capitalist against the military use of shannon speak to us

chewy

(and in us i mean me)

I repeat again, Irish anti-war activism is exclusionary. It excludes the majority of Irish people. This is why it is ineffective.

Take me, for example. I think that the bin tax is a good idea. I think that the war in Afghanistan was justified, although the follow-up has been insufficient. I think that capitalism must inevitably provide our economic energy and that government-managed capitalism is a force for good. I think that Ireland is generally well served by its politicians, although there is certainly much room for improvement. I drive a nice car. I have a mortgage. I shop at Tesco. And I loath Bush, his militarism and the US use of Shannon. I am like many or even most Irish people. Can I join the protest? Will I be respected? Is there a place for me?

Irish anti-war activism is the domain of a small group of angry, ego-driven people who care more about strutting about than about effectiveness. They speak for and to other activists - not for the public. They have no respect for moderate, middle-class, ordinary Irish people, and so they have 'pre-empted' the formation of any REAL opposition to American militarism in Ireland, dispite the poll-proven fact that most Irish people are opposed to that militarism. They have short-circuited any serious opposition to the U.S. in Ireland. Shame on them.


this very informed posting was made on indymedia.... i think it does point out something that hasn't been discussed enough among the anti-war movement

i would like to hear from anyone who either considers themselves capitalist or having thought about it thinks the world can be fundamentally improved for everyone with in the terms of capitalist structure the world has taken (does considering _everyone_ in improvement show my leanings)

i would serious doubts about capitalism but as you may have read i think the problems go beyond capitalism, but i do work proudly alongside socialist/anarchist/enviromentalist/libertarians/other non-aligned

so.... reasoned debates ensues one hopes

gom

Hey chewy.

Ypur not alone!!

In appearances I might look like one of those Anti-Globalist Protesters(what with dreadlocks and all). but idealistly I'm very much opposed to Anti-Globalisation... I'm a Globalist by all means. I have reservations about Capitalism but its hard for me not to be fond of it as a student of Economics.

Thats a bit disointed let me pan it out

Globalisation:
I believe that the Capitalist system has reached a level of rationalisation that exceeds national boundaries. We no longer have multi-national firms. We have Trans-National-Corporations(TNCs). As boundaries to trade are being removed, business is flurishing world-wide. The business is free to do as it likes and is only answerable to the big economic powers such as the US and EU(in a small way) and increasingly Russia. I am pro-globalisation but only if national governments can cede powers to a world government of sorts. If the world could unite under one government then globalisation of business would be legitamite and I could accept that...

Now back to reality. We all know that even a world government of the EU/US/Russia/OPEC is very very very far off. So at present TNCs are exploiting the world as the industrialists exploited the society of the 19th century which inspired Marx and created Communism... Today we are faced with a similar senario with the Anti-globalists as the reactionary movement.

I can't march as an Anti-Globalist for this strange believe I have.
I'm Anti-Capitalist(pro-market economy of the Keynes type), I'm a social liberatarian. I'm a Globalist....

I'll be at the march as a journalist but I would love to take part If only Anti-Globalist protesters would be a little more practical with the reality and worked towards making a world authority or government that the world corporations would be answerable to...

Finding a way to keep global capitalism in check is alot more practical than their idea about us all living in small villages, growing our own vegatables, making cloths from Cannabis Plants and generally screaming at any injustice in the world but ignoring the one next door...

Sparks

Originally posted by chewy
I repeat again, Irish anti-war activism is exclusionary. It excludes the majority of Irish people. This is why it is ineffective.

Activism isn't something that most Irish people take up, our culture in general is more geared towards mocking it than praising or accepting it. That's why most people aren't activists, not because of any fault in the anti-war campaign (which isn't to say there haven't been major faults).

Take me, for example. I think that the bin tax is a good idea.

*sigh*
So did the bin tax protestors. They weren't protesting the idea of a bin tax, but the way it was implemented, because the way it was implemented meant that they were paying twice and the bin collection service was being prepared for privatisation, which was leading to enormous price hikes in the rest of the country for no improvement in service.

I think that the war in Afghanistan was justified, although the follow-up has been insufficient.

Which is just not an informed opinion, like your opinion on the bin tax.
That's two for two. This isn't boding well...

I think that capitalism must inevitably provide our economic energy and that government-managed capitalism is a force for good.

And three for three. There's nothing inevitable about capitalism, the same way there's nothing inevitable about democracy. It's just the currently prevalent system. It wasn't always so, and it won't always be so -
All is flux, nothing stays still; Nothing endures but change
~Heraclitus

I think that Ireland is generally well served by its politicians,

Served up maybe.
(We're five for five by now)

I shop at Tesco.

