Becoming a Capitalist President in El Salvador. Some advices?

[AlexES16]

My country is still poor and it has a lot of social problems.

This are

-Extreme Violence.
-Poverty.
-Ignorance.
-And a lot of leftist that admire Fidel Castro and totalitarism.
-Pollutio.

We dont have to much resources , but we have people who love to work.

Some solutions:

-Open the country to foreign inverstion
-Deregulate the economy
-Privatize Important sectors
-Make the goverment more transparent so there be more trust in iverstion.

Things Im not sure:

-In capitalism education and healthcare are private, but in my country they are socialized in a big part. It would be smart to privatize this? Does private healthcare really works and improves quality? Full private education would be better? What happend if people cant pay?

-Enviromental regulation is good? Does is it have a place in capitalism?


Notes:

-Would be good to become the Honk Kong of Latin America(they are ranked 1 in economic freedom) but even they have some state owned in education and healthcare?

Please some adivices =).

[rootX]

The solutions you presented are not close to the reality, and capitalism wouldn't solve those problems.

[fluidistic]

Before Sarkozy, France's education (even university) was free. Healthcare system was free (to many) and many important corporations were public (trains, phone, mail, gaz, etc.). The country wasn't so bad to live in. I'm pretty sure that many mostly socialist countries are doing great in terms of quality of life.
I don't know El Salvador. But I'm guessing that eradicating corruption should be a priority (so change the Government entirely), reforming the education (I'm guessing that pupils are brainwashed early in their life, even by their parents) and spending better the money of the people (who is likely stolen by the Government) should do an improvement in the quality of life of El Salvador's people.
The problem is that I'm not sure about the chances of this to happen. Probably very, very low unfortunately.

[mheslep]

Before Sarkozy, France's education (even university) was free. Healthcare system was free (to many) and many important corporations were public (trains, phone, mail, gaz, etc.). The country wasn't so bad to live in.
.Maybe, if one could get a job there.
http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=lc&chs=400x300&chd=t:100,88.18182,82.72728,82.72728,88.18182,91.8 1818,90,79.0909,71.81818,67.27273&chtt=France+-+Unemployment+rate+(%)&chts=0000FF,14&chxt=x,y&chxl=0:|2000|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|20 08|2009|1:&chxp=&chxr=1,0.00,11.00&chxs=&chg=11.11111,10

Oh, and nothing is free.

[CRGreathouse]

Hey now. France may have an unemployment rate worse than Nicaragua, Bulgaria, and the Central African Republic, but at least it's improving.

[mheslep]

Hey now. France may have an unemployment rate worse than Nicaragua, Bulgaria, and the Central African Republic, but at least it's improving.Yep, especially since Sarkozy came in.

[humanino]

Oh, and nothing is free.That is your answer to where people feel good to live ? Are there not dedicated studies (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/) to this specific question ?

Your view is biased, your argument is misplaced and unnecessary in this context. Why point out to negative points instead of admitting positive ones ? In particular, you can not brush out the fact that education and healthcare are crazily expensive in the US. Those are deep structural problems.

[fluidistic]

Maybe, if one could get a job there.
http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=lc&chs=400x300&chd=t:100,88.18182,82.72728,82.72728,88.18182,91.8 1818,90,79.0909,71.81818,67.27273&chtt=France+-+Unemployment+rate+(%)&chts=0000FF,14&chxt=x,y&chxl=0:|2000|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|20 08|2009|1:&chxp=&chxr=1,0.00,11.00&chxs=&chg=11.11111,10

Oh, and nothing is free.

Irrelevant in the discussion. According to your chart, the unemployment before Sarkozy came in was below 9% and now it's below 8%. What an improvement within 3 years you may think? What we should look at isn't this data but rather the HDI which is more representative of the quality of life of people in a country in my opinion. It has probably increased of course, but my point still holds, when France had a socialist prime minister, it wasn't doing that bad. In fact I'm pretty sure that people that didn't have a job and were subscribed to the chomage when Jospin was prime minister had a better quality of life than many working people in El Salvador today. My point was that socialist countries can "do well" in the sense that people's quality of life is high compared to the average. Eradicating socialism from El Salvador isn't the way to go. By the way your chart doesn't show who took the data. I'm guessing that it's the INSEE (public institute) but it wasn't working for months (maybe more than 1 year? Because Sarkozy wanted to eradicate it) back in 2008/2009 so where your data comes from during those times? Private institutes... how reliable are they? Anyway it's not relevant to the thread anyway.

Also by saying nothing is free, you're partially right since it's working people that pay the whole public system which is available for most of French population. A "poor" in France could go to University without having great financial problems, it was possible for poors to go to University if they really wanted to (I guess you'll come in with a stat of people's going to University and their income, but I don't care, a poor could still go to University regardless of their number). Now it's very different, one has to pay to go to University, "thanks" to Sarkozy.

[CRGreathouse]

What we should look at isn't this data but rather the HDI which is more representative of the quality of life of people in a country in my opinion.

I love the idea of the HDI. I think it would be hard to do a worse job in creating such an index, though, unless one was trying to do poorly. What a lost opportunity.

[russ_watters]

-In capitalism education and healthcare are private... We've been over this before: your beliefs about how capitalist countries work are unconnected with reality. You need to read about and learn how they actually work.

[fluidistic]

I love the idea of the HDI. I think it would be hard to do a worse job in creating such an index, though, unless one was trying to do poorly. What a lost opportunity.

I don't understand English enough to realize whether you imply that it's a bad or good index. I think it's still better than the unemployment rate. If you look at Argentina's unemployment rate (around 9% I think), you'd think that the country is doing as well as France. Wrong, around 40% of workers work in the black market. The HDI would be a better index, though it doesn't work well for a few countries like Argentina and Chile.

[humanino]

About "bad indices", to my mind it is rather much worse than "a compound index is better than a single one". Any index, be it compound, is necessarily partial and thus will be criticized.

For instance, you could read people on this board claiming that when socialist party took over in France, unemployment raised. In fact, one could answer simply by reminding of the best method from right wing politics in France : they often cut down the unemployment rate by just stripping people from the unemployment benefit.

[rootX]

The problem is that I'm not sure about the chances of this to happen. Probably very, very low unfortunately.

I don't know how countries like that make improvements and how one can determine the likelihood of a country would overcome its barres other than that it would get a powerful leader or get invaded be foreign power. Some like BRIC have made significant improvements during last decades. *(I will try to look for some information when I reach home).

