Laissez Faire (sp?)

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

My teacher was talking about this today and I'm a little confused about it. Adam Smith wrote about, the government having little to do with the economy, and hands off of it. He said let the invisible hand drive the economy and let the people be free. My teacher said that this was a liberal viewpoint but that confused me.

Because a couple years ago, I remember studying the Gilded age, and the American government was hands off and let the corporations run free which produced huge monopolies and terrible working conditions for laborers. And my teacher back then said this was a conservative viewpoint.

So I'm confused about it a little

help?

[Iskandar]

Your teacher meant liberal in the sense of classical liberalism. Modern liberalism is very different.

[spitfirejunky]

Depends what exactly is meant by the term liberal.

[lionelhutz88]

She probably meant liberal as in the Libertarian Party, which stands for the government having as little to do with everyday life as possible. It's a belief that is very right wing.

[spitfirejunky]

^ ???

[Iskandar]

Well, libertarianism is supposed to be a return to classical liberalism.

[griftadan]

i would argue that poor working conditions really have more to do with countries being poor and underdeveloped than being laissez faire

[Iskandar]

The lack of a labour movement.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

And the Gilded Age wasn't really laissez faire because the government put up protective tariffs

[Der Übermensch]

Liberal and Conservative in the modern sense are stupid terms and should be ignored.
Laissez faire basically means "Hands Off!"
Economic Liberalism = Capitalism
Economic Conservatism = Communism

And the Gilded Age wasn't really laissez faire because the government put up protective tariffs
It was pretty much as far as internal trade was concerned, the success of which was ironically dependent on the tariffs to curtail imports :-p

[Iskandar]

And the Gilded Age wasn't really laissez faire because the government put up protective tariffsThat doesn't have much to do with the working conditions, though.
Liberal and Conservative in the modern sense are stupid terms and should be ignored.
Laissez faire basically means "Hands Off!"
Economic Liberalism = Capitalism
Economic Conservatism = CommunismI dislike that terminology as well. Socialism is not conservative because it's in opposition to the status quo, not the status quo itself.

How about:

Economic collectivism = Socialism
Economic individualism = Capitalism

Or even better, contrast private economics vs. public economics.

[griftadan]

And the Gilded Age wasn't really laissez faire because the government put up protective tariffs

technically that would make it easier for domestic producers to treat labor better.

the real issue was underdevelopment and lack of human capital

Economic Liberalism = Capitalism
Economic Conservatism = Communism

dammit stop saying this you're confusing future generations

[italic zero]

No it's more like

Economic Liberalism = Free Market Capitalism
Economic Conservatism = Mercantilism

or

Economic Liberalism = Free Market Capitalism
Economic Conservatism = Corporatism

[Iskandar]

No it's more like

Economic Liberalism = Free Market Capitalism
Economic Conservatism = Mercantilism

or

Economic Liberalism = Free Market Capitalism
Economic Conservatism = CorporatismYep, although I prefer to not use the terms liberal and conservative when talking about economics at all.

In modern Western economies, it's more complicated than that.

[Reaganista]

My teacher was talking about this today and I'm a little confused about it. Adam Smith wrote about, the government having little to do with the economy, and hands off of it. He said let the invisible hand drive the economy and let the people be free. My teacher said that this was a liberal viewpoint but that confused me.

Because a couple years ago, I remember studying the Gilded age, and the American government was hands off and let the corporations run free which produced huge monopolies and terrible working conditions for laborers. And my teacher back then said this was a conservative viewpoint.
in Liberal countries Liberalism is conservative

[Iskandar]

in Liberal countries Liberalism is conservativeya thats the problem

so nobody should use the terms liberal and conservative

ever

[Der Übermensch]

That doesn't have much to do with the working conditions, though.
I dislike that terminology as well. Socialism is not conservative because it's in opposition to the status quo, not the status quo itself.

How about:

Economic collectivism = Socialism
Economic individualism = Capitalism

Or even better, contrast private economics vs. public economics.

I agree with your terms, but I don't agree that Socialism ISN'T conservative as it isn't in opposition to the status quo if it is the system used it IS the status quo, and capitalism is opposed... It's all a matter of perspective...

[Iskandar]

I agree with your terms, but I don't agree that Socialism ISN'T conservative as it isn't in opposition to the status quo if it is the system used it IS the status quo, and capitalism is opposed... It's all a matter of perspective...Well, conservatives want to preserve the status quo, don't they? They want to conserve.:) And socialism is generally not the status quo in the Western world.

