Donald Trump and US politics

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Two things:
1. Economically, you and Rand do not strongly disagree on the problem, so much as the causes and the solution. The villains of Rand's novels are the same sort of people Noam Chomsky or Bernie Bros would demonize -- CEOs of major corporations seeking to monopolize an industry and claim for themselves the unearned product of another man's work, hoping to get rich at everyone else's expense. The difference is that while you blame laissez-faire for this, Rand blames government intervention; her villains lobby government to regulate against their competitiotors and regulate in favor of their own companies (usually by claiming victimhood when their mismanagement cripples their businesses) in order to bias what would otherwise be fair competition. Now consider for a moment that the Bush administration oversaw a $700 billion dollar bailout of banks, mostly large ones with substantial Washington connections, funded by taxpayer money, all because these banks had the hubris to trade in ridiculously risky mortgages, with no handout to banks smart enough to avoid the danger... well let's just say that, if Rand were still alive then, she would rather have seen them all collapse as they rightly deserved. This may be something you have in common with her.
2. The "selfishness" thing should be understood from the context of borderline inhuman discipline. Rand believed that there was only one path that best served any particular individual's best interests, and that each person's duty to themselves (is there any other kind? asks Rand) is to determine this path through reason. Whim, Rand argued, is self-defeating and thus not selfish. This stands in strong contrast with the usual connotation of the term. Rand despised religion, but if somehow she believed in Heaven, she'd argue that whatever path got one there was the most self-serving possible.

Nice post.
1. I agree that who's to blame is not straight forward and government has been a willing partner in many situations. But it is the corporations that willingly poison our air and water and then skip out when its time to clean it all up. It is corporations and CEOs that abuse labor and work against (pay money) government regulations (Politicians also take that money). Unbridled business drives the train.

My opinion on the Bush bailout is that there is a case to made for saving the banks, but only if a step two is taken. That step is to prosecute the directors and senior staff of all those banks and put them in jail and take away all their wealth. The punishment should fit the crime and people were behind the actions that brought the system down. I am not in favor of most government bailouts, but we do it wrong.

2. Selfish people create frameworks to justify their selfishness. That's what Ayn Rand did. Unselfish people think differently. They create different frameworks. To the degree that we get to choose anything, we do get choose how we think about our relationship to others and how to set our priorities. Because we are not a particularly rational species, most people are inconsistent.

Rational self interest doesnt mean you can harm someone to get it. Otherwise people could just walk in your house blast you and set up shop. (which is not a very rational self interest society to live anyway looking over your shoulder all the time for fear of being murdered) Nah Governments duty is to protect liberty until it hurts someone. Air and water quality included.

2. You talk of selfish? What more selfish than stealing money from someone (taxes) and giving to state/corp/others. Democrats have selfish down pat. It's really modern slavery if you think about it. You have to work a good part of year for nothing under threat of jail/fines. In antiquity 3/4 of people were slaves now everyone is even if you only make $10 an hour.

Good post scott, exactly power corrupts. Best to get power away from a just a few hands if you want quality of life wealth and liberty. That means almost non existent gov olny to protect people from harm by malcontents really and invasion. Those banks should have all failed and GM too.

Obviously I dont agree with her views on religion but her econ is solid.

Please, taxes are not theft. Don't spoil a nice discussion with stupid stuff.

Laissez faire economics gives companies the license to perform badly. If you leave them to their own devices, they will take the profitable road over the responsible one. People want to be rich and will abandon responsibility to get there. Owners put their personal wants and above those of their workers and their community. The flood waters around Houston are awash with terrible chemicals from neglected clean up. China is just now trying to curtail its own nasty pollution problem from its years of laissez faire approach to corporate responsibility. Lack of strong government oversight has created terrible pollution all over the world. Ayn Rand's economics are crap.

You say power corrupts. I agree, but that also applies to corporate power. Do you need examples of that? The problem both in government and in corporations is irresponsible people who are powerful and put themselves first over the interests of the community. I don't see that changing any time soon. One path is to restrict the size of corporations and conglomerates worldwide. That would reduce the need for governments to be as powerful as they have become. Then of course there is the Russian example of government as corporate power. Ah well...there are few good solutions.

I'm not a fan of Laissez-Faire = Anarcho-Capitalism. Never have been. That system had its chance to prove itself, and all it did was highlight the glaring flaws that needed to be fixed with responsible legislation. People who think like Aim_Deep are the reason it doesn't work. Business owners thinking they're entitled to doing whatever they want, with no boundaries determining right from wrong. Because money is never wrong. BUT - I'd still prefer Anarcho-Capitalism to full on Socialism, where the government owns/runs everything.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

Please, taxes is not theft.

Of course not! Only a deplorable sort would think that about threatening someone with imprisonment unless they fork over their money.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

If you leave them to their own devices, they will take the profitable road over the responsible one.

How often do you believe these two choices are divergent? If a company treats its customers irresponsibly, don't customers react to make that choice unprofitable? If it treats its workers irresponsibly, don't the workers react in a way that ultimately impacts customer experience negatively? The way I see it, if the public simply knows what companies are up to, it's hard to get away with much.

I do think it is important to protect freedom of speech and assembly for labor such that they can effectively negotiate for better compensation, but in most cases I don't believe those freedoms are under any threat from employers. Labor rarely organizes in earnest, either co-opted by a self-serving gang or simply lethargic; for the most part, people are wageslaves because they're cucks.

There are two ways to govern here: invisible hand and iron fist. The former is about changing incentives such that the profitable road and the responsible road are the same thing, utilizing "speak softly and carry a big stick" policies of rarely used deterrents to keep costs down. The latter, in contrast, simply throws more and more money at enforcement to will people into acting against their selfish impulses. One of these is cost-effective and one is not.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

China is just now trying to curtail its own nasty pollution problem from its years of laissez faire approach to corporate responsibility.