Six for six. Try your local butchers. It's cheaper and you get better meat. Local greengrocers are again cheaper and give better produce if you get there early.

And I loath Bush, his militarism and the US use of Shannon.

Huzzah! A point on which we agree

Irish anti-war activism is the domain of a small group of angry, ego-driven people who care more about strutting about than about effectiveness.

It is now, because the SWP swamped a few meetings and elected themselves to every committee position going and the original anti-war protestors resigned - quite publicly btw - in protest.
The problem, in short, is not anti-war activism, it's the SWP's tactics of self-promotion to the detriment of anything they're involved in.

They have short-circuited any serious opposition to the U.S. in Ireland.

I don't call the largest civil protests in the state's history "trivial".

so.... reasoned debates ensues one hopes

I don't see how capitalism is supposed to improve the world. "Trickle-down" is the closest it gets, and frankly I don't believe in Reaganomics. Capitalism is basicly amoral and apolitical - it doens't set out to change anything, it's just a mechanism for the distribution of goods and services.

You want to make the world a better place? Then it's not capitalism you want to pursue, it's effectively socialism.

How's it feel to be a long-haired pinko commie hippie then?

Sand

It depends on how you view capitalism. The common viewpoint is that capitalism is mercantilism. That trade is war. That free trade kills jobs. That if an Irish firm closes down and an Indian firm replaces them because they can do the same work for cheaper then we have *lost* and the Indians have *won*.

I see free trade, and thus globalisation differently. A cheaper firm has replaced a more exspensive one, providing me with a gain. The people who have lost their jobs from the Irish firm can find new ones, in an industry where we hold the advantage, thus where we should be investing in the first place. Everyones a winner.

The reality is though that governments get involved. The people who are in threat of losing their jobs coerce the government to enact penalties on trade with the Indians to remove their advantages. Now I make no saving. The workers keep their jobs in an inefficient industry. The government has decided that Irish jobs are more important than Indian jobs, and that the jobs in this particular industry are more important than the interests of every other citizen in Ireland.

In effect the government, on the behest of a small but wealthy lobby group, has worked against the interests of its citizens.

This is not the only way the government is manipulated by lobby groups to enct policy that is not in the interest of its citizens. If borders did not exist then restrictions on trade would also not exist. Marx got one thing right in that wars are often fought to control economically important regions. Facing trade restrictions, especially in resources that are vital to an economy - coal before, now oil - it may be cheaper to invade and seize a rich region by force, again at the behest of a lobby group with an interest. Without trade restrictions it is most likely far cheaper to simply buy the goods. As such globalisation can help reduce the occurence of wars more certainly than the UN charter has proven able to.

And on the other hand the existence of governments, the focus on national boundaries and sovereignty has granted equality between the most benevolent government and the most depraved dictatorship. The individual is ranked well down on the list of concerns in international law as it stands, with the focus on protecting the status quo and protecting the sovereignty of any regime, however corrupt or illegitimate it is. Governments afterall are based on force and the use of force, not on whocan back up claims to represent the people. This is the way it has always been, and the way it always will be.

Globalisation can also help improve work practices and standards of living in some of the poorest countries on earth. These are often the cheapest too, so multi nationals contract work from factories in that region ( they rarely set up full time, easier and cheaper to outsource ). Suddenly the western world which takes a safe, clean and humane work place for granted has an interest in the LDC where these things are simply unknown. Multi nationals didnt invent the conditions in sweatshops, it took advantage of them. People who buy Nike have can be motivated to demand that the conditions of the workers who made them meet certain criteria. As such globalisation can "import" workers rights extremel quickly in comparison to the Wests own experience with the Industrial Revolution ( which is what the third world is experiencing now).

I dont feel individuals ( and what are corporations but individuals pooling resources for profit ) are inherently evil, or have some sort of Catholic "original sin" mentality that they need a Government to control every aspect of their lives. I feel Governments can serve a useful role, but only in certain fields. We need an independant justic system, we need to ensure that every transactions includes the cost of the impacts it will have on 3rd parties, and maybe a stripped down, light weight government with strict restriction on what is and isnt its role might be the way to do that, but so long as governments exist they are imperfect tools - they are the few deciding what is best for the many. I might agree with a policy they follow or I might disagree with it ( and I have, Im not a huge fan of heavy governments in theory, but in practice when youre in Rome, you do as the Romans do ) but you have to bear that in mind at all times.

shotamoose

Originally posted by gom
Now back to reality. We all know that even a world government of the EU/US/Russia/OPEC is very very very far off. So at present TNCs are exploiting the world as the industrialists exploited the society of the 19th century which inspired Marx and created Communism... Today we are faced with a similar senario with the Anti-globalists as the reactionary movement.