But to avoid confusion, I simply prefer to avoid such terms.

[pooble]

That doesn't have much to do with the working conditions, though.


Well, tariffs reduce competition that internal businesses face. With this they can be more inefficient than they other wise would, misallocation of resources occurs, and living standards necessarily fall (or rather rise slower than they otherwise would).

edit: 420 in post count

[Iskandar]

Well, tariffs reduce competition that internal businesses face. With this they can be more inefficient than they other wise would, misallocation of resources occurs, and living standards necessarily fall (or rather rise slower than they otherwise would).But the tariffs weren't responsible for the poor working conditions in the first place.

[pooble]

No, they're responsible for slowing down the increase in living conditions, or in extreme cases even lowering them.

[Iskandar]

No, they're responsible for slowing down the increase in living conditions, or in extreme cases even lowering them.That's a bold assumption.

[pooble]

Well, tariffs tariffs involve the waste of scarce resources. Because these resources are put into unproductive uses such as enforcing protectionist laws and creating goods that otherwise would not be created, less resources are left to be consumed by citizens, thus less goods and services are able to be produced.

[Smokey D]

Tariffs lower general public welfare, but not necessarily working conditions.

And welfare only benefits in the long run, but in the long run we're all dead.

[pooble]

Well, until now I didn't know anyone else had brought up working conditions, but over time a country with less tariffs, all else remaining the same, would certainly be able to have better working conditions for its workers than one with largely protectionist policies if not for any other reason than more resources being available to invest in labor productivity. Wealthier employers would be able to compete on a higher level for workers than otherwise.

[Smokey D]

Generally I agree, although there might be a case for tariffs for fledgling industries, so they have enough time to set up economies of scale and therefore are able to compete on the international stage.

[Reaganista]

wealthy employers dont lead to better working conditions

[Iskandar]

What about the role of tariffs in protecting job security?

[Smokey D]

In the long term, people don't have a right to work in specific industries. Tariffs distort the economy to make some sectors more profitable than they should be, and that does harm allocation of resources.

But where tariffs exist, they should be phased out over a period because despite the harm they cause (both to the public in the importing country and potential exporters) abolishing them quickly can cause major economic dislocation.

[Iskandar]

In the long term, people don't have a right to work in specific industries. Tariffs distort the economy to make some sectors more profitable than they should be, and that does harm allocation of resources.But aren't they also an easy source of revenue?

I'm just curious. I'm not quite sure what my opinions on globalization are yet, and free trade vs. protectionism is of course an important part of that debate.

[Smokey D]

But aren't they also an easy source of revenue?

So are taxes but they still harm the economy.

In the diagram, the triangle ABC represents consumer surplus before the tariff, CYX represents producer surplus. AZW represents the consumer surplus after the tariff, and WUY represents producer surplus. If I've drawn it properly, the loss to consumer surplus is smaller than the gain to producer surplus, suggesting the tariff reduces over all welfare.

http://i22.tinypic.com/swp7rl.jpg

[Iskandar]

So are taxes but they still harm the economy.You're saying that both tariffs and taxes must always harm the economy?

[Smokey D]

In the long run, yeah.

But as I said, in the long run we are all dead and there are opportunities for them to be beneficial in the short run.

But tariffs less than taxes, i'd say.

[Iskandar]

In the long run, yeah.

But as I said, in the long run we are all dead and there are opportunities for them to be beneficial in the short run.

But tariffs less than taxes, i'd say.So far I am inclined to think the same.

It appears to me there are better ways of achieving the goals of tariffs without the same negative costs.

[Smokey D]

I don't know if tariffs ever serve a true economic purpose. They're about appeasing politically powerful interests, not helping welfare.

[Iskandar]

I don't know if tariffs ever serve a true economic purpose. They're about appeasing politically powerful interests, not helping welfare.I've heard that.

[Smokey D]

Damn farmers. We'd be much richer in NZ if there was true free trade between us and the US.

[Iskandar]

Damn farmers. We'd be much richer in NZ if there was true free trade between us and the US.So you're a free trade advocate. What of the negative consequences of free trade?

[Smokey D]

Up to a point. I think countries with reasonably powerful states can ameliorate the harmful effects of free trade (ie, they can require all corporations acting within its borders to comply with labour legislation) while still enjoying the benefits.

