If free markets leads to prosperity, why are third world nations still in the shape they are in? (bankruptcy, purchase)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So are we protesting that life demands effort? Or demanding that others provide us with a particular occupation because we studied for it?
And there is nothing wrong with working at Walmart if you have a STEM degree and are not good enough to land a job in the field you studied for. Taking an interim job while revising your game plan is honorable.
Just because you have a stem degree doesn't mean that somebody will create a job for you. Jobs are not created because of that. This kind of argument misses exactly the point. It's not your degree, or label, or whatever on paper. It's your actual skills. This mentality says hey I have a paper that says this degree, so where is my job?
Plus there are personal things too that are unique to each individual. Did this person party through college? Was the person douchebag? Did they make terrible decisions? Wasted money? Refused to do an internship?
Well of course there are costs. Life is a collection of costs. For humans and earthworms. So the fact that we observe that acquiring a new skill will involve some costs is irrelevant. Figure out how to save up money and design a timeline that integrates paying the costs of retraining and acquiring the new skill. All of this is simple logic and basic discipline. The mistake is thinking in terms of entitlement. There is none. All you get is freedom, the rest is up to you.
I would add a modification to your statement. Entitlements are reasonable in special cases such as a terrible illness, disability, and so on.
But generally speaking, one should make an effort.
The logical fallacy of the above view is that it assumes that if you end up with more and someone with less, your more comes primarily from your resources. It ignores the common possibility of people who worked harder and achieved more with less than the individual who is assumed to have had less at the beginning. If that were true, immigrants who come from other countries with far less resources than our citizens wouldn't succeed so well here.
The core problem is that people look at end results and then retrofit a fiction about who started where.
If it's possible to identify who has more and less resources and provide those with less resources more of it, you may still see the same results.
But an even deeper crisis of that view is that it's subjective in defining who needs want. You can always provide more. Failure, then, becomes someone's fault. It is never enough. It encourages abuse of the intentional, but also complacency. It also encourages preferential treatment of certain groups and individuals and unfair treatments of others. It ultimately becomes "A should get this while B shouldn't". It is "what I say goes". This is not equality. It is corruption.
These are very damaging to the competitiveness of individuals and this country in the global economy.
Yep a Global Socialistic Dictatorship is the ONLY answer. Have fun with that one.
Yes it is coming, and Yes it is all in the Bible.
The best investment anyone can have is something most people can get for free if they look in the right places.. the BIBLE. but don't take my word for it.. see for yourself.
There's a place locally giving them out.. I wonder how many people have collected. My guess is not too many. what a shame.
Well of course there are costs. Life is a collection of costs. For humans and earthworms. So the fact that we observe that acquiring a new skill will involve some costs is irrelevant. Figure out how to save up money and design a timeline that integrates paying the costs of retraining and acquiring the new skill. All of this is simple logic and basic discipline. The mistake is thinking in terms of entitlement. There is none. All you get is freedom, the rest is up to you.
You live in a fantasy world of unimaginable proportions. You ignored the entire content of my argument. Some people cannot pay those costs or can pay very few of them. Either address the argument or don't pretend you responded to it.
Sorry, let me follow up to explain exactly how deficient the answer was. You say "Figure out how to save up money and design a timeline that integrates paying the costs of retraining..." What? You can't be a real person. No person could dismiss something so enormous with a mere hand-wave. "Figure out how to save money?" Isn't that the sub-question we were attempting to answer.... that getting a job or job(s) that would allow one to save money would require retraining and acquisition of new skills!? Or if people all worked quite literally to death there would be even FEWER jobs for people of low skill. Of course, whenever I bring up the fact that there are far more unemployed and underemployed people than jobs, you simply say they should get new skills!
Your simple logic is a circular logic fallacy. Ultimately, your argument, boiled to its distilled essence is just your just world fallacy, which I and many other posters have pointed out is empirically invalid over and over and over.
There is no freedom without equality. Either there are entitlements or there is no reason for society; the state of nature (with all of its glorious "freedom") would protect all of the things you value equally well; indeed it would "protect" them much better. Few are willing to subject themselves to such a perverse idea of freedom because most (deep down) realize that freedom is not a mere concept but an actualization. Without the ability to exercise one's freedom - with resources at the ready - freedoms don't really exist at all.
The free market is the equivalent to theoretical physics in a frictionless vacuum. Free market hypotheticals (about efficiency, choice, etc...) only exist as hypotheticals because they conflict with actual human behavior, actual human needs, and history. And yes, with much smaller governments as a percentage of much smaller economies (on a per capita basis), of course many of those markets are freer.
In the absence of regulators, you will have monopolists, mobsters, cartels, unscrupulous vendors, etc... ad infinitum. The free market is also pretty poor at creating baseline services and infrastructure (high initial cost, long time horizon), which is why the Communist countries - while terrible on human rights and deserving of scorn in a non-economic sense - grew very fast from extreme poverty to industrial competitiveness. There may be a role for the market in society, but it must be fettered.
The free-market works very well when it is not monopolized or rigged. Unfortunately in all countries both of the above points exist.
Communist countries grew very fast from extreme poverty to industrial competitiveness because the commonly created wealth was not appropriated by private individuals or organisations. However the state also stole privately created wealth. Capitalist countries appropriate commonly created wealth, a massive problem in Capitalist system, and steal private wealth. Current Capitalist systems are the worst of both. Current Capitalist systems discourage enterprise by stealing a part of a man's wages and takes a cut of sales transactions.
What is the best way? Everyone says a combination of the two, which makes sense. But how?
Reclaim commonly created wealth to use for public services.
Leave private wealth in private pockets.
Leave the government to police the free market and ensure no monopolies or rigging.
Natural monopolies to remain in public hands and run at cost to keep the basics as cheap as possible for the free market to run on.
With slavery a slave owner had to house and feed the slave and his family. This costed. After slavery was made illegal the slaver was free of all these costs and had a large pool of even cheaper labour to call on at will to lower his cost base.
The best investment anyone can have is something most people can get for free if they look in the right places.
That is not investment, that is appropriating wealth others created. It is appropriating "economic rent". It is called "rent seeking" In some countries that would be stealing.
Rent seeking is the big problem of the Capitalist system. Solve that and all falls into place - a fair system.
You live in a fantasy world of unimaginable proportions. You ignored the entire content of my argument. Some people cannot pay those costs or can pay very few of them. Either address the argument or don't pretend you responded to it.
I don't want to hear "cannot pay". It's loser speak and is not in my vocabulary. Your philosophy is run-of-the-mill whoa-is-me determinism, and I don't tolerate that type of thinking. If you need money to get training, take 3 menial jobs and save it! Then get the training and kick ass at the job. It's not a choice. The scampering gray squirrel does not bemoan the fact that there are not enough nuts because the other luckier squirrels already took them. He gets his squirrelass moving and takes care of survival. Collectivists and unfair-world ideologues need to jettison their loser left-wing Harvard philosophy and look to the scampering gray squirrel for the correct life model.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
