Arundhati Roy, Porus and Humsafar buy India

[Average Bohra]

The Masses of India NewsWire reports that Arundhati Roy, Porus and Humsafar have bought India with the intention of returning it to the masses. India has now been renamed Utopia. Their nemesis Average Bohra has offered a challenge that this experiment will fail. However, he desperately wants it to succeed, therefore he has offered a challenge. Any "do good" measure proposed by Utopia must be accompanied by specific measures to pay for any do-goody-good event they propose.

[Average Bohra]

Porus,

You did not address a single issue in my previous post. That’s OK let’s move on to Britain.

Your recollection of history is flawed. The steel industry in Britain was destroyed by the emergence of Japan after WWII, the National Health Service was broke long before Thatcher took over, and Telecommunications industry was a monopoly much like AT&T in the US at the time, no innovation was taking place in telecom, and the consumers were footing the bill. The fact that the culmination of these events climaxed during Maggie’s tenure was a coincidence, not a cause and effect landmark.

You are old enough to remember Thatcher Thatcher milk snatcher , what was she trying to do ? Pay for services Britain could not afford.

[Average Bohra]

http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/cgi-bin/U ... 128#000001

[Humsafar]

AB,

You seem to be in desperation mode now. The labels 'Utopia', 'Communist' etc. are typical pavlovlian responses of people weaned on free market fundamentalism. Your reaction is no different from that of anajmi calling us ‘apostates’ or orthos calling us ‘munafiqs’.

It is my view that humans are fundamentally flawed and so are their systems (social, political, economic, including communism – if that would make you happy). There is no such thing as Utopia. It has become a term of abuse routinely deployed by the end-of-history, this-is-the-best-there-is types who run out of arguments to justify there ideas.

The free market theology was not here from the beginning of time, and will not certainly be here till the end of time. Human society is a huge experiment. And our experiment with free market has been an important and necessary part of human development, but it will have to inevitably make way for the next stage of moral and social development. To not accept this is to show a very narrow and myopic understanding of human history, and drives believers into throwing up childish challenges: don’t like this then show me what is the alternative.

Solutions cannot be pulled out of thin air. It took us 60,000 years to move from caves to condos. Human societies have their own rhythm and pace, and as I said it is an experiment so the solutions will come through trial and error, through collective will and action, through thinking and debating. The discussion we’re having can be considered a part of that experiment. It’s a long process. It’s a flawed process, just like the humans.

But in order to find solutions one must begin to question, i.e. question the received wisdom, and I’m afraid you have yet to reach that stage. You seem to share the company of those stodgy English landlords and pompous Indian Maharajas who mocked the advent of popular vote.

[tahir]

Musings of 'intellectuals' from different epochs on the timeline:

World is flat not spherical.

Universe is geocentric - the sun revolves round the earth.

Slave trade is natural to humans- blacks are meant to serve the superior race.

There is no alternate to democracy and free market.

[Average Bohra]

Humsafar,

And our experiment with free market has been an important and necessary part of human development, but it will have to inevitably make way for the next stage of moral and social development.

Would you agree that this development would tend to move these markets to operate more freely ? I am suspicious of elitists who tend to take freedoms away by artificially installing their visions of a Utopia, and convincing the masses that this is somehow more “fair” or “equitable” and evolutionary.

[Humsafar]

AB,

Your obsession with the markets shows how deeply you’ve internalised the tenets of your theology. Here we are discussing “higher things” and all you are worried about is the markets and their freedom. The markets are not the be-all and end-all of human existence. Their freedom or lack of it is not the ultimate indicator of quality of human life. Markets are human artefacts just as any other and they are designed to serve human needs. Humans are not born to serve the markets.

Regarding your question “Would you agree that this development would tend to move these markets to operate more freely ?” you’re assuming that markets currently operate somewhat freely. How cute! The belief in “free” market must rank alongside the belief in God.

Now if I gave you all the reasons

– like unfair trade laws, tariffs, quotas, embargoes, monopolies, government subsidies, tax breaks and handouts, government investment in infrastructure for markets to operate, government opening up markets in foreign lands by persuasion or force, government investment in education to produce pliant workforce, government investment in police and military to protect private property and invade and occupy other nations’ properties, government investment in military and other research which business benefits from, government support for failed businesses etc. (just see how the hated government is crucial to the “free” market) –

showing that markets are not really free, you will not be convinced. Why? Because for you it is a matter of faith. Your argument would be, but this is how things work. True, but don’t call it “free” market.

Also, I know what’s on your mind when you talk about “markets operating more freely”: The ability of corporations to go in anywhere, in any country, any community and set shop and rake in profits without those pesky regulations – environmental, tax or labour. In your theology, freedom of the market is a supreme article of faith. Human freedoms count for nothing.

[Average Bohra]

Humsafar,

showing that markets are not really free, you will not be convinced. Why? Because for you it is a matter of faith. Your argument would be, but this is how things work. True, but don’t call it “free” market.

Faith does not come into play here, those with an open mind can witness the market work or not. These are typical pavlovlian responses of people weaned on socialist fundamentalism.

