Capitalism Saved The Miners

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Capitalism can't control people. Government on the other hand...

The government makes the private ownership of land possible and eliminates the need for the capitalist to pay for a private army. So if that capitalists control the government...

The Democratic Party just puts on a show pretending to be on the side of labor.

But the Capitalists, the Communists, the Socialists and the Labor Unions don't mention making SEVEN HUNDRED YEAR OLD double-entry accounting mandatory in the schools.

Fifth graders can learn accounting as well as collegians

psik

The government is the great violator of property rights, not its defender.

 

[Paulie]

I am a raging liberal well regulated free market capitalist.

We're never going to be able to have a reasoned discussion in this particular debate, because I happen to believe this very statement right here flies in the face of everything I know and believe about economics.

There's so many oxymorons in that statement that the entire thing literally cancels itself out.

Everything you think you know is wrong.

He says he's a liberal capitalist who sees the need for good regulation.

Makes perfect sense if you're not an imbecile, even if 'social democrat' or 'progressive' might be more accurate.

Yeah, tell us all about how FREE MARKET capitalism and 'raging liberal' desires for regulation are mutually inclusive.

You're the biggest ******* idiot in this thread.

Nothing you say makes any sense. You support Austrian economics while supporting socialist economic ideals. If that's not backwards ass, colossally fucked up retardation, I don't know what is.

I don't even know why you embarrass yourself by getting involved in these discussions.

 

[JBeukema]

tell us all about how FREE MARKET capitalism and 'raging liberal' desires for regulation are mutually inclusive.

Proper regulation prevents oligopoly and monopoly and ensures the freest and most open competition possible.


Do a little research about what things were like before reforms.

You're the biggest ******* idiot in this thread.

Talking to yourself again?

You support Austrian economics while supporting socialist economic ideals

You fail. I'm neither an Austrian nor a Socialist as you know either term

I'm a moderate social democrat who advocates a decentralized social democracy with protective tariffs and fair trade laws than ban imported goods produced in sweatshops to reduce the exploitation of the poor and make 'outsourcing' less attractive and keeps jobs and manufacturing inside the United States, with trade supplementing rather than replacing American production and invention. Two birds, one stone.

I have to ask you this, even though it's off topic.

With your economic and political views, how the hell are you an advocate of Austrian economics? How does that even remotely fit into your broader economic viewpoint?

The Austrian School provides the only explanation of the boom-bust cycles I've encountered that makes sense, and while I disagree with a few of his examples and disagree on a few details, Thomas E. Woods Jr (of whom I've read more than of Ludwig von Mises himself) makes some excellent points and some very fine arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the market as opposed to the centrally planned economy. My view is that the role of the government in the market should pretty much be only that of enforcing mandatory transparency, prosecuting those who commit fraud, and enforcing laws requiring housing over gears and other basic workplace safety laws. I believe a minimum wage should be established to help prevent abuse, but that if it is placed at about subsistence level it will be sufficient to prevent the abuse seen in England in 1844 and that market forces between worker and employer will naturally drive wages higher than sustenance level. History shows us the flaws of market anarchy whilst more recent examples reveal Keynesian, Marxian, and other centrally governed systems to be just as likely to lead to abuse and inherently unstable as a result of their oft operating in opposition to market forces. A free market is healthy market, and a proper and limited regulation (as opposed to intervention and central planning) are necessary for a free market, as an oligopoly (especially when partnered with overreaching and authoritarian government) shuts down the very free competition and enterprise that makes the market the best system for fueling development, invention, and progress.

As highlighted in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505?tag=amaz98-20"]The Science of Liberty[/ame], (which I am currently reading) liberty and prosperity are found where the spirit of science reigns- and that spirit is of the free trade of ideas, of the renunciation of authoritarianism, and of learning from history and experimentation and letting the reality of what works, rather than dogma, govern our actions and policies.

Bad memory? Must be all those weed you seem to be smoking.

 

[Paulie]

Make sure you come back at me with something about how I'm stupid and you know the entire meaning of life itself, too. You know, just to put me in my place and all.

 

[JBeukema]

I have to ask you this, even though it's off topic.

With your economic and political views, how the hell are you an advocate of Austrian economics? How does that even remotely fit into your broader economic viewpoint?

