Democrats and liberals: Why are you not more liberal?

Post Reply New Topic

o ok no problem
Im sure coming up with an analytical clockwise spin
is easier than a solution to the problem

Easier than a solution, and easier to get a solution when you have the proper spin too.

Centripetal reason?
or more dizzily nauseous misdirection?

Ha, try to shoot me, I'm a 2nd Amendment man at heart. *stands with a USSR flag*
------
Good, a red brother with a black flag. Keep it flyin'.

You know, I dun mind the voting process but I take the stance that it's an illusion of choice. They still gotta listen to you either way, voted or not. You're a constituent. It's their responsibility to keep you in mind. But my money's on Obama... Hillary is more likely to crack a whip or a hip - than crack heads for progress.

No, the fact that certain analytical frameworks are better than others for figuring out a problem. If we only look at wages and profits then we end up ignoring the determining factors behind those wages and those profits.

Guy?


I'm a free-market anarcho-communist. I'm guessing that puts me pretty far left on your scale. . .

and you can try and shoot me.

whatever that scale might be. Would you, kindly, define it? Most people identify at least two axes of political positioning- social and economic, with

(modern, American) republican = More government control of social issues, "less government control" of economic ones
(modern, American) democrat = Less government control of social issues, more government control of economic ones
Populist= "more government control" of economic and social
and
Libertarian= "less government control" of economic and social


My perentheses are because "less control" on the economic side entails what I see more as different control-- it's still all about maintaining a definition of private property, and enforcing that definition. . . which definition re-enforces the ability of the wealthy to become wealthier, without a genuine recourse to justice, merit, or ethics.

On the question of how the governments spends what is taxed out of the wealthy, let's look at the governments of, say, Germany and Finland. . . In those countries, the wealthiest ten percent of the population holds less than half of the total wealth. They're both very high tax countries, and I'd say the governments in both places do a much better job representing the interests of their inhabitants than, say. . . the US government.

Does the government always do a halfway decent job? Of course not.
That's why participatory democracy (currently endangered/extinct in the US) is essential.

On the question of whether one could sock it to the wealthy without hurting the working class? I think so. In support:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri ... ealth.html

How liberal are we supposed to be?

How are you defining free market? I thought most anarchists wanted systems that were based upon non-market interactions.

I dont have a scale or a gun


My bad
I should have known not to
use sarcasm on an AS board

Im going out on a limb and trust you this once.

Ok lets take another look at it. I choose Detroit, a precursor and microcosm of what the US will soon be. Detroit used to employ many thousands of hard working blue collar workers. They earned enough money working in auto plants to provide a proud living for their families. These jobs are now gone and will never return.

Explain if you can where these jobs went, why they left, and what types of jobs will replace them. Feel free to use whatever analytical framework you like but please depict the future of Detroit based on available remaining jobs and the determining factors behind the wages associated with these jobs.

Bonus Questions:

Whos greed is more responsible for
the loss of these jobs? Owner or worker?

How do the people of Detroit actually feel
VS how they should feel

What, if anything, should they do about it

These jobs can have gone 2 places. They could have disappeared completely due to better automation processes, a conclusion borne out by the fact that even though we have had job losses, we still have growth in manufacturing, or these jobs could have been outsourced to other individuals in other places, such as Mexico or China who were willing to do these jobs more cheaply and thus provide more product for less resources. As for the jobs that will replace these jobs, that is hard to predict, especially in terms of what we mean by "replace". The upcoming jobs will not require the same skill sets certainly, however, in the US it is likely that service or technically oriented jobs will remain here. The issue is that with technology, easy jobs can be either outsourced or computerized, and this can have a downward pressure on wages because workers will have to always compete against replacements. As for Detroit itself, its fate is not something so deterministic, it may adapt to the new economy and grow, or it might not. Detroit could very well switch over to IT or finance or some other industry as a more dominant industry, but I don't know exactly what will happen in the area. Frankly, America itself will probably switch to other industries as well rather than manufacturing, which can be done more cheaply elsewhere, and we will become more of a post-Industrial economy.

That really depends, frankly, greed is the reason why these jobs existed in the first place. There is research by economists arguing that high wage premiums by unions caused the downfall of unions, which I presented in another thread. Frankly, I would argue that the loss of these jobs is really a matter of efficiency and not necessarily greed. I would not use the moralistic terms that you use at all to describe this because I don't see greed as problematic in this instance, the jobs themselves were originally created by greed. Heck, frankly, US auto makers have been losing ground anyway, so the greed of US auto may not even be something we should place a lot of blame on, but rather consumer greed or some other force.


I would guess that the people of Detroit feel pretty hurt by this. Frankly, I do not dabble in the business of determining how the people of detroit should feel. I would argue that their job losses were caused by creative destruction though, and that this is how a good economy should work.

Accept what happened, and try to improve their finances by whatever other means are available to them, if we are assuming that their goal is to maximize their ability to function within society. The job losses were not arbitrary but rather based upon competition, some other method is apparently better at creating products than the original method.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 11 Apr 2008, 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm really more of a college student, and my grades are really taking a beating from bothering with you weirdoes. Have fun.

Spin it baby

In my opinion your refusal to address the fact that the hard working American has been sold out by the greedy corporate elites in an attempt to further line their pockets, discredits you completely. You must have seen the truth for what it is and chose not to address it for highly suspect reasons of your own. Perhaps you are making a mint oppressing suborinates and this alone justifies their continued rape. You would not be alone. The future of America has not been lost, but rather sold to the highest bidder.

Question #729

The businesses that move American
manufacturing jobs to third world countries
do so because

A.

Amercia is world renown for its
low quality and faulty craftsmanship

B.

American workers demand too much
money to do the same job

C.

Businesses can exploit foreign laborers
with much cheaper wages

Well, I simply see both individuals as simply acting as they should. The greedy corporate elites should pursue profits as doing so will lead to attempts to make industries use resources more efficiently in order to please their customers. Actually, I study economics, whether or not that is a highly suspect reason or not is for you to determine, but economists tend to promote the creation of a societal order that works no matter what any individual's objectives may be, so greed vs not really doesn't matter to us. We also tend to support free trade, and profit maximization as important and good things for the market economy. Frankly, in my opinion, your populistic spin on everything indicates to me that you haven't actually studied a lot of economics but rather are simply an ideologue who tries to look at the market as some moralistic play.

good call

maybe if I bury my nose in an economics book
it will allow me to forget the faces of my fellow man

its worth some thought

(my apologies in advance for the sarcasm)