We are All Socialist at Heart…it’s easier

[gmc]

posted by quinns commentary

I have to harken back to the concept of how the wealth was accumulated. In your example, clearly ill gotten gains are one thing, while a Bill Gates scenario quite another. I hope no one would classify Gates as having benefited from ill gotten gains.

Considering the number of times Microsoft has been fined-not just in america but all around the world- for anti-competitive practices like deliberately setting out to destroy other companies with better products it's kind of a moot point. How many livelihoods and great companies has he destroyed? But he always bleats he's just being picked on. Microsoft is a classic example of why you need anti-trust laws. A capitalist economy can't allow companies like microsoft to get away with it. Intel are at it as well-looks like the EU is about to impose a massive fine on them for using their market clout to try and shut out AMD.

posted by quinns commentary

In a good society the have nots get a fair chance to move up the ladder, in my mind in a fair society those that do move up and accumulate some wealth are viewed as successful not as a class from which to redistribute that wealth. Of course, that implies a fair tax structure along the way with all members of society sharing the responsibilities.

In a fair society the unfortunate and those that cannot help themselves are supported by the collective society, but the structure does encourage such dependency.

Who gets to decide what is fair? take education for example, should only the rich get to college or should you have some means to ensure that all get a fair chance at it regardless of the wealth of their parents. I happen to live in a country where free and compulsory education to at least primary level has been the norm for two or three hundred years with ready access to university for those who could pay to attend lectures. When you look at the numbers of scots behind the scientific and engineering developments that have shaped the modern world the benefits are incalculable. Look round your house-I can guarantee that you will find at least two things that owe their existence to a scot somewhere along the line.

postd by quinns commentary

In a fair society the unfortunate and those that cannot help themselves are supported by the collective society, but the structure does encourage such dependency

Why on earth do you think that? Surely it depends on how you structure things in the first place.

The point is that society has no obligation to people other than to provide common services for all, infrastructure, education, defense, etc and to assure that the truly needed do not suffer. If a person lives his life and uses his capabilities and sets his priorities such that he is low income, so be it. If another person does the same thing and takes advantage fairly of each opportunity and is successful so be it. They have no obligation to the other person in my view.

Except to have a society where everyone is given e same chance. Your view on income is interesting-are you saying that someone who chooses to become a nurse and -earns less that say a TV presenter or a lap dancer that person is somehow a failure? or that the guy emptying the bins is somehow of lesser value than a hedge fund manager. Which is more valuable to society? We can live without tv presenters and fund managers but you would notice if there were no nurses or bin men. That some people earn more than other doesn't reflect on theior worth or capabilities as human beings. Do you not have an obligation to everybody in society just as they do to you?

posted by quinns commentary

It was mentioned that corporations exploit, harm the environment, etc. Corporations are legal entities they do nothing, the people who run them do all that stuff and should be accountable. the same holds true for governments, they do nothing the people who run them do. The problem is that we are very bad at holding politicians and beauracrats responsible for anything and they act accordingly.

So you need to have some means of holding politicians and companies to account for what they do and the ability to impose severe enough sanctions on them that they will be forced to behave.

You have anti-trust laws and environmental legislation but also a culture that tries to portray such laws as interfering with business-socialistic in nature and giving too much power to government and corporations that buy off politicians to weaken or abandon such legislation. Environmentalists are tree-hugging lunatics that are part of a left wing conspiracy to destroy the american economy. Who decided that was fair? Who has the power and how do you stop those who would take it and use for their own benefit. The arguments has been going on since time immemorial socialism is just one line of it.

posted by quinns commentary

It seems to me that a society that collectively depends more and more on services from government becomes so dependent on that government they risk their own independence at some point. In addition, the "free" mentatility for government services dampens the human spirit of achievement, individual responsibility and risk taking. More and more people become complacent and fewer break those bounds to move the society forward. I think some countries in Europe show that attitude. Marching in the streets for false job security and more government services while the population and productivity are declining just isn't' a good thing in my view.

