Social Issues vs. Economics

The thread title is a misnomer; there is no competition.

Personal profit(economics) is what motivates individual politicians to run for office. Sure, politicians will espouse some kind of popular social agenda to get elected but once they're in office the corporate agenda and personal profit eventually corrupts the best of intentions.

Social issues are used by politicians as a means to divide and conquer.

Stupid americans can't see through that; the effect is that we fight among each other as we're being raped by the politicians.

 

I've just had better things to do this week than answer endless questions that grossly distort the points I've already made, and are loaded with implied insults. Low-quality arguments of that sort don't amuse me at all. As you said, I'm not paid to be here, and politics is only one of my many interests.

On the nationality issue...

If I was talking to a Russian guy about things that are going on inside Russia, I would be asking him questions, not trying to set him straight on how the place really works. Every day, he's immersed in all things Russian, while I'm trying to gather information at a distance, and living my own life here, and keeping up with all kinds of other issues that have nothing to do with that country. That puts me at a disadvantage in the discussion. No matter how much I read about a place, it isn't as good as being there, fully focused on it for long periods of time. And if I was rude to him, I wouldn't expect him to continue talking with me. Any bias or inaccuracy that I perceive in him becomes a part of my background knowledge of political reality in that country.

If I had ever studied Russia at the college level and/or spent a lot of time over there, I would definitely mention that online before I would expect anyone to respect me as someone who knows a lot about the place.

That's a theoretical example, but it should give you an idea of why I'm losing interest in this thread.

Another reason why:

...are apparently any Americans who don't agree with you. Thank you for your completely worthless post. By your own standards, I'm required to think you are stupid too, because we disagree.

I read international investment literature too. It's all about economic and military issues. Not a word about domestic social policy, unless it involves an international human rights issue.

 

Yes, economic issues can effect social issues but the two are well distinguised and seperate . I'm not really sure what point you''re trying to make. If you disagree with the difference between what's classed as economic and social issues then you're arguing with definitions.

That's not really telling people what to do so much as telling them they'll be punished when they do it. I'm not a fan of that being handled by a central government either.

I don't agree with anything other than disability welfare handled publically. If people want to try and live off charity they're welcome to, but people shouldn't be forced to prop them up against their will.

If it's unknowable then what exactly is the point of legislating anything?

No, a minority shouldn't dominate either. That's essentially what corporate lobbying for sketchy regulations is, something that's brought about through the ability of the government to regulate the market and corporate personhood.

Well sure, if you can create a mixed economy where the leaders are incorrupable, good people in a system that is full of such people, will stay full of such people forever and is entirely closed off to corruption. Best of luck with that. In my eyes the goal should be no government at all. Though I think society is far away from aa paalce where anarchism is viable.

It's largely history over here now. The tories (who I wouldn't call right wing anyway) are the ones pushing gay marriage in. But yes, stonewall was set up in reaction to bad governance.

Civil partnerships where a half-arsed comprimise that nobody actualy wanted. The refusal of new labour to put in gay marriage means they've lost my vote untill it's a new party. Though I will grant the recent turn of events in gay rights over here has been a bit of a shock, I never thought I'd see tories being at the forefront. I'd hardly say it's down to stonewall pressure, they didn't even come out in support of gay marriage until 2010.

It all seems fairly pointless though, if the government weren't in a position to acknowledge or endorse any form of marriage and stop interfering the gay marriage issue would never have been a problem.

Where there's a daily mail there's a gaurdian. If the majority disagrees then a democratic government is hardly going to solve any issues is it? Especially one that's pandering to this majority for votes. What is democracy other than the tyranny of the majority?

Well let's face it, we're not solving any world problems or making policy changes on forums are we. We're just here to discuss, I think agreeing to disagree at the end of the discussion is more or less implied by the fact that we're here.

I'd argue that statism is what's dangerous and should not be accepted. If the last 100 or so years haven't leant validity to that...

When you think your points are 100% correct and opposing points are 100% incorrect you can't be a reasonable judge of criticism.

They'd probably quote the bible or use some sort of "moral decay" rhetoric.

Blah blah blah. Three paragraphs that is nothing more than another fallacious appeal to authority.

 

Easy now... did someone wake up a little cranky?

I meant it in a collective sense, so yes.. I include myself

 

What the hell, British people are too.
If it's not on Big Brother or hollyoaksno-one gives a shit.

 

That’s an interesting common phenomenon. Do you think it’s merely a coincidence, by design or something else?

