In a previous SDA thread we were all “enlightened” by a Ph.D. Socialist that capitalism is a terrible thing and socialism is the answer to all of our problems.
Some beg to differ. So does history. For our friends on the Left, here’s a little tutorial:
Incidentally, for the record, conservatism does not support monopolies nor corporate welfare. Just because this lie is endlessly repeated in the Leftist Bubble Chamber doesn’t make it true.
A refreshing video. It’s a sad commentary on those who disagree with us politically that you felt compelled to add “conservatism does not support monopolies nor corporate welfare.”
The last coffee-based explanation of the free market system also included the handy 3-step system to making profits:
Step 1: collect underwear.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profits!
C_Miner, re your 2nd sentence, it’s an easy but cheap shot to take because the Conservative Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of the UK, and the Republican Party of America all do tend to support corporate welfare. However, “Conservative” does not often mean conservative. I knew this when I was 12 years old. Most on the Left never learn this simple fact.
“conservatism does not support monopolies nor corporate welfare.”
However leftists seek to monopolize everything….
Her sexy Spanish accent is enough to convince me.
(not that I needed any)
I wonder how long it will take before Bill the Phud shows up here to explain why capitalism red in tooth and claw must be subordinated to liberal intellectual culture lest the Dickensian workhouse descend upon us, while some cackling parody of a nickel-shaving businessman twirls his moustaches and urges the less robust of the match-dipping waifs to die forthwith, “to decrease the surplus population!”
I read his post. It’s the typical mish-mash of bootstrap logic, sophistry, misconjectured sorites and begging-the-question that you get from overedumacated idiots. And yes, I’m qualified to use that phrase, because I too have a Phud. However, because I obtained it late in life, I ALSO have a finely-honed understanding of how ridiculous people sound when they wave their educational credentials about as if these are a substitute for the ability to construct logical and rational arguments. Moreover, in my work environment I am surrounded by Phuds who, shall we say, mirror Bill-the-Phud’s rhetorical style, sense of self-importance, and capacity for linear thought.
So to you, Bill, and to all Phud-bearing lefties, I say ‘stuff it’. All due respect to Kate, but the comments section on a blog is not where enduring ideas are forged and debated. We modest souls do not need to defend the free market. Genuine, thinking conservatives do not advocate amoral, no-holds-barred, state-of-nature capitalism any more than liberals want to turn the West into North Korea (Tom Friedman might want to turn the US into China, but fortunately he’s in a minority). Nor do we argue that the market is some kind of divine altar before which all must tug our forelocks and prostrate ourselves in fervid adoration of Adam Smith and his prophet, Milton Friedman.
This isn’t about ideology, it’s about historical fact. The free market works because it is the only mechanism discovered thus far that breaks the zero-sum directed-exchange trade mechanism that has governed the bulk of human history (at least since we figured out “government”) and enables buyer and seller to negotiate, directly or by proxy, in order to achieve a modus vivendi that is non-zero-sum. In other words, when the price of a good or service is set by the act of purchase and sale rather than by fiat of King or Congress, both buyer and seller benefit. THAT is the basic understanding of the market and, minimally constrained, it works better than any other system that has ever been tried (q.v. the last Soviet 5-year plan).
Is free-market capitalism subject to abuses? Sure it is. We’ve got centuries of economic data to prove it. We’ve had bubbles, boom-and-bust cycles, depression, recessions, defaults, massive frauds, inflationary spirals and all manner of horrors. In most cases, corrective mechanisms have been elaborated to prevent recurrences, with the result that most new crises are legitimately new – and, in recent years, most have been the result of government interference in the act of purchase and sale (q.v. Fannie and Freddie, a liberal intrusion into the mortgage market that lies at the root of our present woes).
Will there be more economic crises? Surely, because we’re greedy and clever. Will we pull through them? Hopefully, because we’re persistent and smart. Will each one result in new government regulatory measures? Indubitably, because that’s how governments perpetuate their raison-d’etre. Will those measures work as intended? Stranger things have happened.
