 |
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
Of course economics is about fairness. I don't see how you (being trained in the discipline), can say otherwise. |
Easily. Historically it may have been argued that fairness was key. The reason we avoid it in this argument is because we disagree on what it is. Is having the same rule for everyone fair? Is making everyone have exactly the same fair? Is making everyone equally happy fair? Economics can be about fairness, if you're arguing fairness. Throughout history people have, but none of us have, and fewer do now. I'm not saying it's not about fairness, I'm just saying it doesn't have to be. If maximum economic growth is your aim, it doesn't matter whether it's fair or not. You can study economics with the sole aim of maximising economic growth.
The presumption was they you seemed to be claiming that *we* claimed capitalism was fair. We didn't.
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
btw, anyone who doesn't think that capitalism is fair really should either be arguing from this side or not participating at all. |
Why? Fair doesn't necessarily mean good. I don't think capitalism is always fair, I think having higher taxes (% wise) for the rich isn't fair, however I do think it's the best way to do it. I'd take a good system, one that increases utility as much as possible, over a fair one anyday. Equality is good, and thus sacrificing some economic growth for it is justified, IMHO. However it begins to come at too high a price, and total equality is way to far, IMHO.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003 time: 21:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drogue
Easily. Historically it may have been argued that fairness was key. The reason we avoid it in this argument is because we disagree on what it is. Is having the same rule for everyone fair? Is making everyone have exactly the same fair? Is making everyone equally happy fair? Economics can be about fairness, if you're arguing fairness. Throughout history people have, but none of us have, and fewer do now. I'm not saying it's not about fairness, I'm just saying it doesn't have to be. If maximum economic growth is your aim, it doesn't matter whether it's fair or not. You can study economics with the sole aim of maximising economic growth.
The presumption was they you seemed to be claiming that *we* claimed capitalism was fair. We didn't.
Why? Fair doesn't necessarily mean good. I don't think capitalism is always fair, I think having higher taxes (% wise) for the rich isn't fair, however I do think it's the best way to do it. I'd take a good system, one that increases utility as much as possible, over a fair one anyday. Equality is good, and thus sacrificing some economic growth for it is justified, IMHO. However it begins to come at too high a price, and total equality is way to far, IMHO. |
Well you are arguing with a Marxist. So I don't really know what your purposes are. What makes you think that we have been debating economic growth. Marx himself said that the economy grows during capitalist period?
And btw, fairness to a Marxist is equitable-fair. You should know that, and if you want to talk to Marxists about fairness, that is the definition you should be using.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
Honestly I don't believe you. I really don't accept that definition of fair. The reason is that you can think one way when you are on one side of the deal and another when you are on the other side of the deal. Honestly, in my experience, no one likes to be price gouged, for example. I've never known anyone to be the victim of price gouging and turn around and say, "well that was fair." Sorry, I'm not buying it. At any rate, that's not really the kind of fairness we are talking about. |
Which is why we have a fundamental disagreement on what is fair. Just because the victim thinks differently doesn't make the deal unfair - we can have a fair legal system where the victim feels they've got a hard deal, but it can still be fair. Indeed, I'd say it's not a fair system, because someone can decide, consciously to gamble everything they own, lose and then use government money to live. They knew the risks of that venture, but yet they went ahead and leave the government to foot the bill for their gamble. It's not fair, IMHO, however it is a far better system than without a safety net.
What "kinds" of fairness is there? I think we just fundamentally disagaree on what is fair.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
Look, I know Flubber doesn't care about the historical arguments. And since he doesn't he shouldn't make himself part of the conversation. |
I will decide what conversation I want to be part of . . .
and I do care very much about history and the way things have actually worked in the past. No variation of communism has done well by that test . . well ever.
What I don't care much about are very abstract theoretical arguments couched in communist terminology such that the way you define words predetermine the conclusion . The early theories of capitalsim are interesting but the reality is that very few people ( maybe the fringe righties) advocate anything close to unrestricted capitalism. So the theoretical justifications of that are merely interesting but hardly that crucial. If you want to discredit some theoretician, go ahead but since no one seems to be supporting capitalism based on said theoretician, I fail to see the point.
