Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does an economy exist to serve people or do people exist to serve an economy?
How one answers that question pretty much determines their position on many, if not most, political issues.
In current terms, one can take the position that the economy is poor because too many people are lazy and won't accept work, or one could take the position that the economy is poor because there are too few jobs available for millions who would rather be working.
All the "desire" in the world makes no difference whatsoever when the environment for hard work, innovation, and the rewards that come from those virtues is not in place.
Did you ever wonder how in the world the US became the strongest nation on the planet, sans socialism? Of course, in a market economy in which there are low taxes and the potential for high profits, innovative people will find a way to succeed, which helps everyone. This is probably why the US rose as a super power, while India and Africa did not.
Obama is creating an economic environment in which hard work and innovation are punished, not fostered. As one would expect, we will have abortion on demand, free contraception, gay marriage, high unemployment, low wages, low personal savings and a lower standard of living. Enjoy the liberal utopia. You have no one to blame but yourselves.
Does an economy exist to serve people or do people exist to serve an economy?
How one answers that question pretty much determines their position on many, if not most, political issues.
In current terms, one can take the position that the economy is poor because too many people are lazy and won't accept work, or one could take the position that the economy is poor because there are too few jobs available for millions who would rather be working.
All the "desire" in the world makes no difference whatsoever when the environment for hard work, innovation, and the rewards that come from those virtues is not in place. The economy is an artifact of hard work, innovation, and the commerce that results. It is not an entity in of itself which "serves" or "is served" by the people. An economy is an aggregate of production of goods and services, and the transactions that occur as a result of that activity.
Did you ever wonder how in the world the US became the strongest nation on the planet, sans socialism? Of course, in a market economy in which there are low taxes and the potential for high profits, innovative people will find a way to succeed, which helps everyone. This is probably why the US rose as a super power, while India and Africa did not.
Obama is creating an economic environment in which hard work and innovation are punished, not fostered. As one would expect, we will have abortion on demand, free contraception, gay marriage, high unemployment, low wages, low personal savings and a lower standard of living. Enjoy the liberal utopia. You have no one to blame but yourselves.
You can have your communities and commit yourself to those without have a Unitarian government which looks just like the King and for which created the DoI.
There's nothing in there that says you can form a unitary state or take what you want from other because you have some strange affliction to place yourself and everyone else in the lowest common denominator category.
Why don't you worry about your own country and stop trying to meddle in the affairs of another for your own gain and your own outmoded and outdated political philosophies.
For my own gain??? LOL that's a good one. Actually if I was interested in my own Gain I would be a supporter of the GOP. Because Canada so much depends on trade with the USA it's in our interests that the least restrictive trade policies are followed. The GOP is far more of a free trade party than the Democrats. Obama even froze us out of any supply or services on any stimulus projects.
I love how Adam Smith referred to the concept that in the engagement of an individual pursuing self interest, comes the "Invisible Hand" which causes benefit to the society, even if this was never the intent.
I don't work for the collective, I work for "my" personal gain, to enrich "my" life. I work to earn money for me and my family. Some may consider this is selfish, but the result of pursuing "my" self interest is society benefits from work that would otherwise go undone.
The question becomes which philosophy provides greater good for the society? Does the philosophy I hold, one that has me working for my self interests, encouraging me to work harder, longer, putting more effort into my actions in pursuit of my own self interests provide better results than a philosophy of working for the interests of the society, where regardless of my efforts, I will receive an equal division of the efforts of myself and others?
I believe Adam Smith was absolutely correct in his theory that an individual pursuing their own self interest will work harder, thereby unintentionally benefit society.
Is it not in society's interests to have productive people like yourself?
How is it in society's interests to reward people equally regardless of effort? I wouldn't call that attitude "working in the interest of society." It would certainly be working in the interest of somebody who wants to be compensated the same for less work but not of society.
Is it not in society's interests to have productive people like yourself?