The Austrian School provides the only explanation of the boom-bust cycles I've encountered that makes sense, and while I disagree with a few of his examples and disagree on a few details, Thomas E. Woods Jr (of whom I've read more than of Ludwig von Mises himself) makes some excellent points and some very fine arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the market as opposed to the centrally planned economy. My view is that the role of the government in the market should pretty much be only that of enforcing mandatory transparency, prosecuting those who commit fraud, and enforcing laws requiring housing over gears and other basic workplace safety laws. I believe a minimum wage should be established to help prevent abuse, but that if it is placed at about subsistence level it will be sufficient to prevent the abuse seen in England in 1844 and that market forces between worker and employer will naturally drive wages higher than sustenance level. History shows us the flaws of market anarchy whilst more recent examples reveal Keynesian, Marxian, and other centrally governed systems to be just as likely to lead to abuse and inherently unstable as a result of their oft operating in opposition to market forces. A free market is healthy market, and a proper and limited regulation (as opposed to intervention and central planning) are necessary for a free market, as an oligopoly (especially when partnered with overreaching and authoritarian government) shuts down the very free competition and enterprise that makes the market the best system for fueling development, invention, and progress.

As highlighted in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505?tag=amaz98-20"]The Science of Liberty[/ame], (which I am currently reading) liberty and prosperity are found where the spirit of science reigns- and that spirit is of the free trade of ideas, of the renunciation of authoritarianism, and of learning from history and experimentation and letting the reality of what works, rather than dogma, govern our actions and policies.

A simple 'because it's awesome!!!' would have sufficed.

But, fair enough.
.

 

[Paulie]

You fail. I'm neither an Austrian nor a Socialist as you know either term

See, this is the elitist bullshit from you that everyone comes to expect.

You presuming to know what I know and think.

You and I have had the discussion about your advocacy of Austrian econ before.

But just for shits and giggles, why don't you do the thread a favor and elaborate on this Austrian/Socialist ideal you hold so dear.

I'm dying to see how it makes even the slightest bit of sense.

 

[JBeukema]

You support Austrian economics while supporting socialist economic ideals.

[

See, this is the elitist bullshit from you that everyone comes to expect.

You presuming to know what I know and think.

But just for shits and giggles, why don't you do the thread a favor and elaborate on this Austrian/Socialist ideal you hold so dear.

I already did and you agreed with it. Did you forget?

 

[JBeukema]

Scroll up, dumbass

 

[Paulie]

The Austrian School provides the only explanation of the boom-bust cycles I've encountered that makes sense, and while I disagree with a few of his examples and disagree on a few details, Thomas E. Woods Jr (of whom I've read more than of Ludwig von Mises himself) makes some excellent points and some very fine arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the market as opposed to the centrally planned economy. My view is that the role of the government in the market should pretty much be only that of enforcing mandatory transparency, prosecuting those who commit fraud, and enforcing laws requiring housing over gears and other basic workplace safety laws. I believe a minimum wage should be established to help prevent abuse, but that if it is placed at about subsistence level it will be sufficient to prevent the abuse seen in England in 1844 and that market forces between worker and employer will naturally drive wages higher than sustenance level. History shows us the flaws of market anarchy whilst more recent examples reveal Keynesian, Marxian, and other centrally governed systems to be just as likely to lead to abuse and inherently unstable as a result of their oft operating in opposition to market forces. A free market is healthy market, and a proper and limited regulation (as opposed to intervention and central planning) are necessary for a free market, as an oligopoly (especially when partnered with overreaching and authoritarian government) shuts down the very free competition and enterprise that makes the market the best system for fueling development, invention, and progress.

As highlighted in The Science of Liberty, (which I am currently reading) liberty and prosperity are found where the spirit of science reigns- and that spirit is of the free trade of ideas, of the renunciation of authoritarianism, and of learning from history and experimentation and letting the reality of what works, rather than dogma, govern our actions and policies.

A simple 'because it's awesome!!!' would have sufficed.

But, fair enough.
.

Yeah, this is the discussion I was referring to.

I'm not sure what exactly this means to this discussion though.

I made a sarcastic reply with no actual elaboration or debate. At the time, I was simply satisfied with the fact that there's just one more person in the world who advocates the Austrian ideal.

I definitely don't agree with minimum wage, and should also add that I have never supported the idea of no regulation at all.

Limited necessary regulation is much different from "raging liberal" regulation, as we've come to know the latter in today's day.

 

[Paulie]

I don't have time to get into this right now, and obviously it's going to require some time.

We'll continue later.

 

[JBeukema]

You ask me what I believe and then say 'I'm not sure what exactly this means to this discussion though.'?