Last edited by Flubber on 04-02-2005 at 21:51
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
btw, anyone who doesn't think that capitalism is fair really should either be arguing from this side or not participating at all. |
Why not? Thats like saying that anyone that doesn't believe democracy is perfect should not speak to support it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drogue
Easily. Historically it may have been argued that fairness was key. The reason we avoid it in this argument is because we disagree on what it is. Is having the same rule for everyone fair? Is making everyone have exactly the same fair? Is making everyone equally happy fair? Economics can be about fairness, if you're arguing fairness. Throughout history people have, but none of us have, and fewer do now. I'm not saying it's not about fairness, I'm just saying it doesn't have to be. If maximum economic growth is your aim, it doesn't matter whether it's fair or not. You can study economics with the sole aim of maximising economic growth.
The presumption was they you seemed to be claiming that *we* claimed capitalism was fair. We didn't.
Why? Fair doesn't necessarily mean good. I don't think capitalism is always fair, I think having higher taxes (% wise) for the rich isn't fair, however I do think it's the best way to do it. I'd take a good system, one that increases utility as much as possible, over a fair one anyday. Equality is good, and thus sacrificing some economic growth for it is justified, IMHO. However it begins to come at too high a price, and total equality is way to far, IMHO. |
What drogue said 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
And btw, fairness to a Marxist is equitable-fair. You should know that, and if you want to talk to Marxists about fairness, that is the definition you should be using. |
So you have to adopt a framework of whatever the Marxist says it is in order to debate a Marxist?? ITs funny . .. I thought that challenging those definitions was what a good debate was about.
Otehrwise why can't all the pro-capitalists say that to debate us, you must talk about x and y and of course must talk about them in the way we define them.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
btw, I do think that capitalism is based on the idea that if you work for something or pay for something that you should get what you deserve. Capitalism just isn't like that in reality. |
Maybe it is or maybe it isn't . .. I'm not sure what you mean by get what you deserve.
Most people do see benefit from their own efforts and labours and when they buy sonething , get exactly what they agreed to purchase.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
If you want to have conversations with people you should make yourself knowledgable about subject matter.
|
I agree since you really should learn more about how business works. In particular your knowledge of how a business makes an investment decision was woeful.
The difference is that I will admit the areas I am not knowledgeable about. I will then either read up or state pretty bluntly why I don't give a flying fig.
By contrast , you never seem to acknowledge any areas where your knowledge may be deficient and instead look quite silly to any informed observer when you start lecturing people on how they don't understand things that are in their area of expertise. Five people with impeccable credentials in a field could line up against you but you would claim that they just don't understand how things really work since that has only been imparted on you with your economics degree and a hatful of communist catchphrases.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not refering to taking anyones word for it. Let's analyse the situation. That's what Marxism does. |
Go ahead but it seems you are saying you wish to ignore the real world. All I am saying is that I grew up in a "disadvantaged " or "poor" region so this is not theoretical to me.
I saw lots of people so accustomed to government handouts that it was a way of life. Welfare begats welfare. To some the concept of personal responsibility becomes foreign since it is the government's fault.
I see you proposing a centralized welfare state on a massive scale and justifying it in ways that deny personal responibility for an individual's condition. I fear that since I have seen how welfare can stunt initiative and drive in some people.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
Honestly I don't believe you. I really don't accept that definition of fair. The reason is that you can think one way when you are on one side of the deal and another when you are on the other side of the deal. Honestly, in my experience, no one likes to be price gouged, for example. I've never known anyone to be the victim of price gouging and turn around and say, "well that was fair." Sorry, I'm not buying it. At any rate, that's not really the kind of fairness we are talking about. |
Kid, just for the record, I know that free enterprise can be abused. That is where law steps in -- to protect business and consumers through anti-trust laws, workers through labor laws, security buyers through disclosure and rules against insider trading, etc., etc., etc. The existence of abuse justifies such laws. It does not justify communism.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|