Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Is our economic system fundamentally flawed? » Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?

Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?
Quality of Life v Capitalism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 88
Total Posts: 2674

Posted 04/20/07 - 04:08 AM:	#26
unrealist42 wrote: Governments do not totally control their central banks which are private enterprises. What the government treasury does is trade interest bearing bonds to the central bank in exchange for cash money. They redeem these bonds with tax revenues. The Federal Reserve Bank holds some 40% of the national debt. The rest if publicly traded. Where does this money come from? The private central bank makes it up from thin air. It is an interesting issue. Why does the government give franchise to print money to a private enterprise? It is in the reserve banks interest that the government be in debt for if the government were not in debt, the reserve bank would be unable to print more money and collect interest on the national debt. It would no longer have taxpayers by the throat. And you wonder why the central bankers say that deficits don't matter and continually push for tax cuts. I'm well aware of this arrangement although I think you underestimate how much the government benefits from this. The treasury, being the first holders of this new money get to spend it before prices accross the economy adjust upwards accordingly thereby working as a silent tax transfer aware from real wealth producers. It basically allows them to spend more without increasing taxes as much as would otherwise be the case. It's certainly far more politically acceptable to raise funds in this way. And of course this new money, due to the fractional reserve system, is multiplied out everytime it moves from one bank to another leading to a greatly increased money supply. There's nothing wrong with tax cuts...as long as you cut your spending too. It should be a criminal offence for the treasury run a budget deficit.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 536

Posted 04/21/07 - 05:11 AM:	#27
The governent of Bhutan is considering a parlimentary democracy. Bhutan is probably the only nation to focus on happiness rather than GNP as a gaol. Is this a good thing or will it cause the nation degenerate to the lowest common denominator like many of it's neighbours? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6578421.stm What about the governments of Scandinavian countries which according to surveys have a better balance between material wealth and a less stressful style of living?
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 04/21/07 - 02:28 PM:	#28
What would be the lowest common denominator of happiness?

Conarch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 19

Posted 04/21/07 - 05:02 PM:	#29
Fried Egg wrote: I'm well aware of this arrangement although I think you underestimate how much the government benefits from this. The treasury, being the first holders of this new money get to spend it before prices accross the economy adjust upwards accordingly thereby working as a silent tax transfer aware from real wealth producers. It basically allows them to spend more without increasing taxes as much as would otherwise be the case. It's certainly far more politically acceptable to raise funds in this way. And of course this new money, due to the fractional reserve system, is multiplied out everytime it moves from one bank to another leading to a greatly increased money supply. There's nothing wrong with tax cuts...as long as you cut your spending too. It should be a criminal offence for the treasury run a budget deficit. It's been a while since I took a micro-economics course, but I thought that the money supply was expanded by trading new currency for government debt from both the government and the general public, with the majority of the money going to the public. Deficit spending has some advantages. When used sparingly and generated through tax cuts rather than an increase in government spending, the economic benefits generally allow the government to make up its short term cash out-flows through an overall increase in its long term tax in-flows. The problem is that the government generally spends the tax income generated by the expanded economy rather than paying off its debts.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 88
Total Posts: 2674

Posted 04/23/07 - 01:12 AM:	#30
Conarch It's been a while since I took a micro-economics course, but I thought that the money supply was expanded by trading new currency for government debt from both the government and the general public, with the majority of the money going to the public. I'm not sure I can make head nor tail of this sentance. Could you re-phrase it? Deficit spending has some advantages. When used sparingly and generated through tax cuts rather than an increase in government spending, the economic benefits generally allow the government to make up its short term cash out-flows through an overall increase in its long term tax in-flows. The problem is that the government generally spends the tax income generated by the expanded economy rather than paying off its debts. Indeed, you highlight the problem that would outweigh any advantages that deficit spending might have allowed for. However, it's not true anyway because it ignores stealth tax effect that inflating the money supply through budget deficits has. It is important to remember that when the money supply is inflated that it isn't inflated evenly accross the whole economy. New money is channelled through particular entry points and it is not until this new money is fully circulated through the whole economy that it's effects begin to be felt in terms of price increases. Therefore the first holders of this new money (and subsequent holders to a diminishing extent) get to spend money that was not earned. This means that they get to consume wealth that they had no hand in producing which means that those that did produce it get to consume less. Thus inflating the money supply works like a silent tax. So is it any wonder that our governments like to target low but perpetual levels of inflation? This gives them a constant source of effective income which doesn't have to come through those politically unpopular taxes.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 536