In your theology, freedom of the market is a supreme article of faith. Human freedoms count for nothing.

It is all about human freedoms, and a free market could not function without it. Your affinity for "control" and artificially induced equality has been tried before and inevitably leads to the 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' syndrome.

[Humsafar]

Faith does not come into play here, those with an open mind can witness the market work or not.

Nobody is questioning whether markets work or not. This is not the issue. The point I'm stressing is there is no such thing as "free" markets.

Of course, market works. But for whose benefit? You might want to ponder on that.

These are typical pavlovlian responses of people weaned on socialist fundamentalism.

Any criticism of the holy market immediately cojures up "socialist" nightmares. You can't get more pavlovlian than that, leave alone fundamentalism.

It is all about human freedoms, and a free market could not function without it.

Wrong. Human freedoms and "free" markets are antithetical. The markets currently "work" in service of human greed and NOT human needs. Humans will be really free when their lives are not controlled by the dictates of the markets.

Your affinity for "control" and ...

Control? This is rich coming from the devotess of an ideology that monopolises human life and has brought this planet on the brink of extinction.

...artificially induced equality has been tried before and inevitably leads to the 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' syndrome.

Again, this is rich coming from the devotees of artificially imposed "free" markets. Yes, in a "free" market democracy all are free to pursue "happiness", but some find find more happiness than others.

[Average Bohra]

Greed & corruption are human traits and independent of economic systems. Human beings have different talents and capabilities, any attempt to artificially level the playing field is an elitist control mechanism, and goes against the most basic of human freedoms. The market benefits those who choose to benefit from it.

Then there are armchair quarterbacks, commenting on a game they have never played or know little about.

[Humsafar]

Greed & corruption are human traits and independent of economic systems.

Really? Probably they taught you in your MBA school that the economic systeme is of pure divine origin - untouched by crass human traits. This divine economic system is rooted in maximising profit. But of course this devotion to the bottom line is not a human trait, it is a divine decree.

...any attempt to artificially level the playing field is an elitist control mechanism

All human institutions are artificial - result of policy and law. The shape and chracter of our institutions depend on who has the power to make those policies and laws. But somehow it's OK to "artificially" UNLEVEL the playing field, but a mere mention of bringing fairness to the system raises howls of "artifically leveling the playing field".

... and goes against the most basic of human freedoms

Those who hold the market's freedom above everything else must suffer at the very least a pang of irony before talking about human freedoms, basic or otherwise.

The market benefits those who choose to benefit from it.

Let's rephrase that: The market benefits those whom it's designed to benenfit - i.e. mainly the rich , and occasionally the desperate and the aggressive. The market tends to glorify base human traits and devalues good human traits. The colloquial wisdom in the phrase "good guys always finish last" speaks of social darwinism that the market system is all about.

Then there are armchair quarterbacks, commenting on a game they have never played or know little about.

Right. Given the "aritficially created unleveled playing field" not everybody can play the game.

[Average Bohra]

Why this aversion to profit ? All corporations are not Enron, and a bulk of the business in the US driving the economy are classified as “small business”. Can you please be a little more specific in your response ? Your statements below are very vague and I don’t know what specifically your are referring to, so it is difficult to have a discussion.

<ul>
[*]<span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic"> divine economic system is rooted in maximising profit</span></li>
[*] <span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic">somehow it's OK to "artificially" UNLEVEL the playing field</span></li>
[*]<span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic">The market benefits those whom it's designed to benenfit - i.e.mainly the rich , and occasionally the desperate and the aggressive.</span></li>
[*]<span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic">The market tends to glorify base human traits and devalues good human traits.</span></li>
[*]<span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic">aritficially created unleveled playing field</span></li>
[/LIST]
Would you agree that in its most natural form, unimpeded by government, the natural state of people and hence economies they create would be totally free ? Or do you contend that humans have an innate desire to be regulated and controlled ?

[Humsafar]

AB,

My statements are not vague, read them in the context of your statements which I quote and respond to.

Profit in and of itself is not bad, but if it becomes the only driving force of an economic system it begins to ruin societies, communities and the environment.

Economies - like all human enterprises - need to be regulated for peaceful, fair and lawful coexistence. Why this unnatural demand for economies to be "free"? Why not also have absolute freedom for criminals, or drug-runners or dictators or whatever to do what they want.

Alas, the government does not do enough. While you digest this important fact - which apparently you were not taught - about human society, you may want to ponder on what Adam Smith, the guru of capitalism, said:

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 5, I, ii.

Stop railing against government - it is an ally of the "free" market. There will be no free market without it. It's time to lose your memorised mantras. In today's world, corporations own governments. Go figure.

[Average Bohra]

I was pleasantly surpised to see you quote Adam Smith, you misunderstood the context of the statement however, which is part of the quote "so far as it is instituted for the security of property".

As long as you are quoting Adam Smith would you agree that:

The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition is so powerful that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations.

[Humsafar]

AB, if you were pleasantly surprised, the pleasure is all mine.

But all government are "instituted for security of private property". Try to rob a bank or inavde a rich man's house and see what happens to you.