[fluidistic]

I don't know how countries like that make improvements and how one can determine the likelihood of a country would overcome its barres other than that it would get a powerful leader or get invaded be foreign power. Some like BRIC have made significant improvements during last decades. *(I will try to look for some information when I reach home).

You're right.
Here is a list of the index of corruption in countries:http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table.
El Salvador appears to be 84/180 which isn't good but could be worse. As I said in post #3, corruption should be taken very seriously. My solution would be to change the president and ministers so that the new ones make the laws to be respected by uncorrupting the police. If the police is used not to respect the laws, then it's very hard to make any progress. This is what happens here in Argentina (though the country is corrupted at all levels. So much that it's badly affecting people's quality of life) and I guess also in El Salvador.

[AlexES16]

Thanks for the posts.

Some information:

-El Salvador is Ranked in place 32 in economic freedom. Place of information: http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/ElSalvador

--El Salvador is not a socialist country, the last 20 years a right wing neoliberalist party was in power(Wich i am goin to join)

Note: Last time my thread was closed becouse of not saying were the information came from.

-Chile is ranked 10 in economic freedom. Info: http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Chile .

--Chile is the best country in Latin America, good economy and good HDI.

Maybe we have to make 1st in economic freedom, and fight corruption as many of you have say.

[AlexES16]

We've been over this before: your beliefs about how capitalist countries work are unconnected with reality. You need to read about and learn how they actually work.

Give some ligth please =)

[CRGreathouse]

I don't understand English enough to realize whether you imply that it's a bad or good index.

I was saying that it was a bad index. Badly-designed, I mean.

I think it's still better than the unemployment rate.

Agreed. But the unemployment rate doesn't bill itself as a general development index like the HDI.

If you have a sledgehammer and a claw hammer, and the claw hammer is marketed as a screwdriver, then I'd say that the claw hammer is a bad screwdriver, even if it's a better screwdriver than the sledgehammer.

[CRGreathouse]

they often cut down the unemployment rate by just stripping people from the unemployment benefit.

Aside: Is that how the unemployment rate is calculated in France/the EU? Really? I thought economic technology was more advanced than that...

[humanino]

Aside: Is that how the unemployment rate is calculated in France/the EU? Really? I thought economic technology was more advanced than that...In my understanding it is the same measurement in the US. The difference with employment-to-population ratio is known, and monitored. It is all available
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

[Pythagorean]

Depends on how you define "free". If I have an electric car and I only plug it in at my workplace, then transportation is free for me : )

[AlexES16]

Depends on how you define "free". If I have an electric car and I only plug it in at my workplace, then transportation is free for me : )

Nice view of the future =)

[AlexES16]

Maybe a good enviroment policy will be inform the people wich companies are greener and telling people that is in their hands to choose to protect the enviroment and not goverment force.

[drankin]

Here is true capitalism:

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/russian-tycoon-vasily-boiko-orders-his-workers-to-find-god-or-be-fired/19596333?test=latestnewsHere is true capitalism:

A business owner can fire for whatever reason he wants to. I actually support this as a right of a business owner. Whether it's a gay only, Muslim only, women only... whatever the business owner wants for employees in his company.

Parallel to topic anyway.

[rootX]

Here is true capitalism:

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/russian-tycoon-vasily-boiko-orders-his-workers-to-find-god-or-be-fired/19596333?test=latestnewsHere is true capitalism:

A business owner can fire for whatever reason he wants to. I actually support this as a right of a business owner. Whether it's a gay only, Muslim only, women only... whatever the business owner wants for employees in his company.

Parallel to topic anyway.

I thought in capitalism, a company looks for profit maximizing goals and nothing more. Freedom of firing for reasons like that seems like nothing to do with capitalism. You seem to be describing cons of non-regulating market environment not capitalism itself.

[drankin]

I thought in capitalism, a company looks for profit maximizing goals and nothing more. Freedom of firing for reasons like that seems like nothing to do with capitalism. You seem to be describing cons of non-regulating market environment not capitalism itself.
It's not the definition of capitalism but a facet of it.

[AlexES16]

I thought in capitalism, a company looks for profit maximizing goals and nothing more. Freedom of firing for reasons like that seems like nothing to do with capitalism. You seem to be describing cons of non-regulating market environment not capitalism itself.

In capitalism there is no labor laws, there is freedom of choosing who you will work with.

Well thats theoreticall capitalism in reality is more a mixed capitalist economy

[humanino]

In capitalism there is no labor laws [...] Well thats theoreticall capitalismThat is your definition of theoretical capitalism. What drankin's article describes in unacceptable and has nothing to do with capitalism. You reject your imaginary notion of capitalism, but that is beating a dead horse.

It is well known that the well being of workers improves productivity and thus profit. Capitalism is essentially based on maximizing private profit. There is a long history to capitalism. You have already been advised to study it.

Note that drankin's article does not describe a situation with "freedom of choosing who you will work with". That is more or less fine. The article describe a situation where one is fired (looses their job) based on an arbitrary (random) decision. This guy is free to re-define his own notion of religion whenever he pleases apparently. This happens long after he has already chosen to work with you. Ironically, he would probably have lost his own job based on his experience of prison, which indicates he probably not always had an "orthodox" behavior. This is ridiculous, and I can not understand whomever would endorse such craziness.

[drankin]

That is your definition of theoretical capitalism. What drankin's article describes in unacceptable and has nothing to do with capitalism.

It has to do with capitalism in that only in true capitalistic environment can this be practiced. And I don't find it unacceptable. If a worker does not like the conditions of his/her employment they are free to find work elsewhere. In this situation an employer may have to reconsider the hiring standards in order to retain employees and remain competitive in a given market.

[humanino]

It has to do with capitalism in that only in true capitalistic environment can this be practiced.So it would have been unthinkable in communist Russia to be sent in Siberia because one would not conform to the ideology ? I know almost first hand of people who have lost their work there because they were "dissidents".

By the same token, many advanced countries practicing a sane capitalism have labor rights and worker protection. Again I can tell you about France where people tried to pass a law according to which anybody could be fired on the spot without justification during the first two years. It was deemed illegal according to international Labor organization "Termination of Employment Convention", 1982. To my mind, this is the generally agreed upon reasonable law in modern capitalist societies.