________________________

Come on Karen, lighten up...

I agree with your main point. It reminded me of this quote by Abe Lincoln:

Considering the history of the time in which Lincoln wrote those words, the prejudices about which he wrote probably had to do more with skin color rather than anything meaningful; it was a social issue of that day used to divide and conquer.

 

What do you mean skin color? Looks to me like he saw what was coming regarding amassed wealth of corporations.

 

What other "prejudices of the people" do you imagine Lincoln could have been speaking of in light of the historical context?

 

Just what he said--the danger of corporations using fear and obfuscation to the detriment of the citizens. I'll give you that in that particular case,he may have been referencing skin color. The fear they use now may be mostly differant from the 1860s,but fear is still used quite effectively for dividing us. Just listen to the recent debates.

 

Karen

OH I’m so sorry you are not amused, LOL I am or should I say I’m bemused, I just can’t understand your reaction or why do you need to make so many excuses for not answering some simple questions? I mean do you always get so angry when someone disagrees with you or asks you questions that you obviously are unwilling or unable to answer?

But you are not answering the questions you seem to be saying you think them beneath you which seems more like just an excuse for not answering.
And actually I’ve had some very interesting and enjoyable discussions about politics with many people from many different countries including Russians (both guys and gals) and I’ve read many histories on Russia, biographies journalism and political works along with numerous novels (although to my shame I’ve never got to the end of War and Peace – the two versions I have of it sit on my shelf accusingly).
The enjoyment comes from the exchange of views and opinions in an open and honest way, you on the other hand don’t seem to want such an exchange, why is that? Also if you think I’ve been rude to you, I really think you must have had a very sheltered life and need to get out amongst real people a bit more.

Well I can repeat that I did the history of political thought at degree level, if you wish - it is on record here already and I can repeat that I’ve been reading and discussing history, politics and economics since I was 15 and have quite an extensive personal library on those subjects and I could point out that I’ve been debating on hipforums for over ten years - BUT don’t you think it a bit snobbish to say as you seem to be doing that you will not answer someone’s questions or even give them any respect until they produce their degree certificate or some such before you think them worthy of your attention?
I just answer the questions put to me and I’ve meet people that have had little in the way of formal education that had great insights and knowledge and who have taught me a lot.

But it’s a rather silly example, why shouldn’t Russians, Americans, the British or any other human being discuss politics together? Because you say they shouldn’t? No it seems to me that this is an excuse for not facing criticism because you don’t like being contradicted.

 

Gedio

If they effect each other then they are not separate they would seem to be linked. My argument is that if you look at only one or the other and view them as separate you will not get the full picture and miss a lot of understanding of that society (be that society Russian, Scandinavian or American), I’d recommend seeing them as linked.
I guess it depends on what they are doing, I suppose - we have many laws that are in place to protect people from what others might want to do to them. I mean we have laws against theft or corruption and many other things, to tell people we think that is not the way to they should live their lives and they will be punished if they do.

Oh come on that’s semantics (grin) – are you saying that society condones wrongdoing but it only afterwards that it decides to punish people? Or is it more that a law is there to tell you that something shouldn’t be done and to back that up tells you, you will get punished for it if you do? I think the latter.
I think there is a time and place for all – local, national and global laws.

This sounds something closed to Social Darwinism than Anarchy, an ideology that always favours wealth.

Well unknowable if you see them separately - if you enact an economic policy without looking to see how it might affect social issues then you are likely to be surprised by things you didn’t know would happen. I’d recommend a more holistic approach.

But you seem to have ideas that would increase the power and influence of wealth? The introduction of social Darwinist or even anarchist measures would increase the power of wealth.
Try reading - Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/modules/News/showarticle.php?threadid=353336

Sorry you want an Anarchist society and are telling me I’m far too utopian LOL.
No society or governance can be perfect in the real world because the real world isn’t perfect. All people can aim for is certain goals, people can be corrupted at all levels and to differing degrees from the individual taking paperclips from their employers office to the employer fiddling their taxes to an official taking a bribe to look the other way.
Thing is that stable and prosperous mixed economies have been created and societies that were once very corrupt have become very much less so (Think of the rotten borough system in English history).
Much of political though has been directed toward having a balance of interests, law and order balanced against personal freedom and justice, the interests of profits against damaging exploitation (be it of people or environment) and so on.
The difficulty with anarchy or Social Darwinism is that there seems nothing to stop might and the interests of the powerful becoming dominant.