You do actually have a good point there but it's not so much dependence on government as forgetting that we can't all work for it. Someone needs to -generate wealth from somewhere. It's not just socialism that is a problem though, for a while there there was the notion that we didn't need industry and we could all survive and do well in an economy that revolved around financial services and selling each other mortgages. Monetarism is going to go down as one of the sillier economic theories. Most european nations cherry pick bits from socialism-so do americans -at it's heart is the basic idea that the people should rule and all are born equal entitled to be free to live our lives as we choose. We should all have a chance. That's where it all stems from, who rules, who decides what is fair? I would put it tp you the final say should not rest with corporations or politicians (OK maybe the latter but only if they really understand who they work for) or Politics is how argue about the ways to that end and socialism is just one aspect of it. All of them now reject one of the major tenets of it that the state should own everything. it just doesn't work all you do is create a new set of masters that take everything. power is an end in itself to some people.

Political theories aren't a religion-though you would think they are the way some people go on about them. pick the bits that you think will work. Why should a label put you off doing something.

[Snowfire]

[quote=gmc;1187905
Intel are at it as well-looks like the EU is about to impose a massive fine on them for using their market clout to try and shut out AMD.
[/QUOTE]

The EU executive found Intel guilty of paying computer makers to postpone or cancel plans to launch products that used AMD chips, paid secret rebates to computer makers to use Intel chips, and paid a major retailer to stock only computers with its chips.

PC Pro: News: Intel fined $1.5bn for "harming millions" of PC buyers

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Snowfire

The EU executive found Intel guilty of paying computer makers to postpone or cancel plans to launch products that used AMD chips, paid secret rebates to computer makers to use Intel chips, and paid a major retailer to stock only computers with its chips.

PC Pro: News: Intel fined $1.5bn for "harming millions" of PC buyers

from the article

We are confident that the worldwide microprocessor market is functioning normally and is highly competitive in Europe and elsewhere. Intel's conduct has always been lawful, pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers," the company says.

Yeah right, just like microsoft. It's hard to know whether they actually believe what they say and think fair competition in a capitalist economy means you set out to destroy the competition rather than compete with it fairly. It's bad for business generally and the consumer if companies get away with it.

Intel fined $26 million for Korean antitrust violations - Ars Technica

Thus far, Intel's response has been been a bog-standard rehash of Intel's firm commitment to business practices that are fair and pro-competitive. If that line is beginning to wear a bit thin, it's because we've heard it so often over the past three years. Korea is the second nation to rule against Intel in an antitrust investigation; Japan's Fair Trade Commission found similar evidence of monopolistic abuse back in 2005. Intel, thus far, has met every investigation and every finding with the same "We love fair competition" reply. Unfortunately for the chipmaker, regulators around the world aren't in agreement.

Japan and Korea are not the only places where Intel's actions are being scrutinized; both the EU and the state of New York are currently investigating allegations that the company has abused its market position. The EU decision is currently expected to arrive before the end of September; its findings (and potential penalties) could dwarf those of the Japanese or Korean FTC. The EU has the right to fine a company up to 10 percent of its annual revenue (maximum fine of €2.6 billion). Even if found guilty, Intel would almost certainly not be penalized so harshly, but the European Commission's decision to fine Microsoft some $800 million earlier this year is proof that the EC is willing to play hardball if it feels the situation warrants it.

The Korean FTC's decision will have no practical impact on the AMD-Intel antitrust case; AMD has already been barred from introducing international findings as evidence against Intel. The court of public opinion, however, operates under no such restriction. If—and I say "if" for a reason—the EU rules against Intel later this year, it could spur a fresh wave of investigations into behavior Intel steadfastly defends as being fair, procompetitive, and in the best interest of consumers.