If a worker does not like the conditions of his/her employment they are free to find work elsewhere. In this situation an employer may have to reconsider the hiring standards in order to retain employees and remain competitive in a given market.Especially in the current employment market, your proposal that one could be fired without reason, warning and compensation appears particularly cruel to me. I know for instance France Télécom during the last couple of years decided to put a harsh pressure on their workers, threatening them to be fired if they did not work up to crazy standards. They obtained an average of 15 suicides per year(1) proven to be directly related to work conditions. In no way was this experience positive for the company.

(1) This rate is comparable to the total rate in the total population, except that the total rate for the total population includes all possible disasters happening to individuals

[mheslep]

That is your answer to where people feel good to live ? Are there not dedicated studies (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/) to this specific question ?Where people 'feel good to live', whatever that means, was not the OP's question. It seems to me the OP was looking for suggestions on improvements to the local economic system.

Your view is biased, your argument is misplaced and unnecessary in this context.My unemployment figures are biased? The truism that nothing is free is biased? Your view is biased, your argument is blah blah... Now where did that get us?

Why point out to negative points instead of admitting positive ones ?Are you serious? When did this become a propaganda session?

In particular, you can not brush out the fact that education and healthcare are crazily expensive in the US. Those are deep structural problems.As you know, I didn't mention the US, or compare the the US to France (as you did above), or brush away high costs.

[mheslep]

Irrelevant in the discussion. In a discussion about improving economic systems facts on unemployment are hardly irrelevant. Unemployment is not the only issue, nor did I suggest it was.

[drankin]

Especially in the current employment market, your proposal that one could be fired without reason, warning and compensation appears particularly cruel to me.

Based on your comments it seems to me that you come from the perspective that jobs are a right or something owed to someone and cannot be taken away from them by their employer.

I disagree. If my boss were to come down here and fire me and he gave me no reason what-so-ever, I would leave and not come back or even consider legal retribution. I will not be fired, because I provide a competitive service for my employer and my employment is based on merit. Not the economy, not the law, not from some sort of social obligation. And that's the way it should be in a capitalistic society.

[mheslep]

Depends on how you define "free". If I have an electric car and I only plug it in at my workplace, then transportation is free for me : )You still don't know that the car charge is free for you. You just don't directly pay for the electricity at the time of the charge. Maybe your next raise is off because the business's bottom line is off. Maybe you get laid off for the same reason, and so on.

[humanino]

My unemployment figures are biased?No, but you answered to "that's a nice place to live because of healthcare and education" by quoting those numbers. The three are supposedly taken into account in the HDI which is why I mentioned it. My main point when claiming the view is "biased" was exactly that every single number is partial and the problem is more elaborated that suggested in the OP. Since we agree this is off-topic, and that the main issue here is the simplistic approach to a complicated problem as you seem to suggest in
In a discussion about improving economic systems facts on unemployment are hardly irrelevant. Unemployment is not the only issue, nor did I suggest it was.
and
You still don't know that the car charge is free for you. You just don't directly pay for the electricity at the time of the charge. Maybe your next raise is off because the business's bottom line is off. Maybe you get laid off for the same reason, and so on.I'll just rather leave the specificities of France out of this thread.

[cesiumfrog]

Would be good to become the Honk Kong of Latin America(they are ranked 1 in economic freedom)
Then you should copy how Hong Kong became so. It's very easy (for your government). For more information see:
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer.html
Basically, invite a trustworthy first-class nation (like Britain, or a west-European nation) to completely govern a small region of your country for a fixed time, say 100 years. Foreign companies will want to invest their money in that region (because they will trust its stability better than anywhere else in Latin America). Many of your own people will freely move in to the region, for better paying jobs and the higher human-rights standards expected from Western governance. Within a lifetime, you will have a great city that is the pride of your continent.

My country is still poor and it has a lot of social problems.

This are

-Extreme Violence.
-Poverty.
-Ignorance.
-And a lot of leftist that admire Fidel Castro and totalitarism.
-Pollutio.

We dont have to much resources , but we have people who love to work.

Some solutions:

-Open the country to foreign inverstion
-Deregulate the economy
-Privatize Important sectors
-Make the goverment more transparent so there be more trust in iverstion.

Things Im not sure:

-In capitalism education and healthcare are private, but in my country they are socialized in a big part. It would be smart to privatize this? Does private healthcare really works and improves quality? Full private education would be better? What happend if people cant pay?

-Enviromental regulation is good? Does is it have a place in capitalism?

Transparency is a major issue. A good idea I've heard would be to ask for foreign bodies to send teams of their accountants into your country. They can help you get rid of corruption. Once corruption is gone, your country will be naturally more productive, and foreign investors will no longer be as afraid to invest more capital into your economy.

It is not smart to completely privatise education or healthcare. Both are socialised in "first world" countries. (In the past, some people travelled from the USA to Cuba to get better health care.) Likewise, environmental regulation is important (for capitalism, the term is "externalities". If no single person has ownership of the environment, then regulation is always necessary). The countries with the highest living standards are all capitalist countries, but tempered with social welfare institutions and market regulations, this is all compatible.

There is a number of organisations that have done lots of research into ways of best improving countries where the living standard is comparatively low. You should try to make use of their expertise. I'd say you want to be looking to the type of people that are invited to TED, and invite them to you.

[AlexES16]

It has to do with capitalism in that only in true capitalistic environment can this be practiced. And I don't find it unacceptable. If a worker does not like the conditions of his/her employment they are free to find work elsewhere. In this situation an employer may have to reconsider the hiring standards in order to retain employees and remain competitive in a given market.

Thats my point =)

[AlexES16]

Then you should copy how Hong Kong became so. It's very easy (for your government). For more information see:
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer.html
Basically, invite a trustworthy first-class nation (like Britain, or a west-European nation) to completely govern a small region of your country for a fixed time, say 100 years. Foreign companies will want to invest their money in that region (because they will trust its stability better than anywhere else in Latin America). Many of your own people will freely move in to the region, for better paying jobs and the higher human-rights standards expected from Western governance. Within a lifetime, you will have a great city that is the pride of your continent.



Transparency is a major issue. A good idea I've heard would be to ask for foreign bodies to send teams of their accountants into your country. They can help you get rid of corruption. Once corruption is gone, your country will be naturally more productive, and foreign investors will no longer be as afraid to invest more capital into your economy.

It is not smart to completely privatise education or healthcare. Both are socialised in "first world" countries. (In the past, some people travelled from the USA to Cuba to get better health care.) Likewise, environmental regulation is important (for capitalism, the term is "externalities". If no single person has ownership of the environment, then regulation is always necessary). The countries with the highest living standards are all capitalist countries, but tempered with social welfare institutions and market regulations, this is all compatible.

