Here is what i want for america!

[gdgyva]

LagerHead, you said, "The only economic system that has ever brought masses of people out of poverty is free market capitalism."

I asked where this free market capitalism that brought masses of people out of poverty is...and now you are saying it is the United States...but only when it was "closer" to free market capitalism.

But the poor were with us in abundance throughout our history...and most thinking people would argue that we have fewer poor now than at any time in our history.

So...doesn't that all seem to contradict what you are attempting to say?

We were "closer" to free market capitalism (not actually there) back in the day...but we had more poor.

According to you, government has been intruding...and we have fewer poor.

Your own arguments appear to defeat your arguments.

But maybe I am missing something...so I'll listen to what you add.

you might want to go back to the 1930's and see what "poor" was then

and compare it to today

there is a vast difference between the two

 

[Frank Apisa]

you might want to go back to the 1930's and see what "poor" was then

and compare it to today

there is a vast difference between the two

Your point is??????

 

[Hard Truth]

The U.S. used to be much, much closer to free market capitalism. During that time millions upon millions came here to better their lives and did just that. There has never been a socialist or communist country that even started to do what we have done here, ever.

The more governments attempt to "correct" the economy, the worse off we are, generally speaking....

When did we have healthier people, less malnutrition, more access to education, better housing and protection from the elements, fewer slaves and people stuck in indentured servitude (share cropping), more opportunities for self determination, more access to knowledge and entertainment and more freedom to travel and express ourselves for ALL? (including women and minorities)

 

[LagerHead]

LagerHead, you said, "The only economic system that has ever brought masses of people out of poverty is free market capitalism."

I asked where this free market capitalism that brought masses of people out of poverty is...and now you are saying it is the United States...but only when it was "closer" to free market capitalism.

I kind of shuttered when I wrote my response. I knew that you were going to jump down the "no true Scotsman" rabbit hole. I hope you'll excuse me if I don't follow you.

But the poor were with us in abundance throughout our history...

I never said you would ever be able to completely eliminate poverty. There are more reasons for people being poor than simply an economic system. But where you see masses of people lifting themselves out of poverty are in nations where the market is relatively unencumbered by government regulation, price fixing schemes, tariffs, subsidies, etc. You don't see it in planned economies, period. China, Russia, and Hong Kong all demonstrate what I am saying. China and Russia saw terrible conditions under their socialist/totalitarian regimes. Hong Kong, on the other hand flourished under a very free market system. Only as China continues to adopt more and more free market policies do we see more and more Chinese being lifted out of poverty as well.

and most thinking people would argue that we have fewer poor now than at any time in our history.

That may be true, since we do enjoy some semblance of a market economy. It's not all bad, but it's far from good. I wonder, though, whether such factors as upward mobility have changed for the better or for the worse. Have our immigration policies helped shape that number? After all, when you don't have ten million poor immigrants flooding into the country this year, it tends to shape those numbers as well.

So...doesn't that all seem to contradict what you are attempting to say?

No.

We were "closer" to free market capitalism (not actually there) back in the day...but we had more poor.

According to you, government has been intruding...and we have fewer poor.

Your own arguments appear to defeat your arguments.

But maybe I am missing something...so I'll listen to what you add.

See my statements above. And feel free to point to other economic systems that have been even remotely close to what we have historically enjoyed here.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I kind of shuttered when I wrote my response. I knew that you were going to jump down the "no true Scotsman" rabbit hole. I hope you'll excuse me if I don't follow you.



I never said you would ever be able to completely eliminate poverty. There are more reasons for people being poor than simply an economic system. But where you see masses of people lifting themselves out of poverty are in nations where the market is relatively unencumbered by government regulation, price fixing schemes, tariffs, subsidies, etc. You don't see it in planned economies, period. China, Russia, and Hong Kong all demonstrate what I am saying. China and Russia saw terrible conditions under their socialist/totalitarian regimes. Hong Kong, on the other hand flourished under a very free market system. Only as China continues to adopt more and more free market policies do we see more and more Chinese being lifted out of poverty as well.



That may be true, since we do enjoy some semblance of a market economy. It's not all bad, but it's far from good. I wonder, though, whether such factors as upward mobility have changed for the better or for the worse. Have our immigration policies helped shape that number? After all, when you don't have ten million poor immigrants flooding into the country this year, it tends to shape those numbers as well.



No.



See my statements above. And feel free to point to other economic systems that have been even remotely close to what we have historically enjoyed here.

This is reaching the level of comedy on your part now, LagerHead.

You said "The only economic system that has ever brought masses of people out of poverty is free market capitalism."

Twice I've asked you for the location of the economic system that brought masses of people out of poverty using free market capitalism

You have indicated we are not a free market capitalistic economy.