And when the crises occur, will liberals point at the free market and scream “CAPITALISM DID IT”, just like they point at murders committed by an apolitical dope-smoking crackpot and scream “SARAH PALIN DID IT!”?
You betcha! Let’s ignore the fact that the only thing that Freddie, Fannie, and the free market had in common was the letter “F”.
“Capitalism” and “the free market” will always be the economic bugbear of the leftoid cognoscenti, most especially of the species Phudus Boringus, because the only place that Marxism – like the smallpox virus – survives is in special containment facilities (respectively, in Western universities, and in the CDC and its Roosky equivalent). So here’s my suggestion, Bill: come up with something that works better than the free market, and then maybe we’ll listen. Until then, have the good grace not to whip your Phud out in polite company. It doesn’t mean you’re smart, just doggedly persistent. And it doesn’t add weight to your argument; it just makes you, and all the rest of us overedumacated idiots, sound like a boob.
– DN (Phud, and a bunch of other meaningless post-nominals that nobody except my mom cares a gerbil-turd about)
Bueno! However, when she was explaining about competition for phone service she forgot to mention the CRTC. In spite of several Canadian providers, the magic of regulation ensures we pay more because the “Canadian” providers don’t have to compete with foreign companies.
Having a Ph.D. yet still embracing dogmatic socialism is proof you can educate a fool but you can’t make him reason.
“from sōros”.
…-
“World English Dictionary
sorites (sɒˈraɪtiːz) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
—n
logic
a. a polysyllogism in which the premises are arranged so that intermediate conclusions are omitted, being understood, and only the final conclusion is stated
b. a paradox of the form: these few grains of sand do not constitute a heap, and the addition of a single grain never makes what is not yet a heap into a heap: so no matter how many single grains one adds it never becomes a heap
[C16: via Latin from Greek sōreitēs, literally: heaped, from sōros a heap]”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sorites
This is pretty funny because Socialists couldn’t care less about consumers’ needs and wants. Not the point.
If she had mentioned monopolized health care delivery that video would be banned from viewing in Canada.
Dear DN, Phud.,
Superb comment! Thank you.
You must be a long lost relative of SDA’s ET. She writes greats points with such clarity too!!
Robert
too bad this doesn’t work for gasoline prices – competition in the retail gas market is simply a price fixing scam. Corporate slogans and free-market ideology sounds nice but does not work. You people will still all run out and vote for Harper even though he has run up huge deficits by literally throwing the corporate welfare at banks, auto makers, oil companies etc. Nice try.
Certainly, the left supports corporate welfare; after all, socialism is just that. Obama’s socialist government has done nothing but corporate welfare since he’s come to office.
And monopolies are a standard element in the socialist economy – whereas capitalism rejects monopolies.
That woman talks waaaaaaay faster than I read.
Actually Enright on the CBC One said just about the same as the warning this morning.
I didn’t catch it all but he was talking to an economist. En. said Hayek had been hi-jacked by the right by people like Beck. The economist said Beck did a service as more people are reading his work. He also pointed out the Tea Party isn’t for subsidized capitalism.
Enright has been getting learned lately. The dripping disdain is being rebutted.
Robert – quite true. And those who disagree with us apparently fail to realize that “conservative” depends upon the nation/region that one comes from. In Russia the conservatives would be those pining for communism to continue, a far cry from the US and Canadian small-government and non-intrusive government brand. We just see ourselves as the continuation of those liberal policies of 50-200 years ago that have actually worked, and we don’t want what has been proven to work to be replaced by a theory without a damned good reason.
“conservatism does not support monopolies nor corporate welfare” but in Canada the official “Conservatives” unfortunately do. And apparently they’re the only conservatives who count, just ask them.
Joe, you just nailed the dilemma for many voters in our country these days, be it federally or provincially. I think that most conservatives vote for the “least worst” option. Federally, what choice do we have other than Harper’s Conservatives? Here in BC where I live, there’ll likely be an election before 2011-Q4. There are two major alternatives: The Liberals and the NDP. The NDP has consistently destroyed our economy, sinking us into “Have Not” status. The Liberals, while “less worse”, are not the party of fiscal restraint they started off being in year one of their original mandate.
