 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - "The Decline and Fall of Conservatism" by Butler Shaffer |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 603/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by alte Hexe Renewed aristocracy? If you mean "high wealth inequality", then the answer is yes. However, if you're implying that this aristocracy would displace democracy (as the term would imply), then you're wrong. There are a few essential facts about rich people in a free market: a) They tend not to produce dynasties. I don't have figures onhand, but the top 10 richest families now and the top 10 richest families 50 years ago are most likely completely different. b) They have no special privileges. c) They tend to have achieved their forture by creating a product which helps people. As for a massive depression... I'm not sure where you're coming from with that. And I'm the economist, so you might want to make sure you've thought your reply to this through.  |
|||
beneficii Lakitu Level: 36 Posts: 403/567 EXP: 299656 For next: 8454 Since: 06-27-04 From: Cordova, TN, USA Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by alte Hexe Well, I don't really consider myself a conservative; I just want to be able to trade with whomever I want without worrying about whether I'm breaking some law or regulation. You know, it's my life. (edited by beneficii on 08-12-05 12:40 PM) |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 5042/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Of course, you're an economist. I'm not one, but I am speaking to some OTHER economists. Many of them are worried that if the current trends occur unimpeded by government intervention into the market well...Yeah...1929 had unique circumstances, but there is nothing to say that a different set of circumstances could arise to cause an equally quick down-turn. Renewed aristocracy? If you mean "high wealth inequality", then the answer is yes. However, if you're implying that this aristocracy would displace democracy (as the term would imply), then you're wrong. There are a few essential facts about rich people in a free market: a) They tend not to produce dynasties. I don't have figures onhand, but the top 10 richest families now and the top 10 richest families 50 years ago are most likely completely different. b) They have no special privileges. c) They tend to have achieved their fortune by creating a product which helps people. And in this case, I have a slight advantage because of a little overlooked dingy called history. And fortunately I can be fancied a historian a) Yes, they do. The levels of wealth may change, but it does create something similar to a dynasty. The Kennedys, Rockafellers, Bushs, and various others. b) Those that don't want to use them don't. Those that realize they can do. Many of them form lobby groups that have an awful lot more clout due to their patron's wealth. The Heritage Foundation and Mr. Coors are a good example. Those are the primary tenents of an aristocracy. One thing I've learned about chilling with professors is that they know a lot. And each time I've spoken with a poli-sci prof or grad they always say one thing: "There are two types of change revolution which is quick and violent (not necessarily physically violent). And then there is a gradual change." The former has examples like America, the French Revolution, the recent Central Asian and Ex-Soviet revolutions or even the failed Upper Canada Revolt or Red River Rebellion. The latter is slow and gradual change. Like from the old system in England what with villeins and how you know to the system that gradually became nasty, brutish and then required revolutions to fix it even slightly (which never benefitted the revolutionaries ). In the case of an aristocracy this high wealth inequality (which I don't understand how people can pass through the brains and go "weeeeeeeeeee, that sounds fair!") is going to be the deliverer. It is slowly, but surely, solidifying the wealth into a smaller and smaller few and strangling the middle-class and making the working poor into just plain poor. Kinda like the Czar system following the Muscovite take over of Kyvin-Rus I fear that if the current system of ripping the guts of society out we will gradually fall into a problem similar to what caused the rise of communism (Great-Grandpa could tell you some lovely stories about Ukraine under the thumb of Stalin).Okee dokee. Now I find it funny that you call taxation "wealth redistribution". I think it is a nation's democratic right to be able to set its own taxes, because its not like Canada and the other "welfare" states have shut down their economy to trading and become insular, enigmatic world recluses like Turkmenistan. In fact, Finland has one of the most competitive economies in the world, and one of the best social systems in the world. Of course, they're evil Commie bastards that should have the shit bombed out of them because they might tax a man that makes half-a-million a year a few thousand more dollars than the man that is struggling to feed his family. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 604/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Of course, you're an economist. I'm not one, but I am speaking to some OTHER economists. Many of them are worried that if the current trends occur unimpeded by government intervention into the market well...Yeah...1929 had unique circumstances, but there is nothing to say that a different set of circumstances could arise to cause an equally quick down-turn. At worst, I'd believe, other economists would say that there are certain kinds of interventions needed to keep the economy stable. I doubt many would count redistributory programs among these interventions, though. Perhaps one could say that redistribution is needed to keep the masses from revolting, but that's not exactly an economic argument. And most likely wouldn't apply to a lot of places, like America. a) Yes, they do. The levels of wealth may change, but it does create something similar to a dynasty. The Kennedys, Rockafellers, Bushs, and various others. These families are not dynasties in the sense that I meant. I'd readily concede that there's a relatively high correlation between powerful parents and powerful children, but it's still true that the most powerful families now are completely different than the most powerful families a generation ago. The power and wealth almost invariably peaks and then dissipates. Also, in the realm of politics, in a democratic society... if political dynasties emerge, how can we say this is a sign of aristocracy? Should we ban the children of officials from running for office? If the people choose to create a dynasty because of their affinity with the individual's "brand name", it's certainly a disingenuous thing to say that this is unfair. b) Those that don't want to use them don't. Those that realize they can do. Many of them form lobby groups that have an awful lot more clout due to their patron's wealth. The Heritage Foundation and Mr. Coors are a good example. Political power can be bought, but still.. no special privileges, since anyone is allowed to create a lobbying group. Removing political inequalities isn't an unmitigated good either, since it naturally leads to a tyranny of the majority. It is slowly, but surely, solidifying the wealth into a smaller and smaller few and strangling the middle-class and making the working poor into just plain poor. Come on. This represents the naive view that wealth is a fixed quantity, and anytime the rich get richer, the poor simply must get poorer. However, this is simply untrue. It's true that the poor would initially be worse off if you took away their handouts, but things would get better from there, no matter how much wealth became concentrated at the top. Even at the most inhumane times of the industrial revolution, people were still better off than they were in feudal societies. The free market demonstrates a tendency for all groups to become better-off with the passage of time. The rich do not simply lock up all of their profits in giant vaults like Uncle Scrooge from Duck Tales until the end of time. They reinvest them in economic development which helps all strata of society. One could argue that, if we wanted more long-term growth, we should redistribute money towards the rich, because they'd be more likely to invest it in development.. Now I find it funny that you call taxation "wealth redistribution". I think it is a nation's democratic right to be able to set its own taxes, because its not like Canada and the other "welfare" states have shut down their economy to trading and become insular, enigmatic world recluses like Turkmenistan. In fact, Finland has one of the most competitive economies in the world, and one of the best social systems in the world. Of course, they're evil Commie bastards that should have the shit bombed out of them because they might tax a man that makes half-a-million a year a few thousand more dollars than the man that is struggling to feed his family. It is wealth redistribution. Granted, I generally refer to it as "wealth redistribution" when redistribution is an end rather than a means, but... it's technically true. I don't see what the rest of this tangeant is about. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - "The Decline and Fall of Conservatism" by Butler Shaffer |
| | |