And it has been shown that under this "not free market capitalistic economy" there is less poverty than back when you suggested we were "closer" to being a free market capitalistic economy.

Your argument is in tatters...at your own hands. And instead of acknowledging that and moving on...you are continuing to dig.

Throw down the shovel. You are deep enough.

 

[LagerHead]

This is reaching the level of comedy on your part now, LagerHead.

You said "The only economic system that has ever brought masses of people out of poverty is free market capitalism."

Twice I've asked you for the location of the economic system that brought masses of people out of poverty using free market capitalism

You have indicated we are not a free market capitalistic economy.

And it has been shown that under this "not free market capitalistic economy" there is less poverty than back when you suggested we were "closer" to being a free market capitalistic economy.

Your argument is in tatters...at your own hands. And instead of acknowledging that and moving on...you are continuing to dig.

Throw down the shovel. You are deep enough.

Well I have to keep digging so I can reach you. I can't even see you from where I am. I already told you I'm not chasing you down the rabbit hole. Sink on your own. I notice you continue to keep dodging my questions. So have fun talking to yourself, i.e. the only one impressed by you.

 

[LagerHead]

When did we have healthier people, less malnutrition, more access to education, better housing and protection from the elements, fewer slaves and people stuck in indentured servitude (share cropping), more opportunities for self determination, more access to knowledge and entertainment and more freedom to travel and express ourselves for ALL? (including women and minorities)

When did you learn to confuse advances in technology with economic systems? Let me guess: You're one of those, "Vaccines didn't eradicate diseases like polio and small pox, improved sanitation did" folks, aren't you? It's ok, you can admit it.

 

[Dirt Racer]

Not at all.

But when it comes to national politics...I favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates. I think anyone with a sense of decency should trend in that direction.

And there ya have it folks. The exact statement I expected to hear. Republicans are the root of all evil Democrats are the only thing keeping us alive! This statement is why you will never get a serious discussion regarding your question. At least from me.

Good day sir.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Well I have to keep digging so I can reach you. I can't even see you from where I am. I already told you I'm not chasing you down the rabbit hole. Sink on your own. I notice you continue to keep dodging my questions. So have fun talking to yourself, i.e. the only one impressed by you.

You shoulda put down the shovel.

But...we can make it more fun this way...since you insist.

 

[Frank Apisa]

And there ya have it folks. The exact statement I expected to hear. Republicans are the root of all evil Democrats are the only thing keeping us alive! This statement is why you will never get a serious discussion regarding your question. At least from me.

Good day sir.

Ahhh...so you read what I said as, "Republicans are the root of all evil Democrats are the only thing keeping us alive!"...and you want a SERIOUS DISCUSSION?

C'mon.

 

[Hard Truth]

When did you learn to confuse advances in technology with economic systems? Let me guess: You're one of those, "Vaccines didn't eradicate diseases like polio and small pox, improved sanitation did" folks, aren't you? It's ok, you can admit it.

Advances in technology are not the only reason we have experienced an improved quality of life for more people in the USA. One big reason is that working people and their allies fought for their right to organize and freely speak out and used that right to improve the general welfare. They did it with regulations on working conditions and the environment and with government funding for schools, hospitals and libraries etc. Everywhere those rights to organize and speak out are suppressed, the quality of life declines. That happens under both capitalist and communist dictatorships.

...The more governments attempt to "correct" the economy, the worse off we are, generally speaking...

What measurement of quality of life supports your belief that increased economic regulation has made us worse off?

 

[Hard Truth]

When did you learn to confuse advances in technology with economic systems? Let me guess: You're one of those, "Vaccines didn't eradicate diseases like polio and small pox, improved sanitation did" folks, aren't you? It's ok, you can admit it.

Eventually, vaccination was accepted, and in 1840, the British government banned variolation – the use of smallpox to induce immunity – and provided vaccination using cowpox free of charge.

 

[LagerHead]

Advances in technology are not the only reason we have experienced an improved quality of life for more people in the USA.

Never said they were. But when you talk about things like improved health care and living conditions, much of that is from technology. Of course technology improves much more quickly in economic systems that are more free, like capitalist market economies.

One big reason is that working people and their allies fought for their right to organize and freely speak out and used that right to improve the general welfare. They did it with regulations on working conditions and the environment and with government funding for schools, hospitals and libraries etc. Everywhere those rights to organize and speak out are suppressed, the quality of life declines. That happens under both capitalist and communist dictatorships.

Competition spurs many of those same changes, and indeed did the same here. Working conditions here were improving as the economy improved, there was more competition, and workers had more choice. Unions love to take credit for every improvement, especially ones they had relatively little effect on. The NLRB graphic showing decreases in work deaths since their inception is a perfect example.