It must be nice being a Leftist in Canada – so many parties to choose from, all promising to spend, spend, spend!
Nice video.
Robert, if you are citing a tutorial for the Left, you must never use facts. These are too difficult for them to comprehend. They are programmed only to believe lies, and also programmed to see anyone right of their perspective as a liar.
As for the monopoly comment, I disagree somewhat. A devout capitalist’s ideal objective is to become the only seller by producing the best quality product at the lowest price, thereby eventually driving away all competition.
DN ,
Very nice . Keep that up and I’m guessing you get a set of keys to the joint .
Robert, what you (and the others here, even DN) fail to notice is that Alfie Kohn is right: cooperation achieves more than competition. In an ideal world, we would not compete – we would cooperate.
Unfortunately, Kohn fails to note (and come to think of it, neither does Amy Chua) that people have a tendency to cheat. That is, they say that they will cooperate but then they don’t. IOW, people tend to act in their own self-interest. Kohn may be right to say that competition is not natural to human nature but self-interest certainly is.
Lastly Robert, you also confuse “competition” and “price competition”. There’s a world of difference between the two. The Mexican video (and DN) allude to the difference but unfortunately don’t make the distinction clear. Suffice to say that price competition leads to cooperation!
o
The danger most fail to see is the tendency to confuse orthodoxy/establishment with conservativism.
for the record, conservatism does not support monopolies nor corporate welfare
Then maybe “conservatives” should stop slopping @ the trough!
August 1991 “Suffice to say that price competition leads to cooperation!”
How on earth did you ever reach that conclusion? You were using neither deductive nor inductive logic to reach such a conclusion. Price competition generates production not cooperation.
o
Then maybe “conservatives” should stop slopping @ the trough!
Then maybe “Liberals” should start being liberals.
None of our political parties names describe what they are anymore and this confuses people. I am a liberal, which means that in modern Canada I support the Conservatives. The people who support the “Liberals” are actually socialists. Do I aactually like the conservatives? Not really, but they are as close to a reality based political party as we are going to get.
I would love to see political parties say “we are liberals/conservatives/socialists, this is what we stand for, if you stand for the same thing vote for us”. But they all temper their philosophy with the desire to get elected. Consequently, they don’t lead, they follow. Depending on your ideas about how democracy should work you will either think this is right or wrong, but the result is all are political parties end up being populist.
A leftwing tutorial would pose questions but the answers are immaterial because we should learn from the question the answers are immaterial. Yea I don’t under stand leftwing academia PHd gobbly gook either.
if corporations with their lilt towards competitiveness are so good, how does SDA explain away price collusion?
the ultimate goal of a competitive firm is to be in a monopolistic position: wal-mart.
conservatives don’t want to look further down the time line because ooohh, that would cause a quandary in the p.r. department wouldn’t it?
also, food for thought regarding ‘competitiveness’ in mexico:
http://www.canada.com/business/World+richest+dominates+Mexican+economy/2670200/story.html
Actually what you want is a combination of competition and cooperation. China rose to power early because they could muster huge amounts of resources for a common goal. The problem was there was no competition of ideas so innovation was stifled. The reverse was happening in Europe. There was fierce competition which led to innovation and with a moducum of cooperation, this innovation could spread and that is the reason why European countries colonized the world and not the other way around. Well that and smallpox. 😉
Cheers
Some places have smaller, spread out populations e.i. Saskatchewan. There the cost of doing business is higher and the potential for profit is lower. This is why so many Co-operatives were formed. To provide service private companies were not willing to provide what would have been a lower profit margin. Or to provide competition to increase service and lower prices of a monopoly or near monopoly.
I once worked for a company where two hundred small independents businesses formed their own wholesale supply company. It operated at a smaller profit margin than the national wholesaler which most said could never succeed. It operated for many years. It was called United Pharmacists.