Very interesting points. You're right that it's a similar dynamic to what happened within national borders in the now-developed world during the 19th century. Unfettered capitalism created great wealth alongside great inequality and poverty and provoked various kinds of political responses: the capitalists and plutocrats wanted politicians keeping out of the 'efficient' running of the market, Marx and various others wanted a revolution to bring in an age of socialism or communism, and other people wanted to reform capitalism so that the wealth it created would be shared more equitably.

In the end the reformists won: they gradually introduced social welfare, trade union rights, anti-trust laws and other corporate regulations, public health and education systems funded by redistribution, and activist government macroeconomic policy to stave off depression. The revolutionary fervour died away, and capitalism was saved from itself.

But in the later half of the 20th century, markets increasingly stretched across borders, and we saw a pretty similar story. Transnational capitalism is comparatively unregulated and we've again got incredible wealth being created with incredible inequality. Personally I think that stronger transnational regulation along with a lot more transnational redistribution would greatly improve the acceptance of transnational capitalism. Once more, though, capitalists and plutocrats oppose this ...

I'll be at the march as a journalist but I would love to take part If only Anti-Globalist protesters would be a little more practical with the reality and worked towards making a world authority or government that the world corporations would be answerable to...

George Monbiot's book The Age of Consent is about exactly this, as far as I know.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
I see free trade, and thus globalisation differently. A cheaper firm has replaced a more exspensive one, providing me with a gain. The people who have lost their jobs from the Irish firm can find new ones, in an industry where we hold the advantage, thus where we should be investing in the first place. Everyones a winner.

That's only true where everyone has total job mobility.

So tell me sand, do you feel that someone who digs ditches on monday can be a brain surgeon by friday? And if not, who's going to feed his family when he loses his job because a call centre in India gave a lower bid for a contract, thus forcing his company to lay people off to remain solvent?

Globalisation can also help improve work practices and standards of living in some of the poorest countries on earth.

No it can't. Any improvements that do happen, happen because the workers tend to get pissed off earning forty cents for twelve hours work. (Yay, socialism rears its head again!). And globalisation hinders that process because it means that a company can just say "oh, the natives are restless" and move on to another, even poorer country.

And the argument that multinationals worry about slave conditions in sweatshops because of consumer opinion doesn't hold water. In fact, when the student unions in UCD and elsewhere banned Coca-cola from the campuses for just those reasons, the universal reaction seems to have been that they should just shut up, unban Coke and get back to studying.
So this "the consumer will be altruistic" ideal is not only not followed, it's not even self-consistent.

I dont feel individuals ( and what are corporations but individuals pooling resources for profit ) are inherently evil

*cough*Saddam Hussein*cough*Sands own comments*cough*

I feel Governments can serve a useful role, but only in certain fields.

Libertarians. Gosh, but I do hate you guys so.

Sand

So tell me sand, do you feel that someone who digs ditches on monday can be a brain surgeon by friday? And if not, who's going to feed his family when he loses his job because a call centre in India gave a lower bid for a contract, thus forcing his company to lay people off to remain solvent?

Where I work Id say up to a quarter at any one time are taking night classes and studying after work to better themselves and improve their chances of promotion and a new and better job. Sure, if youre not willing to put in the effort to improve yourself youre not going to find people battering down the door to hire you - the solution is to put in the effort, but thats relying on personal iniative.

No it can't. Any improvements that do happen, happen because the workers tend to get pissed off earning forty cents for twelve hours work. (Yay, socialism rears its head again!). And globalisation hinders that process because it means that a company can just say "oh, the natives are restless" and move on to another, even poorer country.

I know, which is why socialist based efforts to improve worker conditions are a waste of time. Unless of course that internationally co-ordinated workers revolution is back on schedule any time soon.

And the argument that multinationals worry about slave conditions in sweatshops because of consumer opinion doesn't hold water. In fact, when the student unions in UCD and elsewhere banned Coca-cola from the campuses for just those reasons, the universal reaction seems to have been that they should just shut up, unban Coke and get back to studying.

Ive got some problems with this.