What measurement of quality of life supports your belief that economic regulation has made us worse off?

There is one measurement that, to me, is more important than all the rest combined: Freedom.

When I am not free to simply put a sign on my car that says it is for hire and start collecting a taxi fare, I am worse off.

When I buy a used limo and charge taxi prices for rides in that limo and the established limo companies go to the city government and require minimum fares, effectively pricing me out of business, I am worse off.

When I grow a crop on my own land for my own consumption and the federal government taxes it under the guise of interstate commerce, I am worse off.

When I can't run a company out of my own home if I receive deliveries or have employees, I am worse off.

When I have to have a veterinary degree in order to charge someone for massaging their horse, I am worse off.

When I have to have what amounts to a full-blown cosmetology school in order to teach someone else to braid hair, I am worse off.

Are you getting the point yet? These are all 100% real-world examples of regulation making people worse off in America. And you could literally type for days with examples just like them.

 

[Thrilla]

I would imagine that the vast majority of Americans would want to end poverty in the US....unfortunately for the OP, the vast majority aren't going to turn to commie bull**** to get 'er done( for very good reasons)

utopian dreams are bull**** and ultimately need to be rejected by the thinking man...the dreamers can concern themselves with rainbows and unicorns, the thinking man cannot.

 

[Thrilla]

Ahhh...so you read what I said as, "Republicans are the root of all evil Democrats are the only thing keeping us alive!"...and you want a SERIOUS DISCUSSION?

C'mon.

you also conservatism was a cancer.... so let's not pretend you are being misunderstood here.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Never said they were. But when you talk about things like improved health care and living conditions, much of that is from technology. Of course technology improves much more quickly in economic systems that are more free, like capitalist market economies.



Competition spurs many of those same changes, and indeed did the same here. Working conditions here were improving as the economy improved, there was more competition, and workers had more choice. Unions love to take credit for every improvement, especially ones they had relatively little effect on. The NLRB graphic showing decreases in work deaths since their inception is a perfect example.



There is one measurement that, to me, is more important than all the rest combined: Freedom.

When I am not free to simply put a sign on my car that says it is for hire and start collecting a taxi fare, I am worse off.

When I buy a used limo and charge taxi prices for rides in that limo and the established limo companies go to the city government and require minimum fares, effectively pricing me out of business, I am worse off.

When I grow a crop on my own land for my own consumption and the federal government taxes it under the guise of interstate commerce, I am worse off.

When I can't run a company out of my own home if I receive deliveries or have employees, I am worse off.

When I have to have a veterinary degree in order to charge someone for massaging their horse, I am worse off.

When I have to have what amounts to a full-blown cosmetology school in order to teach someone else to braid hair, I am worse off.

Are you getting the point yet? These are all 100% real-world examples of regulation making people worse off in America. And you could literally type for days with examples just like them.

Have you ever been to Mexico, and been surrounded by people wanting to sell you stuff, take you here or there for a small fee, shine your shoes, sell chiclets, whatever?

That's unregulated capitalism.

 

[Hard Truth]

"When I am not free to simply put a sign on my car that says it is for hire and start collecting a taxi fare, I am worse off. pricing me out of business, I am worse off."

Who pays the medical bills for your passenger when you get in an accident and don't have insurance? When all of your competitors conspire to offer rides below their costs long enough to drive you out of business, will you still feel free? If you don't know the best routes and overcharge your customers for their rides, do they feel free? When all drivers lose business because people are scared about an active killer rapist driving for hire in the area and the government can't find him promptly because there is no record of who is a regular driver for hire, will you feel free?


"When I can't run a company out of my own home if I receive deliveries or have employees, I am worse off."

If your neighbor in a residential neighborhood started keeping heavy machinery on his property and the machinery and full sized delivery trucks are coming and going night and day, will you feel more free?

"When I have to have a veterinary degree in order to charge someone for massaging their horse, I am worse off."

When your beloved dog dies from the anesthesia administered by an untrained, fake veterinarian, would you feel more free?

"When I have to have what amounts to a full-blown cosmetology school in order to teach someone else to braid hair, I am worse off."

When you pay $50 for a haircut and get a bad haircut, lice and bed bugs, will you feel more free?

I would never defend the existence of every single regulation. Many were passed to benefit a small special interest group only, others were passed in a panic or based on misinformation, others are now obsolete. But there are many good reasons why we have regulations in general. More often than not, they are to protect somebody's life, health, freedom or right to a reasonable amount of peace and quiet at home. We have to expect as the population expands, technology develops and we interact with people from more diverse cultures, more regulation and enforcement is required to prevent complete stupidity from gaining critical mass and ruining everything.

Another relevant fact: The de facto situation is that you can do all of those things IF you only do them occasionally, keep a low profile and don't impact your neighbors. Also, many of those are local laws that are not very hard to change if you have a good case for doing so.