It’s wages and working conditions were higher as they appreciated the higher level of service long term, committed employees could provide.
This is likely true for similar areas in the U.S. like the Dakotas where co-ops have been popular.
Likewise, the reason for the formation of many Crown Corporations that were formed was to provide utilities to more rural and remote areas. However, over time they have less reason to innovate in a monopoly situation.
Service improved and prices were lowered when the federal government ruled to allow competition e.i. in telephone service.
Sask Power, as utility monopolies in other provinces long resisted allowing citizens who generate their own electricity to be able to sell it into the grid.
Those companies had to have a gov’t. order to allow citizens generating their own electricity, to be able to sell excess back into the grid. As remote generation of electricity become more economic, as heating is with geo-thermal, the independent spirit that was rural Saskatchewan may return if there are enough small/medium private landowners left.
Farming will be profitable again when higher profit crops become an option with GMOs bred by farmer owned/controlled companies. They must control major input costs, at least most of them.
For a time the private cable television service had no competition and now it does, both from satellite and from
SaskTel’s Max service. Before the monopoly was broken people in rural areas and a few in the city choose to buy the large C band 8′ or 10′ satellite dishes.
As they obtained signals from a variety of satellites, their service was very competitive. One could actually choose individual channels and even for a 3 or 6 month period.
It was illegal according to the federal CRTC who granted licence monopolies(licences to print money to political favourites). However, the large C band dishes provided the best option for the consumer.
Now we have more companies offering the service but still not the individual channel consumer choice that the old big tv dishes offered.
This is why mediocre, agenda biased CNN has had a virtual monopoly on presenting the image of the U.S.A.
into Canadian homes. And why only packages of channels are forced on consumers.
Federally regulated competition isn’t the same as real competition.
Private corporations with monopolies in smaller places can have very high profits. If they’re owners/management don’t personally care about the product/service provided, they may lower the quality for some years until their customer base and credibility is compromised.
Importing cheap unskilled labour to keep wages down has been a federal government policy in Canada for decades. Now with the housing bubble and skyrocketing prices many people can’t afford even an scare basement apartment. Many service industry employers don’t have to raise wages to compete as they can hire third world immigrants who are willing to live 7 to 9 in a house or apartment.
For the first time in it’s history, in Saskatchewan cities having a decent roof over your head is unaffordable for a substantial portion of the population.
Artificial oversupply, in this case by government, also subsidizes the middle/upper classes who want to have a cleaning staff for their homes and yards and nannies to raise their children.
DN
I’ve found that a very good argument when dealing with someone whose ‘edgumacated’ is the explanation that: education is a means to an end, not an end to a means. Now they NEVER agree, but this simple statement is understood even by the egumacated. You know they get it, because you can see the blood rising to their foreheads when they truly understand the secular blasphemy you’ve just spouted.
Also, I might not be egumacated enough to opine on this, but oh well. What people like to call capitalism, free markets and the invisible hand, I like to call: natural law. I don’t believe that anyone ‘invented’ this natural law, it simply exists. It exists regardless of our attempts to thwart ‘natural law’. It often manifests itself in the form of a Black Market. This desire to thwart all things natural is the main tenant of the self-aggrandizing Left. It’s their inherent belief that everything, and I mean everything, that has come before them MUST be flawed because THEY didn’t a) think of it; and b) didn’t take the time to understand it. If you pay attention, this is the common thread all socialist/ Progressive/Leftists share. I will use ‘Education’ as a prime example of today’s Progressives’ trying to continually fix what seemed to work for a very long time. For example, apparently Phonics doesn’t work in the 2000s. JMunegumacatedO
Finally, many Progressives like Beagle like to argue that the Conservatives are not conservative enough(iefarmer welfare) in an attempt to what? I don’t know, get us to throw-up our hands and vote for the more socialist party I guess. Is the argument that the Liberals, or the Dippers are more free-market based than the Conservatives? If so, will beagle and gang be voting for the Conservatives?
