"Aviv Hod" wrote in message
...

snip

It means that citizens help other citizens, sharing their skill and good
fortune with the less able (ie: "the people"). In most civilized
circles
that is considered a "good" thing.

Yes, it is generally considered a "good thing", but forcing that
"sharing of skill and good fortune" is anathema to many people. Most
people realize that it's in their self interest to share some, but they
would like to exert control on the extent of the sharing. When
government goes and shares YOUR wealth beyond what you would do on your
own, there are some sour grapes.

....by those who do not accept that "it's in their self interest to share
some..." We can argue endlessly as to what is the appropriate share.


Perhaps a return to those concepts WOULD be "a huge step forward".

The pure "market" is not so perfect, either, producting its own set of
problems. It continues to concentrate wealth, and spread the gap
between
rich and poor.... If that continues, (and right now there is no
indication
that it will not), the ultimate result will be civil revolution... just
a
matter of whether it is reached in fifteen years, or a hundred and
fifteen.

I am flabbergasted every time that I hear the argument that "the market
system concentrates wealth", implying that there is a zero sum game
called "the market" where some people are the winners and everyone else
loses. The market system is the only system where all the participants,
under normal circumstances, benefit from their engagement in commerce
more than before their engagement. The exchange itself CREATES value,
and we go beyond that zero sum.

It is not the exchange that creates value. It is the work, the labour.
Free Enterprise encourages one to work, and I work to do something that you
need and in return you work to do something that I need, and we are both
better off and have something which we did not have before. The value of
your work was directly proportional to the "increased wealth" that it
created.

As long as Free Enterprise followed somewhat along that model, things worked
fine. It was very difficult for me to hide the value of my work from you,
or you to do so from me.

But along came big corporations and we shifted from placing a value on your
labour in terms of the incremental benefit it provides, and instead we
valuate it like any commodity.... if it is plentiful, we buy it low, use it,
sell its benefits high, and when we are done, we discard it.. It is no
longer "people", it is commodity. We have written it out of the equation as
far as being a "partner" in the creation of this wealth.

Instead, we place a "value" of your "company" and its "potential". This
"Value" that the Exchange creates can be very false, as in, say, Enron. Or
Nortel, Yahoo, about any other tech company pre-early-2000. I would say THAT
little piece of market history certainly WAS a zero-sum game with winners
and losers, even a negative-sum game.

Does the market create the opportunity
for some individuals to become extremely wealthy? Sure - but it's NOT
because of skin off of anyone else's back. So we have a bunch of people
that benefited from their engagement in the market now more wealthy than
before, and some that also benefited from their engagement in the market
to a greater extent, sometimes becoming very wealthy. What is
inherently wrong with that?

Maybe nothing. Unless, as pointed out above, the share of the total benefit
that resulted from that market "engagement" was inappropriately divided
amongst the players. Maybe the "very wealthy" would only have become
"moderately wealthy", had the benefits been divided equitably. We can argue
endlessly about what constitutes an equitable division.

There might be a large gap, but the fact
remains that those at the bottom are still better off than before. In a
well regulated market (which bars monopoly and dishonesty), the overall
effect is that everyone is better off.


"Which bars monopoly and dishonesty...." Isn't it interesting that the "free
market" has been unable to do this, with quite spectacular results for some
of those investors (and workers) who were hoping to benefit from its
"opportunity"...


The best feature of the market economy and freedom is that rich and poor
do not remain in either of those classes for very long. There is
economic mobility that sees people creating value and becoming richer
and rich people that become complacent and become poorer.

Very true in the original Free Enterprise model where my labour and your
labour were valued by their contribution to the increase in wealth. Less
so, today, because they are not, they are valued as a commodity. Very
difficult to live my life over.... if I chose a skill that looked good 10
years ago, and puts me on amongst the pink slips today, very difficult to
have "economic mobility"...


This is why a
revolution is NOT inevitable, as you suggest. Why have a revolution
that makes us all equal, but equally miserable, when I could work a
while, start a business, and bring myself and my family to riches?


A revolution is not inevitable because, first of all, the government is a
lot more Socialist that it cares to admit. Minutes ago there was an
announcement that Mel Brooks will shoot a film version of "The Producers" in
New York, because of new Tax breaks for the film industry.

It is also not inevitable because, once in a long while, some sanity does
prevail amongst the electorate and the elected.


Unless, of course, the "government" clamps down on the revolutionaries
with
military might, in which case we have something akin to feudalism or
dictatorship, as in any number of countries you could point at recently,
or
even today.

Whoa, hold on there. There is no need for revolution. This is a
democratic country - those "revolutionaries" could simply run for
office. Luckily their ideas are so far removed from the values of most
Americans that they won't stand a chance in hell getting elected.

"could simply run for office..." Well, yes, they could, provided they had
the money to do so.

Democracy used to pretend to work that way, but a few things have changed.
For one, a long time ago, the mainstream media use to educate the public
about the policy proposals, and would provide a myriad of editorial
opionions about the perceived consequences. The media today has merged into
just a few (loud and obnoxious) voices that has largely abandoned rational
thought in favor of partisan political spin. They have totally abrogated
their watch-dog responsibilities in favor of scooping the sensational,
sound-biting the important, and dwelling on the incidental.... It has become
more important to sell a lot of Viagra or whatever, than to inform the
public.

It is pretty hilarious that the most rational political debates probably
occur on the late-night-comedy talk shows.


We know what has made this country great, and it's not government control
of the economy!

Yes, I notice that. See the discussion of Governor Pataki and tax breaks,
above, or search google about farm and lumber subsidies, for a start.





The founding Fathers wrote in some stuff to prevent that. I hope it is
still holding up???

Yes, the founding fathers wrote in some pretty neat stuff about
governing this nation, protecting freedom of speech, while at the same
time protecting EVERYONE's life and liberty. That excludes
"revolutionaries" that wish to impose their will on others by means
other than democratic election. The government does not have the
authority to "clamp down on revolutionaries with military might" under
our constitution unless they are breaking the law.

.... mmm ... I'd like to think that. But they DO have the right to "clamp
down" and invade the privacy of people who are NOT breaking the law, but are
under suspicion that they MIGHT do so one day in the unspecified future???


So the Communist
Party USA can operates as freely as it wants, so long as they are not
breaking any laws. Laws that are checked by our judicial branch and
that must be constitutional. Although it is constantly under
bombardment, the constitution is still holding up.

How well would it hold up under socialism/communism? I assert that it
couldn't.



Of, for sure not, under a socialist or communist dictatorship.... But be
very careful that democracy-for-the-well-connected,
Free-Enterprise-but-not-quite-for-everybody, or
Freedom-if-you're-not-suspicious.... does not slowly slide into
dictatorship, also.


--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981