Firstly, companies are profit driven. They spend an awful lot on branding as a good image increases their profits. If you can link bad work practices to their brand in the publics mind then , assuming people give a ****, it will hurt their profits, motivating them to improve worker practices.

The problem is that no one has yet invested any time or effort in trying to tell people that theyre supporting industries that at their worst are almost as abusive to their workers as child porn is to children. If you can make that connection, even if its by say ( my personal pet idea ) the UN or somesuch granting some sort of "meets standards in manufacture" brand and publicising it so that people start looking for it when they shop, then you will make it a priority of the multinationals to protect their profits from consumer backlash by meeting those standards.

Now if youre going to argue that wont work because people wont care, then why exactly is socialism which depends on far more people across an entire economic region giving a ****, going to to be more successful?

I can only think that idealogy prevent socialists from accepting the market works and can be used to accomplish good things.

Oh and the second problem I have is with the SUs *banning* coke. Who gave them the right to make the decision for the students as to what they can and cannot drink? Whilst I share the SUs obvious contempt for their supposed flock imposed solutions rarely work, especially when coke is sold in shops just outside the campus and the students actual mindset has not been informed or educated whatsoever.

No wonder they told the SU to stfu and unban the coke, no one bothered to explain and give them the credit to make their own choice.

*cough*Saddam Hussein*cough*Sands own comments*cough

He wasnt inherently evil. He took evil actions, defining himself as an evil person rather than simply a person. You are not evil or comparable to Saddam simply because You and saddam were both humans. Be responsible for your own actions and let Saddam be responsible for his own.

Libertarians. Gosh, but I do hate you guys so.

Well I must admit to some contempt for socialists who seem determined to remove free will from humanity, in favour of a benevolent dictatorship of some sort.

Redleslie

Once again Sand treats us to his singular view of reality.

Originally posted by Sand
I know, which is why socialist based efforts to improve worker conditions are a waste of time.

Hmmmm.....

Originally posted by Sand
there are shared cultural values which we can refer to as European or Western...womens rights, secularism, the right to free exspression and worship, the right to vote and a representitive government, and lets not even talk about the host of rights socialism has brought about in the western world. The above rights are fairly unique in the world.

halkar

I don't have problem with capitalism and globalisation but I have problem of their implementation with bully tactics of the capitalist world. Take it from the poor and give to rich. Poor gets poorer, rich gets richer.
So chewy, you drive a nice car, have a mortgage, shop at Tesco, doesn't the rest of the world have the right to do so ? While you are sitting in your nice car and watching your news in your confy chair about the rest of the world being used and abused and shopping at tesco where probably most of the stuff was collected and packed by 5-10 year old kids, do you think you have a fair deal or are you just too sellfish to care? Why not swap your nice car and house and credit card with one of those poor ones for a while and see how your view is?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
I feel Governments can serve a useful role, but only in certain fields.

we need to ensure that every transactions includes the cost of the impacts it will have on 3rd parties

Think about how those two go together. How do we ensure that every transactin includes the cost of the impacts it will have on every third party? Will these really result in 'small government'?

To start from the beginning, how can we ensure that one transaction includes the costs of its impacts on third parties? Take the classic example of the factory polluting a nearby river. The transaction in which people buy the products of the factory does not initially include the cost of that pollution and the cost of cleaning it up - as a result, a higher volume of the transaction will occur than is socially optimal and the river will be severely polluted. To ensure a proper balance of costs from the transaction we need a higher power (i.e. government) that represents the social interest to be able to alter the terms of the transaction to reflect the wider costs. One way to do this is to give some group property rights over the river, but even in this case the details of those property rights will not be relevant in the absence of detailed regulations.

Just about every transaction you can think of affects third parties in some way that is not reflected in its initial costs. If we are to balance all these out it will require a lot of research and intervention. It is typically not in the immediate interests of the immediate parties to the transactions to do all this - it requires a higher power acting in the social interest. Essentially, you're asking government to do a lot more than it already does. Correcting externalities requires government - correcting every externality requires a lot of government. Simply hoping that externalities will be magically compensated for in the absence of a power intervening in the social interest is completely naive.

Sand

Why not swap your nice car and house and credit card with one of those poor ones for a while and see how your view is?

How was your experience? Enlightening I trust?

Think about how those two go together. How do we ensure that every transactin includes the cost of the impacts it will have on every third party? Will these really result in 'small government'?