There is a number of organisations that have done lots of research into ways of best improving countries where the living standard is comparatively low. You should try to make use of their expertise. I'd say you want to be looking to the type of people that are invited to TED, and invite them to you.


Great information. Something like a regulated capitalism but still capitalism.

But i dont see how to build a city in such a small country like mine.

[CRGreathouse]

In my understanding it is the same measurement in the US. The difference with employment-to-population ratio is known, and monitored. It is all available
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

I'm familiar with the workforce participation rate and its difference from the unemployment rate and the ratio of employed persons to (persons in the workforce + discouraged workers). But the post I replied to suggested that, in France at least, the unemployment rate could be (artificially) reduced by reducing the number of people on the welfare rolls, and this is of course different from excluding discouraged workers or institutionalized persons, etc.

[cristo]

If my boss were to come down here and fire me and he gave me no reason what-so-ever, I would leave and not come back or even consider legal retribution. I will not be fired, because I provide a competitive service for my employer and my employment is based on merit.

This is a very naive view. Are you saying you'd be happy if in, say, 10 years you were fired and replaced with a youngster that the company only has to pay a fraction of your wage?

[vertices]

Some solutions:

-Open the country to foreign inverstion
-Deregulate the economy
-Privatize Important sectors
-Make the goverment more transparent so there be more trust in iverstion.



There is strong empirical evidence that such policies would make things much, much worse for your nation.

[Gokul43201]

This is a very naive view. Are you saying you'd be happy if in, say, 10 years you were fired and replaced with a youngster that the company only has to pay a fraction of your wage?(not speaking for drankin, but ...) I, personally, wouldn't be happy with myself, if I haven't, in 10 yrs, made myself worth a lot more than a youngster new to the job. Nor would I be happy knowing that the only reason I haven't lost my job to a capable youngster is that it is mandated by some higher power that I not be fired, irrespective of my worth to my employer.


There is strong empirical evidence that such policies would make things much, much worse for your nation.When you make a statement like that, it behooves you to provide said evidence.

[Pythagorean]

You still don't know that the car charge is free for you. You just don't directly pay for the electricity at the time of the charge. Maybe your next raise is off because the business's bottom line is off. Maybe you get laid off for the same reason, and so on.

Ok, I agree with you; that's a possibility....

But that still doesn't mean that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" is a true assertion. Because, following your method of inserting convenient exceptions, I *could* work for a company whose stock expenses are so high that it's electricity bill is considered pocket change no matter how much it fluctuates, and never factors into wage budgeting. Or I *could* frame someone else for stealing the power in some other way and earn a raise faster, killing two birds with no stones.

[AlexES16]

(not speaking for drankin, but ...) I, personally, wouldn't be happy with myself, if I haven't, in 10 yrs, made myself worth a lot more than a youngster new to the job. Nor would I be happy knowing that the only reason I haven't lost my job to a capable youngster is that it is mandated by some higher power that I not be fired, irrespective of my worth to my employer.


When you make a statement like that, it behooves you to provide said evidence.

Thats good, capitalism really make you be better.

[AlexES16]

This thinking is good about how the internet is the closest to a free market capitalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBB0m1ox4h8

[drankin]

This is a very naive view. Are you saying you'd be happy if in, say, 10 years you were fired and replaced with a youngster that the company only has to pay a fraction of your wage?

Naive? That's life son. If i've been there ten years and some newby kid can just show up and do my job as well as me for half my pay, then I deserve to be replaced. I am no longer being competitive in the work force. That's capitalism. It would not hurt my feelings if it happened today! It would motivate me to work even harder at my professional game. My work is worth what the market determines. If I don't like it it's my prerogative to adapt and increase my worth in the market as required. Noone owes me a job.

And the adults who don't get these concepts still live in their moms bacement.

[drankin]

Thats good, capitalism really make you be better.

Bingo. It really does force a person to work hard and continually improve ones self.

[vertices]

When you make a statement like that, it behooves you to provide said evidence.

Take Chile, under Pinochet (the posterboy for free market fundamentalism), for example. That country was left in ruins by the time he was ousted.

[humanino]

Naive? That's life son. If i've been there ten years and some newby kid can just show up and do my job as well as me for half my pay, then I deserve to be replaced.What if your company can just close doors, leave everybody behind and relocate in China ? No compensation, you are not even told in advance. How would you feel about that ? In your view, would not that kind of behavior be an optimal organization for modern capitalist societies ?

/And the adults who don't get these concepts still live in their moms bacement.I do not agree with you, yet I can spell mom's basement.

It really does force a person to work hard and continually improve ones self.I'm sorry but those are all theoretical arguments not reflecting reality. You know, Hitler improved the productivity in Germany and was quite efficient at forcing people to "continually improve themselves". He just disregarded human rights to achieve that.

[drankin]

What if your company can just close doors, leave everybody behind and relocate in China ? No compensation, you are not even told in advance. How would you feel about that ? You keep asking people how they would "feel". As if the world is run by regarding everyones "feelings". Quit making up scenarios and asking my how I would "feel". But, to answer your question, I would "feel" like getting another job.

I do not agree with you, yet I can spell mom's basement. Did I hit a nerve? In your case we'll just call her momma.
I'm sorry but those are all theoretical arguments not reflecting reality.

Theoretical? I'm being payed in the market place that I've worked in for 20yrs theoretically?. And you pulled the Hitler card? Really?

I hope you are paying your mom some rent.

[humanino]

...I do not live in my mother's basement, I left home after high-school and you did not hit any nerve. I just remain convinced that you are not being helpful to AlexES16 by describing concepts of capitalism which are not real. The well-being of employees and their human rights are an important ingredient in our modern societies. I think the recent crisis also illustrates this idea.

edit
It is not about the Hitler's card. It is about illustrating that your argument in favor of a wild imaginary capitalism (It really does force a person to work hard and continually improve ones self.) is not a helpful one.

[drankin]

I do not live in my mother's basement, I left home after high-school and you did not hit any nerve. I just remain convinced that you are not being helpful to AlexES16 by describing concepts of capitalism which are not real. The well-being of employees and their human rights are an important ingredient in our modern societies. I think the recent crisis also illustrates this idea.

edit
It is not about the Hitler's card. It is about illustrating that your argument in favor of a wild imaginary capitalism (It really does force a person to work hard and continually improve ones self.) is not a helpful one.