I can see why new york state are getting involved-they have jobs at stake.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Originally Posted by gmc

posted by quinns commentary


You have anti-trust laws and environmental legislation but also a culture that tries to portray such laws as interfering with business-socialistic in nature and giving too much power to government and corporations that buy off politicians to weaken or abandon such legislation. Environmentalists are tree-hugging lunatics that are part of a left wing conspiracy to destroy the american economy. Who decided that was fair? Who has the power and how do you stop those who would take it and use for their own benefit. The arguments has been going on since time immemorial socialism is just one line of it.

posted by quinns commentary


You do actually have a good point there but it's not so much dependence on government as forgetting that we can't all work for it. Someone needs to -generate wealth from somewhere. It's not just socialism that is a problem though, for a while there there was the notion that we didn't need industry and we could all survive and do well in an economy that revolved around financial services and selling each other mortgages. Monetarism is going to go down as one of the sillier economic theories. Most european nations cherry pick bits from socialism-so do americans -at it's heart is the basic idea that the people should rule and all are born equal entitled to be free to live our lives as we choose. We should all have a chance. That's where it all stems from, who rules, who decides what is fair? I would put it tp you the final say should not rest with corporations or politicians (OK maybe the latter but only if they really understand who they work for) or Politics is how argue about the ways to that end and socialism is just one aspect of it. All of them now reject one of the major tenets of it that the state should own everything. it just doesn't work all you do is create a new set of masters that take everything. power is an end in itself to some people.

Political theories aren't a religion-though you would think they are the way some people go on about them. pick the bits that you think will work. Why should a label put you off doing something.

Considering the number of times Microsoft has been fined-not just in America but all around the world- for anti-competitive practices like deliberately setting out to destroy other companies with better products it's kind of a moot point. How many livelihoods and great companies has he destroyed? But he always bleats he's just being picked on. Microsoft is a classic example of why you need anti-trust laws. A capitalist economy can't allow companies like Microsoft to get away with it. Intel are at it as well-looks like the EU is about to impose a massive fine on them for using their market clout to try and shut out AMD.

AS you point they apparently have not gotten away with it. I still say the creation of new technology and all that goes with it far out weighs these issues which likely occurred long after Microsoft created the business in the first place.

Who gets to decide what is fair? take education for example, should only the rich get to college or should you have some means to ensure that all get a fair chance at it regardless of the wealth of their parents. I happen to live in a country where free and compulsory education to at least primary level has been the norm for two or three hundred years with ready access to university for those who could pay to attend lectures. When you look at the numbers of scots behind the scientific and engineering developments that have shaped the modern world the benefits are incalculable. Look round your house-I can guarantee that you will find at least two things that owe their existence to a scot somewhere along the line.

Of course only the rich should not be the one to go to college and in the US anyone with the right stuff can go to college if they want to. I went to college for nine years at night, paid in part by spending two years in the army. My four children went to private schools, I mortgage my hose twice to make that happen and ten years after the youngest graduated I am still paying off the loans, but it happened. In the US the biggest problem is that 40% of students drop out of high school and in some urban areas it is 70% drop out rate, that is outrageous and dangerous.

Why on earth do you think that? Surely it depends on how you structure things in the first place.

Your right it does depend on how the system is structured and that is what I meant to say.

Except to have a society where everyone is given e same chance. Your view on income is interesting-are you saying that someone who chooses to become a nurse and -earns less that say a TV presenter or a lap dancer that person is somehow a failure? or that the guy emptying the bins is somehow of lesser value than a hedge fund manager. Which is more valuable to society? We can live without tv presenters and fund managers but you would notice if there were no nurses or bin men. That some people earn more than other doesn't reflect on their worth or capabilities as human beings. Do you not have an obligation to everybody in society just as they do to you?


I am not saying that at all, I am saying that each person defines success in their own way and it is not always nor should it be money. There are many lower income jobs that have more value and contribute more to society than some jobs making big bucks.

So you need to have some means of holding politicians and companies to account for what they do and the ability to impose severe enough sanctions on them that they will be forced to behave.

I agree but that never seems to happen

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Originally Posted by spot

It's called fair pay based on need. It's not the American Way, of course, but it's arguable and in Europe it's practiced at least to some extent. Capitalism died last year and thank goodness for that.

As Mark Twain said, the reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

How do you define "based on need?" Didn't I say society should provide for those in need?