When you accept that the government has a role then you accept that taxation is the often best way to factor in costs or subsidies to reach the social optimum. Private schools would receive significant tax breaks, if not being entirely tax free. Chemical Factories would have to pay for pollution permits, the supply of which would be determined by the government - the cost being determined perhaps by the actual cost of cleaning up the pollution. People who want to use their cars in congested areas of town would be taxed to encourage a reduction of the congestion.

If we are to balance all these out it will require a lot of research and intervention.

Quite a lot less than the cradle to the grave idealogy of socialism which imposes on the government the responsibility of checking up on every single citizen and adjusting policy to meet their needs.

halkar

Originally posted by Sand
How was your experience? Enlightening I trust?
.

My experience can not be told by words but try it, it is very enlightining. There are plenty charities that sends volunteers to various parts of the world. Unless you only prefer to sit on your chair and study until you get your fat chair and pay cheque and brag about your car house and shops while people out there dies so that you can enjoy your luxuries.
This is the capitalism I don't want.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Quite a lot less than the cradle to the grave idealogy of socialism which imposes on the government the responsibility of checking up on every single citizen and adjusting policy to meet their needs.

What an odd sentence. Government shouldn't adjust policy to meet people's needs?

Nevertheless, the point stands. A government that has the role you want - ensuring that "every transactions includes the cost of the impacts it will have on 3rd parties" - would be much 'bigger' and more interventionist than the government we have now.

GeorgeBush

Im a capitalist and proud of it. I want the american dream, I want a big house a big car lots of money no head aches, no worries about where the next buck is going to come from or wondering if the country will fix its infastructure mess, the roads, the rail, airports, hostpitals and the like.

'To get rich is good' chinese leader

Capitalism is the only system that works and those loosers that come out on the street whining and complaining should be put on a education programme about the merits of capitalism because they havent obviously lived in ireland in teh 1980s. Anyone who turns up to these socalist/Comummists demos should go over to the eastern countries of the E.U. and have a demo for the day. Those words are dirty words out there and rightly so!!

As for the war in Iraq and the use of Shannon. WEll Im in favour of that too. Im not going to live through the likes of the 1970's again. The arabs are going to have to learn that they are supplying us with our oil for the next 50 odd years and get used to it. The military intervention in Iraq was correct, we need the oil secured. Its a shame with all the collateral damage.

Since Ireland relies on the USA and Britian the least it can do is help out and give US troops (who are putting their lives for us) use of Shannon. The fact that Shannon actually gets money from the US military is a bonus!!

Im sick of all these whiners complaining about the war in Iraq or the use of Shannon. WEre helping those iraqis out, stop complaining :mad: :mad: God Bless America

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Private schools would receive significant tax breaks, if not being entirely tax free. Chemical Factories would have to pay for pollution permits, the supply of which would be determined by the government - the cost being determined perhaps by the actual cost of cleaning up the pollution. People who want to use their cars in congested areas of town would be taxed to encourage a reduction of the congestion.

Brilliant concept. You're only missing one small thing.

Exactly how do you do anything about big businesses corrupting the government to work in their favour, thus removing the enforcement of social consciousness (e.g. making the chemical company pay for its pollution credit because pollution is bad, m'kay, rather than having a government explain why it would cost the company, the country, and the individual too much to put these charges in place, and then conclude that it would therefore be the inappropriate to charge their large sponsor for that nasty pollution, especailly when the pollution is really just another one of those issues that those tree-hugging lefties are blowing out of all proportion, damn their eyes.

Its very easy to point out the problems in socialist theory - e.g. that the people don't care enough to make it work for anyone- but to argue that this means a capitalist approach must be better whilst turning a blind eye to the equally massive implementational holes in your chosen model - e.g. that people don't care enough to make it solve the problems instead of making themselves rich - is hardly the most balanced of arguments.

jc

Sand

My experience can not be told by words but try it, it is very enlightining. There are plenty charities that sends volunteers to various parts of the world. Unless you only prefer to sit on your chair and study until you get your fat chair and pay cheque and brag about your car house and shops while people out there dies so that you can enjoy your luxuries.

A friend of mine tried it. She found it very enlightening. Shed never do it again - you wont blame me if im a bit , discouraged, by her experience.

What an odd sentence. Government shouldn't adjust policy to meet people's needs?

The question is how much research must a government do to perceive the needs of every person and ensure they are met?

And how much research must an individual do to perceive their own needs and ensure theyre met?

Whose going to end up with the best approximation of their needs? The government or the individual?

Nevertheless, the point stands. A government that has the role you want - ensuring that "every transactions includes the cost of the impacts it will have on 3rd parties" - would be much 'bigger' and more interventionist than the government we have now.