 

[Frank Apisa]

you also conservatism was a cancer.... so let's not pretend you are being misunderstood here.

I abhor American conservatism. No pretense there.

But the statement to which I responded...was given a reasonable response.

 

[LagerHead]

Have you ever been to Mexico, and been surrounded by people wanting to sell you stuff, take you here or there for a small fee, shine your shoes, sell chiclets, whatever?

That's unregulated capitalism.

Have you ever seen a post so incredibly devoid of any factual basis that it makes your head want to explode? That is the post to which I am responding.

First, you are equating a somewhat large country's entire economy to what is found among our border towns. Second, Mexico has a highly regulated economy, including its nationalized oil industry, which, if left in private hands would have been a huge boon for the economy. Third, corruption is rampant in Mexico, even more than it is here. Their labor codes are outdated and anything but flexible. There is more, but this should be enough to keep you busy for a while.

 

[Hard Truth]

Have you ever seen a post so incredibly devoid of any factual basis that it makes your head want to explode? That is the post to which I am responding.

First, you are equating a somewhat large country's entire economy to what is found among our border towns. Second, Mexico has a highly regulated economy, including its nationalized oil industry, which, if left in private hands would have been a huge boon for the economy. Third, corruption is rampant in Mexico, even more than it is here. Their labor codes are outdated and anything but flexible. There is more, but this should be enough to keep you busy for a while.

He is correct. Those street vendors work with virtually no government regulation of their activities which, in addition to extreme poverty, creates the situation he described.

 

[LagerHead]

He is correct. Those street vendors work with virtually no government regulation of their activities which, in addition to extreme poverty, creates the situation he described.

Government intervention is what created the environment that makes it necessary to work those jobs in the first place. In the other hand, the fact that they can work those jobs without an artificially created minimum wage is a good thing.

 

[Henrin]

Have you ever been to Mexico, and been surrounded by people wanting to sell you stuff, take you here or there for a small fee, shine your shoes, sell chiclets, whatever?

That's unregulated capitalism.

So people want to do stuff to you? The horror!

 

[Dittohead not!]

Have you ever seen a post so incredibly devoid of any factual basis that it makes your head want to explode? That is the post to which I am responding.

Oh, yes, many times, but the one to which you responded was not one of them.

First, you are equating a somewhat large country's entire economy to what is found among our border towns. Second, Mexico has a highly regulated economy, including its nationalized oil industry, which, if left in private hands would have been a huge boon for the economy. Third, corruption is rampant in Mexico, even more than it is here. Their labor codes are outdated and anything but flexible. There is more, but this should be enough to keep you busy for a while.

I wasn't talking about he whole economy. Mexico, like most nations, has a mix of socialism and capitalism. In fact, Mexico probably has more socialism than most.

The post was lamenting not being able to do this and do that without government regulations. The people you see pushing hand carts through the streets and trying to sell junk to tourists are pretty much unregulated. Were they to have to get a license, there would be a lot fewer of them, and they'd have a chance to actually make some money.

 

[LagerHead]

Oh, yes, many times, but the one to which you responded was not one of them.

Yes it was. That's why I clearly stated as much.

I wasn't talking about he whole economy. Mexico, like most nations, has a mix of socialism and capitalism. In fact, Mexico probably has more socialism than most.

The post was lamenting not being able to do this and do that without government regulations. The people you see pushing hand carts through the streets and trying to sell junk to tourists are pretty much unregulated. Were they to have to get a license, there would be a lot fewer of them, and they'd have a chance to actually make some money.

And this is another.

You are correct about one thing: If street vendors were forced to get licenses there would be fewer of them. Much fewer. But to say that they would be making more money is beyond insane. In essence what you are saying is, these people are voluntarily choosing to be poor just so they don't have to pay for stupid occupational licenses that they shouldn't need in the first place. I would love for you to explain how that works. The truth is, there would be fewer of them, but they would be completely jobless. Working low-income jobs is not the worst possible outcome.

You seem to think that regulating industries guarantees a better outcome for everyone, but it does not. it creates unemployment by pricing and regulating people out of work they prefer to do. It also prices people with low skill sets out of the market entirely. That's why we no longer have bathroom attendants, gas pump attendants who check your oil and was your windshield, and who knows how many other jobs that used to exist pretty much nationwide.

And if regulating businesses and requiring licenses is this automatic guarantee of vast wealth, why don't these people simply go get a license and just watch the money flow in?

Finally, if, in such a heavily regulated economy things are so much better, why are there poor people in Mexico to begin with?

 

[Thrilla]

I abhor American conservatism. No pretense there.

But the statement to which I responded...was given a reasonable response.

that's nice... don't care.