From: bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker)
Subject: Re: Wages (was Re: Libertarian history
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:07:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.200148.2564@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr (Charles Perez) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.020601.24401@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul15.162044.28197@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.uucp (Charles Perez) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul11.165504.23573@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Jul11.040220.544@NOC.Vitalink.COM> rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan) writes:
>[stuff about minimum wage deleted]
>>>>>
>>>>>Does anybody here think it's worth the effort of referring Alex to
>>>>>Hazlett's "Economics in One Lesson"?
>>>>
>>>>What you call "ignorance in Economics" really means "failure to 
>>>>believe the capitalist interpretation of economics" I am not ignorant
>>>>merely I am not a capitalist. I believe that as long as the incentive barrier
>>>>is of a minimum steepness (relative wage levels for jobs of different
>>>>strain,difficulty,need of expertise) then people will have the incentive
>>>>they need to work hard,and the economy will prosper. There is nothing to be
>>>>gained by allowing this barrier to become steeper than needed by so called
>>>>"market forces", this is merely the result of an entrenched ruling class
>>>>using their money to make power which they use to gear the system to be
>>>>even more in their favor. Thus the result of your market forces is the
>>>>rich getting more powerful and the poor becoming disenfranchised and
>>>>desperate thus turning to crime drugs violence and all the other outlets
>>>>of hopeless frustration.
>>>
>>>Demonstrate this, please! Show how pure capitalism makes things worse
>>>and how pure statism makes things better. Show why market forces are
>>>in fact arbitrary, and why they are not the sum of individual people
>>>dealing with each other.
>>
>>Pure capitalism is as nonexistant and silly and idealistic and untenable
>>and simply impossible as Marxist communism. I never have proposed
>>pure statism just a controlled market economy.
>
>Arguing that the pure form of either capitalism or statism is bad but
>that a mix of the two is good is more complicated than arguing for one
>or the other. What are we that we need both? You have not answered that.
>
>>As it is worded in the
>>German constitution a "social market economy" as opposed to a free market
>>economy like in the US.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^???????????
>The US is *not* a free-market economy, it is a mixed economy.
>
>>Market forces are NOT arbitrary. but neither
>>does government have to give everything up to the whims of the rich
>>elite playing money flipping games.
>
>So, everything I do with my own money makes me the victim or perpetrator
>of "rich elite's money flipping games"?
>
>>A balnced combination of state
>>and private enterprise simply works best. As I have said time and
>>time again my views are completely pragmatic and come from the political
>>systems operating in countries which I see as being the happiest.
>>I have seen these to be social democracies with social market economies.
>
>Like the USA?
NO like Germany Norway Netherlands Denmark ...
Countries with SOCIAL democratic as opposed to LIBERAL democratic
constitutions.
>>
>>>>For an economy to prosper NOONE needs to go
>>>>without the basic necessities of equal access to heath care,the law,
>>>>education,a clean safe sanitary place to live, and enough healthy food.
>>>>Those on state welfare should recieve ALL of these necessities.
>>>
>>>Yeah, sure, and *I* believe that everyone who dies accidentally should
>>>be resurrected. That doesn't make it possible. Indeed, it would be good
>>>for everyone to receive the necessities at all times, but not at the
>>>price of the state having first claim on everyone's lives. What's
>>>worse than not being guaranteed a living is not having a chance to
>>>make your own living, holding your life at the sufferance of the
>>>almighty State, which is what statism amounts to.
>>
>>this is empty Ideology and as I often encounter from american neo-conservative
>>you prefer to debate in a vaccumn than take off the blinkers and look at the
>>way things are done in societies which are more sociologically
>>successful than your own.
>
>Such as the old Soviet Union? Ask any non-Party member of that former
>"republic" whether he held *his* life at the sufferance of the almighty
>Soviet State.
NO If you were actually to pay attention to my argument same as before
GERMANY NETHERLANDS DENMARK etc....
>>There are many countries without poverty and 
>>desperation where the people are in many ways more free than in the USA
>
>Name these countries. Then say what you mean by freedom.