 

Gedio

LOL - Where there is the mainstream right wing press - The Times, The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, Evening Standard etc.- there is the centre left Independent, Daily Mirror and Guardian. I believe the circulation of the right wing Murdock owned Sun alone outnumbers that of the last three.
Luckily in the UK we have the BBC, but many on the right (e.g. Murdock owner of the Sun and Times and controlling interest in BSkyB) would love to bring it down.

This is misdirection if you want to discuss the merits or otherwise of democracy then please go to the Democracy thread - what I was asking you was do you think such misguided hate should be seen as acceptable or be even condoned?

Yes we are here to discuss politics and for fun, well I come here for fun. But at the same time it helps me think, learn and understand, so while it might not solve world problems it helps me understand some of the worlds problems.

LOL – you can have that view if you wish I don’t - if I don’t agree with a viewpoint I’ll continue to disagree with it, unless someone can convince me otherwise – the problem is that some people seem to want to dictate their view even when they can put up no rational defence of it.

Please back up and clarify?
I mean in many countries the lives of the majority was not that good, women didn’t have the vote in either the US or UK, the employment of poor families children was still common in the US, many workers were still living and working in unhealthy and unsafe environments and the power and influence of wealth was even greater than it is today (and has only become so powerful today because of the neoliberal policies of the last thirty years or so).

But I’m not sure if my ideas are correct I can only present them and see if they stand up to criticism, if they can’t then to me they need adapting or be dropped. The problem is that some people can’t defend their ideas from criticisms but continue to hold on to them regardless, this then has to be pointed out so everyone can see that they are irrational and pushing bad and possibly dangerous ideas. If enough people realises this the hope is the ideas wither.
The thing is that any form of governance, can help or hinder such ideas, be it village elders, kings, churches, councils or parliaments. It is the policies that they promote (both economic and social) that make their governance on balance good or bad.
*
I mean here I’d ask the person why they hate gay people, had they any rational argument?

You mean irrational arguments? The kind of things that don’t stand up well (or at all) to criticism?

 

Social and economic issues are well defined and well distinguised from each other. This isn't something that falls under opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_issues

Nothing tells me things shouldn't be done. What society condones or doesn't condone is of little consequence to me and shouldn't be to anyone else. Society doesn't need laws or rules, they're literally onlly there to be broken. I'd argue that with all the victimless crimes that have people filling up our jails it's the former, but that's a different matter.

I don't think there's a time for any.

How? I fully support helping out those in need through privvate charity,I just don't support people being forced into it through it being handled publically.

To be honest I don't advocate economic policies or social policies. It wouldn't be an issue.

Just read it, corporations exist (and stay aive) through corporate personhood and lobbying for regulations. If the free market would be so good for the wealthy and for big business then why do most of them not want it? You discuss Keynesian economics like it's actually done anything good, the economy is crippled (really crippled if you add gilts onto the debt the government tell you they're in) and even Keynes himself admitted that as time went on he had to rely more and more on "the invisible hand" to solve problems. The modern corporation is a legal entity endorsed and propped up by the state. Without the state's sphere of influence over the market these corporations won't exist, they will have lost their life line through regulation and lost their legal protection with the dismantling of corporate personhood.

You keep saying that all free markets favour the wealthy but you've got nothing to back it up. The fact that you even consider it a point at all is beyond astounding. You keep saying "XYZ doesn't hold up to criticism" when the fact is you're yet to offer anything other than your opinion which you seem to hold as gospel truth. Given that monopolies cannot exist for more than a short time in a free market I'm curious as to why you think it favours the wealthy?

Perhaps you missed the last sentence.

Exactly, so remoing the sphere off influence from the hands of a few select individuals would go a long way towards fixing this, no?

Well sure, it's got better but that's not how to look at it. It's still mind blowingly corrupt and indebted.

So you keep saying, but if you can't offer anything to back it up then you're just talking without saying anything.

Yeah people love the sun for some reason. But I was using a metaphor, there's always independant news sources to be found. Anyone getting all their news from a paper or sky or the BBC is probably a lost cause anyway.

The BBC are just as biased and patronizing as the rest.

It was relevannt to the question.

Would you like me to list all of the BS wars, backwards laws, laws against victimless crimes, state oppression, incidents of police or military abusing citizens, the Kent state massacre, and monopoly creating legislation of the last 100 years?

You keep talking about things not standing up to criticism but the only thing you've offered that even came close to a valid criticism was the post you linked me to and even then that was largely incorrect.

You tell me.