How is it in society's interests to reward people equally regardless of effort? I wouldn't call that attitude "working in the interest of society." It would certainly be working in the interest of somebody who wants to be compensated the same for less work but not of society.
I think you may have misread what I intended, or I may not have written it in a manner that made my position clear. Let me see if this will better clarify it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee
I love how Adam Smith referred to the concept that in the engagement of an individual pursuing self interest, comes the "Invisible Hand" which causes benefit to the society, even if this was never the intent.
I don't work for the collective, I work for "my" personal gain, to enrich "my" life. I work to earn money for me and my family. Some may consider this is selfish, but the result of pursuing "my" self interest is society benefits from work that would otherwise go undone.
The question becomes which philosophy provides greater good for the society? Does the philosophy I hold, one that has me working for my self interests, encouraging me to work harder, longer, putting more effort into my actions in pursuit of my own self interestsprovide better results than a philosophy ofworking for the interests of the society, where regardless of my efforts, I will receive an equal division of the efforts of myself and others?
I believe Adam Smith was absolutely correct in his theory that an individual pursuing their own self interest will work harder, thereby unintentionally benefit society.
I apologize for my poor writing and communication skills. I hope the above will clear up any confusion.
I think all societies are inevitably socialistic. The division of labor has made us all interdependent. Not since the days of the hunter/gatherer has anyone been been "self-reliant" and even in those groups, there was a divison of labor and interdependence, as seen recently in the American Indians of the 19th century.
I think you may have misread what I intended, or I may not have written it in a manner that made my position clear. Let me see if this will better clarify it for you.
I apologize for my poor writing and communication skills. I hope the above will clear up any confusion.
Thank you for trying to clarify. I have an issue with it being called philosophy of the interest of society. "It" being that people are compensated the same regardless of effort. That is not in the interest of society.
Thank you for trying to clarify. I have an issue with it being called philosophy of the interest of society. "It" being that people are compensated the same regardless of effort. That is not in the interest of society.
You have confused interdependence with socialism, "dude". Capitalism is based on commerce among interdependents.
Socialism SAPS the initiative and drive of society. Do you think that Columbus would have given a crap about setting out to explore/discover the new world if there were no financial incentives involved? Would the inter continental railroad have been built if there was no profit?
Get real. Socialism is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO HUMAN NATURE- that is why it always fails. Humans want to be free and benefit from their own work. Socialism is just another form of totalitarianism (keep in mind that Marx himself admired feudalism and a monarchial system) in which the tryanny of the non productive presides over the productive.
If you love socialism, you are a totalitarian at heart who does not feel as though individuals should be free to benefit from the fruits of their own labor. The left, conditioned to think that tyranny comes from the right, have not paid attention to the fact that the most tyrannical governments of the 20th century were from the LEFT.
I don't think they serve each other but they have to coexist together. There has to be compromise without overindulgence between the two., for instance wages can't be too high or to low for the worker class. Slavery was so successful in creating wealth because it forced people to work. Once it overindulged to Slave owner it became moral wrong but when free labor became more profitable it became an economic wrong.
The problem with capitalism is it does not "force" people to work. A person can chose to be a homeless bum if they want.
One of the flaws in capitalism is it only creates wealth if the worker class believes they will get ahead or become rich one day if they work hard. I can't tell you number of people (working class) I know who lost everything during the last great depression but by working hard they became hugely successful. This was when capitalism was still in its infancy and the second Industrial revolution was either peaking or giving way to something else.
IMO There is a paradigm shift in the minds of the working class and the economy is going to have to coexist with it.
The reason working class people are chanting "eat the rich" is because people know that they will never be one of them.
Workers have to be incentivized not only to just work but to work hard. It use to be the lash then it became the dream of becoming rich now it has to become something else.
Illegal migrants, at least the ones that I talk to, have an enormous incentive to work hard. A man can support his family very well in South American by sending very few (by our standards) American dollars home each week.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
