A solution of no solution. More regulation = more money for the crony kleptocrats.

So it's just a coincidence that countries with low income inequality tend to be more regulated?

Look it up if you don't believe me. start here

Yeah, everyone is poor except a few rulers and their cronies, so there is "less income inequality."

How do you read that map you sent?

China is highly regulated, yet there is a lot of inequality, having the second largest number of billionaires, and millions of dirt-poor people. Does this map equate to percentages?

North Korea, on the other hand, is as highly regulated as it gets, yet they have very few billionaires, so, in this case yes, most people are equally poor, and close to starving (or are otherwise dead).

My initial post wasn't clear, in that, rather than seeking "equality," a higher standard of living seems preferable.

(Is this about envy or about having food on the table?)

Socialism promotes equality: "it's only virtue is equal misery for all" (with the exception of the rulers, of course)

Saudi Arabia is quite regulated, you can't buy alcohol and women must wear veils, yet the income disparities between the sheiks and the average workers is quite considerable.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate and explain that unreadable map to me, so I can comment.

Edit: Oh, I see: According to this CIA map, there is apparently more "inequality" in the U.S. than there is in India. And a lot more in South Africa (but I didn't know South Africa was a land of no regulations, whatever that means). And Greece apparently has considerably lower inequality (so what are they all complaining about?!) And supposedly there is no data about communist countries like Cuba and places like Saudi Arabia (why is that?). Mongolia and Canada have about the same level of inequality. I'm still trying to decipher the purpose that this map serves...

@Trancecoach.. on the map darker colours = higher inequality.

First of all, you can't really equate developing countries with the first world. They have a whole different set of problems causing inequality.

Second, if you compare the US (deregulated) to Europe (more regulated) you will see that income inequality is lower in Europe.

Regulation is certainly not the only fix for inequality, but it is an important one.
And not just "more regulation" but the right regulation.

Okay then, lets arbitrarily exclude everything that's not part of the so-called "first world" -- which leaves the U.S. "empire" and its satellites/provinces.

"Regulated" how? What specific "regulations" did you have in mind? (You have an "out" by saying that it has to be the "right regulation," so, pray tell, what is the "right" regulation?)

And ultimately, so what? Is Greece better off because it is more "regulated" (whatever that means)? Or because it has less "inequality?" Or is Greece now no-longer part of the "first world?"

And by "Europe," do you mean the EU (have you seen Europe's economy lately)? How about Switzerland? Are they more "regulated" (whatever that means)?

In case you have noticed, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, the UK (most of the EU, really) isn't doing that great right now, is it?

Edit: Let me know of the specific regulations you have in mind that will make everyone equal (like the Greeks, apparently). Hint: Just "regulations" does not mean anything without context. Do you mean to say that the EU has more laws than the U.S.? I wouldn't think of the U.S. as being a "deregulated" or an "unregulated" place. Would you? I live in California where the legislature is just now reviewing no fewer than 400 new laws to implement. I doubt that many (if any) Swiss cantons have more laws and regulations than California. Or Luxembourg. Or Estonia (which, by the way, is Europe's most recent economic miracle: a country with one of the freest -- albeit not perfectly free -- markets, relative to other countries).

Or perhaps you mean the Scandinavian countries (which I contest are not as "regulated" as you might think)?

Do you really know with certainty how "regulated" (whatever that means) "Europe" really is?

How about places like the Czech Republic (with a 15% flat tax)? Are they more "regulated" or less "regulated?"

How about Cyprus? Or Malta? I think Europe provides for some interesting discussion, but you need at least some knowledge of it and what goes on in its many countries.

@Trancecoach
you are starting to sound damn near evangelical about this free market lovefest you are having.
and this:
"Socialism promotes equality: "it's only virtue is equal misery for all" (with the exception of the rulers, of course)"

thats a beaut.

and how come all your examples are the european countries that got fucked in the ass by corrupt currency and derivative speculators? are you working for goldman sachs?
whats the deal man?

how about throwing out some countries are doing pretty damn ok?
denmark?finland?

ill give ya props for knowing capitalism and all the positive bennies that can go with it but its apparent you dont know shit about socialism.
socialism-communism=not the same.

so while we are at it lets discuss some things that are from the dark side of capitalism and no free market carny barker never seems to want to talk about.