 

Gedio

LOL and at the bottom of the Economic page is a box labled Public Policy – which labels economic policy alongside many social polices and at the bottom of the Social page under See Also is a link to the Economic page. So even wiki sees the links.

As I say I think in terms of a holistic approach because good joined up government, you don’t seem to care about good governance but to promote a system that even you believe isn't viable any time soon.

Not even you conscience? So even the murder of an innocent child would mean nothing to you? You would have no problem with incest? Taking food from staving people? I could go on and on.

This would be under the system you promote but think isn't viable any time soon?

To me good laws and bad laws are part of good or bad governance but you seem to be arguing for…well for what, the survival of the fittest?
I mean you hint at Social Darwinism and claim to support Anarchy one you don’t seem able to explain and the other you admit isn't viable any time soon.
So you don’t seem to be aiming for anything – I’d prefer to aim for good governance.
As to prison populations the US has the largest prison population in the world with around 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000 while somewhere like Denmark has 59 people in prison for every 100,000 citizens, to me a high incarceration rate is a sign of bad governance.
*
I think there is a time and place for all – local, national and global laws.

But other than something you admit isn't viable any time soon what have you to replace it with?

 

Gedio
This sounds something closed to Social Darwinism than Anarchy, an ideology that always favours wealth.

The problem is that private charities never worked and were dogged by the idea of the deserving and undeserving. That is why so many people in so many countries fought for state supported provision.
The difficulty with anarchy or Social Darwinism is that there seems nothing to stop might and the interests of the powerful becoming dominant

Well your free market based anarchy would seem to involve little or no taxation (which would favour wealth) it would seem to involve deregulation (which would favour wealth), and the social Darwinist ideas would base education and healthcare etc on ability to pay so again it would favour wealth.

So you advocate something you admit wouldn’t be viable any time soon and don’t seem able to explain?

 

Gedio
Try reading - Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/modules/News/showarticle.php?threadid=353336

But from your comments I’m not sure you understood it.

Oh they want it but just on their terms – look at the wealth sponsored think tanks promoting ‘free market’ ideas – the lobbying groups - the newspapers – the radio stations – etc etc – wealth doesn’t talk it screams and it can also afford the biggest megaphone. It is their version of a ‘free market’ that is promoted.
To repeat the move toward a ‘free market’ seems always to be hijacked and corrupted by wealth to suite it’s own interests.

Neoliberal ideas took over from Keynesian ones about thirty odd years ago.
Try reading – Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353&highlight=Utopia%2C+Keynes&f=36

The falsehood of ‘free market’ competition, that it is a perfect system that would work perfectly in a perfect world – the problem being that we don’t live in a perfect world.

There is no magic spell that can instantly bring in a ‘perfect’ free market, and stepping toward it as has been done in many places over the last 30 odd years or so has just increased the power and influence of wealth wherever it was tried.

More movement in that direction rather than diminish that power and influence is much more likely to just increase it, up to the point were you have a plutocratic system (or even more of one) with wealth even more firmly in control. That is why a free market has NEVER existed and NEVER will exist.

The theory ignores the existing power and influence of wealth and seems to believe (against all contrary evidence) that such wealth will not try and use that power and influence to try and mould the system in their favour. That is what power and influence has done throughout history so why do right wing libertarians ignore that fact, probably because they have to because otherwise their ideas are just not credible.

Only thirty years of neoliberal ‘free market’ thinking and policies that have vastly increased the riches power and influence of wealth while the real term incomes of the middle and lower have either stagnated or fallen.
Now I’m sure you’ll tell me that wasn’t a ‘true free market’ and that all that is needed is more of a free market and everything will be perfect in your perfect world, but for the reasons outlined above it wouldn’t work.

Why is it beyond astounding?

Not gospel truth but opinion, I don’t claim it is anything else but my opinion, I and others have explained our criticisms often at length and in detail. The problem is that just telling us we’re wrong isn’t a rational counter argument and doesn’t make the criticisms go away.

But there never has been a ‘free market’ so how do you know?

 

Gedio
No society or governance can be perfect in the real world because the real world isn’t perfect. All people can aim for is certain goals, people can be corrupted at all levels and to differing degrees from the individual taking paperclips from their employers office to the employer fiddling their taxes to an official taking a bribe to look the other way.

By allowing corruption and by allowing exploitation of the weak by the strong, by removal of all laws and regulation?
By bringing in a system even you admit wouldn’t be viable any time soon?
Thing is that stable and prosperous mixed economies have been created and societies that were once very corrupt have become very much less so (Think of the rotten borough system in English history).