What human rights are you refering to that you seem to think that what I am saying is violating??

[AlexES16]

Take Chile, under Pinochet (the posterboy for free market fundamentalism), for example. That country was left in ruins by the time he was ousted.

Dude you realize that Chile is best country in Latin America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index


http://www.heritage.org/index/country/Chile

[AlexES16]

I was thinking in Environmentally Regulated Capitalism.

[AlexES16]

In my school i am debating with socialist every moment.

Their strong points are(they win a lot of support with this):

-Enviroment
-Healthcare
-Education

[humanino]

What human rights are you refering to that you seem to think that what I am saying is violating??Referring to "human rights" might be borderline, what I had in minds is
1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
[...]
3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.If a business owner can fire anybody as they please, then it will be hard to have the right to work and to a just remuneration.

[drankin]

Referring to "human rights" might be borderline, what I had in minds isIf a business owner can fire anybody as they please, then it will be hard to have the right to work and to a just remuneration.

This is where we differ completely. Work is not and should not ever be a "right". It is contrary to the competitive nature of capitalism. It offers no incentive for an individual to be competitive in the workplace and therefore improve the competitveness of the company product as it leverages its supply and demand in the market. What you are pitching is not capitalism, it is socialism.

[loseyourname]

In my school i am debating with socialist every moment.

Their strong points are(they win a lot of support with this):

-Enviroment
-Healthcare
-Education

They're simply failing to recognize that nations with market economies still need means of dealing with public goods and other instance of market failure. That's why we require publicly owned corporations to comply with FASB accounting standards and release publicly available annual reports, because information symmetry is a foundation of competitive markets and they won't function as well without it. It's also why we regulate things like water pollution, because otherwise, someone downriver bears the cost of a production activity aside from the consumers and producers of the good, creating negative externalities and market failure. Education and many facets of healthcare (like vaccines) exhibit very clear positive externalities and so the government subsidizes them to bring the market back to an efficient equilibrium.

Your friends are just committing the economic version of Galton's Error. Capitalism doesn't mean all-or-nothing we don't provide public goods or correct market failures. It's just a commitment to the notion that many heads are better than one and individual consumers and producers know their own preferences and utility expectations better than a central planning committee does.

[humanino]

This is where we differ completely.It may be, but I would like to understand your point of view better. When you saythe competitive nature of capitalism.You certainly do not say capitalism and competition are equivalent. Do you mean to say that capitalism implies competition, or that competition implies capitalism ? This really confuses me, to me there is no reason they should be related a priori. They may come together, they may come separately, there is no necessity in the relationship between them.

To me capitalism is a social organization aiming at maximizing private profit. I agree that competition is constructive in a capitalist society, but I do not see why it should be a necessary ingredient.
What you are pitching is not capitalism, it is socialism.I do not think so, but maybe from your perspective. From my perspective, socialism and capitalism are not even contradictory. Communism is contradictory to capitalism.

[drankin]

Here is one of a few definitions via dictionary.com:

World English Dictionary
capitalism (ˈkæpɪtəˌlɪzəm)

— n
Compare socialism free enterprise , Also called: private enterprise an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.

[loseyourname]

To me capitalism is a social organization aiming at maximizing private profit. I agree that competition is constructive in a capitalist society, but I do not see why it should be a necessary ingredient.

Actually, economic profit at equilibrium in a pure competition model is zero. What competitive markets maximize is called net social surplus, a sum of consumer's surplus and producer's surplus. This sum is maximized when both components are equal. Profits exist when producer's surplus is larger than consumer's surplus, keeping net social surplus at a less than optimal sum, and this situation can only persist in the absence of competition. That's precisely why competition is so important to capitalism. The use of mechanisms (usually political favoritism) to intentionally subvert competition to cause either consumer's or producer's surplus to persist in excess of the other quantity is called "rent-seeking" and is a cardinal sin of a market economy.

[humanino]

That's precisely why competition is so important to capitalism.Competition between different businesses, sure ! I have no doubt that free enterprise is vital to capitalism. My concern was about how to create an incentive to work within one given company. In drankin's proposal, the removal of workers' protective laws would create the incentive for being productive. This is this specific aspect which I strongly doubt. For instance, psychological counseling is a business which has flourished in England. Industrial and organizational psychology is a key tool for human resources. There are other means to create work productivity in a positive fashion, which in turns also is business itself !

[drankin]

Competition between different businesses, sure ! I have no doubt that free enterprise is vital to capitalism. My concern was about how to create an incentive to work within one given company. In drankin's proposal, the removal of workers' protective laws would create the incentive for being productive. This is this specific aspect which I strongly doubt. For instance, psychological counseling is a business which has flourished in England. Industrial and organizational psychology is a key tool for human resources. There are other means to create work productivity in a positive fashion, which in turns also is business itself !

Removal of protective laws? Like protection from being fired because your boss decides it's best for the company? You see, an employer has rights too. He has the right to fire you if he feels you are a detriment to the business so the company can maintain it's competitive edge in the market. At least in the US this is true.

Capitalism isn't just about corporations and large businesses, it's aslo about individuals who have their own skillset necessary in the market that they leverage to maximize their personal income if they so choose. If you make it difficult for one to get fired you make it difficult for someone else with a better skillset, whatever that might be, to get a position. If the position is no longer based on merit, then you cripple the capitalistic/competitive nature of the business that created that position.

[loseyourname]

Well, labor economics gets complicated more so than general microeconomics. Theoretically, pure competition in the labor market produces a more efficient equilibrium as well when the marginal revenue product of a worker equals his indifference point between the marginal utility of labor and leisure. People work exactly as much as they want and they are paid exactly what they are worth.

The first obvious problem is that marginal revenue product is extremely difficult to measure, and even when it is not, a company's financial performance is not always cleared tied in any meaningful way to labor productivity due to macroeconomic factors. This is fine if we have perfect labor mobility, because like in drankin's hypotheticals, if a company is no longer able to pay what a worker feels he is worth, he can leave. More realistically, there are a huge number of factors constraining labor mobility, such as non-transferable institutional knowledge, moving expenses, and the reality that workers have families that may not want to move or may not be able to move. This is why the federal government subsidizes moving expenses and corporate training expenses, to increase labor mobility and theoretically bring the labor market closer to an efficient equilibrium.

