$17 minimum wage in Seattle

[Fairweather]

Why yes I do believe that government (we the people) should provide free education to those desiring it! As a matter of fact we do, but then at college level, we stop.

 

Not completely true. Do you realize the degree to which public universities are subsidized by taxpayers? Ever looked at out-of-state or private school tuition? That said, I don't completely disagree with your premise. There is a gulf that exists. But I don't necessarily believe it is widening.

[prole]

Why, j_b! I wan't attacking anyone in particular. Why would you think that? Unless, just maybe, the shoe fits.

 

You really are cute! Like a retarded pit-bull. Seriously though, I'm not really interested in your little identity game, as there is really no way to play it to satisfying conclusion.

BTW, I think free education is a great idea.

[Gary_Yngve]

I think free education is a great idea too!

 

Let's do it by lowering taxes!

[JayB]

I love how some of you are pretending not to know the difference between real and nominal wages, and how you can arbitrarily raise one but not the other without either increasing unemployment or loosening monetary policy to the extent that any increase in real wages is ultimately inflated away. Good stuff.

 

I was actually serious when I said that I hoped that Seattle would implement this policy. Not only that, I'd also like to see the wholesale adoption of price controls on everything else. I can't imagine a better applied economics tutorial.

[prole]

"It is proved that things cannot be other than they are, for since everything is made for a purpose, it follows that everything is made for the best purpose." --Dr. Pangloss

[JoshK]

Complete free market advocates crack me up. They argue against hundreds of years of history. Do they even realize what the market was like in America in the late 19th century? Not only did workers suffer, but consumers suffered from monopolistic practices. And we aren't talking about harmless Microsoft monopolies, but monopolies on essential goods. More so, our recessions were more frequent and more severe. Kenysian economics have proven to work very well for everybody involved. Let's be honest...how can anybody claim that bussiness "suffers"?? They still have the riches, buy a vaaaasssstttt margin. I think limiting them from establishing monopolies, destroying the commons and putting workers into deadly labor conditions without a living wage is a pretty reasonable thing. But no, the Republicans would rather push the balance back towards them because, as we all know, life just suuucks today compared to 1890.

[Gary_Yngve]

Josh, it's very simple. Deny them their money, and they won't have expendable income for foul corrupting rap music and drugs. They'll have no choice but to turn to God for guidance. And we'll be fine, because we'll have our own private armies to defend ourselves from the masses who don't become good Christians.

[ashw_justin]

It'll be a sad, sad day in this country when the vice president of human resources can't buy his son another BMW for is 17th birthday, because some whiney, greed-stricken povert decided he wanted to send his son to community college.

[prole]

JoshK, You don't seem to understand that history is entirely irrelevant. All that is required is an esoteric knowledge of economistic models and principles entirely divorced from any existing or historical social context. Once you have gained a bare minimum of said knowledge and the ability to regurgitate it on demand you will recognize: A. Everything is fine. B. If everything isn't fine, the theory/model isn't being applied properly and meddlesome regulation is to blame. C. Rinse and repeat.

[sexual_chocolate]

Why that was a rather succinct way to put it, Prole.

And entirely accurate.

 

Idealists are frustratingly...well...frustrating, whether their idealism is rooted in capitalist theory or communist theory.

They've both killed countless people, but at least communists do it with a humanitarian goal!

[Fairweather]

JoshK, You don't seem to understand that history is entirely irrelevant. All that is required is an esoteric knowledge of economistic models and principles entirely divorced from any existing or historical social context. Once you have gained a bare minimum of said knowledge and the ability to regurgitate it on demand you will recognize: A. Everything is fine. B. If everything isn't fine, the theory/model isn't being applied properly and meddlesome regulation is to blame. C. Rinse and repeat.

 

Of course, this must also apply to your earlier stated belief that Soviet and Maoist-style attempts to implement Marxist ideals were merely "applied improperly".

[Fairweather]

 

Idealists are frustratingly...well...frustrating, whether their idealism is rooted in capitalist theory or communist theory.

They've both killed countless people, but at least communists do it with a humanitarian goal!

 

I'll put this one in my ammo box to you later. What a stupid statement, even if you made it in jest.

[prole]

Of course, this must also apply to your earlier stated belief that Soviet and Maoist-style attempts to implement Marxist ideals were merely "applied improperly".

 

The link, Fairweather, the link?

[Fairweather]

Of course, this must also apply to your earlier stated belief that Soviet and Maoist-style attempts to implement Marxist ideals were merely "applied improperly".

 

The link, Fairweather, the link?

 

Short memory, eh?

 

 

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/462663/page/0/fpart/3/vc/1

 

A couple of things in response. Marx's work is enormous and varied. His critique of contemporary political economy offers concepts for understanding capitalism and society that went far beyond the existing analyses of Smith, Ricardo, et al. Marxian and non-Marxian scholars alike recognize the usefulness in these concepts. An analysis which puts capitalism at the fore in its methods seems to me to be more relevant than ever when capitalism has been extended across the planet.

