The 1 word essence of the political right?

[Fragony]

It's no road to perfection it's a flawed idea. But it's a flawed idea that is better then other flawed ideas. There is a lot wrong with it, no question there I will admit any but it's still a better idea

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That the third world is poor makes is relatively rich. If the potential in the third world was released, and that part was as productive as the first world, our relative wealth would shrink, while our absolute wealth would increase.

It's a fallacy that one mans riches depend on another mans misfortune. One man being raised from poverty to riches benefits everyone else too. A poor man is an unproductive man; an unproductive man is a waste of valuable resources. And our wealth is upheld by human resources, not natural resources.

Specifically, our purchasing power would fall whilst the cost of goods would rise (more demand for the same product). As a result, our economic prosperity overall would diminish, even as our numerical "wealth" increased.

It also IS true that you can only get rich off the backs of others - economics is trade, getting wealthy using trade means buying low and selling high - creating a surplus from the transaction which you can then use for something else.

[Husar]

It's no road to perfection it's a flawed idea. But it's a flawed idea that is better then other flawed ideas. There is a lot wrong with it, no question there I will admit any but it's still a better idea

You think spending half your life in courtrooms because anytime you clash with someone over anything the issue has to go to court is a better idea? Or do you prefer the approach where you have to fight your neighbors to the death over who gets that tree between the two houses?

[HoreTore]

Specifically, our purchasing power would fall whilst the cost of goods would rise (more demand for the same product). As a result, our economic prosperity overall would diminish, even as our numerical "wealth" increased.

It also IS true that you can only get rich off the backs of others - economics is trade, getting wealthy using trade means buying low and selling high - creating a surplus from the transaction which you can then use for something else.

Hah! Not likely.

You can't "sell high" unless you've got a buyer. The richer people get, the more buyers we get. We also get a lot more products, since ore people are producing stuff, thus decreasing costs.

The zero-sum game is the greatest lie told in history. Henry Ford proved that beyond doubt.

[Husar]

The zero-sum game is the greatest lie told in history. Henry Ford proved that beyond doubt.

I (dis)agree. It's true that everyone can become richer and have more by trading, but in the human mind it's still a zero sum game because we rate ourselves in relation to others. I won't be highly regarded for having a yacht if everybody else has 5 yachts because in that case a yacht is not a sign that sets me apart as being rich and successful. In fact with that one yacht I might count as poor in my country because the value that makes you poor is set to be when you earn less than 1/5th the average wage or something like that, it's not a hard value. So overall you may be fine but that doesn't mean you will be happy or regarded as worthy as long as you don't have more than most others.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hah! Not likely.

You can't "sell high" unless you've got a buyer. The richer people get, the more buyers we get. We also get a lot more products, since ore people are producing stuff, thus decreasing costs.

The zero-sum game is the greatest lie told in history. Henry Ford proved that beyond doubt.

No because:

I (dis)agree. It's true that everyone can become richer and have more by trading, but in the human mind it's still a zero sum game because we rate ourselves in relation to others. I won't be highly regarded for having a yacht if everybody else has 5 yachts because in that case a yacht is not a sign that sets me apart as being rich and successful. In fact with that one yacht I might count as poor in my country because the value that makes you poor is set to be when you earn less than 1/5th the average wage or something like that, it's not a hard value. So overall you may be fine but that doesn't mean you will be happy or regarded as worthy as long as you don't have more than most others.

This.

Beyond that - you're talking about luxury gifts, XBoxes, TV's... Try looking at bread, in a lot of Western countries you have families with two TV's who struggle to feed themselves. This is the same as last time, where you fall back on possessions rather than essentials like food and fuel. THOSE things always have a buyer, and the seller always looses out until it gets to retail where the merchant makes a profit. You forget, I grew up in farming, if the Western world is so bloody marvelous and we're all so wealthy why do most farmers need to be subsudised?

I'll tell you why, because the merchants buy low and sell high, they extract more than their fair share and make the rest of us poorer.