I agree with the statement you quote as far as it goes. But please don't interpret it to mean the markets ought to have untrammeled free reign over evrything else. If Adam Smith articulated the powerful human urge of "bettering ones condition" then he was also wise to warn against "amassing wealth beyond dreams of avarice."

[Average Bohra]

Try to rob a bank or inavde a rich man's house and see what happens to you.

Boy, you are vaguely all over the map once again ! Please be specific, which country are you insinuating only prosecutes a robbery in a "rich man's house" and on what basis did you arrive to that conclusion ? Have we now moved this discussion on to law & order, and the criminal justice system ?

[Humsafar]

AB,

Law and order constitues "security of private property". How would a government protect private property without creating an elaborate criminal justice system?

Correction: try robbing a bank or invading your neighbour's house (and he better be rich otherwise I've no idea why anyone should bother) and see what happens to you.

[Average Bohra]

Again, I question the relevance of bringing "security of property" and criminal prosecution in our dicussion regarding free markets. To answer your question, in the US if I rob my rich neighbors house, or steal rims of a poor man's car, I will be prosecuted.

What is your point ?

[Humsafar]

AB,

Here’s what you said about my Adam Smith quote: ‘you misunderstood the context of the statement however, which is part of the quote "so far as it is instituted for the security of property".’

I said, ‘But all government are "instituted for security of private property".’ Meaning, government’s chief function is to protect private property. Hence the question, ‘try robbing a bank….’

As for discussion on “free” market, take a second look at this thread. You started off with a stupid challenge and then have refused to engage any point or issue beyond one post. You ignore what I’ve to say and in response keep repeating the canned mantras you learned from business school.

If you actually read and understand what I’ve been saying it should be clear that:

<blockquote>There is no such thing as “free” markets.

Governments make “free” markets possible. It’s an ally of big business, not an enemy. To put it bluntly, big business owns government.

Markets cannot have absolute freedom to do what they want any more than a drug cartel can have absolute freedom to do what it wants.

Economic system is an “artificially” created system – a result of policy and law. And it benefits those who have the power of making those policies and laws.

Creating a level playing field (if one so desires) is no more “artificial” than the current uneven playing field.

Market freedoms are antithetical to human freedoms.

Markets should operate within the realities of human community and not just on an abstraction that they must be free, unrestricted and unencumbered.

Pursuing self-interest is a good thing, but not at the cost of harming other’s self-interest.

Profit is a good thing, but profit for profit’s sake (as evident in current economic reality) leads to disaster – human and environmental, as clearly evident.
</blockquote>

Now, you can either engage these points with credible response or brush them off with a statement of faith: “Would you agree that in its most natural form, unimpeded by government, the natural state of people and hence economies they create would be totally free ?”.

[Average Bohra]

Several years ago, when we dicussed real life "average" Bohra (hence my screen name)experiences with Qiyam regarding Qadam Bosi, he insisted that it was a spontaneous act of respect. Discussions with you regarding how the US market or economy works is like discussing religion with Qiyam. Your received wisdom regarding “ free markets” cannot be unhinged, even by facts or real life experiences. Admittedly you have not participated in the system. Now let me address this again:

There is no such thing as “free” markets.
Completely free of government intervention, no. Some rules and laws are in place to provide checks against common undesirable human traits such as greed, dishonesty, discrimination and corruption. Anti-trust, SEC regulations regarding public disclosure, insider trading etc. are necessary, however, even the US market is hindered by over regulation and taxation, some that tend to redistribute income.
Governments make “free” markets possible.
Well, obviously. If you shoot entrepreneurs in the head there will be no free market.
It’s an ally of big business, not an enemy.
Why should it be ? {!} Do you find that to be a problem?
To put it bluntly, big business owns government.
Incorrect, again, all my comments are relative to the system in the US. The AFLCIO, Teamsters, AARP, NRA and AIPAC are among the strongest lobbies, not Exxon or Walmart.
Markets cannot have absolute freedom to do what they want any more than a drug cartel can have absolute freedom to do what it wants.
Agreed, and they shouldn't. That’s why we have laws in place
Economic system is an “artificially” created system – a result of policy and law.
Quite the opposite. A free market is a natural system sometimes supported or allowed to exist (and often hindered) by policy and law.
it benefits those who have the power of making those policies and laws.
It supports those that take the time, make the effort and have the initiative to affect policies and laws as it should be. If you don’t participate in the political process and overdose on Arundhati Roy’s writing in your arm chair, you are correct, it does not benefit you.
Creating a level playing field (if one so desires) is no more “artificial” than the current uneven playing field.
Incorrect; nature has not created a level playing field as I described previously. Any attempt to do so is forced and artificial.
Market freedoms are antithetical to human freedoms.
Market freedoms are essential and promote human freedoms. You cannot have one without the other. If you disagree, please be specific this time.
Markets should operate within the realities of human community and not just on an abstraction that they must be free, unrestricted and unencumbered.
Agreed
Pursuing self-interest is a good thing, but not at the cost of harming other’s self-interest.
Unless the other’s self-interest harms you ! ( spoken like a true idealist )
Profit is a good thing, but profit for profit’s sake (as evident in current economic reality) leads to disaster – human and environmental, as clearly evident.
This is not a cause and effect unless it is your contention that profits and free markets lead to human and environmental disasters. In that case please be specific & identify monarchies, dictatorships and communist countries that are pristine.