The other problems are usually related to the social costs of unemployment and underemployment, which are born by everybody even if just in the form of neighborhood blight due to homelessness and panhandling in a society that does absolutely nothing to combat it. This is why we have minimum wage laws, subsidized housing, and things like the EITC to make labor worth more to a worker even at low wages. Ideally, though, I think drankin is right that the best way to tackle the problem is to move these costs (since they are social costs) from the employer to society at large. Let employers fire people when they will and pay wages as low as they wish, but subsidize this via direct wealth transfers to individual laborers. The problem there is, even though it's cheaper and more efficient to directly transfer wealth than it is to indirectly subsidize through wage laws and labor protection, it's politically unsellable to just give money to people because it's seen as welfare and unfair to people who are worth more to their employers, who don't realize they're going to pay for it one way or another regardless.

Unfortunately, a place like France kind of employs the worst of both approaches, heavily subsidizing unemployment while also making it near impossible to lose a job, which combine to create historically stable high unemployment and a more systematic and persistent transfer of wealth from workers to non-workers.

To address you specific example, though, I think if in 10 years a company finds it cheaper to move its operations completely, it should be able to do so. Protecting workers at the expense of harming business competitiveness ends up hurting everyone in the long run. However, we shouldn't ignore all of the people that lose their jobs. We should probably pay their moving expenses in full, pay fairly generous but short-term unemployment benefits, and aid them in retraining if that is necessary. But it's better to bear that cost as a social cost than to force businesses to bear it, harming their competitiveness. The problem, again, is that it's probably politically unsellable in the US to be that generous to the unemployed even if it actually allows businesses to be more competitive and make both goods and services and labor markets more efficient. Republicans would attack it as subsidizing laziness and giving an incentive not to work and Democrats would attack it as subsidizing the offshoring of American jobs when in reality it's just allowing businesses to operate more efficiently and freely without destroying the lives of workers.

[loseyourname]

Capitalism isn't just about corporations and large businesses, it's aslo about individuals who have their own skillset necessary in the market that they leverage to maximize their personal income if they so choose. If you make it difficult for one to get fired you make it difficult for someone else with a better skillset, whatever that might be, to get a position. If the position is no longer based on merit, then you cripple the capitalistic/competitive nature of the business that created that position.

This is a really good point that often gets lost in these discussions. The NY Times just ran a piece the other day on the effect of tenure and the end of mandatory retirement on employment prospects for young academics. We're really seeing this nationwide as people retire later and later, leaving fewer and fewer jobs available to the fresh blood graduating from college every year.

[humanino]

Removal of protective laws? Like protection from being fired because your boss decides it's best for the company? You see, an employer has rights too. He has the right to fire you if he feels you are a detriment to the business so the company can maintain it's competitive edge in the market. At least in the US this is true.Just a reminder, this conversation started with the russian guy who fires you for no reason, only because he so pleases. That is what I find unacceptable, and I still believe this is illegal.

[drankin]

Just a reminder, this conversation started with the russian guy who fires you for no reason, only because he so pleases. That is what I find unacceptable, and I still believe this is illegal.

It's not illegal in Russia.

[humanino]

It's not illegal in Russia.From your own linkBut government officials say such extreme measures could violate Russia's labor laws.So without further information, it does not seem settled yet. And I still have not seen why this should be justified.
http://www.mn.ru/society/20100818/187990753.html
Also
http://www.mn.ru/society/20100813/187983560.html

[drankin]

From your own linkSo without further information, it does not seem settled yet. And I still have not seen why this should be justified.
http://www.mn.ru/society/20100818/187990753.html
Also
http://www.mn.ru/society/20100813/187983560.html

I explained why I think it should be allowed. An employer should be able to hire and fire whomever he/she wants for whatever reason he/she wants. If an employee doesn't agree, he/she is free to find employment elsewhere. This is pure free market capitalism. With an emphasis on "free"dom to run your business as you see fit.

[loseyourname]

Just a reminder, this conversation started with the russian guy who fires you for no reason, only because he so pleases. That is what I find unacceptable, and I still believe this is illegal.

Yeah, I guess the point I was getting at was that, in a perfectly competitive labor market, with perfect mobility of labor and many employers preventing any one employer from acting as a price setter, this guy's action would be self-defeating in that he would not attract quality labor and his business would go under, leaving market share to be filled by other employers, allowing the employees he fired to work there.

The issue is that labor mobility is not perfect and people incur material losses moving from one job to another. Other firms can't gain market share instantaneously, so at least some people would remain unemployed for lengths of time the government would need to subsidize in order to allow this type of behavior.

For what it's worth, I think the labor mobility subsidies in the US do a pretty good job. When we're not in a massive recession like we are now, the cyclically unemployed tend to find new work relatively quickly and don't become an excessive burden or blight on society-at-large. Our homeless tend to be mentally ill or drug addicts, which is a completely different and unrelated problem.

As it stands in the US, it would be illegal for an employer to fire someone explicitly for their religious beliefs, but illegality of cause only becomes an issue when you fire someone for cause. It is usually legal for most employers to lay off for no explicit cause at all and, because of the fairly competitive labor market and subsidized labor mobility, we don't really end up with worker armageddon because of it.

Plus, most of our largest employers are public corporations that would never appoint morons like this to make decisions for them.

[humanino]

I explained why I think it should be allowed. An employer should be able to hire and fire whomever he/she wants for whatever reason he/she wants. If an employee doesn't agree, he/she is free to find employment elsewhere. This is pure free market capitalism. With an emphasis on "free"dom to run your business as you see fit.I should mention that I would agree with you that this is acceptable in a society with very low unemployment. The main reason I have difficulties with the idea is that employment is pretty bad right now. So that also seems in line with what loseyourname describes.

[AlexES16]

This is where we differ completely. Work is not and should not ever be a "right". It is contrary to the competitive nature of capitalism. It offers no incentive for an individual to be competitive in the workplace and therefore improve the competitveness of the company product as it leverages its supply and demand in the market. What you are pitching is not capitalism, it is socialism.

Exactly

[AlexES16]

They're simply failing to recognize that nations with market economies still need means of dealing with public goods and other instance of market failure. That's why we require publicly owned corporations to comply with FASB accounting standards and release publicly available annual reports, because information symmetry is a foundation of competitive markets and they won't function as well without it. It's also why we regulate things like water pollution, because otherwise, someone downriver bears the cost of a production activity aside from the consumers and producers of the good, creating negative externalities and market failure. Education and many facets of healthcare (like vaccines) exhibit very clear positive externalities and so the government subsidizes them to bring the market back to an efficient equilibrium.