Posted 04/30/07 - 09:06 AM:	#31
There are a few excellent articles here which questions the wisdom of aiming for unlimited wealth If "economic growth proceeds at some 3% a year, without threatening the earth's capacity to support its population. By 2100, if this rate is sustained, we will be 18 times richer than we are today. Fairlie asks the question that so many economists have ducked. When we possess this fabulous wealth, how will we spend it?" "Unrestrained hedonism, relentless consumption, "greed is good", "the 'me' culture" - all of it has failed, horribly. It doesn't necessarily feel like it has failed. Facts and figures, and even personal misery aside, it is in the nature of greed that it blinds us to the negative consequences of our selfishness - the advertisers and political servants of corporate society are forever on hand to give any doubters a persuasive leg-up. Meanwhile we will continue generating the global environmental conditions that will quickly increase our suffering to a point where denial will no longer be possible" http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/ar... http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/ar...
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 88
Total Posts: 2674

Posted 04/30/07 - 10:40 AM:	#32
persus There are a few excellent articles here which questions the wisdom of aiming for unlimited wealth If "economic growth proceeds at some 3% a year, without threatening the earth's capacity to support its population. By 2100, if this rate is sustained, we will be 18 times richer than we are today. Fairlie asks the question that so many economists have ducked. When we possess this fabulous wealth, how will we spend it?" Economists haven't "ducked" the quesiton; it is not a question that is for them to answer. Economists do not state that we must strive for this or that much wealth. An economists asks, given what we want to attain, how can we best attain it (given the means available to us)? It should be obvious that the answers to that question will be different for each of us.

Orang
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Hanging on your motherboard
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 05/09/07 - 10:44 AM:	#33
I'm not an expert in economics like you guys, so this is just a simple guy's opinion. For me, what's fundamentally wrong is the too much freedom given by our economic system to the people. This system, I think, made from the assumption that people know what they need. And if they're given freedom they will automatically shape the world to fulfill their needs best. But in fact, most people care more about their wants and even consider their wants as needs. So now we got a society full of people trying to please their wants. As wants are usually bigger (or much much much bigger) than needs, this kind of behaviour can greatly boosts up the economic growth of that society. Well that doesn't sound so bad. At least not until we consider the fact that: For people to satisfy their wants, they need to get more money(or other tools for trading) and for that they need to sell more. And (this is the sad part) many of them feel that the way to sell more is to convince other people that they need more. And this will go in circles. The earlier won't be so bad if we have unlimitted resource. But clearly we don't. So either we extract more of "our" own resources or we try to take unclaimmed ones or even other's. I won't ignore the fact that we are getting much more efficient in using resources. But our demands are increasing faster than our efficiency. And so we keep raping more and more from the mother nature. Let's face it. As romantical or ideal as free market might sounds, the human race is still not ready for it. We still need more guidance from wiser persons. I'm not implying that we are know completely free. But still this system gives too much freedom than an average person can handle.
If I can choose I'd like to have a world without terrorist, but I'd like it more to have a world without CIA. For without CIA there will be almost no terrorist but without terrorist there will just be more of CIA.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 536

Posted 05/09/07 - 12:20 PM:	#34
Fried Egg wrote: persus Economists haven't "ducked" the quesiton; it is not a question that is for them to answer. Economists do not state that we must strive for this or that much wealth. An economists asks, given what we want to attain, how can we best attain it (given the means available to us)? It should be obvious that the answers to that question will be different for each of us. I think what you are saying is that the question should be "Is our political system fundamentally flawed" since the economists will try to do whatever they are told. Poor old politicians they get blamed for everything. On another thread I was told that ethics was irrelevant to torture since the decision was political ! Perhaps you are right in the sense that elected politicians should be tasked with the responsibility. However the decisions that politicians make have economic and moral implications. Say if the elected leader suggested that we adopt a course of meeting need rather than greed would a thousand economists descend onto their office in a panic claiming such an approach will lead to economic collapse? Is there any way a sustainable culture can be implemented without leading to ruin?
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 88
Total Posts: 2674

