Link
That's a thread from DemocraticUnderground.com, a website for members of the American leftist party (the Democratic Party)
The few reasonable posts in that thread are probably spies from FreeRepublic.com (an American right-wing site) who have somehow managed to reach a high post-count; I have no idea how considering you get banned if you say anything too pro-market.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Jon is exactly right. Haha I think we have been around this "leftist vs. rightist" argument a few too many times. Anyway, I agree with Jon again, there is no such thing as too much profit in a free-market.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
By the way, to illustrate that profit isn't exploitation, it would be great to come up with a situation where two people have a symbiotic exchange ecosystem, where they depend on each other to have enough to keep the cycle...
i mean, for instance, a cowboy and a farmer. The cowboy would run into losses if he exchanged a pig for less potatoes than he needs to feed it (in order to breed another), and he wants to make a profit, in order to have potatoes in his dining table, and possibly expand his business. On the other hand, the farmer needs pig to feed his body to work the land and he wants to have it in his dining table as well...
This illustration needs improvements though... I would like their relationship to be more dependable -- maybe the farmer needs maneuver :/. Anyone can think of a better direct, closed situation where both people profit from each other...
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
CopperHead: I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on.
I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on.
If that is the case why is Hitler, and the Nazi party, always refered to as "right wing?"
Aristotle100:If that is the case why is Hitler, and the Nazi party, always refered to as "right wing?"
I guess this either has its roots on the old view of right and left, or I read people believed then that it was an example of an unregulated economy from pro-URSS propaganda. Anyway, right and left has become meaningless. Left used to be the liberty, free markets position for goodness sake. Ronald Reagan was right: there is only up and down. ;P
BlackSheep:there is only up and down. ;P
I couldn't agree with you more on this issue :)
Now as for this post, there is no such thing as too much profit. I think we all agree on that. If we didn't I highly doubt we all would be on this forum lol.
More seriously though, I liked Walter Block's lecture where he calls for a "more and less control" axis, and that we should factor the different politiceans positions.
Neoclassical analysis has led some to actually believe that due to the earnings reported by the oil firms, and the speculative nature in which they are profiting as opposed to a type of technological or theoretical innovation, a windfall tax is more than necessary as this is a situation of "abnormal" profits. The media has really taken sides on this, and there is even propaganda in the form of "big oil making record profits, while Americans are losing everything" junk.
Yet when we analyze the situation by applying a more market orientated analysis, this is just another example of dynamic conditions that bestows the global market. The firms that can encompass such conditions more effectivly than others will succed in a more rewarding fashion than others.
Besides, it was not long ago when energy firms were making less than 5% on the margins...
Nitroadict:I have a huge problem with the left/right political spectrum, as it inherently limits the entire discussion within the bounds of Statism, reinforced by the good-cop, bad-cop game of the Reformists. Its as if the State needs to exist in *some* form, in *some* amount of power, or else we would all de-evolve to violent simians going back to murdering our birth-defected babies so the Sun god doesn't tke our women and/or men away :\.
The US scheme classifies more statsist as more leftwing, the European one classifies more traditional as more right-wing.
My main charge against this classification scheme is that it doesn't address the complexity and possibilities of combining social political thought. I also may ask, whether the scheme only serves the purpose of polarising instead of defining. Personally I can subscribe to certain statements from several schools of political thoughts without contradicting myself. I would be able to say that state intervention tends to disrupt an economy negatively and at the same time I would say that social power relations influence the access to wealth of people. However I won't define the state as evil per se, neither would I define unequal distribution of wealth as a bad thing.
Back to the subject - What does this have to do with "too much profit"?
commodities
I'm not saying that the left-right spectrum is consistent, and I'm definitely not saying that it's exclusive; I'm saying that it's insane to ignore distinctions between people like Neal Boortz and Paul Krugman purely because they both want a state.
Ego: I'm not saying that the left-right spectrum is consistent, and I'm definitely not saying that it's exclusive; I'm saying that it's insane to ignore distinctions between people like Neal Boortz and Paul Krugman purely because they both want a state.
Exactly. These people make it sound as if the election was down to Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton they would have no preference for one over the other. Absolutely rediculous!
Are Bill Clinton and Stalin about equivalent simply because they are both "big government"? No? Then it makes sense to have words that distinguish the two.
"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." -Milton Friedman
"It is a mistake to think businessmen are more immoral than politicians." -John Maynard Keynes
What about if we talk about psychic profit? I think all people should have to report on that and be taxed for it. Not only can we not have people getting too much monetary profit, but we can't have anyone getting some sort of psychic gain from the disutility of their labor either. Especially while oth