[pooble]

wealthy employers dont lead to better working conditions

as employers get wealthier and more and more can afford to provide better working conditions (or at least higher wages), it makes sense that they would to compete for labor.



also, regarding revenue, i think if all government wanted was to raise more revenue, they either put in some new kind of sin tax or simply increase the debt. tariffs seem like too much trouble for the government just to raise revenue. usually theres someone interested in the tariffs being established.

[Reaganista]

as employers get wealthier and more and more can afford to provide better working conditions (or at least higher wages), it makes sense that they would to compete for labor
except the minimum working conditions required to attract laborers doesn't change because they're wealthy

[pooble]

except the minimum working conditions required to attract laborers doesn't change because they're wealthy

yes, but as they have more resources to invest, they can try to increase the productivity of labor by giving them more breaks, better conditions etc. and hope that this attracts more labor from other businesses that are slower to improve life for their workers.

[Reaganista]

or they could maximize profits idk

[pooble]

yes, and a common way to do that is through expansion of business and hiring of new labor, which can be attracted to the employer by better working conditions.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

or maybe just attracting labour because labour needs jobs

[pooble]

they can be artisans, start their own business, choose to not work, find someone to get money from.

and just because people might 'need' to get jobs doesnt mean there wouldnt be competition for working conditions.

[Smokey D]

People only compete for labour when labour is cheap. If it got too expensive, they'd start investing in other things or even move offshore. Overall, more people are richer, but localities suffer.

I'm not sure what's worse. I guess I'd generally prefer the first, though, within reasonable bounds.

[pooble]

People only compete for labour when labour is cheap. If it got too expensive, they'd start investing in other things or even move offshore. Overall, more people are richer, but localities suffer.

I'm not sure what's worse. I guess I'd generally prefer the first, though, within reasonable bounds.

Well, you'd have to look at exactly what makes labor more expensive. The problem isn't more expensive labor, but labor that costs above the equilibrium price. The heavily regulated labor market is certainly partially responsible for offshoring and the labor black market that currently exists.

Of course I'd rather not have my small town become a ghost town, but than again, who am I to have the authority to deny people poorer than myself jobs?

[Smokey D]

Well, you'd have to look at exactly what makes labor more expensive. The problem isn't more expensive labor, but labor that costs above the equilibrium price. The heavily regulated labor market is certainly partially responsible for offshoring and the labor black market that currently exists.

Any increase in labour costs incentivise capital investment and off shoring, and it is certainly not solely the result of wage regulating policies. The main problem is that the world wage price might be lower than the domestic wage price for a given economy. If supply and demand are left alone, we can expect this to correct in the future, but it becomes an issue if the world wage price is below the cost of living in the domestic economy.


Of course I'd rather not have my small town become a ghost town, but than again, who am I to have the authority to deny people poorer than myself jobs?

The problem is the economy can't solve everything.

[Reaganista]

yes, and a common way to do that is through expansion of business and hiring of new labor, which can be attracted to the employer by better working conditions.
or by telling their managers to stop throwing out applications
or telling the foremen to let in some of the people milling about outside of the factory

[pooble]

Any increase in labour costs incentivise capital investment and off shoring, and it is certainly not solely the result of wage regulating policies. The main problem is that the world wage price might be lower than the domestic wage price for a given economy. If supply and demand are left alone, we can expect this to correct in the future, but it becomes an issue if the world wage price is below the cost of living in the domestic economy.

No, of course its not the sole cause. In some cases offshoring is definetly the cheaper alternative regardless of regulations, but it would be interesting to see how many jobs, not even the cheapest and lowest quality ones, would be saved were it not for those policies. But thats hard to figure out. Maybe CNN could have a special not on how many jobs are being lost for once, but instead focus on why they are being lost.[/QUOTE]

or by telling their managers to stop throwing out applications
or telling the foremen to let in some of the people milling about outside of the factory

Well in both cases somebody is better off. Anyway, you can't deny that business also practice more gracious ways of attracting labor, including what I was talking about.

[Iskandar]

Of course I'd rather not have my small town become a ghost town, but than again, who am I to have the authority to deny people poorer than myself jobs?If we're talking about outsourcing, more likely than not they're going to be worse jobs, with lower pay and poorer working conditions.

Why trade high-paying, possibly unionized jobs for that?