[gmc]

posted by quinns commentary

AS you point they apparently have not gotten away with it. I still say the creation of new technology and all that goes with it far out weighs these issues which likely occurred long after Microsoft created the business in the first place.

The point is how much development and progress has microsoft stymied? How many jobs has they cost. Intel are trying to bankrupt AMD what do you think would happen to prices if they have no competition? That is why monopolies or cartels are bad-they bend the market to suit their bottom line and to the detriment of the consumer. They act to prevent innovation and competition. Microsoft aren't getting away with it in the eu, eu, korea and japan but they bleat it is just anti Americanism (completely ignoring the fact that the EU also heavily fined european companies for anti competitive practices as well) and drag things out hoping the rival companies will fail in the meantime. Netscape won their case but by the time they did they were out of business despite having a better product. Microsoft may have helped make the PC commonplace but they've been using their market power to leave people with no choice-try buying a computer without windows-you have top pay a tax to microsoft whether you want to or not, they deliberately design their operating system so it doesn't work with rival software to curb free competition not because they offer the best prioduct. They are bad for business and their practices are anti-capitalist in nature and destroy the free market in computer software.

It's the same with companies that buy up patents to stop someone developing them or tie up rival companies in litigation they know the rival can' afford to either stop their entry or force them out of business-look at dyson for instance, he approached some of the big vacuum cleaner manufacturers and all they saw is they would lose profit on the sale of bags then they tried to pinch his patent and tied him up for years in court to try and stop innovation.

State control isn't good for the economy neither are monoploies and cartels. It's something that should concern you as you are now bailing out car companies that preferred to get legislation changed so they wouldn't have to produce more efficient engines and keep out foreign made cars rather than compete with them. If they had had to compete fairly they might still be competitive.

I am not saying that at all, I am saying that each person defines success in their own way and it is not always nor should it be money. There are many lower income jobs that have more value and contribute more to society than some jobs making big bucks.

Didn't think you were-but should those in lower paid jobs be deprived of healthcare because they can't pay for it. (bear in mind I do not really know how such things work in the states, you hear stories of people going bankrupt and becoming destitute trying to pay hospital bills how true that is i don't really know)

posted by quinns commentary

So you need to have some means of holding politicians and companies to account for what they do and the ability to impose severe enough sanctions on them that they will be forced to behave.

I agree but that never seems to happen

It seems societies go back on forth-you get a culture where corruption and exploitation becomes acceptable then the people get annoyed and pull things the other way for a while then the cycle repeats itself over and over again. There is no one solution imo. A hundred years ago neither of our countries were democracies with universal suffrage and all the freedoms we now take for granted, 150 years ago you still had slavery- so things do progress. With the election of Obama you seem to have stopped what looked like progress towards a fascist state. That a country like the US can elect a black president would have been inconceivable not so long ago. nation talks to nation and people to people (we wouldn't have been doing this ten years ago) that's progress as well.

Actually I could give you countless examples where politicians have been held to account and things changed for the better, lurched backwards and then gone on again. Most of them would be UK based though but just think of things like the civil rights movement and suffrage for women in the states.

Our democracy on the other hand is in deep **** but that will be sorted because the people have had enough, I don't think our politicians grasp the extent of the anger yet.

I've got no time for political panaceas, I like some aspects of socialism but reject it as a complete solution just as outright market capitalism across all aspects of society as touted by the right is not a solution either. Cherry pick the best bits.

I think the more you know-read and study etc the less likely you are to think you have all the answers. When you talk to somebody with strong opinions either of the right or the left you realise they know a lot less than they think they do and sometimes haven't learned to think for themselves and are generally speaking impressed with their own perspicacity and wisdom. Bit like religion-they are right because they know.

Capitalism isn't dead but maybe you need to let socialism flower a bit in the states. A forest with only one plant is not much of forest. (that sounds really profound doesn't it?)

posted by spot

It depends entirely on how you view society. Jesus disagrees with you at an absolutely fundamental level, for example. So do I, for similar reasons.

What you are the son of god?(sorry couldn't resist the temptation)