[Humsafar]

AB,

Admittedly you have not participated in the system.

What do you mean? Please be more specific. If you want to give me the spiel that this how “things work in the real world” and all that, then I’ve already accepted that as fact. What I’m contending is that this “reality” is a human creation. It is one thing to accept the reality and quite another to justify it. You’re justifying this reality as "natural" and the best there can be, hence this discussion.

There is no such thing as “free” markets.
Completely free of government intervention, no. Some rules and laws are….

At last you’re grudgingly allowing that markets are not completely “free”. But they are not free not just for the reasons you give. More importantly, today’s markets are governed by trade pacts, tariffs, quotas, WTO, monopolies etc. (see my post above for a longer list) allowing rich countries/sectors to dominate weaker/poor countries/sectors.

Governments make “free” markets possible.
Well, obviously. If you shoot entrepreneurs in the head there will be no free market.

Don’t trivialise the point, one is not talking about the mere safety and security of “entrepreneurs”. Governments make huge investments in infrastructure, education, police, military, R&D etc. etc. (see list above) that create conditions for the entrepreneurs to operate. Without the government’s elaborate and extensive support system, the markets would sure be completely free. But then they would not even exist.

It’s an ally of big business, not an enemy.
Why should it be ? {!} Do you find that to be a problem?

Ask yourself. It’s you who has always been dissing the government (probably by rote as a mantra) as an irritant that stands in the way of market utopia.

To put it bluntly, big business owns government.
Incorrect, again, all my comments are relative to the system in the US. The AFLCIO, Teamsters, AARP, NRA and AIPAC are among the strongest lobbies, not Exxon or Walmart.

Yes NRA (supporting the gun industry) and AIPAC (supporting Israel Inc.) are the strongest lobbies, and continue to have inordinately powerful influence on public policy. Regarding AFLCIO, Teamsters, please inform us when was the last time they actually influenced a policy decision or got a bill passed that actually benefitted their members?

In contrast, the 'business' of government is dominated by the "military-industrial-complex" as Eisenhower presciently warned against.

Example 1: Thanks to the car, tyre and oil lobbies, today US lacks a good public transport system. A more public-oriented government would have invested in and encouraged railways, buses and other means of public transport. Fewer cars would have meant less pollution and fewer deaths (from road accidents and pollution-related diseases).

Example2: War is always good for business. Every war decision is actively supported and encouraged by big business.

John Dewy said: “Politics is a shadow cast by big business on society.”

“The history of big business is one of cooperation with big government. Most noteworthy expansions of government power are to the liking of, and at the request of, big business.” – Cato Institute (a source you might approve of).

Example 3: Pressure from big business makes sure that there is no single-payer health care system.

Example 4: Pressure from Walmart and like to not to raise minimum wages or make it easier for workers to unionise.

Economic system is an “artificially” created system – a result of policy and law.
Quite the opposite. A free market is a natural system sometimes supported or allowed to exist (and often hindered) by policy and law.

Didn't you accept it's not rally "free". Anyhow, pls explain what you mean by a "free market" and a "natural system". In my book there is no such thing as free, and a natural system is a system governed by universal laws with no human agency.

it benefits those who have the power of making those policies and laws.

It supports those that take the time, make the effort and have the initiative to affect policies and laws as it should be. If you don’t participate in the political process and overdose on Arundhati Roy’s writing in your arm chair, you are correct, it does not benefit you.

For god's sake, AB, don't be daft. Of course, those who "participate", benefit - and we all have a stake in the system and we all variously benefit from it given the level and depth of our participation. But I was making a larger point that generally policies are made by the rich and powerful in favour of the rich and powerful.
Example 1: the neglect of public transport (see above).
Example 2: Tax cuts - the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 means the top 1% will gain on average 4.6% in after-tax income (or $26,000 per household) while the middle fifth of the population gains only 2.6% ($676 per household). The widening gap between the rich and poor (the income going to the richest 1% has gone up threefold in real terms in the past twenty years, while the income of the poorest 40% went up by a more modest 11%.) is the result of conscious policy decisions and not the outcome of a "natural" market system.
Example 3: Cut down on social and educational programs and increasing outlays for the Pentagon (the biggest govt contractor for big business - turning public spending into private profit).

Creating a level playing field (if one so desires) is no more “artificial” than the current uneven playing field.
Incorrect; nature has not created a level playing field as I described previously. Any attempt to do so is forced and artificial.

Please show where you described this. And pls be specific with proof etc.

Market freedoms are antithetical to human freedoms.
Market freedoms are essential and promote human freedoms. You cannot have one without the other. If you disagree, please be specific this time.