1.how do you fix the currency issue with its pyramid scheme?
2.how do create a level playing field for the wage slave? or debt slave?
3.or can you outright buy people?
4.since nothing is communal and there is no regulation.is there anything that cannot be commodified?

look man.i get it.lots of good things can happen with a free market.
but so can a lot of bad.
eyes open my man.

reminds me of the scientist who came up with game theory.
from the rand institute i think.
the whole cold war was set up on this dudes principles of self-interest.
did a bunch of testing on dudes and the data seemed conclusive...
until he did the same experiment with secretaries.
turns out they were unwilling to dick each other over and were more prone to co-operate with each other.

well how about them apples.co-operation as a way on interacting.
ya dont say?
very interesting.

the scientist later recanted and dismissed his own study(years later though).

i know we both agree that what we have now is a clusterfuck.
and i agree that the free market should have a place,that its even vital.
but unrestricted free markets?
naw..no thanks.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, September 10th, 2013 12:51pm PDT - promote requested by zombieater.

our currencies have also been watered down within the debt system by "creating" more money (and debt). This process creates the illusion that the populace is flush with available cash. Instead it is only keystrokes creating an illusion of wealth..., a charade intended to keep you spending and borrowing.

meanwhile, while we focus on the distraction, the bankers keep upping their percentage.

@enoch, if I sound evangelical, it's because I have an allergic reaction to misinformation and a deep aversion to disinformation...

Here are my comments, interspersed:

> and how come all your examples are the european countries that got fucked
> in the ass by corrupt currency and derivative speculators?"

By corrupt currency, do you mean the Euro? These are a big percentage of the so-called "1st world countries."

> are you working for goldman sachs?
> whats the deal man?

Are these borderline ad hominem, or did I miss something...

> denmark? finland?

Is that it, do you want to limit the evidence to the scandinavian countries? Fine, list for me the countries you want me to address and compare to the US or more free market economies and we will proceed from there.

> but its apparent you dont know shit about socialism.
> socialism-communism=not the same.

Personal attacks aside, communism is a type of socialism in the Marxist sense. But to clarify, please define 'socialism' as you think it should be defined, if something other than public control over the means of production.

> and no free market carny barker never seems to want to talk about.

Are you getting upset about something, or are you not calling me a "free market carny barker"?

> 1.how do you fix the currency issue with its pyramid scheme?

What is the currency issue? The central bank's monopoly in currency? You get rid of legal tender laws and let people decide what currency they want to use and accept.

> 2.how do create a level playing field for the wage slave? or debt slave?

You have to be more specific as to what "level playing field means in practice" so that I can answer this.

> 3.or can you outright buy people?

Do you mean slaves? No, that goes against free-market non-aggression and self-ownership principles.

> 4.since nothing is communal and there is no regulation.is there anything that
> cannot be commodified?

Again, please be more specific about what you mean by "commodified." Do you mean are you free to buy and sell anything as long as you don't violate self and property rights? Not clear what you mean here but I'm sure with some clarification I can address it.

> look man.i get it.lots of good things can happen with a free market. but so can
> a lot of bad. eyes open my man.

Sure, but please tell me, what specifically bad can happen in a free market that cannot happen as bad or worse in a non-free market?

> reminds me of the scientist who came up with game theory.
> from the rand institute i think. the whole cold war was set up on this dudes
> principles of self-interest. did a bunch of testing on dudes and the data
> seemed conclusive...until he did the same experiment with secretaries. turns
> but they were unwilling to dick each other over and were more prone to co-
> operate with each other.

How is this relevant? People like to cooperate. That's the basis for the voluntary free market and why it works.

> well how about them apples.co-operation as a way on interacting. ya dont
> say? very interesting.

I agree. Voluntary interaction equals cooperation. That is the free market. Coercion is the non-free market. Is there disagreement here, because I don't see it.