Hardly - Ill stick with the education example. In a socialist model the state must provide the school, the teachers, must be involved at every level from cirriculum to getting the roof patched. The government has to be an expert on the education system.

In the "3rd party" model, the government must simply ask - is education a good or a bad thing? Assuming its good it gives tax breaks to firms setting up schools, encouraging more investment in education. The parents then place their kids in the school. If they dont like the school or the kids arent meeting their grades due to porr quality service then the kids will be placed in another school.

All the government has to know here is whether it wants more education facilities or less, and adjust taxes accordingly. After that it takes care of itself.

Exactly how do you do anything about big businesses corrupting the government to work in their favour, thus removing the enforcement of social consciousness (e.g. making the chemical company pay for its pollution credit because pollution is bad, m'kay, rather than having a government explain why it would cost the company, the country, and the individual too much to put these charges in place, and then conclude that it would therefore be the inappropriate to charge their large sponsor for that nasty pollution, especailly when the pollution is really just another one of those issues that those tree-hugging lefties are blowing out of all proportion, damn their eyes.

Ban private donations of any type to politicians? This is something that ought to be done under a socialist model as well, but its less likely as a socialist model grants the state extraordinary powers in just about every sphere and a politician on the right committee can get a good price for his services. On a stripped down, small government the government has far less influence so it is less attractive to bribery.

Its very easy to point out the problems in socialist theory

Yes, it is.

but to argue that this means a capitalist approach must be better whilst turning a blind eye to the equally massive implementational holes in your chosen model

Whilst I didnt mention it, its a problem that is not any less likely to beset socialist governments. Using the possibility of it to criticise models other than socialist models whilst ignoring the fact its at least as big a problem for socialist governments, if not more so isnt too balanced either.

halkar

Originally posted by Sand
A friend of mine tried it. She found it very enlightening. Shed never do it again - you wont blame me if im a bit , discouraged, by her experience...

Well you can continue your studies and make much better of yourself, brag about your capitalism and you might get a nice manager job with one of your oil companies for top $$$ with your big V8 SUV to take you to your chair to decide about the poor Iraq's oil while they, on donkeys try to get their work in oil wells for peanuts under the slavement of your capitalist government. Do you give a sh!t? Nope, too confortable to care about. While you are at it you can buy some shares of security companies as looks like they will be rocketing in coming years with money grabbing capitalists new way of filling their pockets. By invading and slaving other countries that probably half of their people can't even point on map. But anyhow life goes on and who cares!!

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
The question is how much research must a government do to perceive the needs of every person and ensure they are met?

And how much research must an individual do to perceive their own needs and ensure theyre met?

Whose going to end up with the best approximation of their needs? The government or the individual?

The whole point of the externalities argument is that the parties to the transaction won't perceive (or will ignore) the costs and benefits to others, while others won't be able to do anything about the consequences they face since they're not parties to the transaction. Hence it's impossible by leaving it up to individual action to ensure that "every transactions includes the cost of the impacts it will have on 3rd parties". Externalities are a form of market failure which can only be corrected by intervention by a third party. By definition, governments define the terms by which other parties can legally intervene, or they can intervene themselves. So balancing the costs and benefits of every transaction (which you claim to want), even if it were possible, would involve a massively greater amount of government regulation and intervention.

It's funny, Sand. While you say it's easy to point out the flaws in a socialist system, it's also very easy to point out the flaws in a free market system using your words.

In the "3rd party" model, the government must simply ask - is education a good or a bad thing? Assuming its good it gives tax breaks to firms setting up schools, encouraging more investment in education. The parents then place their kids in the school. If they dont like the school or the kids arent meeting their grades due to porr quality service then the kids will be placed in another school.

That might work if all the government was worried about was that there were some schools somewhere providing some education to some people. But a government that wanted enough schools for the whole population, covering the whole country, providing a consistent and sufficiently high standard of education to all children regardless of income couldn't and wouldn't rely on such a system, because it is incapable of providing such a result. Such governments have had a habit of getting elected around the world, and they have had a habit of insituting a variety publicly funded educational systems that do provide such a results or come very close, and which are in effect closer to socialist policy than the free market.

To put it another way, your proposed system breaks your own law of balancing every external cost and benefit. The system you propose would deliver a very different service if any to those on low incomes than it would to those on high incomes. Not only would this procuce a lower level of general education in the population, it would greatly contribute to much greater inequality, with all the political and social problems that brings. If a government had to correct for these costs, it would end up abolishing the free market in education and instituting something that is basically more socialist.

