The Libertarian Thread

[El Zen]

I'm for a limited government, who's only task should be to protect the rights of its citizens.

Oh, I agree. But I strongly suspect we have very different definitions of the words 'limited' and 'rights'.

[maqroll]

 

No no no no no 

 

The Fed is to blame for the credit crash

The Fed is now essentially an arm of Wall St and has been for years. Loose regulation and pure corruption allowed for this. CEOs of major banks end up as Fed Chairmen and top White House advisors, no conflict of interest there!

 

The crash was brought about by predatory mortgage lending and then the piggybacking off the inevitable defaults by traders, all brought to you by lax regulation and minimal oversight and accountability. To a degree I concur with you about the Fed, but the horrifying thing is that The Fed, for all intents and purposes, IS WALL ST. If a sound regulatory apparatus was in effect, codified and honored, they might not have run wild like they did. Or at least now they'd be in prison, not in their mansions in Connecticut.

[maqroll]

 

 

Capitalism ended child labour in capitalist nations

In the United States, child labor ended with the Great Depression because adults began to do the jobs that had traditionally been done by children. 

 

But prior to that, it was unions that were the main champion of worker's rights, and many of those unions were Socialist and Communist. They got many things wrong, but not their advocacy of basic workers rights.

 

Capitalism by it's very nature does not ethically adjust itself to the times, it was the effort of people fighting the machinery of unbridled capitalism that brought about progressive labor laws that just seem normal to us today.

[HanoiVillan]

 

 

 

the line was 'capitalism ended child labour'

 

You got me there. Let me rephrase: Capitalism ended child labour in capitalist nations. Bangladesh doesnt have capitalism. Capitalism is a political-economic system, not a description of corporations operating in countries with low wages.

 

 

This seems like a 'no true Scotsman' argument, or whatever other fallacy. You've defined capitalism as an economic system that ends child labour, and then decided that a country with child labour isn't capitalist. 

 

I say, no Villa fan hits another fan with a chair. Next day, there's a riot, and a Villa fan hits another fan with a chair. I say, well, no true Villa fan hits someone with a chair. 

 

You say, no capitalist country exploits child labour, indeed capitalism solves it. Someone provides an example of a capitalist country with child labour. You say, well, that country's not really capitalist. 

 

In what way is Bangladesh not a capitalist country? It has a market economy. Here are some relevant quotes from Wiki 'Economy of Bangladesh':

 

"According to a recent opinion poll, Bangladesh has the second most pro-capitalist population in the developing world . . . Beginning in late 1975, the government gradually gave greater scope to private sector participation in the economy, a pattern that has continued. Many state-owned enterprises have been privatized, like banking, telecommunication, aviation, media, and jute . . . In the mid-1980s, there were encouraging signs of progress. Economic policies aimed at encouraging private enterprise and investment, privatizing public industries, reinstating budgetary discipline, and liberalizing the import regime were accelerated."

 

Does it sound like a communist country?

 

 

Bangladesh is, as is every other country on the planet, except north korea, a mixed-economy. It is far from capitalist. According to the Heritage list of countries by economic freedom, Bangladesh is number 131, in the ''mostly unfree'' bracket (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking).

One major reason for the recent economic growth in Bangladesh is the introduction of micro finance, started by the Grameen bank. To me micro finance is a brilliant example of capitalism mixed with compassion. The Grameen bank helped millions of bangladeshi (women in particular) and made Muhammad Yunus very rich. 

 

 

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by 'capitalist' then. To me, mixed economies are capitalist. If the government doesn't have ownership of key industries and utilities, if investment isn't directed by the central government, and if the direction of economic growth isn't planned by the central government, then to me it's capitalist. Obviously there are many different kinds and flavours of capitalism. 

 

EDIT: I mean, if you say every country on the planet is a mixed economy except for North Korea, and mixed economies aren't capitalist, then 'capitalist' isn't a description of anything except a platonic ideal which can only be failed. I used to have similar ideas about communism. 'But the Soviet Union wasn't a true communist country'! I just don't think it's a good argument. 

Edited March 14, 2015 by HanoiVillan

[tonyh29]

Can you elaborate on whether you are deliberately trolling?

At what point did capitalism decide to end child labour? Has anyone told Nike? Or apple, burberry, adidas, Matalan, Next?

As a concept it's actually genuinely funny.