[Reaganista]

there's no need to attract labor labor is begging to work anywhere

Well in both cases somebody is better off
working conditions didnt change

[pooble]

If we're talking about outsourcing, more likely than not they're going to be worse jobs, with lower pay and poorer working conditions.

Why trade high-paying, possibly unionized jobs for that?

they might not pay as high, or be as cozy, but the people who receive the new jobs certainly need them. and once enough in that region are employed, they can unionize as well.

there's no need to attract labor labor is begging to work anywhere

attracting labor doesnt just mean employing people that had no jobs until that point. it means attracting labor from other industries, from competitors, or from the company next door.

working conditions didnt change

you got me there. at least someone is making some money though.

[Iskandar]

they might not pay as high, or be as cozy, but the people who receive the new jobs certainly need them. and once enough in that region are employed, they can unionize as well.Not if the laws of that country are hostile to unions.

[pooble]

well that depends on what you mean by hostile. im opposed to laws that disallow unions. im also opposed to anti-scab laws and mandatory union membership.

also, unions are not neccasary for the workers to eventually become better off.

[Smokey D]

Why trade high-paying, possibly unionized jobs for that?

Potentially, high union density restricts general entry into the labour market, and consequently harms the so called 'working class' (by denying people the opportunity to work).

Unions very rarely hold true to 'workers of the world unite'. It's usually 'fee paying members, we'll get you jobs'.

And there are other problems associated with the 'stickiness' unions (and other forms of regulation) can cause in the market. The turbulence of Thatcher's reforms would have been much less painful if the mines had obeyed the laws of supply and demand and phased out production as it became increasingly unproductive.

[Iskandar]

well that depends on what you mean by hostile. im opposed to laws that disallow unions. im also opposed to anti-scab laws and mandatory union membership.Countries where labour laws are lax or practically non-existent, and hostility towards unions is given a free rein.
also, unions are not neccasary for the workers to eventually become better off.They provide a means for workers to begin bettering their position immediately, without directly involving the state.

[pooble]

They provide a means for workers to begin bettering their position immediately, without directly involving the state.

which i have no problem with, unless when if the unions fail they go to the government.

[Iskandar]

which i have no problem with, unless when if the unions fail they go to the government.Why do you have a problem with that?

[Reaganista]

attracting labor doesnt just mean employing people that had no jobs until that point. it means attracting labor from other industries, from competitors, or from the company next door.

which is completely needless because they're inundated with people who have no jobs and are desperate to get one
you got me there. at least someone is making some money though.
i dont see what that has to do with working conditions

[Smokey D]

which is completely needless because they're inundated with people who have no jobs and are desperate to get one

Labour markets rarely act so simply.

[Danish]

The institutionalized unemployment rate certainly does have a major effect in driving down wages and discouraging workers from organizing.

[Reaganista]

Labour markets rarely act so simply.
except on earth

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Potentially, high union density restricts general entry into the labour market, and consequently harms the so called 'working class' (by denying people the opportunity to work).

weasel word is weasel word

[Smokey D]

weasel word is weasel word

What weasel word?

except on earth

Oh please. It only works like that if every human was a100% rational actor.

The institutionalized unemployment rate certainly does have a major effect in driving down wages and discouraging workers from organizing.

I suppose that depends on the level of unemployment.

But we should remember that places like France and Germany have high union density, high unemployment and high wages.

[Reaganista]

Oh please. It only works like that if every human was a100% rational actor.
or
almost every human was almost 100%

[Smokey D]

Why do people remain chronically unemployed even in times of economic growth?

[Reaganista]

unemployment is built into the system

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

What weasel word?

potentially

[Smokey D]

unemployment is built into the system

And the same people remain unemployed, so the boogeyman of the armies of the unemployed doesn't really work in modern economies.

potentially

As in, this theory has been hypothesised as a reason for continuing unemployment but it remains contentious so I'm not going to posit it as fact.

[Reaganista]

And the same people remain unemployed, so the boogeyman of the armies of the unemployed doesn't really work in modern economies.

except of course when different people are unemployed
which is the vast majority of cases

[Smokey D]

A variety of people are unemployed at any one time, but the people who are chronically unemployed remains a) fairly static and b) composed of largely teh same people. But nonetheless, the threat of the army of the unemployed only applies when the unemployed are as skilled as the employed, they are willing to go to work and that they are skilled in the sectors the economy requires.

[Reaganista]

so the sectors where working conditions are worst

[Smokey D]

Sure, sometimes.