...so you're left of China on economic issues? Just too Laissez-faire for you?

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

I'm not a fan of Laissez-Faire = Anarcho-Capitalism.

Laissez-faire isn't Anarcho-Capitalism. If you take rights for granted, a la the popular "natural rights" theory, then it might seem like they are equivalent. The problem is that no rights are natural, that the invisible hand in an anarchy too often bashes in his neighbor's skull, and that it is only after governments were established guaranteeing the legal infrastructure necessary for "laissez-faire" that armchair political philosophers could begin to assume their benefits without assuming that which grants those benefits. Anarcho-Capitalism is literally a contradiction in terms.

Taxes are really worse than theft. The products of their proceeds threaten us all. Two men (putin or Trump) can kill the earth on whim thanks to taxes. Back when we only had excise taxes or tariff instead of income no way could you build MIC way it is today.

Taxes also make ppl lazy, entitled, and generally children thier whole life. aka moral hazard. You see this with ppl dependent on social security or cant retire because they didnt save and invest. This is why I say I'm wiser than most 65 yd olds at 22. Had a drip at 12 starting at $100 a mo. I put way more in today like $1500-$2000. You saw this childish/entitled behavior all the way up to banks with too big to fail billionaires.

It's really ruinous sociologically having safety net taxes provide.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

I'm not a fan of Laissez-Faire = Anarcho-Capitalism. Never have been. That system had its chance to prove itself, and all it did was highlight the glaring flaws that needed to be fixed with responsible legislation. People who think like Aim_Deep are the reason it doesn't work. Business owners thinking they're entitled to doing whatever they want, with no boundaries determining right from wrong. Because money is never wrong. BUT - I'd still prefer Anarcho-Capitalism to full on Socialism, where the government owns/runs everything.

You have boundaries in Laissez-Faire. Simple - You cant physically hurt someone with your freedoms. Big things like murder to little things like making us drink polluted water from your plant. Other than that lay off and let market work it's magic.


I happen to believe in Global warming is an existential threat to humans/animals/oceans so I'd also be in favor of cutting carbon and methane emissions to what scientists say by govt force if need be.

Global warming is over inflated hysteria. The sea levels will only rise something like 220ft if the polar ice caps completely melt. That's not going to happen over decades, or even a few hundred years. It's going to take many thousands of years. The Earth has been without ice in the polar regions many different times in its history. Nothing we're experiencing now is unprecedented in the slightest.

If you want to discuss taxes, you should start a new thread dedicated to that topic.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

ChanBalam wrote:

Please, taxes is not theft.

Of course not! Only a deplorable sort would think that about threatening someone with imprisonment unless they fork over their money.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

If you leave them to their own devices, they will take the profitable road over the responsible one.

How often do you believe these two choices are divergent? If a company treats its customers irresponsibly, don't customers react to make that choice unprofitable? If it treats its workers irresponsibly, don't the workers react in a way that ultimately impacts customer experience negatively? The way I see it, if the public simply knows what companies are up to, it's hard to get away with much.

I've been I've been an owner or senior manager in business in the US for 4 decades all in the US. The largest company I ran was over $30 million in revenue. I have a pretty good Idea of how owners and senior leadership make decisions. there are companies that act responsibly towards their employees and the environment, but there are many many that don't. Younger, more educated workers are more demanding especially if they are in tech fields. Older, less educated workers are generally screwed. They are taken advantage of on a regular basis and have little recourse except to quit or put up with it. Things have improved over my 40 years and certainly are not as bad as they were in the 1930s.

Regulation has forced many of those improvements. Regulation has reduced pollution everywhere in the country. It is only through regulation that manufacturers have stopped dumping poison and chemical waste in pits, rivers and lakes. The Harvey floods have flushed years of collected waste out of their hidey holes into neighborhoods. In recent years the business response to ACA was to cut hours so their employees would not be full time and the companies could avoid paying for healthcare. You may not remember the leveraged buyout craze from the 80s. I do. It was all about using debt to buy steady cash flowing companies, cut staff, benefits and pay to the bare minimum and put tens of millions in their pockets. Unbridled business men can be pretty terrible.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I do think it is important to protect freedom of speech and assembly for labor such that they can effectively negotiate for better compensation, but in most cases I don't believe those freedoms are under any threat from employers. Labor rarely organizes in earnest, either co-opted by a self-serving gang or simply lethargic; for the most part, people are wageslaves because they're cucks.

Those "cucks" you demean are the poor, uneducated, struggling, unskilled who are taken advantage of by business owners and managers. Nice.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

There are two ways to govern here: invisible hand and iron fist. The former is about changing incentives such that the profitable road and the responsible road are the same thing, utilizing "speak softly and carry a big stick" policies of rarely used deterrents to keep costs down. The latter, in contrast, simply throws more and more money at enforcement to will people into acting against their selfish impulses. One of these is cost-effective and one is not.

There are a lot more than two paths. That just sets everyone up to form opposing and uncompromising camps. That sure is working well for us isn't it? It's a good thing that you didn't bias your descriptions of your two choices too much.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

China is just now trying to curtail its own nasty pollution problem from its years of laissez faire approach to corporate responsibility.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

...so you're left of China on economic issues? Just too Laissez-faire for you?

The lack of government regulation/ concern/interest for its environment qualifies as as a laissez faire policy. Business owners/managers didn't care either. They are paying for it now.

@Aim deep: start a new thread if you want to talk taxes.