Checks list , doesn't spot my name on it , sighs with relief and sends the kids back up the chimney

[chrisp65]

 

Can you elaborate on whether you are deliberately trolling?

At what point did capitalism decide to end child labour? Has anyone told Nike? Or apple, burberry, adidas, Matalan, Next?

As a concept it's actually genuinely funny.

Checks list , doesn't spot my name on it , sighs with relief and sends the kids back up the chimney

 

 

the French don't have a word for entrepreneur

[norwegianvillain]

 

 

No no no no no 

 

The Fed is to blame for the credit crash

The Fed is now essentially an arm of Wall St and has been for years. Loose regulation and pure corruption allowed for this. CEOs of major banks end up as Fed Chairmen and top White House advisors, no conflict of interest there!

 

The crash was brought about by predatory mortgage lending and then the piggybacking off the inevitable defaults by traders, all brought to you by lax regulation and minimal oversight and accountability. To a degree I concur with you about the Fed, but the horrifying thing is that The Fed, for all intents and purposes, IS WALL ST. If a sound regulatory apparatus was in effect, codified and honored, they might not have run wild like they did. Or at least now they'd be in prison, not in their mansions in Connecticut.

 

 

I agree with you on your whole post. But none of it would've been possible if it weren't made possible by Washington. It's crony capitalism.

Edited March 14, 2015 by norwegianvillain

[bickster]

No no no no no 

 

The Fed is to blame for the credit crash

The Fed is now essentially an arm of Wall St and has been for years. Loose regulation and pure corruption allowed for this. CEOs of major banks end up as Fed Chairmen and top White House advisors, no conflict of interest there!

 

The crash was brought about by predatory mortgage lending and then the piggybacking off the inevitable defaults by traders, all brought to you by lax regulation and minimal oversight and accountability. To a degree I concur with you about the Fed, but the horrifying thing is that The Fed, for all intents and purposes, IS WALL ST. If a sound regulatory apparatus was in effect, codified and honored, they might not have run wild like they did. Or at least now they'd be in prison, not in their mansions in Connecticut.

 

I agree with you on your whole post. But none of it would've been possible if it weren't made possible by Washington. It's crony capitalism.

Remind me again of what people need to do to get elected to national govt in America?

As far as I'm concerned its by lobbyists (read: corporate campaigners) and corporations donating huge chunks of money (read: Bribe) to candidates campaigns

Not a chicken and egg situation. Washington is not the start of the chain.

[OutByEaster?]

 

 

That's an interesting ranking of free countries, apparently Georgia which has Russian troops stationed on 20% of its territory following the war a few years ago is more free than France. Greece less free than Egypt and Pakistan. Also good to see the UAE and Saudi Arabia are more free than Italy. 

 

It's just ranking economic freedom.

 

 

What's the use of economic freedom if you can't walk down the street or its illegal to drive a car?  

 

I'm guessing economic freedom means how free banks are to make money in this country - people are irrelevant.

[MakemineVanilla]

[norwegianvillain]

 

Peter Schiff has a remarkable patience

[MakemineVanilla]

On the matter of child labour, as a matter of interest, are children expected to work in this country any more?

 

It was quite normal a few decades ago for kids to start doing part-time jobs at the age of thirteen (the legal minimum age).

 

Not for 'spoilt' kids and posh kids but definitely amongst the labouring and artisan classes.

[Rodders]

eh?! surely there's a massive difference between a paper round or pot washing  in a pub and 12 hours in a factory making a pair of jeans :/

[OutByEaster?]

On the matter of child labour, as a matter of interest, are children expected to work in this country any more?

 

It was quite normal a few decades ago for kids to start doing part-time jobs at the age of thirteen (the legal minimum age).

 

Not for 'spoilt' kids and posh kids but definitely amongst the labouring and artisan classes.

In any business of a reasonable size, it's very difficult to employ people under 18 let alone any younger - to employ under 18's in a restaurant, we'd currently have to produce a risk assessment for them each time they entered the kitchen, it's practically impossible if you're adhering to regulation - smaller business's still get away with it - it's interesting, because it's also illegal to discriminate by age - so technically the law says you should employ a 16 year old who's good enough, even if you'd probably have to employ someone else to follow them around filling in paperwork. Under 16's? I dread to think.

[chrisp65]

Child labour, as in distressing pictures of kids 'slaving' is rare in the UK, but not 100% gone.