But the economy is too dynamicfor that to be true all the time.

[Danish]

I suppose that depends on the level of unemployment.

But we should remember that places like France and Germany have high union density, high unemployment and high wages.

But people there have a high degree of income security during times of unemployment, as well as considerably better access to skills training and post-secondary education. Collective bargaining is also very different than in the US and Canada. It's unrealistic to expect a worker to stay in one job for their entire career; in fact, it's rare. But individual workers shouldn't have to pay the price of economic downturn or corporate restructuring.

[Smokey D]

I dunno if banlieues with up to 20-25% unemployment are really enjoying 'income security' or access to tertiary education, to be honest.

. But individual workers shouldn't have to pay the price of economic downturn or corporate restructuring

Who should?

[Danish]

I dunno if banlieues with up to 20-25% unemployment are really enjoying 'income security' or access to tertiary education, to be honest.

Oh no doubt, but the severity of socio-economic inequality is significantly higher the more liberal the labour market model; social democracy is still based in a capitalist society.

dei, thanks for enhancing my vocab!

Who should?

The government.

[dei]

Banlieues are the outskirts of a city.

[Reaganista]

Sure, sometimes.

But the economy is too dynamicfor that to be true all the time.
so the sectors here on planet earth in the year 2007 in regards to actual humans where working conditions are the worst

[Smokey D]

Oh no doubt, but the severity of socio-economic inequality is significantly higher the more liberal the labour market model; social democracy is still based in a capitalist society.

Not necessarily, although that appears to be the case in the US.

The government.

a) Why and b) who pays the government? Should the government pay indefinitely to maintain an unprofitable business?

so the sectors here on planet earth in the year 2007 in regards to actual humans where working conditions are the worst

No. Don't make **** up.

[Dave de Sylvia]

But people there have a high degree of income security during times of unemployment
I'm sure they'd prefer to have jobs.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

there isn't a simple tradeoff between jobs and income security

[Dave de Sylvia]

That's not an excuse for bad economic policy.

[Danish]

I'm sure they'd prefer to have jobs.

Yes, that's what income security policies are designed to do.

Ok, in the US if you work somewhere for 20 years out of high school and get laid off, you are going to have a very, very difficult time getting training, health care, daycare, or even some money to make ends meet until you get the skills you need to be "employable" in the so-called "new economy". Chances are you're going to have to get two minimum-wage jobs in the private service sector (really the only growing job market) just to make ends meet.

In France, if you get laid off you collect generous unemployment insurance, continue to have access to health care and childcare, and you actually have access to public education and skills training (ie. not a private college like DeVry that costs like $15 000/year). So you don't have to take two low-paying-jobs-with-no-future just to make ends meet.

People generally react to this by arguing that liberal labour markets outperform social market and social democratic models, it's untrue. Unemployment rates may be slightly higher (really only marginal), but the unemployed don't suffer like they do in the US. Overall, growth has been strong in Denmark, Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, virtually all of Western Europe.

Fundamentally, there is one difference in principle here. Liberal systems give priority to employer profitability. Social systems give priority to people. I'd give preference to people over profit any day.

[Smokey D]

People generally react to this by arguing that liberal labour markets outperform social market and social democratic models, it's untrue. Unemployment rates may be slightly higher (really only marginal), but the unemployed don't suffer like they do in the US. Overall, growth has been strong in Denmark, Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, virtually all of Western Europe.

Growth has been pretty average in France and Germany. Also, Holland is actually more 'Anglo-Saxon' than Britain. And as I say, there is a massive difference between promised income security and what people actually enjoy in the poorer neighbourhoods in France (I'm not sure about the other places, but I imagine its generally the same).

I'm not saying that it these forms of social democracy don't work, but they are not a pancea for economic problems or the woes of labour.

[Danish]

Growth has been pretty average in France and Germany. Also, Holland is actually more 'Anglo-Saxon' than Britain. And as I say, there is a massive difference between promised income security and what people actually enjoy in the poorer neighbourhoods in France (I'm not sure about the other places, but I imagine its generally the same).

I'm not saying that it these forms of social democracy don't work, but they are not a pancea for economic problems or the woes of labour.

Oh, there is no doubt that it's not a panacea. It's a means and it's far from perfect. But then again, exploitation is the basis for capitalism, no matter the labour market model.

[Smokey D]

I don't think it's always exploitative.