Monsanto's right to patent seeds (market freedom) robs, let's say, Indian farmers' right (human freedom) to decide how they want to grow their food or robs their claim to ownership over seed production perfected over centuries. Big phrama's patent policies (market freedoms) prevent people from choosing/buying (human freedom) generic drugs, and when they rush to buy cheaper drugs from Canada government clamps down on their (human) freedom to do so. Polluting our air, rivers and seas by industry (market freedoms) deprives us of a clean environment (human freedom). An economy devoted to consumerism (market freedoms) traps people into an endless cycle of working, shopping and debt – deprives them of leisure time and the choice to opt out of the system (human freedoms). Big box stores setting up shop in a community (market freedoms) destroys the ability of small businesses and pop&mom shops to survive (human freedoms). Concentration of media ownership by a few (market freedoms) leads to biased reporting of information and discussion (human freedoms) – an obvious consequence is the plethora of reality shows and celebrity obsession (market freedoms) over discussion of important issues, say, like health care (human freedoms).

One could go on, but now it is your turn to show how "Market freedoms are essential and promote human freedoms. You cannot have one without the other." And pls be specific.

Pursuing self-interest is a good thing, but not at the cost of harming other’s self-interest.
Unless the other’s self-interest harms you ! ( spoken like a true idealist [Smile] )

Apart from your sneering, I fail to understand your point. It is true that if all us acted according to our self-interest while respecting that of others’ this world would be a far better place. Is this idealistic? Yes, it is an ideal violated by the rich, big business and empires who would do anything to promote their self-interest.

Profit is a good thing, but profit for profit’s sake (as evident in current economic reality) leads to disaster – human and environmental, as clearly evident.
This is not a cause and effect unless it is your contention that profits and free markets lead to human and environmental disasters.

The logic of market economy is endless growth (for endless profits). And as the great Edward Abbey said, growth for growth's sake is the logic of a cancer cell. Economic growth - production of goods and services - leads to increasing exploitation of (limited) natural resources and the environment. Endless growth means endless exploitation of the environment. Things are not produced because we actually need them but because they produce a profit. In the end, pursuit of profit lays waste to the environment and human societies.

In that case please be specific & identify monarchies, dictatorships and communist countries that are pristine.

This is your typical defensive fallback stance. Who said these systems were pristine? They are not, and nobody claims them to be the best and "natural" systems either.

[Average Bohra]

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. ~ Ben Franklin

At last you’re grudgingly allowing that markets are not completely “free”.

The fact that markets are regulated and governments “allow” them to exist is obvious and basic, and it is petty to start at that level of discourse. We can call it a market economy if that pleases you.

Governments make huge investments in infrastructure, education, police, military, R&D etc. etc. (see list above) that create conditions for the entrepreneurs to operate. Without the government’s elaborate and extensive support system, the markets would sure be completely free. But then they would not even exist.

Who pays for these investments ? Corporations and individuals, remember governments do not have any other revenue source. The fact that market economy in democracies tend to have better infrastructure is not a coincidence. I do not share your faith in big governments.

Thanks to the car, tyre and oil lobbies, today US lacks a good public transport system. A more public-oriented government would have invested in and encouraged railways, buses and other means of public transport. Fewer cars would have meant less pollution and fewer deaths (from road accidents and pollution-related diseases).

The US lacks a good public transport due to lack of participation and interest from the community. In the city I live in we always vote down rail systems in favor of toll roads. Buses in this town are more than half empty. However, NY has a decent system due to parking space restrictions and cost of real estate. This has more to do with the standard and cost of living than the conspiracy you espouse. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

Pressure from big business makes sure that there is no single-payer health care system.

Single-payer health system has failed everywhere it has been implemented is why we don’t have it. Research the European system, it is broke and they are seriously studying the US approach. The waiting list for elective surgery in Canada is about a year, and they are coming to the US for medical care. Good enough for you, not good enough for me, and I vote.

Pressure from Walmart and like to not to raise minimum wages or make it easier for workers to unionise.

You are being duped again by media hype. You can’t hire anyone in the US for minimum wage anymore and haven’t been able to in years. Even the undocumented workers don’t work for that and many states have a higher minimum wage than Federal Law anyway. It is an antiquated legislation that has outlasted its purpose, but is effective in rallying the socialists.

pls explain what you mean by a "free market" and a "natural system". In my book there is no such thing as free, and a natural system is a system governed by universal laws with no human agency…

They are not, and nobody claims them to be the best and "natural" systems either. You fail to understand as you are blinded by your ideology. Please quote where I said that the current system was “natural”. I am asking you what a ‘natural’ economic system would be without any interference. We can build from there, unless it is your contention that humans wake up saying ‘I want to be regulated , and government / Humsafar know best’; that is not a starting point and frankly scary.

The logic of market economy is endless growth (for endless profits).

One can assume that you would start a family business with a goal of limited growth and disappearing profits to support your family. If someone wants your product or service do you want to cut them off because they have exceeded some self-imposed quota ?You are better suited to being an armchair ideologue; you are exhibiting your naiveté and communist weaning as that is a nonsensical idealistic statement.

Of course, those who "participate", benefit - and we all have a stake in the system and we all variously benefit from it given the level and depth of our participation. But I was making a larger point that generally policies are made by the rich and powerful in favour of the rich and powerful.