Kids with Saturday jobs is still around but as mentioned above by OBE its so much of a grief many don't bother. Where once I'd have got a job in a cafe aged 15 for pocket money, no sane manager would let a child near the steamy coffee making machine. Yet back in my day, I'd spend many a sunny afternoon in Terry's Cafe hunting and capturing live wasps which we then put in the microwave with hilarious results!

 

Italy appears to have a growing problem due to the economic downturn, it's estimated 5% of kids in Naples are being used as cheap child labour - in the bad sense of the word.

[norwegianvillain]

I got a saturday job in a convenience store/betting shop when i was 14. The manager needed an extra employee on saturdays, but couldn't afford to hire anyone on tariff wages. Win-win situation both for him and me. Sadly, although this was only 8 years ago, I very rarely see young teenagers working anymore. It was a great experience for me, as it taught me the value of money and work at a time when all my friends had to ask their parents for money. I also got to watch a lot of Villa matches as most of the customers came there only to bet on football, which made it the best job I've ever had!

Edited March 15, 2015 by norwegianvillain

[Jon]

Comedy new poster of the year award goes to ...

[MakemineVanilla]

 

On the matter of child labour, as a matter of interest, are children expected to work in this country any more?

 

It was quite normal a few decades ago for kids to start doing part-time jobs at the age of thirteen (the legal minimum age).

 

Not for 'spoilt' kids and posh kids but definitely amongst the labouring and artisan classes.

In any business of a reasonable size, it's very difficult to employ people under 18 let alone any younger - to employ under 18's in a restaurant, we'd currently have to produce a risk assessment for them each time they entered the kitchen, it's practically impossible if you're adhering to regulation - smaller business's still get away with it - it's interesting, because it's also illegal to discriminate by age - so technically the law says you should employ a 16 year old who's good enough, even if you'd probably have to employ someone else to follow them around filling in paperwork. Under 16's? I dread to think.

 

 

I conclude from that that most of the jobs I did as a kid which allowed me to buy myself stuff my parents couldn't afford have been regulated out of existence.

 

There is little doubt that sending a kid out into a howling rainstorm to deliver papers for a derisory wage would be considered cruel and exploitative these days, and no doubt these days I would have needed a high-visibility jacket for when I crossed those busy roads.

 

I definitely would have preferred to have been paid a living wage (pro rata) but I am not sure the labourers and artisans I delivered to would have been prepared to pay the extra cost and so the job would have disappeared.

 

The pay actually did increase and conditions improved because the market conditions made it difficult for the newsagent to attract enough child labour to keep the service going.

 

I did the job entirely at my own volition and both me and parents would have been worse off had the government regulated the job out of existence.

 

I was glad that the government left me at liberty to do the job.

Edited March 16, 2015 by MakemineVanilla

[chrisp65]

I was a sticker upper at a skittle alley in a Working Men's Club.

Getting there involved walking across a working dock, and then later, back again (in the dark!).

My wage, was one lemonade, one packet of crisps and 5p per player which I had to go around and collect myself.

From age 15, my wage was lifted to 1 pint of bitter, 1 pack of crisps, 5p per player.

 

One day still aged 15 I attended said 'club' when there wasn't a match on with the sole porpoise of having a beer. The barman gave me my beer but made me sit in the TV lounge out of sight. 10 minutes later my headmaster (also a JP and coincidentally, called Mr Beer!) walked in, saw me supping a pint, and reversed out and never ever spoke of it.

 

Times were different back then.

[bickster]

I conclude from that that most of the jobs I did as a kid which allowed me to buy myself stuff my parents couldn't afford have been regulated out of existence.

 

There is little doubt that sending a kid out into a howling rainstorm to deliver papers for a derisory wage would be considered cruel and exploitative these days, and no doubt these days I would have needed a high-visibility jacket for when I crossed those busy roads.

 

I definitely would have preferred to have been paid a living wage (pro rata) but I am not sure the labourers and artisans I delivered to would have been prepared to pay the extra cost and so the job would have disappeared.

 

The pay actually did increase and conditions improved because the market conditions made it difficult for the newsagent to attract enough child labour to keep the service going.

 

I did the job entirely at my own volition and both me and parents would have been worse off had the government regulated the job out of existence.

 

I was glad that the government left me at liberty to do the job.

Paper boys and girls still exist, they have them in most of the newsagents around here