> i know we both agree that what we have now is a clusterfuck.
> and i agree that the free market should have a place,that its even vital. but
> unrestricted free markets? naw..no thanks.

I still don't know the specifics of how exactly you want to "restrict it" and how specifically you want to restrict it. You must forgive me if I don't think you are as competent to restrict me and my life and my business and I myself am. The same with your life and business, I am not qualified to restrict it.
Who is then? Specifically, "who" do you want to restrict you, and your freedom to engage in free trade?

sighs..nevermind man.
the fact that you thought i was throwing ad-homs at ya or calling you names is all i need to know.

you argue like someone who has found religion.
the vernacular is different but the style is the same.
hence my light hearted evangelical reference.
sorry you thought that was a dig at you.
already told ya i respected and admired you.

discussions to me are always about understanding.i learned a ton from you and truly appreciate the time.

but you didnt convert me.

and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.
disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

every system has its flaws.
both positive and negative.
and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences.
this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed and grow.
this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
instead i get a sermon.

hope has two daughters.
anger and courage.
anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.

i foolishly believed that you and i could have a conversation that would ignite the spark of ideas.
that through discussion and debate something new and exciting could be born.
capitalism has its problems.
as does socialism.
we need something better.

but you are blinded by dogma.
and i am just an old fool.
a silly old dreamer who really should have known better.

i sincerely apologize that you felt i was calling you names.

i havent had a beer in ten years.
gonna go grab me a beer or two.
what a silly,sad old man i have become.
old men should stop dreaming.....

Every system has coercion.
The specifics may change, but they're all based around gaming the rules to get ahead, and preventing others from catching up.

Even if there are no government rules, you end up with private rules, set by the private owners of things you depend on, or things you have to work around or work with.

Deregulated systems are great, but they have one major flaw. Over time, you will end up with a monopoly. It's 100% certain. One business will always grow at least a tad quicker than others, and given enough time, will displace the others.
Especially when larger size creates beneficial economy of scale, and makes for prices that no one else can beat, which only accelerates the growth, leading to the inevitable.
This was the case for the U.S. in the "Rockefeller/Morgan/Vanderbilt-esque" days, and it is becoming the case to day in China.

(China is an amusing example. They have essentially wild-west capitalism and no effective labor laws. It's a bubbling brew of mega rich and mega poor. Much like pre-ww1-ish USA.)

Most economic crises we've had were the result of a few influential agents acting in their own best self interest, while their self interest did not coincide with national interest.

Local optima vs Global optima, mathematically speaking.

For example, oil speculation leads to higher oil prices, which means you can then sell your oil options for a good profit. It's quite good for the speculator.
It just isn't good for the rest of the nation, as higher energy costs drive down everyone else's profits/revenue.

In a more cartoonish sense, you can for example: get land real cheap by purchasing all the land around it, land-locking the access, and not agreeing to a public easement.
Then the land owner of the center-plot is holding worthless land, it's useless to anyone else, and the only possible customer is you.
You get to set the price, because it's you or nobody.
*Also, this is a real example that happened in my neighborhood.

-scheherazade

The fact the gutters aren't running with blood over this continues to amaze me.

Fucking hell, writing those posts should have damn near killed you then...

You want a better comparison, try Australia. Democratic but with a strong streak of socialism, survived the GFC very well thank you very much and has a well regulated banking sector.

Somewhat related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Inequality

Revolutions aren't usually about the poor, usually it's either the middle class overthrowing the upper class, or infighting amongst the upper class.

Both Gandhi and Robespierre started out as middle class lawyers for instance.

So shall we now go country by country until we find one that fits your bias? So, not Scandinavia?. Not Europe? On to Australia. So, tell me: what specifically about Australia makes it unique? What data do you have to support your claim(s)? What is your claim, actually? What's the "strong streak of socialism" that exists in Australia (and no where else?) and and how has it served Australia to be the exception to the rule?

Such economic rules are the same no matter the country. It's like gravity. But if you want to pursue it, then send me the specifics. What specific laws are you talking about? What specific regulations? What makes Australia "socialist?"