I was simply satisfied with the fact that there's just one more person in the world who advocates the Austrian ideal.

Agana left... or so we're told

I definitely don't agree with minimum wag

Cool. You can see the results of the idiocy you espouse here

Limited necessary regulation is much different from "raging liberal" regulation

Fail. A raging liberal would oppose any regulation. Have you never read Locke or Hume? Do you have any idea what Liberalism is?

 

[midcan5]

People saved the miners, fellow human beings who cared - also given the situation a great deal of that weird substance called luck, or faith if you are religious, saved them. Can we, when miners die, which they do too often say capitalism killed them? But seriously I have never seen capitalism, people I see all the time, many good many not so good. I also see technology but capitalism never! Or maybe democracy saved them? Hm, or sharing saved them, what an odd thought that would be.

Volition and a willingness of free people to help others genuinely in need saved the miners. It also took a head of state who was willing to tell the normal army of meddlesome bureaucrats to sit down, STFU and get out of the way.

If this had happened in West Virginia,we'd still be waiting for the environmental impact statements for drilling the breathing holes to clear the EPA.

You must live in some weird place no one else knows about? Remember the little girl who fell down the well, oh sorry in your world nothing can happen unless you write some stupid partisan anti government slogan. Weird world you live in, narrow minded and idiotic.


"[T]he basic institutions of market-capitalism themselves require extensive government intervention and regulation. Competitive markets, ownership of economic entities, enforcing contracts, preventing monopolies, protecting property rights-these and many other aspects of market capitalism depend wholly on laws, policies, orders, and other actions carried out by governments. A market economy is not, and cannot be, completely self-regulating." Robert A. Dahl

People saved the miners, fellow human beings who cared - also given the situation a great deal of that weird substance called luck, or faith if you are religious, saved them.

I wouldn't dispute that, but ... (from the OP link) "if those miners had been trapped a half-mile down like this 25 years ago anywhere on earth, they would be dead. What happened over the past 25 years that meant the difference between life and death for those men?

Short answer: the Center Rock drill bit.

And again it was people who did that - no concept ever crossed the road.

 

[uscitizen]

If the trade is capitalism, how can capitalism have been born out of the trade?

You really think barter and trade didn't exist before the rise of the capitalist system?

I've had this discussion with a few conservatives at the work place. Surprisingly, they didn't really understand all that Capitalism entailed..and described their economic utopia as being a place where the gold standard was put into place, and barter the principle means of trade.

If there's a gold standard in place why would people revert to barter?

Not enough gold?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've had this discussion with a few conservatives at the work place. Surprisingly, they didn't really understand all that Capitalism entailed..and described their economic utopia as being a place where the gold standard was put into place, and barter the principle means of trade.

If there's a gold standard in place why would people revert to barter?

Not enough gold?

The amount of gold is irrelevant.

 

[Big Fitz]

If there's a gold standard in place why would people revert to barter?

Not enough gold?

The amount of gold is irrelevant.

A gold standard I'm very very leary of it, but I do agree with a commodity based standard. Something not consumable like oil or gas. Gold I know is 'consumed' but I'm talking REAL consumption. For all I know, precious stones would be an interesting concept. I've theorized for a science fiction project an 'erg' credit based on the national ability to generate electricity.

Lots of possibilities, that take the ability of unethical men to manipulate markets for their own gain.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not enough gold?

The amount of gold is irrelevant.

A gold standard I'm very very leary of it, but I do agree with a commodity based standard. Something not consumable like oil or gas. Gold I know is 'consumed' but I'm talking REAL consumption. For all I know, precious stones would be an interesting concept. I've theorized for a science fiction project an 'erg' credit based on the national ability to generate electricity.

Lots of possibilities, that take the ability of unethical men to manipulate markets for their own gain.

I agree with a commodity based standard, and the point isn't just to say it has to be gold or silver. The market should decide what it is. If it's oil then that's fine, but it should be up to the market. The reason gold and silver have been historically chosen is because they're highly malleable and can easily be transported.

 

[JakeStarkey]

At the risk of offending the moonbats who think All Good Flows From The Government, here is a contrasting, and accurate, point of view regarding what value system rescued the miners.

Here's a clue: It was neither centralized planning nor class warfare against people who make $250K.

It needs to be said. The rescue of the Chilean miners is a smashing victory for free-market capitalism.

Amid the boundless human joy of the miners' liberation, it may seem churlish to make such a claim. It is churlish. These are churlish times, and the stakes are high.