Posted 05/09/07 - 12:22 PM:	#35
Orang I'm not an expert in economics like you guys, so this is just a simple guy's opinion. For me, what's fundamentally wrong is the too much freedom given by our economic system to the people. This system, I think, made from the assumption that people know what they need. And if they're given freedom they will automatically shape the world to fulfill their needs best. The problem is, people have differing ideas about what are needs and what are wants. No one can objectively decide for others. Let's face it. As romantical or ideal as free market might sounds, the human race is still not ready for it. We still need more guidance from wiser persons. So what exactly are you proposing? That we elect those wiser than ourselves to make those decisions (that we apparently can't handle) for us? But if we can't be trusted to decide what's best for ourselves, how can we be trusted to select those do know what's best for others? Or perhaps you propose that some benign and wise dictator seize power and just impose what's best for us? How then do we ensure that they truly are benign and won't abuse their position of power? Ultimately, people must make decisions for themselves. We cannot rely on anyone else to act in our best interests on our behalf. That some of the people will get it wrong some of the time is innevitable. But we can learn from our mistakes.

exile
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 05/10/07 - 04:09 AM:	#36
That's fine for individual decisions. But some decisions must be made collectively. Go to war - or not? Raise the base interest rate or not? Outlaw abortion or not? (OK the last could be left to individual choice - but would this freedom of choice extend to theft and murder as well?)

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 88
Total Posts: 2674

Posted 05/10/07 - 05:35 AM:	#37
exile wrote: That's fine for individual decisions. But some decisions must be made collectively. Go to war - or not? Raise the base interest rate or not? Outlaw abortion or not? (OK the last could be left to individual choice - but would this freedom of choice extend to theft and murder as well?) Actually, whether or not the money supply should be centrally managed is the topic of another thread. I argue that it shouldn't be. In which case there would be no "base" interest rate to set. Infact, going to war should be an individual decision too. Why should your government, acting on your behalf, wage war against anyone else? But as for the setting of laws, since I do regard this as a legitimate function of the state, it makes sense that such decisions need to be made collectively.

Huxley
I have a cat's tongue

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 09, 2007
Location: England
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 18

Posted 05/10/07 - 04:57 PM:	#38
perseus wrote: What I am suggesting is that something similar to green politics (which claims to be neither right or left leaning) deserves better attention, but not just for environmental reasons but to redefine our personal objectives away from a materialist culture to one of happiness or well being. Herein lies my fundamental disagreement with your case, and indeed aptly highlights the benefit of capitalism. Quite simple, only I know what makes me happy. You might think that, say, a community atmosphere in my neighbourhood, a job of dignified manual labor, and a sustainable economy would make everyone as happy as you might find it (And I in no way mean to imply that those are what you'd find best, they are merely examples of things that spring to mind when people talk about alternatives to materialism.), but how is that provable? I know that in my case, I derive personal pleasure from increased industrial production. Not merely from it's actual products, but from the process itself; shaping the world to our design gives me deep and abiding satisfaction. Growth is excellent, in my eyes. It impels more of the aforementioned control, drives efficiency, and will be the impetus for our expansion beyond this planet - that last objective being one I place higher than almost any other. That aside, I do feel that I benefit from capitalism inasmuch as I can choose where to invest my labor. It is indirect, as I work, earn tokens representing what I did, and then trade those tokens for other work, but ultimately I merely purchase things with my labor. I do not believe it is right for anyone else to direct my efforts to any particular end; only I have that right and only I can make that judgement of where to apply myself accurately. However, the claim that capitalism doesn't increase happiness is not relevant in my view, because that suggests the objective of economics (And thus to a large extent politics) is happiness. That is not so and should not be so. Economics should merely distribute wealth.
What powerful but unremembered race Once dwelt in that annihilated place?

