DavidF said:
I approve of this thread. Also, I don't disagree with your belief that economics is a social science and is very closely related to/intertwined with political philosophy and ethics.
I don't believe government is a suprahuman entity that is apart from society. I believe that government is formed and maintained by society. When the goals of society as a whole and those of the governing form (whatever it may be) are pulled too far apart from each other, then you have civil unrest, up to and including civil war. We may in fact be approaching such a juncture, but that is where I do believe democratic governance (even in it's representative form) has some inherent advantages over other forms. It has a flexibility that other forms do not, it can adapt and adjust to changing circumstances more nimbly than other forms, including a purely anarchistic society, which I believe would only continue to fragment until it
has reached the point of irrelevance and would then be subsumed (conquered if you prefer) by a more dominant ideology.
That said, I do believe that a functioning society needs to maintain and encourage
a constant tension/dialogue from all points of view. I believe the best of society is maintained in the attempt (never successful) to take in and integrate competing points of view. So, yes capitalism, yes state regulation of said capitalism and some form of safety net for those who the system fails, yes vigilance against the nanny state becoming too pervasive, and yes vigilance against unchecked capitalism that rewards few and punishes many.
Contradictory, messy, and ideologically unsatisfactory, but in my view, also the only way to move society as a whole forward.
I look forward to seeing how this thread progresses, and I will do my best to avoid ad hominem attacks. ;)
I guess we differ where you want to move society as a whole forward, and I want to move individuals forward. Since society is made up of individuals, society as a whole would move forward. But if you focus on the society, you're bound to ignore others, and even sometimes directly inhibit some individuals chances of moving forward.
As far as corporations only helping a few, I completely disagree. The point of a corporation is not to be a moral entity. It's completely amoral. Those at the helm may have moral implications, but really, a corporation exists to provide consumers with a product that is in demand. The money they make (or lose) is simply a reflection of how efficient they are at providing their product or service. There's so much talk nowadays about benefits and pay etc. Like the competition of the products the companies make, benefits and pay etc are just leverages to compete in the marketplace. They're not a given right, nor should they be.
Many people harp on companies like Microsoft or Apple. The fact is, without them, society would be severely regressed from where we are, in just about every facet. Yet, because they make money, they must be evil. Now banks are another story. I have a huge dislike of fractional reserve banking. I believe banks should be more like money warehouses, but that's another story.
For the Occupy Wall Street people, I would suggest reading this:
"I’ve written about this several times. But, here’s the thing.
OW!
That’s what the Occupy Wall Street people are feeling. They are in pain:
They lost their jobs
They lost money while rich people got bonuses
They lost their homes
Maybe they lost their families
All of the above happened to me. Specifically in 2008. I could easily be down there protesting for the same reasons.
BUT, I actually lived there for several years. On Wall Street. My roof overlooked the New York Stock Exchange.
You never saw a sorrier, sadder group of peple going to work every day than on Wall Street in March, 2009. The actual people who WORK on Wall Street are low-level people who are slaves of the banks. These people lost everything. Now, to top off their depression, the protestors are waving signs in their faces as if the Wall Streeters are the guilty ones.
Let me tell you something: the guilty parties live in Greenwich, CT. Work on Park Avenue and Washington, DC, and they are more than happy to see Occupy Wall Street all the way downtown on Wall Street.
Because of the lack of organization, the Occupy Wall Streeters think they are protesting something symbolic: the greed of Wall Street. The rich bankers are 5 miles north laughing their way to the bank.
Lets get the banks to start lending again. Lets let the stock market go up instead of protesting it. When there is more money in the system, more people will get hired, more people will find opportunities, more businesses will get funded. Being angry at the people who lost the most won’t help anyone."
While I disagree with the lend more money part (much like our government, they don't have it to lend), I thought that was an interesting few paragraphs.
I, too, apologize for any rash behavior in the other thread. I'm looking forward to discussing other view points. That's kind of why I came here. I know most on this board are moderate to left liberals. I hate preaching to the choir, and I hate closing my self in from opposing view points. I'm here to pick the brains of people with whom I disagree, and learn a thing or two. I think we'd all be better for it, much like you said.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.