Your friends are just committing the economic version of Galton's Error. Capitalism doesn't mean all-or-nothing we don't provide public goods or correct market failures. It's just a commitment to the notion that many heads are better than one and individual consumers and producers know their own preferences and utility expectations better than a central planning committee does.


But when you read or hear milton friedman, you can see why extreme capitalism sounds like it shouldnt be enviromental laws.

[AlexES16]

They're simply failing to recognize that nations with market economies still need means of dealing with public goods and other instance of market failure. That's why we require publicly owned corporations to comply with FASB accounting standards and release publicly available annual reports, because information symmetry is a foundation of competitive markets and they won't function as well without it. It's also why we regulate things like water pollution, because otherwise, someone downriver bears the cost of a production activity aside from the consumers and producers of the good, creating negative externalities and market failure. Education and many facets of healthcare (like vaccines) exhibit very clear positive externalities and so the government subsidizes them to bring the market back to an efficient equilibrium.

Your friends are just committing the economic version of Galton's Error. Capitalism doesn't mean all-or-nothing we don't provide public goods or correct market failures. It's just a commitment to the notion that many heads are better than one and individual consumers and producers know their own preferences and utility expectations better than a central planning committee does.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw

here is my point

[AlexES16]

Also you can red the "Capitalism Magazine"

They attack:

-Enviromentalism
-Green movement
-FDA
-Regulation


well you can find here http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/


here is about the enviroment http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/environment/index.1.html


and here is about energy

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/energy/index.1.html.



You can look and even you can read that in the USA, they should use the ANWR

I think is somthing like antartica national wild reserve

[AlexES16]

Please people take some time reading the Capitalism Magazine

[AlexES16]

I am even kinda worried, even my capitalist allies in school said that no regulation and antienviromentalism are crazy.

This put me in a very hard stance.

[russ_watters]

Please people take some time reading the Capitalism Magazine No. One website developer's views on how capitalism should work do not have any bearing whatsoever on how capitalism does work. Again, again, again, you're arguing against a system that does not exist in the real world. ....even my capitalist allies... Wait, are you saying you're a capitalist? Nothing I've ever seen you post has implied to me that you are a capitalist.

[russ_watters]

To me capitalism is a social organization aiming at maximizing private profit. I agree that competition is constructive in a capitalist society, but I do not see why it should be a necessary ingredient.

I do not think so, but maybe from your perspective. From my perspective, socialism and capitalism are not even contradictory. Communism is contradictory to capitalism.
humanino, in order to have a productive discussion, people have to be speaking the same language, otherwise they won't be able to understand each other. Please use words how they are actually defined: do not make up your own definitions.

[rootX]

Naive? That's life son. If i've been there ten years and some newby kid can just show up and do my job as well as me for half my pay, then I deserve to be replaced. I am no longer being competitive in the work force. That's capitalism. It would not hurt my feelings if it happened today! It would motivate me to work even harder at my professional game. My work is worth what the market determines. If I don't like it it's my prerogative to adapt and increase my worth in the market as required. Noone owes me a job.

And the adults who don't get these concepts still live in their moms bacement.

That's not reality. You are talking about "long term" not "short term", "In the long run we are all dead" .
:)

I explained why I think it should be allowed. An employer should be able to hire and fire whomever he/she wants for whatever reason he/she wants. If an employee doesn't agree, he/she is free to find employment elsewhere. This is pure free market capitalism. With an emphasis on "free"dom to run your business as you see fit.

If employers fire people based on their race, color, beliefs they are not practicing capitalism. You need regulated market to be more close to the pure free market capitalism so that businesses do not take uncompetitive actions such as firing people for reasons other than profits.

[humanino]

humanino, in order to have a productive discussion, people have to be speaking the same language, otherwise they won't be able to understand each other. Please use words how they are actually defined: do not make up your own definitions.I am sorry russ, I am aware that my english is not very fluent. On my side, I did learn quite a bit in this discussion, so I appreciate the feedback from drankin and loseyourname.

Can you be more specific as to what did not make sense in the quote above ? Do you mean that socialism and capitalism are necessarily contradictory ?

edit
I'm sorry, it appears I forgot that "socialism" in France does not have the same use anymore. It is almost synonymous to what people call "democrats" here in the US (that is, anybody "left" is classified socialist). I understand why my claim did not make much sense to a US reader. What I meant was that democrats' policies are not contrary to capitalism. To my understanding, this is nothing different from what Obama does right now !

[drankin]

If employers fire people based on their race, color, beliefs they are not practicing capitalism. You need regulated market to be more close to the pure free market capitalism so that businesses do not take uncompetitive actions such as firing people for reasons other than profits.

Capitalism does not discriminate. My point is that if someone were to run a company in a truly capitalistic fashion and discriminate against potential workforce talent, he/she is ultimately shooting themselfs in the foot. But, that is HIS/HER choice in a pure free-market system. The market will weed him/her out because he/she will lose their competitiveness in the market if they base their workforce (and ultimately customers) on a narrow demographic. Regulation is not required.

Name a single company in a first world country that profits in such a fashion? It doesn't happen! It's not because of regulation, it's because of competition for public opinion. Capitalism.

The true grease of Capitalism is information (IMO).

[Gokul43201]

Capitalism does not discriminate. My point is that if someone were to run a company in a truly capitalistic fashion and discriminate against potential workforce talent, he/she is ultimately shooting themselfs in the foot. But, that is HIS/HER choice in a pure free-market system. The market will weed him/her out because he/she will lose their competitiveness in the market if they base their workforce (and ultimately customers) on a narrow demographic. Regulation is not required.Can you say this was true about slavery? Do you believe that the profitability of Southern slave-owners was not in any way due to their virtually unrestricted ability to own and use slave labor?

Name a single company in a first world country that profits in such a fashion? It doesn't happen! It's not because of regulation, it's because of competition for public opinion. Capitalism.That's an unsupported assertion. There is no country today that is completely unregulated. So when you make an assertion like the one above, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that it is not the regulation that prevents discrimination. Also, why the restriction on first world countries? After all, let's not forget that this thread is about El Salvador, which is likely not what you would call a first world country.

[Office_Shredder]

Can you say this was true about slavery? Do you believe that the profitability of Southern slave-owners was not in any way due to their virtually unrestricted ability to own and use slave labor?


This is a ridiculous strawman argument.