Orang
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Hanging on your motherboard
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 05/15/07 - 10:36 AM:	#39
Fried Egg wrote: #The problem is, people have differing ideas about what are needs and what are wants. No one can objectively decide for others.# That's an agreement, Yes? #So what exactly are you proposing? That we elect those wiser than ourselves to make those decisions (that we apparently can't handle) for us? But if we can't be trusted to decide what's best for ourselves, how can we be trusted to select those do know what's best for others?# Well I trusted my parents to decide what's best for me when I was a kid. We trust farmers to select the best way to grow our food. We trust doctors to select the best way to cure our illness. We trust friends, families, pizza guys, forum moderators , and many more. We trust lots of people and leaders are just a small part of them. The fact that if I don't know the best way to fix my car doesn't mean that I can't choose a person who know. The fact that I don't know what's best for me doesn't mean that I can't choose who know too. #Or perhaps you propose that some benign and wise dictator seize power and just impose what's best for us? How then do we ensure that they truly are benign and won't abuse their position of power?# Whoa... I'm not speaking of dictatorship. No Sir. I'm just suggesting a fix on the proportion of personal freedom. By the way don't you feel like you're actually living in an almost dictator (like) government now. I mean you can always protest them. But without a strong enough political power you will never change them. Do you, at all, feel that you actually have control over your current government? Sure you have your freedom (or the feeling of it). But can you insure that your current government truly are benign and not abusing their position of power? Even if you can, whatever can you do about that? Just out of curiousity (and I meant that), does your freedom make you happy (and by that I mean not a smile from a friend or a praise from people, but freedom exclusively) ? Cause the freedom of many of the people around doesn't seem to. #Ultimately, people must make decisions for themselves. We cannot rely on anyone else to act in our best interests on our behalf. That some of the people will get it wrong some of the time is innevitable. But we can learn from our mistakes.# Well I can see lots and lots of people making big big mistakes over and over again without realizing it. Look around. And if this continues there will be time when the planet can't handle those mistakes anymore. And people do (and have to) let others make decisions for them. Again look around.
If I can choose I'd like to have a world without terrorist, but I'd like it more to have a world without CIA. For without CIA there will be almost no terrorist but without terrorist there will just be more of CIA.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 88
Total Posts: 2674

Posted 05/16/07 - 12:41 AM:	#40
Orang Well I trusted my parents to decide what's best for me when I was a kid. We trust farmers to select the best way to grow our food. We trust doctors to select the best way to cure our illness. We trust friends, families, pizza guys, forum moderators smiling face, and many more. We trust lots of people and leaders are just a small part of them. The fact that if I don't know the best way to fix my car doesn't mean that I can't choose a person who know. The fact that I don't know what's best for me doesn't mean that I can't choose who know too. Having economic freedom is having the freedom to decide whether to trust others to do things for us and getting to choose who we trust. If you are arguing that we have too much economic freedom then you are arguing that we shouldn't have that freedom to choose whether or who to trust. It should be decided for us. But this argument is self-defeating because if we how can't choose who to trust, how can we choose those who will make those decisions for us? Whoa... I'm not speaking of dictatorship. No Sir. I'm just suggesting a fix on the proportion of personal freedom. By the way don't you feel like you're actually living in an almost dictator (like) government now. I mean you can always protest them. But without a strong enough political power you will never change them. Do you, at all, feel that you actually have control over your current government? Sure you have your freedom (or the feeling of it). But can you insure that your current government truly are benign and not abusing their position of power? Even if you can, whatever can you do about that? I'm a libertarian so naturally I'm not happy with the amount of freedom we have now. I'm certainly no advocate of the status quo. Just out of curiousity (and I meant that), does your freedom make you happy (and by that I mean not a smile from a friend or a praise from people, but freedom exclusively) ? Cause the freedom of many of the people around doesn't seem to. Yes, I do appreciate freedom. I love freedom and cannot have too much. I realise that many people are complacent about it. It brings to mind something that Boris Yeltsin once said: We don't appreciate what we have until it's gone. Freedom is like that. It's like air. When you have it, you don't notice it. Well I can see lots and lots of people making big big mistakes over and over again without realizing it. Look around. And if this continues there will be time when the planet can't handle those mistakes anymore. And people do (and have to) let others make decisions for them. Again look around. Choosing whether to and whom to make decisions on their behalf are decisions in themselves, and ones just as prone to error. Being free includes being free to make mistakes. But we must be careful in judging the choices others make. What may appear to be a bad choice to us might be a good choice to others. Just because I don't like the choices some others make doesn't mean they shouldn't get to make choices.