Based on that statement we are in agreement. The rich and powerful benefit due to their participation in the process and not some conspiracy.

Tax cuts - the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 means the top 1% will gain on average 4.6% in after-tax income (or $26,000 per household) while the middle fifth of the population gains only 2.6% ($676 per household).

Aaah, the age old "tax cuts for the rich" rallying cry of the libs. Top 1% pay 35+% of the income taxes. Only rudimentary financial principles need be applied here as we do not have a flat tax. I don’t want you or our government playing Robin Hood.

"Market freedoms are essential and promote human freedoms. You cannot have one without the other." And pls be specific.

Ben Franklin said it best, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

[Average Bohra]

Correction:
nobody claims them to be the best and "natural" systems either,
should read
nobody claims them to be a "natural" system either, though it is the best we got. A natural system would have no government intervention.

[Humsafar]

Thank you for your time and effort in continuing this discussion. Although, I’ve to say that your response is getting more evasive with every post and, as I keep saying, you respond with statements of beliefs without supporting evidence or examples.

Also, perhaps you’ve not noticed that you’re always quick to demand specifics from others but draw a blank when it is your turn to do so. Next time you feel the urge for “specifics” please try to nip it in the bud or they may start calling you names.

Now to your points…

Who pays for these investments ? Corporations and individuals, remember governments do not have any other revenue source.

The point is the government uses “public money” largely to create better conditions for the markets to operate. The result of this government investment –profits – overwhelmingly goes into private hands. In short, “public spending” for “private for profit”. See details and examples in my previous posts.

The US lacks a good public transport due to lack of participation and interest from the community…

Wrong. There’s a reason why they don’t teach real history in business schools, because only short-term memory and short-term gains are really important to the markets. The rest are externalities. There’s a history to why buses are half-empty in your city. And what you call “conspiracy” are well documented facts. Here's one example:

“(I)n the 1920s automaker General Motors (GM) began a covert campaign to undermine the popular rail-based public transit systems that were ubiquitous in and around the country’s bustling urban areas. At the time, only one in 10 Americans owned cars and most people traveled by trolley and streetcar.

“Within three decades, GM, with help from Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillips Petroleum, succeeded in decimating the nation’s trolley systems, while seeing to the creation of the federal highway system and the ensuing dominance of the automobile as America’s preferred mode of transport.”

Read full article. This “conspiracy” (which is what it actually was) is well documented in history books and government policy papers. By the way this kind of “conspiracy” is normal, standard operating procedure. There is a euphemism for it: market economy and (formal) democracy.

Single-payer health system has failed everywhere it has been implemented is why we don’t have it…

The word “failed” is relative. For 42 million Americans who have no health coverage, a failed system is better than no system at all. But that is not the point I’d want to emphasise because the “failure” of universal/single-payer healthcare is propaganda. And you’re simply repeating those lies.

“The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.” Read more.

“Our health care system is failing. Tens of millions of people are uninsured, costs are skyrocketing, and the bureaucracy is expanding.” Read more.

“According to a Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Americans are the least satisfied with their health care.” Read more

Obviously you can find more resources on Google. But let’s not turn this into a healthcare debate and forget the context in which I was making the point. And the point is, how public policy (of not having a universal/single-payers healthcare system) is made in the interest of private business and not in the interest of the public and their needs.

You are being duped again by media hype. You can’t hire anyone in the US for minimum wage anymore and haven’t been able to in years…

Again, you are losing the context and getting caught up in the “minimum wage” argument. The point is, how public policy (of raising minimum wages) is being negatively influenced by private business (in this case Walmart).

In any case, you failed to point out any policy/bill in recent times which was influenced by AFLCIO, Teamsters or anything that benefited the public at large.

They are not, and nobody claims them to be the best and "natural" systems either. You fail to understand as you are blinded by your ideology. Please quote where I said that the current system was “natural”…

Read your post above. This is what you say, “A free market is a natural system sometimes supported or allowed to exist (and often hindered) by policy and law.”

Please explain how it is a “natural system”.

I am asking you what a ‘natural’ economic system would be without any interference.

There can be no such thing as ‘natural’ economic system. Markets are arbitrary human constructs and will behave the way we want them to behave. Markets can be relatively more benign and produce the public good (e.g. Western Europe, Scandinavia), or they can be ruthlessly devoted to private profit (e.g. USA, IMF-imposed economies in the third world).

One can assume that you would start a family business with a goal of limited growth and disappearing profits to support your family…

A family-run business and a transnational corporation are not the same thing. TNCs are more powerful than sovereign governments are granted more rights than citizens. And I'm mainly talking about big business and its ability to control both the markets and governments.

But again you’re missing the point: a market economy will produce things (let’s say, bottled water) not because they are absolutely necessary but because it will turn a profit. A market economy is based on “greed” and not “need” – because it is founded on the logic of growth for the sake growth which in turn gives rise to rampant consumerism and a throwaway, wasteful lifestyle.

The rich and powerful benefit due to their participation in the process and not some conspiracy.

The rich and powerful benefit precisely because the market system is designed largely for their benefit. (See GM and public transport example above.)