[HoreTore]

I (dis)agree. It's true that everyone can become richer and have more by trading, but in the human mind it's still a zero sum game because we rate ourselves in relation to others. I won't be highly regarded for having a yacht if everybody else has 5 yachts because in that case a yacht is not a sign that sets me apart as being rich and successful. In fact with that one yacht I might count as poor in my country because the value that makes you poor is set to be when you earn less than 1/5th the average wage or something like that, it's not a hard value. So overall you may be fine but that doesn't mean you will be happy or regarded as worthy as long as you don't have more than most others.

I'm a commie, since when did peoples happiness matter to me?

All that matters is material improvment. Nothing else.

(and I'm not really joking either)


And you do agree with my previous posts btw, my statement was that relative wealth would decrease, while increasing absolute wealth, which is what you described in your post

As for PVC; my standard example on economic matters is the farmer-miller-baker-example. When I have I talked about non-essential items? I've also made the point that depending on resources(like farming) makes you poor, while depending on industry(including trading) makes you rich. Why are you arguing against me, really?

And one last thing: farmers should quit their non-stop whining. Not really relevant to this discussion, but I think it should be said more often.

[HoreTore]

I think you're all wrong.

Don't you make me fall in love with you

I have no objection to the rest of your post though. I'm a reformist socialist after all. I want to expand on what you wrote though: the problem isn't just "the perfect system"(utopia), I believe even wanting a perfect system is a negative. The goal should be "workable with more pro's than con's, and in need of constant improvement" IMO.


Again: I humbly offer the Scandinavian model to the world Talk to the Danes and Finns, they've done it without oil!

[HoreTore]

We have a fundamental difference then! I believe a perfect system can be achieved, but that such a system can only be brought on by the vast bulk of the people making a conscious choice to be less ignorant, less trusting of government, and far hungrier for the truth. Perhaps most importantly, people would need to become wise--by which I mean they would have to learn to abandon their own viewpoints, and examine the world as though it was the first time they had ever seen it. The economics are of no consequence (although I personally would prefer a Socialist system similar to the Scandinavian model), because a nation run by good people will make good decisions.

So the real question becomes, how do you make good people?

Fundamental difference? Perhaps not...

This perfect system you talk of, how badly do you want it? Do you want it to the point of forcing it through? Do you want it so badly as to completely disregard the current society as "unworkable"(or similar)?

If your answer to those two are "no", and you also prefer a gradual(reformist) change instead of sudden(revolutionary) change, our views are pretty much aligned I'd say. I agree with your paraphrasing of Montesquieu(how could I disagree with the French?), but I also believe that the virtues he believed in are ones we already possess, as our democracies are rock-solid and have endured a centuries already...

[HoreTore]

I would not call it unworkable, but I would call it inadequate. I think the entire system in this country needs an overhaul, from the bottom to the top and the top to the bottom. However, I also believe in non-violence (except for self-defense, of course), and I also believe that you can't just tell people what to do. From an ethical point of view, I find as much fault with our system as any in the history of the world. The reason it is tolerated is because we've all been bought off by trinkets and stuff. The left vs. right economic argument is nothing but quibbling over things and how best to distribute them. I think that argument is inconsequential when compared to the bigger problem of people being greedy assholes.

Well, then we differ again

I wouldn't go so strongly against the status quo, but then again we do live in different countries, so that may be the difference... Also, my world-view centers around the economical aspects in society... I'm a material man. You others are hippies.

[HoreTore]

Don't get me wrong, I like living comfortably. Even though I'm below the poverty line right now, my needs are more than met. Capitalism has its benefits, and material things are totally required for a good life. The problem is when the quest for more things (or even Capital, if you will...) overtakes respect for the Golden Rule.

When I want to improve the material standard, it is not because of the material itself, but rather the things that come with it. Longer life spans, higher education, space colonization and so on.

And spread as evenly as possible, of course. No point having one guy living to be 120 while everyone else dies at 50...