And we take it from there.

Bad dudes are bad dudes. In socialism or capitalism, some men want to take it all for themselves.

And there's nothing they like more than the intelligent middle class bickering over semantics while they slide a few more billion out of the country..

@enoch, I didn't see your response to me since you didn't "reply" to me, or "message me" ("@Trancecoach"), so I'm just seeing this now:

> you argue like someone who has found religion.

What is this, then, if not ad hominem? What has religion got to do with economics in this context? I'm willing to change my mind, if you can show me the flaws in my argument.

> and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.

So, please tell me what didn't get 'addressed?' Did I not respond to every point in your post? Where are your replies to my reply?

> disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child
> locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

Again, what wasn't addressed? Free market capitalists love to talk about free market capitalism. Ok. So are you stuck on this such that you're unable to read/respond to my response?

Seems to me that you're projecting, because while you say that my responses are like a 'sermon,' this portion of your post actually sounds like a sermon:

> every system has its flaws.
> both positive and negative.
> and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight
> differences.
> this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the
> realm of dreams.
> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow.
> this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
> instead i get a sermon.
> hope has two daughters.
> anger and courage.
> anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.
> i havent had a beer in ten years.
> gonna go grab me a beer or two.
> what a silly,sad old man i have become.
> old men should stop dreaming.....

Let's not degrade the level of discourse to ad hominem or sob stories. If you need help, ask for help. But don't blame me if you relapse. We are all accountable for our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

> old men should stop dreaming

Dream all you want, but don't expect everyone else to take your dreams seriously just because you say so. (Why not address any of the points I made in my response?)

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the
average voter." ~ Winston Churchill

I'm at a loss as to what response I can give you that would 'appease' your sensibilities? As far as I could tell, all of your questions were addressed. But you ignored my reply, and went back to "no one wants to talk about it" or whatever. So, what can be said?

It seems like you don't really want to "debate" or "converse" or whatever. If I refute your arguments, then you interpret that as meaning that I don't want to talk about it. Did I get that right? That doesn't make much sense to me. If not, please explain what I am missing here.

Also, what does it matter if you are old or young, or a dreamer or not, in terms of getting to the truth about socialism and capitalism?

> but you are blinded by dogma.

If so, why not show me what part of my argument is dogmatic or not epistemologically sound?
For example, what specifically about the right to and/or preference for non-aggression is 'dogmatic?' I don't like being bullied, so does that make me dogmatic? What about the impossibility of economic calculation under any sort of socialism is 'dogmatic?' And how so?

If someone doesn't understand calculus, they might call it 'dogma.' But if you understand it, then you can look at the equations and see for yourself if they make mathematical sense (or not). Was Galileo's contention that the Earth orbits the Sun dogmatic? What about the assertion that the Sun orbits the Earth, was that dogmatic? What's the difference?

> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow. this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.

This is all very nice, but did you bother to find out what my 'ultimate goal' in talking to you was? Or is it all about yours?

Some-but-not-all people get upset when you point out how their beliefs do not correspond to the facts. Socrates was sentenced to commit suicide and Galileo died under house arrest.

I won't say whether or not this is true, or applies in this instance.

> every system has its flaws. both positive and negative. and no system is a rigid
> single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences. this includes every
> political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

This, in itself is a dogmatic statement.

Look, man. I like you. I appreciate your comments, your earnestness, and willingness to engage our discourse. I also appreciate your respect and appreciation (although I can't say I'm sure how I've earned or deserved it). You've apologized for what seems to me to be ad hominem and I appreciate and accept your apology. I, too, apologize if you seem that I've been terse or avoidant in authentic engagement in dialogue with you. But in keeping with the points and arguments themselves, I think we'll both be much better off in terms of learning and growing and avoiding going off-track or off-topic into commentary about the messenger as opposed to the message.