Aaah, the age old "tax cuts for the rich" rallying cry of the libs…

Tax cuts is one among many examples I gave to show how public policy (tax cuts for the rich) is made in the interest of the rich and not in the interest of the poor. This is because government is largely controlled by the rich and powerful.

If you disagree, show policies passed in recent times for the benefit of the poor (in terms of dollar value) compared to the policies that benefited the rich (in terms of dollar value). The disproportion and disparity will give you an idea of who controls the government and for whose benefit.

I don’t want you or our government playing Robin Hood.

Whether you want it or not, or acknowledge it or not the government already play Robin Hood (or nanny state) to the rich. See some examples in this thread, and several more in history books.

Ben Franklin said it best, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

You seem to quite taken up by Ben, eh!. Poor guy must me turning in his grave to see you quoting him for wrong reasons and in the wrong context. You’re quoting him to explain your claim: "Market freedoms are essential and promote human freedoms. You cannot have one without the other." Now, what has Ben’s quote got to do anything with “market freedoms” that you espouse?

In fact, Ben’s quote goes directly against what the neo-cons (your friends) have been doing to America. Homeland security, Patriot Act, snooping on people’s mail, turning citizens into vigilantes are just a few examples of how the government is curbing a lot of liberty to gain no security – and seems to deserve neither and is apparently losing both.

This is from you earlier post: …nature has not created a level playing field as I described previously. Any attempt to do so is forced and artificial.

You still have respond to this claim.

PS: If you want to continue this discussion, please give evidence/examples to support your argument. Mere statements of faith are not good enough.

[Average Bohra]

My friend, if you can quote Adam Smith I sure as hell can quote Ben Franklin !

forget the context in which I was making the point.

Forget the context ? Are you serious ? How can we have an honest debate without it ? It is not specifics that you need, but an overhaul of your thought process so that you can digest specifics. We must first establish a coherent starting point as you are spraying bullets everywhere. Trust me, if I am successful in opening up your mind to accepting specifics, I will inundate you with them.

First, going back to a natural system, again will you accept that anything less than total freedom for humans (personal or economic) is man made?

Now let’s start with a teaser dose of specifics.

show policies passed in recent times for the benefit of the poor (in terms of dollar value) compared to the policies that benefited the rich (in terms of dollar value).

You are going about it all wrong. Please show me one policy for the poor that won’t affect the rich. Free medicine ? Pfizer, Glaxo. Free books ? Simon & Schuster, Free transportation ? Tata, GM. Free computers? Infosys, IBM, HP. Free Healthcare ? Even you get the point. You can’t get Niranjan, his Rickshaw and Rao his brother in law the Snake Oil salesman to provide any service that can better their lives like roads, healthcare or education without involving corporations that make a profit you so despise.. You must quit looking at a serious problem of world poverty by focusing on the basic “rich” vs. “poor” rhetoric you have been schooled in.. This lack of vision all elitists in general display have done this worthy cause a great disservice. Corporations provide a great service, are owned by, and employ a lot of hard working people who make a good living;, profit is not a crime but a great motivator. You take away large corporations and you have more people in need of help. It is a need your ilk needs to survive. Your communist ideals have failed, it is a fact, a specific you need to accept and grow up. Again, it is not specifics you need, you need a dose of reality.

This is from you earlier post: …nature has not created a level playing field as I described previously. Any attempt to do so is forced and artificial.You still have respond to this claim.

I did, Human beings have different talents and capabilities, any attempt to artificially level the playing field is an elitist control mechanism, and goes against the most basic of human freedoms. I didn’t anticipate having to elaborate. I haven’t watched a Hindi film since I was 12. Is Amitabh Bachan still around ? If so, does he demand a higher rate than a newbie actor ? Does the Indian scientist that helped propel India into being a nuclear power deserve more compensation than you sitting in your armchair using Internet Explorer developed by Microsoft? You get the point, I hope.

Incidentally, this pro-business government's Anti-trust legislation tried to force Microsoft into charging (you) extra for Internet Explorer, to protect Netscape which had since been acquired by AOL who in turn merged with Time Warner.

“(I)n the 1920s automaker General Motors (GM) began a covert campaign to undermine the popular rail-based public transit systems that were ubiquitous in and around the country’s bustling urban areas. At the time, only one in 10 Americans owned cars and most people traveled by trolley and streetcar.

“Within three decades, GM, with help from Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillips Petroleum, succeeded in decimating the nation’s trolley systems, while seeing to the creation of the federal highway system and the ensuing dominance of the automobile as America’s preferred mode of transport.”

Read full article. This “conspiracy” (which is what it actually was) is well documented in history books and government policy papers. By the way this kind of “conspiracy” is normal, standard operating procedure. There is a euphemism for it: market economy and (formal) democracy.

Really ? In the 1920’s ?This is the best you could come up with ? In the 1920’s the transportation industry was a monopoly. Now Siemens is among the largest light rail manufacturers and it is about 4 times larger than Ford and GM combined. If your conspiracy theory were true and relevant, I would be forced to trade in my Mercedes and Porsche for a private light rail system. Do you realize how antiquated and irrelevant your specifics are ? Have you tried free thought not clouded by what you read ?