[Danish]

I don't think it's always exploitative.

I'm not going down this road. ;)

[Dave de Sylvia]

Ok, in the US if you work somewhere for 20 years out of high school and get laid off, you are going to have a very, very difficult time getting training, health care, daycare, or even some money to make ends meet until you get the skills you need to be "employable" in the so-called "new economy". Chances are you're going to have to get two minimum-wage jobs in the private service sector (really the only growing job market) just to make ends meet.
That's why people need to use times of employment to learn new skills.

In France, if you get laid off you collect generous unemployment insurance, continue to have access to health care and childcare, and you actually have access to public education and skills training (ie. not a private college like DeVry that costs like $15 000/year). So you don't have to take two low-paying-jobs-with-no-future just to make ends meet.
Yeah, but those programs don't exist in isolation. The labour market in France is in crisis, as it is in Germany, and restrictive labour policies are at least partially to blame.

Fundamentally, there is one difference in principle here. Liberal systems give priority to employer profitability. Social systems give priority to people. I'd give preference to people over profit any day.
I'd give preference to people and profit.

[Danish]

That's why people need to use times of employment to learn new skills.

Are we going to make the day 36 hours long? Especially for workers already working a double day (ie. women).


Yeah, but those programs don't exist in isolation. The labour market in France is in crisis, as it is in Germany, and restrictive labour policies are at least partially to blame.

I wouldn't say they're in crisis.

I'd give preference to people and profit.

They're diametrically opposed.

[Smokey D]

I wouldn't say they're in crisis.

France definitely is.

Germany is clawing its way back to normalcy, but I think special circumstances apply to Germany that put it beyond the frame of this discussion (ie, pains associated with reunification while attempting to retain a strong social state).

They're diametrically opposed.

Efficiency wage theory!

[Dave de Sylvia]

Are we going to make the day 36 hours long? Especially for workers already working a double day (ie. women).
Obviously some people get left behind and they need a safety net.

I wouldn't say they're in crisis.
Right, because even the unemployed receive a guaranteed pittance per week.

They're diametrically opposed.
You think everything is diametrically opposed; economics is far more complex than that.

[Reaganista]

No. Don't make **** up.
i never make anything up

[Liberi Fatali]

In France, if you get laid off you collect generous unemployment insurance, continue to have access to health care and childcare, and you actually have access to public education and skills training (ie. not a private college like DeVry that costs like $15 000/year). So you don't have to take two low-paying-jobs-with-no-future just to make ends meet.
And on the flipside, this creates a disincentive to work.

Fundamentally, there is one difference in principle here. Liberal systems give priority to employer profitability. Social systems give priority to people. I'd give preference to people over profit any day.
Liberal systems give priority to the individual. Social systems give priority to society.

The 'fundamental' rift you seem to be getting at is more so the debate between demand-side (Keynesian) and supply-side policies (classical economic liberalism/monetarism). Yet you seem to miss the true aims of supply-side policies, or your bias clouds your view.

[Smokey D]

Monetarism is demand side.

[Danish]

And on the flipside, this creates a disincentive to work.

The opposite is true. Social democratic labour market models have higher labour market participation rates than their liberal counterparts.

Liberal systems give priority to the individual. Social systems give priority to society.

Not really. Individual rights can never be fully realized in a society where power is so unequally distributed.

The 'fundamental' rift you seem to be getting at is more so the debate between demand-side (Keynesian) and supply-side policies (classical economic liberalism/monetarism). Yet you seem to miss the true aims of supply-side policies, or your bias clouds your view.

The Keynes vs. liberalism debate is shallow. The are strategies for capital accumulation designed to function within certain social conditions and parameters. I only talk about labour market models and social democracy because it allows for a more pragmatic discussion, but when we boil it down to the bones it's not really about that.

As for biased, you're right. I know which side I'm on.

[lfantwister]

The opposite is true. Social democratic labour market models have higher labour market participation rates than their liberal counterparts.
does this mean more people are employed under that system?
i'd think socialism would also provide a disincentive for innovation, because you'd have to share any benefits your individual genius might accrue

Not really. Individual rights can never be fully realized in a society where power is so unequally distributed.
what kind of rights are you talking about?

[Danish]

does this mean more people are employed under that system?

As a proportion of the global labour market? No.

i'd think socialism would also provide a disincentive for innovation, because you'd have to share any benefits your individual genius might accrue

Just because you think it doesn't make it true. Virtually all "innovation" takes place in the public sector even in the present-day United States.

what kind of rights are you talking about?