Sand

Well you can continue your studies and make much better of yourself, brag about your capitalism and you might get a nice manager job with one of your oil companies for top $$$ with your big V8 SUV to take you to your chair to decide about the poor Iraq's oil while they, on donkeys try to get their work in oil wells for peanuts under the slavement of your capitalist government. Do you give a sh!t? Nope, too confortable to care about. While you are at it you can buy some shares of security companies as looks like they will be rocketing in coming years with money grabbing capitalists new way of filling their pockets. By invading and slaving other countries that probably half of their people can't even point on map. But anyhow life goes on and who cares!!

If your point is that people in the developed world dont care about genocide, famine and economic disaster far away then youre right. I dont see what this has to do with capitalism. Why do you think unions are against globalisation? Do you think they want to see economic growth in the third world? A safe, stable and cheap workforce that will take away their jobs? The unions dont care about them, theyd prefer they died in droves rather than the unions workforce having to go to the bother of retraining.

But thats life. We in the developed world dont care.

Hence it's impossible by leaving it up to individual action to ensure that "every transactions includes the cost of the impacts it will have on 3rd parties". Externalities are a form of market failure which can only be corrected by intervention by a third party. By definition, governments define the terms by which other parties can legally intervene, or they can intervene themselves.

I agree - As I said I see some roles for governments. Ensuring that the external costs are factored in to the cost of a transaction is one of those roles.

So balancing the costs and benefits of every transaction (which you claim to want), even if it were possible, would involve a massively greater amount of government regulation and intervention.

Now this is where we disagree. Youve not offered any evidence or even a practical example to show why this claim of yours is logical.

Under this model a government need only ask itself - theres a lot of plastic bags floating around, do we like this? No. Lets put a charge on the use of plastic bags to pay for their cleanup and to disacourage their use. Thats their involvement over and done with.

Its up to the individuals then to decide whether they A) need plastic bags so much that theyre willing to pay the charge (in which case the cleanup is paid for ), or What alternative suits them best to use instead. The government doesnt have to go to the bother of researching this and determining it for them.

The same goes for pollution.... Dont like the fact a factory is giving off atmospheric pollutants? Then charge them for some given unit of pollutant they give off. Thats it. Thats the government involvement over with.

Its up to the Factory owners to decide if they should continue operation at all with the charge, or if they are going to continue to determine what is the most cost effecient way to do it? Theyd know best being in the particular business theyre in. And even better, because their profit driven capitalist scumbags they want to increase their profits, so they have an interest in cutting pollution as low as they can to avoid the charge as much as possible.

On the otherhand the government would have to research the production process, research the technology thats out their to reduce pollutants and then decide what technology should be fitted. Once the factory met those standards they have no further incentive to reduce pollution. So the government will have to return and update the regulations every few years.

Honestly, where are you seeing the government having to do more work under a 3rd party model than youd see in a socialist model?

That might work if all the government was worried about was that there were some schools somewhere providing some education to some people. But a government that wanted enough schools for the whole population, covering the whole country, providing a consistent and sufficiently high standard of education to all children regardless of income couldn't and wouldn't rely on such a system, because it is incapable of providing such a result.

So what youre saying is that there would be areas and regions without schools? Where parents would be willing to send their kids to school? And there wouldnt be anyone willing to come in and set up a private school to satisfy that demand? Sorry - I know socialists have a problem with the concept of making money, but that doesnt mean people in general do, does it?

The system you propose would deliver a very different service if any to those on low incomes than it would to those on high incomes.

Would it? Competition between schools even in low income areas would mean schools would have an interest in gaining and keeping a good standard of education so as to attract pupils, as more pupils=more money. Theres no such interest on the part of schools under a socialist model, though socialist models have been experimenting with league tables and the like in some ham fisted attempt to fake competition between schools.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand

Under this model a government need only ask itself - theres a lot of plastic bags floating around, do we like this? No. Lets put a charge on the use of plastic bags to pay for their cleanup and to disacourage their use. Thats their involvement over and done with.

Its up to the individuals then to decide whether they A) need plastic bags so much that theyre willing to pay the charge (in which case the cleanup is paid for ), or What alternative suits them best to use instead. The government doesnt have to go to the bother of researching this and determining it for them.

