...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.

Yes, and it's an argument we have all the time in public discourse. The
line ebbs and flows one way or the other, but at any given time is at an
equilibrium responding to the prevailing economic conditions and
national mood. When people have a vote, they sway it one way or the
other, and that's the way it should be.


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.

I still maintain that it's the exchange that creates the value - since
each person's labor is not worth as much before the exchange. If I
value my labor at $10 and you value my labor at $15 and we agree on a
price of $12, then you gained $3 after the exchange and got a good deal
exactly as I gained $2 above my break even point. We both won!

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.

Hide the value of your work from me?!? The value of my work is worth to
you exactly what you are willing to pay - it has nothing to do with how
much it costs me. A case in point is a baseball card. It's essentially
worthless, but people are willing to pay for them much more than what
they cost to produce. This is a very important point, and fundamental to
the capitalist system. The BUYERS set the price.

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.

Do you consider YOUR labor to be a commodity? Are you like everyone
else? Are you not more proficient in some skills than others at the
same skills? This is communist thinking - everything is the same!

In point of fact, every person is unique and has a unique set of skills,
traits, and abilities. Corporations and small businesses go out of
their way and pay big bucks to find those that have particular skills or
sets of skills and attract and retain those people. Sir, you are wrong,
people are NOT commodities, and businesses don't act as if they were.
If a person feels underpaid in their current situation, in a free market
system they have more options than in any other system, including
furthering their education to get a better job, finding a job that
capitalizes on other strengths they may possess, or striking out on
their own by starting their own business.

That last one is one of the reasons that Americans are paid as much as
they are - there is a certain amount of money that American businesses
must pay their workers to keep them from leaving for greener pastures.
The easier it is to start a new business, the more pressure on current
businesses to pay higher salaries. This is important to keep in mind in
light of the fact that starting a business becomes a much more difficult
choice if government regulation strangles new business creation.

This has more info on this point:
http://forum.belmont.edu/cornwall/ar...dence_o_3.html

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.


Who placed a "Value" on the "Potential?" The BUYERS of the stock!
Speculation is something that humans do. All of those people KNEW that
there is no guarantee of return. They knew that they could lose some or
all of their money playing that game. But if we wouldn't have people
willing to invest and risk capital, where would we be? If you look at
the big picture, not little snippets of time, you will see that overall
we have seen AMAZING growth and AMAZING improvements in standards of
living over the course of the last 100 years, bringing unprecedented
prosperity to Americans and more and more of the world. No sir, this is
no zero 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.


Who decides what is appropriate and inappropriate? Should people that
never invested have gotten to ride other people's coattails? If you
don't throw your hat in the ring, you don't get to play. The
interesting twist to all of this is that indeed many people DID get to
ride investor's and entrepreneur's coattails, in that the progressive
tax system transfers money from the affluent to the poor. We had a
surge of tax money that financed all sorts of social programs, defense,
education, as well as balancing the budget and paying down our national
debt. This at a time when the bottom 20% of earners in the U.S. paid
exactly ZERO income taxes. They got to ride coattails, no? Is that
equitable?

Now, before you jump all over me, let me state that I actually think the
progressive tax system is overall a good thing. But it just galls me
when people conveniently forget who's paying who's way, and still
complain about "inequities".

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 market system punishes dishonesty better than ANY other system.
Just take a look at the dishonesty and corruption that socialist planned
economies brought about. Who got in trouble for Chernobyl? Who got in
trouble when there was bread only on Tuesdays and Fridays from 3PM to
5PM? Take a look closer to home - the dishonesty and corruption that
happens with any number of government programs, including, on the grand
scale, mismanagement of the treasury by getting us into HUGE deficits.
Who is punished? Who is held accountable? The market at least punished
the Enrons of the world. They are no longer around. The regulators
that were supposed to watch the industry are finally getting back on the
right path, and that is appropriate. But the punishment has already
been swift and severe, courtesy of the market, which makes it less
likely it will happen again.


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"...


Back to the commodity argument... Once again, no one is a commodity!
Even if you chose ten years ago to specialize in a particular skillset,
you would have plenty of skills besides the one that is no longer as
highly valued. Use what you have to do as well as you can. No one will
pay for people to sit on their bum (except maybe the government, but
only for a period of time).

I understand that it's difficult for people to change tacks mid-career.
But that's just life - we must adapt to prevailing conditions. There
is a reality out there that precludes lifetime employment for most
people. If the fortune 500 of 100 years ago only has one original
member still in it today (GE), then what makes one think that they
personally will not need to also adapt and change? It's tough, but it's
the only realistic outlook to have. Luckily most people in the
workforce have more than one skill, and can eventually find something
else to do that is productive enough to make a living. The buggy whip
makers did not all starve to death when the automobile became commonplace!


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.


Here we agree. I mentioned earlier that there is a constant tug of war
in terms of how much socialism we should have, and that I am not opposed
to some of it. But I do like to stand up and reiterate that we should
be careful how far we go with it, because having been born in a rather
socialist state and having lived in Europe, I know that it can really go
too far. There has to be a balance, and I advocate a balance that does
not kill the business and commerce side, which makes everything else
possible.

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.


Nothing has changed. The people running the presses have always been
quite powerful. The good thing is that today, the cost to own your own
press is a small barrier to entry. Grassroots organizations have
mobilized millions of people for and against the current administration,
and the charges of mainstream media bias are way overblown. And in any
case, for CNN's alleged liberal bias there is Fox's alleged conservative
bias. There is no such thing as completely unbiased journalism, but if
you look at the big picture, media outlets generally shy away from going
too far one way or the other lest they alienate too many people.

Having said that, I must profess my love for the Daily Show :-)


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.


I happen to be against most subsidies. They distort the market and
trade. They are generally inappropriate.



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???


I don't agree with this either. I alluded to this in my next line.
Security vs. Liberty is as tough of a debate as the debate about how
much progressivity there should be in the tax system, except with higher
stakes. I tend to side with the Liberty side, but understand some
security concessions. This doesn't include what you just remarked about.


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.

Hey man, I'm on your side there. There is constant pressure to distort
and manipulate the interpretation of the constitution, and that is 100%
to be expected. My conclusion, having said that, is that we must be
ever vigilant as Americans about fighting for upholding our rights and
making this country as good as it can be. As long as no one side gets to
dominate, we'll have a nice, moderate set of policies that don't cause
revolutions.

-Aviv