BTW, where’s Hardboiled? Is he now called beagle?
Robert, that is one good video and DN, those were great posts.
BTW, I wish I would have taken Spanish.
DN: Wait no longer. You’re good a smarmy and disingenuous, wonder how good you’d be at real debate?
“I read his post. It’s the typical mish-mash of bootstrap logic, sophistry, misconjectured sorites and begging-the-question that you get from overedumacated idiots.”
You forgot one, which your overedumacatedness excels at: using self-evidence as a rhetorical strategy to bedazzle the converted. I see no evidence provided for your claim above.
“All due respect to Kate, but the comments section on a blog is not where enduring ideas are forged and debated.”
Agreed, but beating up on straw men stuffed with old baseless canards, uninformed opinions, fear and ignorance must get tired at some point.
“Genuine, thinking conservatives do not advocate amoral, no-holds-barred, state-of-nature capitalism”
I’ll avoid the obvious cheap shot. Do tell what kind of capitalism you believe in. I sure hope it holds together better than the attempts at defining the Left and/ or Socialism and/or Liberalism. For someone who’s about to teach me a history lesson, I’m astounded that you can speak of capitalism so ahistorically.
What could state of nature capitalism possibly mean? Are you referring to contractarian theories of state of nature like Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke? Surely in their views capitalism was not the mode of production in the hypothetical time known as state of nature.
Although probably unwittingly on your part, my understanding
is precisely that capitalism is “amoral” (i.e. not concerned with right or wrong) but simply with winners and losers in a kind of “it’s not personal, it’s business” sort of way. Isn’t that why you need that wonderful mythical and utterly baseless concept of “the invisible hand” to guarantee the moral and intellectual progress of society?
And if you don’t advocate a no holds barred (i.e. self-regulating???) market, what kind of market do thinking conservatives advocate?
“This isn’t about ideology, it’s about historical fact.”
Bulldung. As if there is any pure historical fact. As if you can get out of ideology. Ideology is the very framework of perception and thought.
“In other words, when the price of a good or service is set by the act of purchase and sale rather than by fiat of King or Congress, both buyer and seller benefit. THAT is the basic understanding of the market and, minimally constrained, it works better than any other system that has ever been tried”
I see your prone to channeling Churchill (i.e. the old it could be worse argument). I have two words for you: “Surplus Value”. Question, why wasn’t the economic system that would gradually replace feudal economy mutually benefitting tradism or some such silly thing, and instead took on a very precise name of “capitalism”. I guess a good starting point would be to discuss what is “capital”?
“Is free-market capitalism subject to abuses? Sure it is.”
Although, I am prone to enjoying nuance, I can’t tell what the difference between a “no-holds barred” (i.e. bad) and a “free” (good) market. Funny, when abuses happen to things to which you’re ideologically opposed (i.e. social security and welfare) you demand them to be scrapped as failures. Why aren’t the massive abuses under capitalism sufficient to call for its head? Btw, I still can’t believe that people believe that less regulation of the market would have circumvented the economic crisis gripping the world right now. As for liberals, conservatives should take note that they share much more in common with them than they’d care to admit. After all, the liberating impulse of liberals originally was not a liberation of values, but of the market.
“Bill: come up with something that works better than the free market, and then maybe we’ll listen.”
Show me a free market that works and the Dickensian workhouse is not really your best choice, even though it was one of the few truly free markets I can think of. More importantly, provide evidence for the invisible hand, and I’m on board.
The reprimands about trotting out credentials are well taken, but I really didn’t mean it in that way. I thought that was clear but obviously not.
P.S. Are other genuine and thinking conservatives like DN on board with the following?
“Also, I might not be egumacated enough to opine on this, but oh well. What people like to call capitalism, free markets and the invisible hand, I like to call: natural law. I don’t believe that anyone ‘invented’ this natural law, it simply exists. It exists regardless of our attempts to thwart ‘natural law’.”
Heaven help us if so. This is so “manifest destiny”.