The government has to carry out research into (a) whether it likes plastic bags, (b) what the effect of charges of various levels would be on consumers, businesses, the environment, and (c) whether there would be any further consequences they haven't initially thought of. You seem to be suggesting that government should simply go around introducing all sorts of new taxes and regulations just to see what will happen and without having actually thought it through. I'm sure if governments actually did this you'd be the first to complain. An even more basic reason why they shouldn't is that policies take time to formulate, legislate and implement. Simply trying out any old thing would be a nightmare.

Quite a lot of research went into the plastic bag tax, and when it was introduced lots of people complained that it was a 'nanny state' policy. Now consider whatan incredibly simple policy it was compared to the complexity of areas like education, health, housing, transport, the environment, and so on. In these areas, the need for extensive research is much greater, and intervention has to be a lot more complex and sensitive, since blunt instruments like the bag tax won't work.

And as you say, the individual was still able to choose after the imposition of the bag tax. Balancing the costs and benefits of transactions didn't reduce their ability to choose, so don't assume that balancing the costs of every transaction (which as I say will require bigger government) will reduce individual freedom. The idea is to create better choice, not less choice.

So what youre saying is that there would be areas and regions without schools? Where parents would be willing to send their kids to school? And there wouldnt be anyone willing to come in and set up a private school to satisfy that demand? Sorry - I know socialists have a problem with the concept of making money, but that doesnt mean people in general do, does it?

It won't happen precisely because of what you've already identified: the full costs and benefits of education are not reflected in the terms of the immediate transaction. Education is a merit good - good for the individual and for the society as a whole. But there's a problem of incomplete information - the benefits are uncertain and far in the future, the costs (especially the opportunity costs) significant and immediate. So people don't value it highly enough. So they won't make 'rational' decisions in the market. So the market by itself won't deliver an adequate level of education.

This is recognised as a classic example of the kind of thing you said earlier government should do more about - now you're saying they should ignore all those indirect costs and benefits and leave it to the market. Which is it?

The same goes for pollution.... Dont like the fact a factory is giving off atmospheric pollutants? Then charge them for some given unit of pollutant they give off. Thats it. Thats the government involvement over with.

And that requires research to determine the right level of charge, and enforcement to make sure that it's paid. Governments meet a huge amount of opposition doing this for something as obviously harmful as pollution. But remember you said we should do this for every transaction which has any costs or benefits which affect people who aren't the immediate parties. They don't do this at the moment, so it follows that it involves a huge amount of extra work for the government.

Honestly, where are you seeing the government having to do more work under a 3rd party model than youd see in a socialist model?

Firstly, I'm not saying anything here which isn't completely consistent with your original statement. You're the one who's contradicting it. Make up your mind.

Secondly, read what I actually said. I'm not saying there'd be more work under your '3rd party' system than under a socialist one. That may be the case, I don't know - I think it's an unrealistic model anyway so it's a fairly irrelevant point. What I'm saying is that your model would certainly involve a lot more government intervention in economic life. Call that socialism if you like.

Would it? Competition between schools even in low income areas would mean schools would have an interest in gaining and keeping a good standard of education so as to attract pupils, as more pupils=more money.

Yes, it would. A differntial level of service is inherent in a market-led system, so there would obviously be very different educational outcomes. If you think this wouldn't happen, you must be the only one. If anyone even bothered providing schooling to the poorest people (which given the costs and risks seems very unlikely, when there are so many better ways to make money) they would know that their client group - those who can't afford anything better - can't afford to be choosy and so wouldn't have to bother providing a high-quality service.

To sum up: you said you wanted all the costs and benefits of every transaction accounted for. This logically involves more government intervention. The kind of intervention will vary in each case. In some cases such as plastic bags a simple tax is the best solution. In cases like education (where a consistent, non-discriminatory and high quality service is usually called for), it will tend to involve publicly funded and publicly regulated services. And it's not just me saying this - you can find it all in a basic economics textbook. Usually it's you telling me all about the wonders of economic theory. Why do you find it so hard to accept now?

chewy

btw the bulk of the initial post was from somebody else not me....
the last three bits were me should have made that clearer...


okay so not bad discussion.... but didn't get the reply i was quite looking for i was looking for capitalist rightwingers fianna faillers who who would be doing something to make it clear they were against bush's current foreign policies

altough you can't just blame bush ie the project for a new america....

skimmed through the postings but did anybody take up that point.... only one person said it was activist fault....

it seems to theres a great range of people worried about the way/america and therefore the world is going its just some are willing to let politicians sort it out and some are not.... but this worries me as you can see with fg or more markeldy with the conservative opposition in england, they hound and pester blairs actions but would actually go further then him if they were in power so can't rely on opposition politicians to keep the gov in check?