 

It is telling that when most people think of Marx, and "real world trials of experimentation with Marxist concepts", totalitarian police state tactics, loss of personal freedom, huge bureaucratic apparatuses, environmental degradation on par with capitalist countries, deprivation, bad architecture, etc. generally spring to mouth. I will not defend or apologize for "actually existing Socialism". I will say that these societies do not represent "implemented Marxist concepts", the historical reality is far more complex. Marx wrote virtually nothing about what post-capitalist society might look like. (Utopianism is exactly what Marx critiqued the Anarchists for. To do so would be pure folly, as Fairweather points out stuggles would be very intense, possibly violent, and outcomes would be historically dependent on how those struggles played out. Revolutionary tactics and organization fell to the likes of Lenin and Trotsky and others in countries with virtually none of the characteristics that Marx thought would be necessary for a transition from capitalism to socialism. These countries' (most often of the "third world" variety) attempt to develop productive capacites rapidly in the face of military aggression and capitalist competition as well as sustain social revolutions domestically resulted in what we superficially understand as Socialism.

 

Anyway, the history of the Left is not confined to the horrors of the gulag, Pol Pot, etc. Left and left influenced struggle have been instrumental in, among other things, the 8-hour workday, throwing off the yolk of third-world colonialism, the right to bargain collectively with employers, civil rights, anti-censorship, relatively high standards of living and universal benefits among workers in European countries where the left has been historically strong, anti-fascism, and on and on. What has the Right done for you lately?

 

So no, I don't only espouse Marxism for its analytical capabilities, but that it part of a solid and longstanding tradition committed to social justice, the breaking down of social hierarchies, and human liberation from oppression. Things that continue unabated on an even greater scale, weak and nonsensical appeals to "human nature" notwithstanding.

 

 

NOW do you remember? So mired in the glory of academia that you don't recall your own thoughts? Please spare me any of your typical "reading comprehension" attacks. I think what you were saying here is pretty plain to see.

[JoshK]

Well, I don't know how the discussion drifted off into communism - maybe because I didn't read the first half of this thread. My point was simply that some regulation of a capitalist market is nescessary to some extent. Why people think we would be better off living in a world where companies polluted even more and workers were fucked even harder bewilders me. It's as simple as this - we as taxpayers shouldn't have to pay to clean up the corporate world's mess, be it socially or environmentally.

[Fairweather]

Josh, I have never supported a free market void of government regulation. That would be plain stupid. You need to understand that guys like prole/j_b, and to a lesser degree, SC, support a very dark solution to inequities that have existed since the beginning of time and are only addressed to any degree under our present system. Gut the current order and you'll likely lead the world into another dark age, and this is exactly what anarchist types want. The pendulum swings both ways. A system tweaked more to your liking will be along before too long.

[ashw_justin]

I think it's funny that the wealth of the U.S. is attributed to capitalism itself. Our success is due simply to the fact that we have many resources, and have enjoyed a state of uninhibited, profitable growth since the birth of the country. Only now are we starting to have to deal with the realities of a STABLE economy--one which our well-praised economic system is ill-prepared for. Everything is always about growth, interest, invesment and return, etc etc; the expectation that tomorrow, we will have more money than today. The only way for that to happen in a stable (non-growing) economy is for that money to be TAKEN from someone else. This is why nobody should be entitled to money that they themselves have not worked for.

[Fairweather]

I think it's funny that the wealth of the U.S. is attributed to capitalism itself. Our success is due simply to the fact that we have many resources, and have enjoyed a state of uninhibited, profitable growth since the birth of the country. Only now are we starting to have to deal with the realities of a STABLE economy--one which our well-praised economic system is ill-prepared for. Everything is always about growth, interest, invesment and return, etc etc; the expectation that tomorrow, we will have more money than today. The only way for that to happen in a stable (non-growing) economy is for that money to be TAKEN from someone else. This is why nobody should be entitled to money that they themselves have not worked for.

 

I'm glad you support the abolition of welfare, state support of university students, etc! You're making real progress. But it's sad that you would supplant human drive, spirit, innovation with a government hammer and chains. Stupid statements you made, really. Maybe even top ten material!

[JayB]

What do you mean by "stable" economy?

[Billygoat]

Social Darwinism. Let's just duke it out. Everyone has guns too. That should level the playing field somewhat.

 

I keep hearing sid vicious singing "who killed whitey" in my head...bad billy badbliily bad.

 

[Fairweather]

You threatening me, BitchGoat?

[Billygoat]

 

 

Wow! Feeling nervous my fairweather friend, hmmmm?!

[ashw_justin]

I'm glad you support the abolition of welfare, state support of university students, etc!

I do not agree with free rides for anyone who is able to work. Welfare is abused, plain and simple. I've seen it in person. As far as education is concerned, that is not money being granted, but education. Yes, I know education costs money. However we need national education at least as much as we need a military. (To be clear though, I personally think that a 4-year degree is economically useless for many, if not the majority of students).

 

You're making real progress. But it's sad that you would supplant human drive, spirit, innovation with a government hammer and chains.

If "human drive, spirit, [and] innovation" = taking money from other people instead of earning it yourself, then of course. I agree that those who exploit others tend to be some of the most intelligent and resourceful members of our society. But talent and inspiration should not be misconstrued as the right to exploit others to the point of poverty.

 

Stupid statement you made, really.

Ah, an equal rubuttal to this one is easy: fuck off eh!

[Fairweather]

I'm loading four of my 19 (...or is it 20?) guns, packing extra mags, booby trapping my secondary entrance with flash/bangs, sharpening my Kershaw Amphibian (I just love knives...so beautiful, so elegant), and painting up my face as we speak. I'll be in the juniper on the south side of the house. See you soon.

[ashw_justin]

What do you mean by "stable" economy?

 

not growing. Money neither created nor destroyed, economic homeostasis. Sorry, I'm too out of my element to know how to say this is economic terms.