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 05/17/07 - 03:21 PM:	#41
I'm back. Did you miss me? I was in our fabulously recovered city of New Orleans enjoying the pleasant desolation and squalor of a partially abandoned city. Anyway, about your post. Fried Egg wrote: Orang ... Being free includes being free to make mistakes. But we must be careful in judging the choices others make. What may appear to be a bad choice to us might be a good choice to others. Just because I don't like the choices some others make doesn't mean they shouldn't get to make choices. This is, as I see it, the nub of the problem. Who gets to make the choices. Who is the decider? With the way the world is so interconnected and co-dependent these days this has become the question of the age. Should someone be able to make a choice that has some drastic effect on the lives of thousands or even millions of others without their knowledge, input, consent or even the slightest consideration for them? I think people are getting a little fed up with that kind of decision making. Sure, starting a run on the Baht was a great choice for the money arbitragers and made them tons of money but for millions in Asia it was not such a good choice. So, when a few hundred people can benefit at the expense of a few million is that really a good way to allocate decision making?

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 88
Total Posts: 2674

Posted 05/18/07 - 12:48 AM:	#42
unrealist42 I'm back. Did you miss me? Of course; how can I go on without my long standing antagonist shooting down my arguments? I think people are getting a little fed up with that kind of decision making. Sure, starting a run on the Baht was a great choice for the money arbitragers and made them tons of money but for millions in Asia it was not such a good choice. Is it fair to blame those investors who were just acting to minimise their losses when the bubble burst? Perhaps we should blame the interventionalist policies that lead to such bubbles occuring in the first place? So, when a few hundred people can benefit at the expense of a few million is that really a good way to allocate decision making? Indeed, which is precisely why I want to seperate politics and economics.

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 05/18/07 - 04:56 PM:	#43
It was the same investors who lobbied intensively for the changes in policy that led to the Asian currency collapse who benefitted the most from it. They were not innocent actors caught up in a sudden calamity, they were the perpetrators of it. It is impossible to separate politics from economics entirely but I think the world would be better off if politics was better insulated from the influence of the economically powerful.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 88
Total Posts: 2674

Posted 05/19/07 - 01:33 PM:	#44
unrealist42 Just out of interest, can you give some citations to substantiate your claim this? What were the policies that you claim led to the collapse and how exactly did these investors benefit from the collapse.

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 05/19/07 - 02:06 PM:	#45
Just read "Globalization and Its Discontents" by Joseph Stiglitz.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 88
Total Posts: 2674

Posted 05/21/07 - 01:14 AM:	#46
I ask because it sounds quite far fetched, I must say. To suggest that groups of speculators had such a good understanding of economics that they could lobby for precisely the right policies that would instigate this economic bubble and also time it so precisely that they could all cash in at just the right time and not to lose out like so many other investors did. So the government politicians in question were just innocent and naive puppets in the hands those evil businessmen who were manipulating them for their own ends? Even if it was true, it only goes to support my argument that politicians should refrain from intervening in the markets.