You know, civil and political rights as defined by the UN.

[lfantwister]

As a proportion of the global labour market? No.
sorry i didnt understand what you said the first time about market participation rates?

Just because you think it doesn't make it true. Virtually all "innovation" takes place in the public sector even in the present-day United States.
like all those public pharmaceutical companies creating new drugs. but really, what kinds of innovation are you talking about

You know, civil and political rights as defined by the UN.
i thought people had rights in america even though we're capitalists?

[Danish]

sorry i didnt understand what you said the first time about market participation rates?

The percentage of eligible people active in the labour market (working or seeking work).

like all those public pharmaceutical companies creating new drugs. but really, what kinds of innovation are you talking about

Innovation? Like a new treatment for "Restless Leg Syndrome"?

Pharmaceutical companies are interested in developing and producing drugs that will make them money, above and before everything else. For instance, look at how few new antibiotics have been produced in the last 15-20 years.

i thought people had rights in america even though we're capitalists?

On paper and in principle, perhaps, but not in reality. We have to create the social conditions in which rights can be fully realized.

[lfantwister]

nnovation? Like a new treatment for "Restless Leg Syndrome"?

Pharmaceutical companies are interested in developing and producing drugs that will make them money, above and before everything else. For instance, look at how few new antibiotics have been produced in the last 15-20 years.

because demand for those antibiotics is minimal. And innovation is innovation--i bet people with RLS really appreciate all those new drugs.
I still dont see though how public institutions have innovated more than private ones.

On paper and in principle, perhaps, but not in reality. We have to create the social conditions in which rights can be fully realized.
So specifically which rights do you see as lacking?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Pharmaceutical companies are interested in developing and producing drugs that will make them money, above and before everything else.
Funnily enough, people are only interested in paying money for drugs they want. There's some sort of symbiosis occuring here, I'm sure of it.

[Reaganista]

that reasoning would only make any sort of sense if all people were equally able to pay

[Dave de Sylvia]

People are almost always able and willing to pay for really important drugs.

[Reaganista]

unless they're like
poor
or something

[Dave de Sylvia]

yeah, they somehow manage

[Reaganista]

manage to die maybe

[Dave de Sylvia]

:h5:

[Danish]

because demand for those antibiotics is minimal. And innovation is innovation--i bet people with RLS really appreciate all those new drugs.

Demand may be minimal in market terms, but need isn't. Antibiotic resistance is a major problem largely because pharmaceutical companies aren't developing new antibiotics.

I still dont see though how public institutions have innovated more than private ones.

Why are you so convinced that corporations are "more innovative" than the public sector?

So specifically which rights do you see as lacking?

All of them?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Antibiotic resistance is a major problem largely because pharmaceutical companies aren't developing new antibiotics.
No, antibiotic resistance is a large problem because antibiotics are overprescribed. Strict management and limiting the number of antibiotics on the market is the best way to offset resistance.

[lfantwister]

Why are you so convinced that corporations are "more innovative" than the public sector?
they have the incentive of a super profit
they invest more money in it than the public sector (collectively)

All of them?
i don't even see where you're coming from here. whats like a tangible situation where you think geneva convention rights are regularly violated?

[Smokey D]

All of them?

This is a cop out because there's absolutely no way the US has the same human rights record as China or something, and your answer implies the US is the worst offender without offering any evidence.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

geneva convention rights are regularly violated?
Why do you assume that Danish is talking about "geneva convention rights"?

your answer implies the US is the worst offender without offering any evidence.

no it doesn't

[Danish]

they have the incentive of a super profit
they invest more money in it than the public sector (collectively)

That inventive doesn't translate into innovation, nor does relative size of investment.

i don't even see where you're coming from here. whats like a tangible situation where you think geneva convention rights are regularly violated?

I'm not talking about Geneva, I'm talking about the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Likewise, I didn't use the term "regularly violated", I said "fully realized".

This is a cop out because there's absolutely no way the US has the same human rights record as China or something, and your answer implies the US is the worst offender without offering any evidence.

I didn't imply that whatsoever.

[Smokey D]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but saying all rights are lacking is a pretty big indictment and seems to put all rights violaters on an equal footing, when that's not really true.

Also, why are you invoking the UN Declaration of Human Rights like it has inviolable normative authority?