OK once more, NETHERLANDS DENMARK...
>>I absolutely have no understanding of parenoia about the "evil 
>>domineering state"
>
>See the Bolshevik revolution for how such a state might be brought about.
YES I KNOW TOTAL STATISM IS WRONG! SO WHAT! FOR THE Nth TIME THAT IS
NOT MY ARGUMENT!
>>In a democracy the state is US you and me! I believe in 
>>economic as well as political democracy. what do you mean by "Holding your life
>>at the sufference of the almighty state" If it actually means something and 
>>is not simply empty retoric (as it sounds) please explain.
>
>See above for a (very recent) historical example.
>
>>
>>>>In order for
>>>>people to have an incentive to work the minimum wage must be ABOVE this
>>>>minimum. while 60% of the mean income is not a magic number it seems to have
>>>>a general concensus of social democrats like myself of being roughly 
>>>>appropriate. While a market economy is a necessity for a functioning 
>>>>economy (no alternative has worked at all, sorry socialists) the gulf 
>>>>between rich and poor can be controlled to a necessary minimum by
>>>>a progressive income tax system.
>>>
>>>How do the rich get that way?!! Either they earn their money, are
>>>given that money (inherited or otherwise granted to them) or they
>>>expropriate it from those who *did* earn it. Those who earn the money
>>>have hurt no one but the envious. Those who are given money have it
>>>because its earner wanted them to have it, and again, no one is
>>>hurt. Those who take it against their victims' will should be stopped
>>>anyway. So, where do you justify "redistributing" it? You say that
>>>no rich man earns his money? You earn wealth by creating it yourself.
>>>Wealth doesn't come from nowhere, it has to be created. There is
>>>no moral principle that gives those who do not create wealth any 
>>>claim on the lives of those who do.
>>
>>this is hard to argue because here my values are totally different from yours
>>I feel a society is judged on how well it cares for its poor, its sick,
>>how well it educates its children and helps them all to be all they can be,
>>how safe it makes the streets, and how it keeps the cultural traditions
>>of its people alive. NOT how many sheisters get to be MEGARICH!
>
>I wasn't talking about values, I was talking about rights. I defied
>you to come up with a justification for "redistributing" the property
>of the productive rich. You didn't even try to contradict me. As for
>how well a society cares for its needy members, see for yourself what
>the Industrial Revolution did for people's life expectancies,
>particularly poor people's. Then tell me that statism was responsible
>for it.

The difference is I do not think anyone EARNS something and gets to 
keep ALL of it and that is HIS do do what with it as he will. I feel
everyone contributes to society and is rewarded according to their 
contribution.
>>

>>>>So there you have it Capitalism and
>>>>Socialism are not the only two alternatives for economic policy
>>>>they are merely the two which have been proven to be the wrong path
>>>>through the bad examples of the USSR and the USA. what I propose is
>>>>the third path of social democracy and is at present working very
>>>>nicely in a large number of happy prosperous democratic nations.
>>>
>>>The third path *exists* and has always existed in various mixtures in
>>>the USA. Pure laizzes-faire capitalism HAS NEVER EXISTED. The state
>>>has always interfered. So, capitalism has not failed because it
>>>HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED in its pure form. Do you say that the poor person
>>
>>Replace the word capitalism for socialism and it sounds exactly like
>>the many communists I have argued with talking about the exUSSR
>>how ironic!
>
>No, it doesn't. Pure socialism has been tried more than once (see USSR
>& Red China for two examples). It keeps getting corrupted, because
>people can't practice it in its pure form (and live). Totally free
>markets, in contrast, never exist because governments always want to
>stick their nose in. They don't ever *try* laizzes faire capitalism.
>The statist elements are *official*, not a result of corruption.

I wish a real communist would join the argument here so I could point out
how you two are mirror reflections of each other.

>> 
>>>hasn't got a chance? Why is that? Maybe it's 'cause of the obscene
>>>amounts of government paperwork and other controls that all parties
>>>have to wade through just so he can have some paying work? Just tell
>>>me that government doesn't hamper anyone's attempts to earn a living,
>>>then hear me guffaw.
>>
>>SAME as above "SOCIALISM has never worked because never applied right"
>>PMPH! chuckle chuckle!
>
>Actually, it doesn't work because the more you impose, the worse things
>get (see old Soviet Union). No one ever *tries* to apply free-market
>capitalism right (meaning *no* controls, simply protection against
>violence and treachery).

at this point I am reminded of the song "you lift sixteen tons
and whatdya get another day older and deeper in dept..." when I
hear this drivel about how pure enough capitalism has never been
tried. We have seen the result when there are no labor laws
they are universaly recognised as BAD!

>>of course the government "gets in your way occasionally" what would you
>>prefer having to look out for highwaymen on your way to work each morning?
>
>If government is getting in your way, that should mean that the
>government is being of *service*. Ask any small business person
>about her paperwork burden, then track down what each piece of paper
>does in service to the country (meaning its citizens) besides provide
>bureaucrats with jobs.
>
>.sig

OK agreed we streamline industrial regulations reduce the paperwork, I
have no problem with that. This can all be done in a happy compassionate
social democratic society too you know.

ALEX
happy compassionate social democrat.

Xref: sparky alt.activism:13285 talk.politics.misc:35348 alt.individualism:4430