There’s a history to why buses are half-empty in your city. And what you call “conspiracy” are well documented facts. Here's one example: (the one above)

How does that 1920’s example explain why buses would be ½ empty today? Please refer to Siemens specific.

A family-run business and a transnational corporation are not the same thing.

So a family-run business should not aspire to grow into a multi-national because you don’t like it ?

If you disagree, show policies passed in recent times for the benefit of the poor (in terms of dollar value)

Prescription Drug Benefit ($1.2 trillion over 10 years). Need more ?

Markets are arbitrary human constructs

Markets are necessary human constructs. Specifics ? Please explain how you would support your family without it, other than government handouts that you so favor.

a market economy will produce things (let’s say, bottled water) not because they are absolutely necessary but because it will turn a profit. A market economy is based on “greed” and not “need”

Who decides what’s greed vs. need ? Let me guess, you. Need and greed are relative terms as the poor in Bihar or Sudan would consider your insistence on a good public transport system “greed” since they can even put food on the plate.

you failed to point out any policy/bill in recent times which was influenced by AFLCIO, Teamsters or anything that benefited the public at large.

It is ironic that you post specifics from the 1920’s and seem to want “recent” examples. Unions have created wage agreements that have almost bankcrupt the automobile and airline industry in the US. It costs Detroit $1100 in employee benefits to sell one car. When jobs are being outsourced to you, they are keeping quiet. Not since 1920’s however

the “failure” of universal/single-payer healthcare is propaganda

Please be specific.

The point is the government uses “public money” largely to create better conditions for the markets to operate..

They also use it for boondoggles, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Prescription Drug Benefits, Unemployment Benefits, Job Training, rebates for the poor with benefits per child (the more kids one has that they can’t pay for, I do). Need more ?

Probably they taught you in your MBA school

Thank you for the honorary degree but I quit the MBA program during the first semester as I much preferred the lesson from the school of hard knocks, real business. It was not the lure of profits as I was an idealist like you at time, but specifics I learned about what you (and I at the time) were schooled into thinking. I grew out of it, but then again I am 44 and probably older than you are.

the neo-cons (your friends) have been doing to America. Homeland security, Patriot Act, snooping on people’s mail, turning citizens into vigilantes are just a few examples of how the government is curbing a lot of liberty to gain no security – and seems to deserve neither and is apparently losing both.

The neo-cons are not “my friends” as they have led to the demise of the conservative cause and destroyed the Republican Party which I don’t too much care for. Big government, nation building, and budget deficits. I do not support the creation of Homeland Security, nation building or certain aspects of the Patriot Act.

It is unnerving for you to debate someone that does not fit your stereotype, it throws you off kilter; sorry to disappoint you. Perhaps you can now start off with specifics regarding how your views are not identical to the communist utopian vision which crashed and burned.

[Humsafar]

Ouch! your "specifics" have blown my lid off.

Just kidding! I'm going to be really busy for a couple of days, so the point by point rebuttal must wait.

In the meantime though, pls reconsider the issues under discussion. It may help clarify if I state what the issues are not, at least from my point of view:

I'm NOT saying that we don't need the markets, or markets per se are bad.

I'm NOT saying that everybody should get the same piece of the economic pie.

I'm NOT advocating socialism/communism.

I'm NOT against (real or anything approaching real) democracy.

I’m NOT against individual successes and achievements.

Please read my posts and see whether I’ve been arguing for any of these things in any way.

Now read your posts again, and you will find that you are caught up in arguments assuming that I’m supporting or advocating these issues.

The issues are these:

Average Bohra: The markets are free.

Humsafar: The markets cannot be free. Nothing is “free”.

Average Bhora: Government controls and hinders the markets.

Humsafar: Government helps the markets. Especially big business (corporate capitalism) would not succeed without government support and largesse.

Average Bohra: Market freedoms promote (and are essential to) human freedoms.

Humsafar: Market freedoms curb and destroy human freedoms.

Average Bohra: The market system works, and the best we have.

Humsafar: Yes, it does. But it works more for the rich and powerful who make policies and benefit from it. And yes it is best for whom it works.

Average Bohra: Government social and public programs are boondoggles.

Humsafar: The real boondoggles go to the rich.

Average Bohra: A free market is a natural system. And a natural system would have no government intervention

Humsafar: Any natural system can exist without humans. Market cannot exist without humans. Therefore markets are not a natural system.

Let’s try to concentrate on these issues. Once again, thank you for your time in continuing this discussion.

To be continued…

[anajmi]

Steer clear of these 5 car-rental traps

Sorry for jumping into this interesting discussion, but I thought it may be relevant. I could be wrong.

[Humsafar]

Hey AB,

Still interested in continuing this conversation? If so, it would help if you could review my last post to get a little clarity on the issues. Also, I won't be able to spend too much time here so my resposes most likely are going to be short and not too frequent.

[Average Bohra]

Welcome back Humsafar,

Looking forward to continuing this conversation, however, the topic is deserving of specifics and not snippets. So let's wait till you have more time to spend here.