nature of humanity fails on a more personal level. Humanity probably isn't important in a context of all time and space, yet this examination offers little in our day to day lives and does little to fulfill our innate human desires.

People are not rational, nor do they strive to be. I, on a daily basis, strive to be rational. I said I saw his point in that thinking rationally is something the majority does no do...therefore, it could be evidence that rational thought is not natural. For future reference, when I say people, I mean the majority.

I argue this same development may mean the traditonal mechanisms under which social structures are percieved may now be obsolete. Such as my example of the chief distributing the hunt.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

this discussion is above your head. Go back to posting your Glenn Beck style rantings on facebook.
Come back once you've finished your freshman year and intro classes.

I atleast gave him a starting point.... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Polanyi seems to imply that this is wrong or against nature. It seems to me that this is the evolvement of mankind. We are evolving out of social contracts, and to an extent, society in general. I would argue that the mechansims of distributing "the hunt" are inefficient and as we found more efficient ways to distribute goods and services social contracts do indeed break down. Not because of a de-evolution of society, but upon the realization that it is not needed when the market is performing correctly. However, I contend the market is always performing correctly. What happens is fear (a very basic instinct) causes us to revert back to a more primitive state -- ie social networks and social contracts. If we were unafraid of the pitfalls of capitalism and willing to work through them with the FAITH that the end result would be greater, communal distribution of goods and services wouldn't be needed.

The short summaries found online of course are a poor substitute for reading the actual work, as i am sure you are well aware. I do not think he is arguing that the new system is entirely negative. No one would argue against the benefit to society a market system has brought to the masses. Nonetheless, our entire evolutionary history we have used a different ie social relationship based system. To tear that down and replace it seemingly overnight has brought with great gains, great peril. The SRM did little in the way to address such perils and protection from such forces was also a part of the evolutionary process.

Not according to Shiller (the economist who started the Case-Shiller real estate study) He believes eventually that financial instruments can be created to protect consumers from all financial risks.


You do need a marriage of regulation and markets to ease the fear of markets. although people have a distrust of government, they trust the market even less. And markets REQUIRE regulation in some form, if only to enforce the rules.

If, like society, the market requires regulating from outside or governmental influences than it isn't self regulating by definition.

I do not believe that the market would have ever evolved by itself to protect the individual without being forced to by outside influence. This puts such protections the market could offer, if forced, squarely inside the "Double Movement" Polanyi writes of.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

There never can be a SRM because a SRM cannot enforce the rules. I don't think (or hoped to not imply) there could be a SRM. I have been more thoughtful today vs. yesterday when I was acting random hoping to bait someone from the outside.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 15 (10 members and 5 guests)faulkton , budahbuddy803 , crod504 , eus090474 , Flipx99 , Pootie , pre98zetec , Randy Savage , sacking74 , SubNit

Thank you RS //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I do not believe that the market would have ever evolved by itself to protect the individual without being forced to by outside influence. This puts such protections the market could offer, if forced, squarely inside the "Double Movement" Polanyi writes of.

Curious if, in time, that financial maturation would eliminate the need for the intervention.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

People are not rational, nor do they strive to be. I, on a daily basis, strive to be rational. I said I saw his point in that thinking rationally is something the majority does no do...therefore, it could be evidence that rational thought is not natural. For future reference, when I say people, I mean the majority.

Ya i knew that part was weak, but my forum instincts wouldn't let me leave it alone. No matter how flawed, i still had to try and point out the seemingly inconsistent nature of the two statements //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

I argue this same development may mean the traditonal mechanisms under which social structures are percieved may now be obsolete. Such as my example of the chief distributing the hunt.

So if we are to accept your claim that the old social structure which society for thousands of years is permanently collapsing, to be replaced by the new market organization, we have to accept that this will come with disastrous consequences which society will naturally try to protect itself from. Nothing is destroyed and rebuilt without a high cost. It's a natural inclination to mitigate such costs.

We have certainly seen the protective measures realized and these are qualitatively social in nature which contradicts your assumption that we have entirely abandoned forever a system based on the social aspects of our species.

There never can be a SRM because a SRM cannot enforce the rules. I don't think (or hoped to not imply) there could be a SRM. I have been more thoughtful today vs. yesterday when I was acting random hoping to bait someone from the outside.

Its ok flip i knew you were playing around yesterday.. and so was i.. the only thing that surprised me about yesterday was people being able to construe that statement as a threat to the right of speech.. which we both know wasnt the case and was ridiculous. I guess i shouldn't be surprised at how dense people are, but i still am :\

Nevertheless, if the market isn't self regulating how is it free?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

i always wonder what the people lurking in threads like these think about our dialogs...

 

[crash9201 10+ year member]

FACKIN COMMI! im calling the dept of homeland security

 

[SubNit 10+ year member]

i always wonder what the people lurking in threads like these think about our dialogs...

I think that both of you are well informed, however each of you has a unique perspective and I'm just enjoying the read.....

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Curious if, in time, that financial maturation would eliminate the need for the intervention.

Perhaps in a laboratory setting with non-human entities it could have reached some equilibrium. But when we are dealing with human beings i dont feel it could reach that point before protections are employed.

However, considering my fallibility, if we examine the possibility that such protections could be avoided by society as a whole until such an equilibrium was reached we come to another question.

Whether or not the overall society benefits more from protective measures or the attainment of said equilibrium. I posit that protectionism is more beneficial to society in its entirety and that is why we have moved in that direction.

But seeings as this is really a hypothetical situation, strikingly similar in motive to the one you employed yesterday, i conclude its a mute point in our current discourse.

: P