Orang
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Hanging on your motherboard
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 05/22/07 - 12:48 PM:	#47
#Fried Egg wrote Having economic freedom is having the freedom to decide whether to trust others to do things for us and getting to choose who we trust. If you are arguing that we have too much economic freedom then you are arguing that we shouldn't have that freedom to choose whether or who to trust. It should be decided for us. But this argument is self-defeating because if we how can't choose who to trust, how can we choose those who will make those decisions for us?# I was just sugesting a reduction of freedom to a certain level. I don't quite understand why my statement was self-defeating. I'm acctually sugesting that we pick someone to be a leader. Why can't that get along with reducing freedom? It's certainly happening throughout the world now. People pick leaders, the leaders make rules, then the people obey the rules, and by that reducing their freedoms. #Yes, I do appreciate freedom. I love freedom and cannot have too much. I realise that many people are complacent about it. It brings to mind something that Boris Yeltsin once said: We don't appreciate what we have until it's gone. Freedom is like that. It's like air. When you have it, you don't notice it.# Not having a jet is (perhaps) unbearable for a millionare tycoon. But not for most people. Many will even think having one as unthikable. For me the same goes to too much freedom. #Choosing whether to and whom to make decisions on their behalf are decisions in themselves, and ones just as prone to error. Being free includes being free to make mistakes. But we must be careful in judging the choices others make. What may appear to be a bad choice to us might be a good choice to others. Just because I don't like the choices some others make doesn't mean they shouldn't get to make choices.# Mistakes are not always small and unsignificant. Murders, rapes, drug abusings; they can (and most likely) be mistakes. Certain way of raising a child, selling certain things, or singing certain songs too can be mistakes. And if they are, they can be big mistakes don't you think? There're even possibilities that they can spell destruction to society. And people might not correct those mistakes quickly. They may not even take them as mistakes. My sugestion on reducing freedom is actually to prevent those kinds of mistakes from happening. Maybe there will be an age when all humans are wise enough to think fully freely for themselves. It would be really great. But I don't think that it has come yet, nor that I think it's close by. And would you be so kind as to tell me how to make those neat dark grey quote boxes? Thank you!
If I can choose I'd like to have a world without terrorist, but I'd like it more to have a world without CIA. For without CIA there will be almost no terrorist but without terrorist there will just be more of CIA.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 88
Total Posts: 2674

Posted 05/23/07 - 12:46 AM:	#48
Orang I was just sugesting a reduction of freedom to a certain level. I don't quite understand why my statement was self-defeating. Well, if we can't be trusted with freedom, why should we have any? There is a natural limit to freedom, that is when it encroaches upon the freedom others. We need not limit it beyond that (which is what we do at the moment) and therefore I don't agree with limiting it further. Not having a jet is (perhaps) unbearable for a millionare tycoon. But not for most people. Many will even think having one as unthikable. For me the same goes to too much freedom. Not attall. Freedom is a basic right and not a luxury that most of us can do without. But that is an ethical position I adopt and you obviously do not. Maybe there will be an age when all humans are wise enough to think fully freely for themselves. It would be really great. But I don't think that it has come yet, nor that I think it's close by. The problem is that taking away freedom generates dependency. We have become used to and expect the state to watch out for us and prevent bad things happening. It infantises the population and makes your argument self justifying. Whilst the state "nanny's" us, we never will be ready for freedom. And would you be so kind as to tell me how to make those neat dark grey quote boxes? Thank you! [ quote]You enclose the text like this![/quote ] (without the spaces of course)!

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 05/23/07 - 03:19 PM:	#49
Fried Egg wrote: I ask because it sounds quite far fetched, I must say. To suggest that groups of speculators had such a good understanding of economics that they could lobby for precisely the right policies that would instigate this economic bubble and also time it so precisely that they could all cash in at just the right time and not to lose out like so many other investors did. So the government politicians in question were just innocent and naive puppets in the hands those evil businessmen who were manipulating them for their own ends? Even if it was true, it only goes to support my argument that politicians should refrain from intervening in the markets. Just read the book and it will become clear how this can happen. It was not a matter of politicians intervening in markets as much as of bankers interfering in politics.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 88
Total Posts: 2674

Posted 05/23/07 - 11:50 PM:	#50
Yeah, we could just throw books at each other, or, as this is a philosophy forum , we could actually relay the arguments ourselves...or do you not understand the arguments? Edited by Fried Egg on 05/24/07 - 12:02 AM

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.