OK Daylight Savings is over… Or it’s started… I can’t remember which it is, all I know is that I somehow have jet-lag from sitting at home on my ass.Now on to more important matters. This TUESDAY is election day, and it’s probably important where you live. These mid-term, local elections are very lightly-attended, so your vote counts more. Some issues are major (NJ has a stem-cell funding bill on the ballot) and some issues are local (school board) but no less important.TAKE SOME TIME this weekend to review what your local issues are, and make time on Tuesday to VOTE
666,
I don’t think anyone wants lower-wage jobs, but there are some people that are willing. Clearly illegal immigrants are. Many people would be willing to take a second job part-time at less than minimum wage for a little extra cash. Some in “economically depressed” areas will take anything they can get.
My entire point is that minimum wage laws don’t actually help anyone, and the do harm. They artificially set a limit on how many employees a company is allowed to hire. This creates a niche that illegals can fill in the marketplace.
If we repeal the laws and Americans aren’t willing to work those jobs then they can at least stop whining about “losing” them. If they are willing to work them then the illegals aren’t at an unfair competitive advantage. Most companies are more likely to hire an English-speaking employee to do a job for low pay than a Spanish-speaking one anyway.
The minimum wage is just a feel-good concept – it doesn’t change anything and doesn’t affect poverty in the slightest. Companies will just raise their prices and pass it on to the consumer – which means higher prices for the products that people (including the ones in poverty) buy. If a law doesn’t do any actual good and can be proven to do actual harm, it needs to be gotten rid of.
The minimum wage laws look good to the average American who is typically uneducated in economics. I have personally witnessed half of a high-school classroom struggle with the simple concepts of supply and demand and how price affects them. If they can’t even make an accurate prediction for such a simple scenario, how can they be expected to consider consequential fallout several steps down the line?
Karen,
I made significantly more than minimum wage when I worked as waitstaff so this statement isn’t always true.
Karen,
There are loopholes in the laws. Some things like “nutritional supplements” aren’t regulated much for statements made about them (they can’t use the word “cure” for instance). Sometimes harmful supplements make it onto the market and the loopholes let them slip through. An example is ephedrine. A number of “weight loss” products are based around it. What they don’t tell you is that it causes you to lose weight by jacking up your metabolism (people I know that have tried it told me they experienced increased heart rate) – not something a doctor would recommend. Occasional cases of young, healthy people having heart attacks because of the stuff have been reported.
It’s one issue I’m definitely not with Ron Paul on. I don’t believe the govt. should be preventing these products from showing up on shelves (people should be able to ingest whatever they want to, even if it is stupid for them to do so). I do believe the govt. should definitely be performing stringent safety tests and enforcing truth-in-labeling rules.
I think there are more of them in Montana. I live in Colorado, which is somewhat close in proximity.
When our govt. decides to go the route of Pakistan and declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and come door-to-door looking for private gun owners (like they did in New Orleans) you’ll probably be happy that those “crazy militia” folk are hanging around. Assuming that they are not merely self-interested, that is. I can’t say for sure on that account. You can bet your ass that I’ll not give up my firearm and I won’t be hanging around to let them take it from me either. If I must die protecting our Constitution then I accept that fate as an American.
And my 20-sided die (and all the rest of my dice) is in a bag on my bookshelf. I’ve never been to a medieval fair or LARP event either.
… and when monkeys fly out of my butt I’ll be glad I keep bananas in the house.
Karen
The point was simple. The libertarian ideology implemented in the modern world would be perilous to say the least.
the constitution is trashed and has been for sometime.if the lawmakers/judges had followed the constitution most of what the federal gov’t is doing would be done at the state level.it would be tough going for atheists in some states but over the long run i think it would be to our benefit.
i feel we as atheists need to have as much faith in federal/state constitutions as christians do in the bible.
AT
Rofflemaw! Thanks to the current season of Beauty and the Geek, I get the LARP reference.
And who am I to talk anyway? I watch Beauty and the Geek, for pete’s sake.
And you’ve illustrated many times that you do not understand Libertarians. If you want to go on fearing what you don’t understand, feel free. The religious do it, why not you?
atomic,
I would say the reason illegals are willing is because it is more than they can make in their home countries.
Mind you, I am not in support of illegal immigrants, but some of your ideal libertarian ideas don’t hold water in a real world.
This comment should actually be addressed to me not karen
as I stated
which would indicate
Unless one wants to divorce completely from society, there are rules which we (as a society) make and agree to abide by.
Good luck hiding out in your personal Shangri-La if that’s the case.
Ah, I missed this thread, and had forgotten the comment I made.
Is there one libertarian ideology? Or are there as many views as there are libertarians? The only thing I’m sure about is they want their guns and less government. Tho I’m not sure how they plan to implement less government. So it is difficult for me to ascertain whether their ideology would indeed be perilous or not.