In general though, this argument about non-competitive practices is an illusion. If I'm hiring someone to work retail or answer phones all day or cut my grass and trim the bushes, I don't need the "best person" for the job. I just need someone who can do the work competently. And it's unlikely that I can't find a competent white person to do the job

[mheslep]

Referring to "human rights" might be borderline, what I had in minds isIf a business owner can fire anybody as they please, then it will be hard to have the right to work and to a just remuneration.I suspect exactly the opposite is true. If employers are prevented from firing anybody, they will be reluctant to hire new people or perhaps even to start a business in the first place, and then it will be difficult to have work.

[nismaratwork]

I suspect exactly the opposite is true. If employers are prevented from firing anybody, they will be reluctant to hire or perhaps even to start a business in the first place, and then it will be difficult to have work.

Really, you have a good point. While there is certainly a balance, look at what happens when a terrible teacher or professor gets tenure! The opposing nature of "union" vs. "corp" works fairly well in theory. You can't make firing capricious, but without some flexibility you get DEEP beauropathologies.

[mheslep]

It is not smart to completely privatise education or healthcare. Why not?

Both are socialised in "first world" countries. (In the past, some people travelled from the USA to Cuba to get better health care.) Source?

[nismaratwork]

This is a ridiculous strawman argument.

In general though, this argument about non-competitive practices is an illusion. If I'm hiring someone to work retail or answer phones all day or cut my grass and trim the bushes, I don't need the "best person" for the job. I just need someone who can do the work competently. And it's unlikely that I can't find a competent white person to do the job

The job may be simple, but dependability and doing it WELL... isn't as easy to find as you think. I've been in circles where I had the dubious joy of hearing women of "good breeding" discussing how difficult it can be to find and retain a good gardener, housekeeper, etc. Retaining them at a flat payscale, seeing the work done on time and without some of the baggage you get from SOME (not all) white people in that situation can be priceless.

Go into the kitchen in any restaurant in NYC, Boston, SF, Chicago, and you're going to find Hispanic, Brazilian, and other immigrants washing dishes, humping loads, and working their way up the line. There is a reason for this; it's not just a stepping stone, and when it is, it's often within the single business. If the immigrants are white, it doesn't change, but right now most immigrants aren't Caucasian.

[Gokul43201]

This is a ridiculous strawman argument.Could you explain? I fail to see the strawman in my questions.

[vela]

Could you explain? I fail to see the strawman in my questions.
A free market is based on voluntary exchange. Slavery is not voluntary.

[mheslep]

Here I think is a useful analogy: Gokul suggests perhaps that since the 18-19th century slave owners were selling products of slave labor that slavery was in some matter part of capitalism. I'd say no, not more so than one would say slavery was part of 18th-19th democracy because the owners voted or held elective office. The institutions were contemporary, influenced each other, yet they remain distinctly different things.

[Gokul43201]

A free market is based on voluntary exchange. Slavery is not voluntary.Agreed (for the most part, there were still plenty of slaves that continued to voluntarily serve their former owners after Emancipation). I definitely didn't think that through sufficiently.

But in any case, the point I was hoping to make is that a free market exchange need not be, in principle, at odds with discrimination, since the market may assign positive value to a discriminatory practice. In a racist White-majority market, for instance, a buyer may gladly spend more on a product made in an all-White factory than one made in a mixed factory.

I therefore am not convinced that there can be no discrimination (I mean this in the sense of 'bigotry') within a free market.

[CRGreathouse]

I therefore am not convinced that there can be no discrimination (I mean this in the sense of 'bigotry') within a free market.

Certainly bigotry can exist under capitalism. But the system inherently rewards 'defectors' from bigotry. Under a command economy, there are no such rewards. On one hand, this means that a command economy could be used to stamp out a form of discrimination rather more quickly: the government buys products from white-only factories but also from non-(white-only) factories. But on the other, in a command economy discrimination can be enshrined more easily. Suppose the women's rights movement managed to affect a command economy predicated on the idea that women and men would be treated equally by the only buyer, the state. This may have brought about economic gender equality faster -- who knows? But the homosexual rights movement might be much less advanced than it is now, because there would be no price incentive for the government buyers to buy from homosexual-only factories, even if they charged lower prices.

[AlexES16]

Hey guys i will answer the posts tomorrow, im kinda in a hurry in school.

Thanks for your answers and keep up with the debate =)

[AlexES16]

Capitalism does not discriminate. My point is that if someone were to run a company in a truly capitalistic fashion and discriminate against potential workforce talent, he/she is ultimately shooting themselfs in the foot. But, that is HIS/HER choice in a pure free-market system. The market will weed him/her out because he/she will lose their competitiveness in the market if they base their workforce (and ultimately customers) on a narrow demographic. Regulation is not required.

Name a single company in a first world country that profits in such a fashion? It doesn't happen! It's not because of regulation, it's because of competition for public opinion. Capitalism.

The true grease of Capitalism is information (IMO).

Hello men. Regulation in the labor market is not neccesary.

But i think is very healthy to have a strong scientific based state that make hard regulation on pollution and healthcare.


This is an example of what hapens when a compnay is left with no regulation(in my country)

http://www.diariocolatino.com/es/20070925/nacionales/47489/

[AlexES16]

Im totally in favor of using force against polluters and companies that treat the health of the people.

You maybe argue that the consumer will punish companies that pollut, but they already polluted, they already ruined the life of the people that got affected.


And for me 1 life matters.

Healthcare is open to a debate.

[AlexES16]

The documental HOME was presented today in my school, and almost all people blamed capitalism and such unregulated enviroment.

Enviroment is maybe the last stronghole of the socialist, in the economic grow they totally are left withoth arguments, but when they come with the enviroment they kinda get all the support

[CRGreathouse]

A well-functioning capitalist society requires that externalities be internalized. Unregulated pollution is anti-capitalist.

[AlexES16]

A well-functioning capitalist society requires that externalities be internalized. Unregulated pollution is anti-capitalist.

This means that the guys of this page are anti-capitalist?

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/environment/pollution/376-The-Arsenic-Wars.html

They said to be capitalist but they are against almost all regulations?

[CRGreathouse]

I can't speak to the magazine in general; I don't read it. The particular link you posted is a political puff piece which doesn't say much about regulation -- it's mostly about politics as usual.

But capitalism, as I said, requires the internalization of externalities for proper functioning. This can be through any number of methods, including regulation, tort, Pigovian taxation, privatization of commons, etc.