So you think it would be better to just allow corruption and the exploitation of the weak by the strong under an anarchistic system you admit wouldn’t be viable any time soon?
This is misdirection if you want to discuss the merits or otherwise of democracy then please go to the Democracy thread - what I was asking you was do you think such misguided hate should be seen as acceptable or be even condoned?

OK you think it relevant - so please explain why you think it relevant?
But can you answer the question you seem to be avoiding? To repeat - I was asking you do you think such misguided hate should be seen as acceptable or even be condoned?

 

Gedio

A hundred years ago the lives of the majority was not that good, the exploitation of the weak by the strong was still common and undiluted by the workplace, social and welfare legislation that was later to be enacted.


In the UK men didn’t get the vote until 1918 and women had to wait until 1928 to get the same rights (women got the vote in 1920 in the US). The employment of poor families children was still common in the US, many workers were still living and working in unhealthy and unsafe environments and the power and influence of wealth was even greater than it is today (and has only become so powerful today because of the ‘free market’ neoliberal policies of the last thirty years or so).

As I’ve said - The thing is that any form of governance, can be to some degree good or bad be that government of village elders, kings, churches, councils or parliaments. It is the policies that they promote (both economic and social) that make their governance on balance good or bad.

For example benevolent imperialism and imperialist wars were being taught positively at the time my mother was in school. The ‘glory’ of dying for ones country was a popular myth right up to the First World War (1914 - 98 years ago) where in the mud and blood of the trenches it became a bit tarnished. As to the British police and military abuse of people a hundred years ago they had much greater powers of discretion, just research the history of those that tried to fight for independence from the empire (oh and the British at the time of the Boar War invented the concentration camp)

The thing is that we can try and improve things or we can support ideas that are likely to make a bad situation worse – the ideas you propose you admit wouldn’t be viable any time soon and from my point of view seem ill-thought through and unworkable in the real world so how are they meant to improve things?

 

I think we're misunderstanding each other here. Of course everything is linked together on some level, we live in a universe governed privarily by the laws of cause and effect. Yet the fact the remains that economic and social policies are well defined.

In my eyes good governance is a pipe dream. You're confused about what I'm promoting but I'll tackle that a bit below as it fits in easier with a point you've made.

This is such a massive strawman that it's almost unbelievable you've actually posted it. What I'm saying is that all morality is entirely subjective and that society's wishes on the subject of morality should be ignored and left on a personal level. I'm not suggesting a community where people have no moral compass whatsoever, just one where they define it themselves rather than applying groupthink.

Anarcho-capitalism is what I see as an ideal for an ideal society, we're just nowhere near a place where it would work so what I advocate is minarchism or failing that libertarianism. The reason I don't think an-cap would work is because it relies heavily on responsible consumerism, people would need to research what they're buying and where their money's going and actually give a shit and be well informed about a number of issues. None of those things are difficult but most people simply don't give a shit. I'd argue that due to this blind mass consumerism the formation of a minarchy in an an-cap society would be inevitable unless people actually started caring.

I'm not a Rand fan or anything, I've stated before that I think people should help others through private charity, to be honest if I was wealthy I don't think I'd be able to not use part of my money to help others. I just don't think it should be done coercively with the threat of force or imprisonment.

What I'm aiming for is economic stability and a freer people.

Well that's something we agree on.


But other than something you admit isn't viable any time soon what have you to replace it with? [/QUOTE]

A libertarian society leading to a minarchy over a long period of time.

The fact that monopolies can't exist for very long in a free market and that there is little scope for buying power or lobbying due to a limited government.

Deregulation doesn't favour the wealthy at all (so long as corporate personhood is dismantled, but I think that's something we both want) which is why there are so many corporate lobbyists vying for regulations. Deregulation and lower taxation makes it easier for small firms to compete and takes away the monopoly-gaining state created priviledges of corporations. You can't just say "lower taxes/deregulation favour wealth" and expect it to be taken seriously without at least offering an explanation, that you even consider it a criticism at all is astounding.

You already pay for education and healthcare through taxes, but it's expensive and inefficient as competition hasn't been allowed to reduce costs and improve service. That's what happens when the state is allowed to create itself a monopoly with money gained from what's essentially little more than a ponzi scheme.

-------

I'll do the rest later, got to go out.

 

Gedio

Ok some of the other stuff i posted seems to cover what you've just posted so I’ll hold off replying until you’ve finished.

Balbus