Atomic doesn’t want illegal aliens, but neither do I and I am a registered democrat. For that matter, reason doesn’t like aliens of any kind and he’s so conservative, I suspect him to not only be a republican, but a Torie!
Anyway, thanks for not tearing me a new one for being slow on the uptake on your conversation.
Karen,
In a nutshell Libertarians generally want government to chiefly involve itself in protecting the people: police, military, the legal system, etc.
Libertarians do not see the government as taking a driver’s-seat-role for the economy. The free market performs very well in a capitalistic society. Nearly every place the government has interfered with the free market through regulation it causes problems – problems that people believe require more government involvement to solve.
If something fails in a free market, people take their money elsewhere and they let the business fail. This pressure and the pressures of competition keep business in-line.
When a government-run system fails they rarely admit defeat and let a program die and instead claim that the reason they failed is that they are underfunded, and congress feeds them more money. Often they also decide that they fail because there isn’t enough legislation (which means, consequently, that enough of our freedoms aren’t yet suspended).
Opponents of Libertarianism are mostly afraid of the free market in general. They erroneously believe that one group of people (the government) magically have our best interest in mind because we elect them and that another group (the “merchant class”) is always up to something nefarious and is out to harm each and every person.
They cite examples of where the free market fails. They will frequently turn a blind eye to the fact that their examples are nearly always ones in which the government heavily regulates industry or imposes trade restrictions or tariffs that prevent fair competition. They turn a blind eye to seemingly innocuous legislation (such as minimum wage laws) that do nothing but create problems and will resist repeals of such laws.
People say “a society based on Libertarian ideals will utterly fail” and other nonsense of the sort rather than bother to try and prove why they feel that way (as opposed to saying “think that way” which would imply that actual thought was given to it). Of course, lest we forget, our federal government started out small and people’s freedoms started out great.
Yep, the idea was doomed from the get-go. That’s why our country is not the most successful and prosperous country in the world.
Sadly, people have as much faith in the government as many do in deities. You can’t convince them that a government program they support (emotionally, but not rationally) is failing. It’s quite the parallel to trying to convince a religious idiot that prayer doesn’t work. They continue to have faith, no matter what, that government really does always have our best interest in mind and that social programs will help us.
It’s really hard to convince a political dogmatist to admit that their emperor really wears no clothes.
Not understanding why the free market works is not sufficient grounds for rejection and suppression of it through government. Compare this to the stubborn rejection of evolution by religious zealots who reject it because they do not understand it.
AT
That’s like a xian telling me I don’t understand xianity.
AT
Free market? Nice buzz phrase. Define it? Then show us when and where a free market in an isolated economic system has ever existed. Then define “performs” and show us the proof that the elusive “free market” has performed “very well”.
Do you really think there is significant number of people of voting age that don’t understand this extremely complex (sarcasm alert) notion of the hypothetical “free market”?
atomictesting wrote:
So that leaves me wondering what is included in the “etc”. Because one persons “protecting” could be another persons “overprotection”.
However,
maybe suggests what the motivation is. I have worked for a large regional corporation for many years. The Board of Directors and most of the management have only one thing in mind, how to make the most money. That absolutely includes making the product as cheaply as possible, the quality of the product and the usefulness of the product to the consumer isn’t important. The ultimate goal is to sell nothing for lots of money. At a minimum this produces a lot of waste of natural resources and waste in the landfills.
To me there are problems with letting businesses run wild under our current structure. We have very large corporations that can easily get rid of any competition in various ways. We have consumers that allow themselves to be driven by the best marketing campaign as opposed to the best product or the most product for the best value (it is also quite difficult for the consumer to know which product offers that). What I am trying to point out is that it is easy for businesses to be greedy and they are as greedy as they can be. There was a time when made in the USA had an expectation of quality, that is no more. Hell, businesses own our governemt. The executives at the top don’t care if the businesses self destruct, if they show big profits other businesses will be glad to get those executive so they can do the same for the next business. The shells of the destroyed businesses are purchased by bottom feeders who get rid of the long term employees and start again or shut down and liquidate. No, I don’t believe that business leading the country is a wise choice.
If I’m not mistaken, the largest economy in the world – and the owner of a lot of our debt – is China. Not exactly known for being the home of free-market capitalism. Just sayin.
Rusty, China is not the largest economy in the world. The EU is, followed by the USA, then Japan, then Germany, and then China.
It’s funny you bring up China since Hong Kong prospers on a very free market economy plan. Luckily for them, their most important good is services. They don’t have to worry about things like food supply or pollution.
In an economy that isn’t dominated by services, well…
The whole free-market thing looks great on paper, but it relies on too much perfection in the rest of society.
I’m willing to discuss things like losing minimum wage, or removing most pricing restrictions, or allowing the civilians to decide what substances to put in their bodies, but I still believe we need some government control once social problems erupt (and they will, we humans aren’t perfect).