@Trancecoach
ok.fair enough.
the reasons why i was making the religion analogy is due to your bullet form responses.
your outright deflecting when points are made...shifting the goal posts to meet your criteria.
you point to the UE and i counter with sweden and finland,basically i used your own premise and your response? not good enough.move those goal posts!

you know who else argues exactly the same way? religious fundamentalists.
so i was just being a bit cheeky with ya and i assumed (wrongly it appears) that you would take it in the spirit it was meant..busting your balls.

my sadness resided in the slow realization that our conversation was one-sided.

that no matter what idea i put forth would be met with the same tactics and it assumes i wish to change your mind.i dont but i truly did want to understand you.
and your replies have been informative and i have a much better understanding now.
that is something i appreciate.
but you were talking at me,not with me.
and you did ignore my questions in regards to the darker side of capitalism.

so i dont know what you thought i was projecting onto you.i was expressing sadness and that i felt foolish.

with my newfound understanding of our relationship and your willingness to address those questions that were left unanswered.

let us begin:
1.we hear so much about the "producers" of wealth and industry.would you admit that this wealth is not gained alone but is in fact the result of a multitude of people,services and infrastructure?
a.if yes.are you willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?
b.if no.explain.

2.in a free market with no regulation,how would society keep the financial industry in check?

3.do you believe in democracy? if so,then what is wrong with regulations?

4.since we both know the vast corporate wealth we have been witnessing is due to corporations influencing government policy.should these corporations be dissolved completely?or is it government that needs to be expunged? and what would be your solution to fill that void?

5.in a free market intellectual property is an oxymoron,as is copyright.how do you suggest to rid us of those things?

6.isnt democracy a form of free market?

@Trancecoach @enoch

Enoch's questions:

1. People should be producing something if they are getting paid for it - whether that is a good, service, etc. If someone else pays them to create or perform they are owed exactly what they have been promised to be compensated.

2. Enoch I think you are misunderstanding what a free market is. A free market is not a marketplace without regulations. A free market is not anarchy - there are still rules. Instead a free market is a market without a centralized or directing authority. To clarify a free market is one in which government policy does not set pricing.

3. You don't believe or disbelieve in democracy. It isn't a religion, it is a form of government. There is nothing inherently wrong with regulations. The devil is in the details. Regulations can be good or bad for a marketplace.

4. Enoch, I think that is a gross oversimplification of why corporate profits have been as high as they are. Many things have led to large corporate profits including globalization, expanding markets, etc. Yes, here in the USA corporations exercise influence on government, but its only one part of the bigger picture.

5. Completely incorrect. A free market has nothing to do with the existence of copyrights or patents.

6. Democracy is a form of government. A Free Market is a type of market structure. You could have a dictatorship and a free market. A monarch and a free market. A republic and a free market. A Theocracy and a free market.

Furthermore you could have a "Free Market" for automobiles but a "regulated" or "controlled" market for electricity within one country.

For example:

In the USA I would argue automobiles operate in a "Free Market". Yes there are certain standards the government sets (safety, fuel efficiency, etc) but the pricing is determined by the automakers. You can argue about the restrictions. Do they go far enough? Do they go too far? etc.

Conversely, most electric companies prices are regulated by the government and they are required to provide services to certain areas.

Lastly, a free market does not mean the market operates without laws. Copyright and patent law being just a small part of those laws.

I hope this clarifies some of these questions for you.


Best,

Kgrr

@kevingrr
i love you

@enoch

Thanks!

On another note - I think this video is pretty silly. Corporations are making more money due to market forces. Globalization, competing labor costs, automation, etc.

Bill Moyers is ready to talk about the American Worker who has been cheated and robbed? His solution is to basically spread the money around? Take from the greedy corporations and give to their poor workers?

American Manufacturing jobs earn five times on average what a Mexican Manufacturing jobs does and almost 30 times what the average Chinese job pays. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ichcc.pdf

Additionally, I would postulate that the standard of living is better in the USA than in either of those countries.

How are American's benefiting? Well, we have incredibly low prices as Consumers for all sorts of goods.

That said a lot of Americans are being left behind and when I look forward I really wonder what is going to happen with continued automation. How many truck drivers/delivery drivers will we need when trucks can drive themselves? What happens when food prep can be automated? These are just a few examples among many.