In the United States, with 9.6% unemployment, a notably angry electorate will go to the polls shortly and dump one political party in favor of the other, on which no love is lost. The president of the U.S. is campaigning across the country making this statement at nearly every stop:

"The basic idea is that if we put our blind faith in the market and we let corporations do whatever they want and we leave everybody else to fend for themselves, then America somehow automatically is going to grow and prosper."

Uh, yeah. That's a caricature of the basic idea, but basically that's right. Ask the miners.

If those miners had been trapped a half-mile down like this 25 years ago anywhere on earth, they would be dead. What happened over the past 25 years that meant the difference between life and death for those men?

Short answer: the Center Rock drill bit. ...

Daniel Henninger: Capitalism Saved the Miners - WSJ.com

That is not your pet. That is you.

 

[Big Fitz]

Something else to point out on why Capitalism saved those miners versus say socialism.

Capitalism loves heroes. Socialism loves martyrs.

Heroes achieve. They give of the best of themselves, bettering the lives of themselves and others by their achievements. They DO something of merit to give from themselves to the world. This may be for a profit, but nothing's wrong with that. They worked hard to create something of worth to the world and the world wants it. People love those who build, and achieve, and invent, and find new ways to do things bigger better faster cheaper. That is the goal of capitalism in many regards.

Martyrs on the other hand, are loved not by what they achieve but by what is taken from them. Like ore from the ground, they must be plundered, and they must be willing to be plundered even if it leads to their own demise so others can live. Their destruction is what is valued for the sake of others. Not their achievements. Even if they DO achieve, if they keep anything for themselves, they are dispised. They are not allowed even a fragment of 'self' in any of what the achieve. These are things to be shameful, not praised... unless it is taken from them by others willingly... and even sometimes, unwillingly.

If socialists would have been in charge of Chile, those miners would have died down there. Their value would have served a greater purpose if dead. They could bash the evils of capitalism, shut down the nasty corporate interest, griped about how the technology to save the miners was hoarded by the rest of the world, while they, the poor pitiful Chilean victims rotted a half mile down. Hostages of the imperialist capitalist system.

But that didn't happen. Now, capitalism is being lauded along with the achievements of the Chilean workers who labored so hard to free their trapped bretheren. It inspired a nation to do something useful... something difficult but attainable with help from others over the oceans. It brought the nation together as triumphant men and women... not as huddled and morose victims mourning over their loss.

Even the trapped miners are receiving the heroes welcome. They have achieved in their survival and given hope to those who had little to none beforehand. The confirmed that victory over overwhelming circumstances is possible if you work hard enough together, and are able to hold on through the darkest night.

It's quite a shocking concept when I first saw it... But the evidence is plain for all to see.

 

[loosecannon]

You attack me for saying that capitalism saved these miners on one hand, while saying capitalism doesn't exist on the other. You then turn around and say on one hand that capitalism doesn't exist, but that capitalism is to blame for the miners' accident in the first place. You're a hypocrite.

absolutely false, supertard. I merely turned your own illogic upon you and hung you by your own petard.

That you failed to even realize it makes you a pretty simple ton.

YOU began your dialogue by claiming that capitalism didn't exist and that the miners were saved by capitalism(that didn't exist).

Don't you feel like a moron? You should.

No, I don't. I'm not the one resorting to insulting somebody else and claiming I won an argument to prove that I'm right. Those tactics are reserved for those with no argument.

In this case they are the deserved gloat of the victor. Your argument failed. That's a fact, Jack.

And you seem incapable of understanding that what we hail as capitalists (adherents to a paradigm that you openly admit doesn't exist) are folks whose first agenda is always to pervert free markets. Because "capitalists" hate a free market, it offers them no advantage.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

absolutely false, supertard. I merely turned your own illogic upon you and hung you by your own petard.

That you failed to even realize it makes you a pretty simple ton.

YOU began your dialogue by claiming that capitalism didn't exist and that the miners were saved by capitalism(that didn't exist).

Don't you feel like a moron? You should.

No, I don't. I'm not the one resorting to insulting somebody else and claiming I won an argument to prove that I'm right. Those tactics are reserved for those with no argument.

In this case they are the deserved gloat of the victor. Your argument failed. That's a fact, Jack.

And you seem incapable of understanding that what we hail as capitalists (adherents to a paradigm that you openly exist doesn't exist) are folks whose first agenda is always to pervert free markets. Because "capitalists" hate a free market, it offers them no advantage.

According to you. Again, those who claim they won an argument are generally those who have no argument.