Simply look to the explosion of corporate scandals resulting in tens of thousands loosing their jobs, their retirement, etc., and explain to me why total control over our economy should be placed solely in the hands of big business and the ?free-market?.
The answer is in balance of power ? just as it is with everything. There are and have been failures on both sides, government and corporate.
Balance of power between corporations and government? Huh? Wrong constitution.
Yet another incorrect assumption about Libertarians: that we somehow don’t care about the environment.
No, most of us do not believe that private business should be able to run amok all over the environment. We need to stop treating companies like they have the rights of individuals and absolutely dismantle companies that break the law.
Alatham is absolutely correct in that Hong Kong is a bastion of free market economics.
Well the prevailing assumption (or deliberate use of misinformation as a tactic, I’m not sure which) is that Libertarianism = anarchy. That’s simply not true. Government should be involved when the concern is protecting people from force and fraud. Nobody is standing behind us forcing us to pay or die. Consumers always have a choice and organized consumers can send a big message. The companies you’re talking about have the most to lose in a boycott – they’ll do whatever it takes to keep making money.
I don’t know where people get the idea that government needs to protect us from these big, bad, corporate “bullies.” The power you need is already in your pocket.
An example:
Sprint will never get a dime of my money because they have the worst customer service record in the industry. Look them up with the Better Business Bureau.
rna2dna,
Sorry, but I’m not falling down the pit of arguing with someone on anecdotal evidence. Some companies make an awful lot of money because their products are known to be high quality. It’s not the government’s job to force consumers to make wise choices. I’m tired of the nanny state and I’d very much like to see our country go back to a time of individual responsibility.
AT, I believe that libertarians care about the environment, or at least that they don’t actively not care.
But the notion that laissez-faire capitalism will not wreck the environment was put to rest when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire in 1969.
Alatham, thanks for the correction re: China.
Rusty,
Environmental protection is a fine cause and an appropriate limitation on business – as long as it’s scientifically advised.
Of course, much of the modern “environmental movement” isn’t really about the environment anymore and it’s really about politics and anti-capitalism. Penn & Teller actually got hundreds of these idiots at one of these rallies (including the rally organizer) to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen (H2) monoxide (O). Yep… Water. They didn’t even bother to ask what it meant.
That may be true, AT, but the “environmental movement” isn’t the government. And it might surprise you just how little influence hardcore environmentalists have in government, even during Democratic administrations.
To the best of my knowledge, there aren’t any environmental laws that aren’t heavily dependent on science.
What,
Maybe I should have wrote… government regulation is often needed to bring balance to corporate power.
Atomic,
That often works, when one isn’t dealing with monopolies. Can you say the same thing to the victims of Enron, for example?
Enron was guilty OF FRAUD. This is, and always has been a crime. Stop being so goddamn disingenuous and dig a little deeper.
DVan
Whew. That was a close one. Thanks for the clarification.
AT,
The point wasn’t the illegal act – the point was that both government and corporate America fail.
Take off your “free-market” rose colored glasses.
AT,
Besides, you did ask where people get this idea they need to be protected from “big, bad corporate bullies”.
I gave you an example.
DVW
And there are countless more.
All this trust in corporations reminds me of the Star Trek aliens called the Ferengi.
HA!
AT,
How about this example (to dig a little deeper as you put it)…
A largely unregulated mortgage industry begins handing out mortgages to any Joe that strolls in the door ? an extension of a new phenomenon in the lending industry of flipping mortgages. This results in a massive influx of home buyers, artificially driving up the price of homes across the country.
Lenders don’t stop there. They begin creating all sorts of tricky mortgages to make a fast buck then sell the mortgage off to some other company – a bit like a hot potato. But who’s going to get stuck with the potato?
Eventually, lenders’ irresponsible practices, in league with home buyers willing to take advantage of lenders’ lapses in judgment, get stuck with the bill when the buyers they approved begin defaulting on the loans.
This causes a huge inventory of homes to flood the market via foreclosures and builders that didn’t see the end coming and continued to crank out homes they thought they’d have buyers for.
This results in huge drops in home values for everyone ? even those who were responsible in buying their home. All because lenders were allowed to give huge sums of money to people that couldn’t afford to pay it back.
Who is going to reimburse me for the 20 percent drop in value of my home? A drop not of my making, or a drop due to normal market conditions, but rather the irresponsible practices of lenders. They held the money. They had the choice in who to lend to. They should be held responsible for a mistake that may result in the worst recession since the mid-80s, especially when you combine what’s going on in the housing industry with runaway oil prices.
Put simply, corporative regulation between the lending industry and the government in setting up standards for home loan qualification would have kept this disaster from ever happening. A disaster that will soon affect us all. It’s already hurt my financial position immensely. You may be next.
DVW
There is another important and unregulated part of the mortgage industry that led to this disaster. The mortgage broker! They make there money by brokering loans with lenders and have wrote a lot of risky loans for their commissions. Enter the “liar’s loan”.