Am I a Classical Liberal?

[jbrown329]

^^ The fourth estate died long ago.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^ The fourth estate died long ago.

I don't know that it died, it was just enslaved.

 

[xbuzzerx]

^^ The fourth estate died long ago.

Reagan's deregulation essentially made it up for private purchase.

 

[jbrown329]

Reagan's deregulation essentially made it up for private purchase.

If you're referring to the fairness doctrine, the blame lies both with Reagan and Clinton.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If you're referring to the fairness doctrine, the blame lies both with Reagan and Clinton.

Clinton certainly didn't help but I can't place equal blame on him as someone who openly set out to privatize and deregulate as much as humanly possible, the consequences to American people or American democracy be damned.

 

[LittleDove]

So the argument is going to be moot in the not-so-far future; indeed, as robots are used more and more to produce the robots making shoes, and other robots are designed to perform maintenance on the show-making robots, the cost of making a pair of Nikes will drop even further, while the robots who make them (and everything else) will have turned so many people out of jobs that even at the lower price there will be few to buy them.

As one interested in maximizing the liberty of all individuals, at that point capitalism is going to have to die and give way to a system where all basics are essentially free and talent is literally of more value than money.

I watched an interesting interview on the BBC a few weeks past with an economist (I wish I could remember his name), the man who essentially predicted the Decline & Fall of the Music Industry.

One of his main points centred on the proliferation of things. I'm probably guilty of grossly over-simplifying him, but the more things there are, the less value each individual thing has. He was predicting this to be a growing problem for all industries, and believed it would be a contributing factor in their demise.

He went, I think, a step beyond you have with robots, and focussed on 3-D printers. He asked what would be the future of any industry when people can simply do the job themselves. Granting that they're nowhere near ubiquitous as yet, but just take a look at what they might do to your example, the shoe industry. If someone can simply walk over to a machine and "print" print a new pair of shoes, what need is there of the entire shoe industry, from begging to end? What use is there for the entire shoe-marketing business, wholesale or retail, from beginning to end?

 

[otters]

^^ The fourth estate died long ago.

Beware! If you use this particular terminology, Benvolio will immediately read your face that you're a filthy non-WASP, typically a Communist & Roman Catholic/Jewish & Democrat/Atheist & Free Mason/ etc.etc!

 

[LittleDove]

The accumulation of wealth sufficient to manipulate and coerce the behavior of others is contrary to liberty. Actual republicans understand that, because historically a heavy concentration of wealth has always killed republics.

And not only republics.

On of the most concise explanations of the collapse of the ancient regime French monarchy I've ever read noted that the collapse was brought about largely by the government's inability, for a number of reasons, to force those who actually owned the country to pay for its governance and defence ... a situation we seem to be edging ourselves toward.

 

[Kabluey]

...He went, I think, a step beyond you have with robots, and focussed on 3-D printers. He asked what would be the future of any industry when people can simply do the job themselves...

Guess I better invest in 3D printing ink companies, given the 2D stuff costs so much already...

 

[Kulindahr]

I watched an interesting interview on the BBC a few weeks past with an economist (I wish I could remember his name), the man who essentially predicted the Decline & Fall of the Music Industry.

One of his main points centred on the proliferation of things. I'm probably guilty of grossly over-simplifying him, but the more things there are, the less value each individual thing has. He was predicting this to be a growing problem for all industries, and believed it would be a contributing factor in their demise.

He went, I think, a step beyond you have with robots, and focussed on 3-D printers. He asked what would be the future of any industry when people can simply do the job themselves. Granting that they're nowhere near ubiquitous as yet, but just take a look at what they might do to your example, the shoe industry. If someone can simply walk over to a machine and "print" print a new pair of shoes, what need is there of the entire shoe industry, from begging to end? What use is there for the entire shoe-marketing business, wholesale or retail, from beginning to end?

Shoes aren't a good example, at least not at this point; 3D printers don't yet do flexible, breathable, or other qualities necessary for shoes.

A far better example would be dinnerware. Dropped your mug and shattered it? Print a new one. Not enough plates for the number of guests coming? Print them. And that extends to all sorts of household items: rings for shower curtains, picture frames, hooks to hang cups on -- anything rigid that can be made of plastic.

Auto parts supply stores are already looking at how it will change their business, with an eye toward 3D metal printing. They won't have to keep an inventory of parts, just of the materials to print the parts with (and in some cases, the ovens and such for treating parts for the right hardness once they're made).

I suspect it will have a major impact on the Christmas season: just think of how many gifts could be printed, eliminating driving here and there to get them!

It will make a huge leap when the process of disintegrating old items back into the constituent materials also becomes cheap: you don't like your knife rack? toss it in the hopper, wait ten minutes, and print a new one out of the old material.

It's the kind of technology that can skewer an economic system. Between that and robots, all the systems we've ever used are going to die or become unrecognizable.

 

[Kulindahr]

And not only republics.

On of the most concise explanations of the collapse of the ancient regime French monarchy I've ever read noted that the collapse was brought about largely by the government's inability, for a number of reasons, to force those who actually owned the country to pay for its governance and defence ... a situation we seem to be edging ourselves toward.

Good observation. I mentioned republics, though, because (in theory anyway) that's what most of us live in, and it takes a republic to have liberty -- which is my concern. The U.S. is in a condition very much like that at the end of the Roman Republic, and historically what happens when a republic is nearing failure the very powerful convert it into an authoritarian oligarchy, which allows them to seize the resources necessary to prevent collapse. It's when the new system reaches the same point that the collapse you refer to occurs.


BTW, a piece of evidence that the U.S. is at that point is the recent law that allows a bank, when it looks like it is going to fail, to seize deposits and hand the customers stock instead of their money. That's designed to keep the institutions of power in place and to protect the wealthy, and to hell with the people.

 

[Benvolio]

Good observation. I mentioned republics, though, because (in theory anyway) that's what most of us live in, and it takes a republic to have liberty -- which is my concern. The U.S. is in a condition very much like that at the end of the Roman Republic, and historically what happens when a republic is nearing failure the very powerful convert it into an authoritarian oligarchy, which allows them to seize the resources necessary to prevent collapse. It's when the new system reaches the same point that the collapse you refer to occurs.


BTW, a piece of evidence that the U.S. is at that point is the recent law that allows a bank, when it looks like it is going to fail, to seize deposits and hand the customers stock instead of their money. That's designed to keep the institutions of power in place and to protect the wealthy, and to hell with the people.

US taxers do, of course, pay enough for the governments "governance and defence". That is hardly the problem.
But Kulindahr, I am puzzled by your reference to the new law allowing banks to seize deposits and substitute stock. Please give us some reference please. I am sure it is not so. When it looks like a bank might fail, the regulators confiscate it.

 

[Kabluey]

US taxers do, of course, pay enough for the governments "governance and defence". That is hardly the problem.
But Kulindahr, I am puzzled by your reference to the new law allowing banks to seize deposits and substitute stock. Please give us some reference please. I am sure it is not so. When it looks like a bank might fail, the regulators confiscate it.

The regulators can seize it, and use the haircut of depositor's money to ensure the survival of the bank.
Whether the regulators are called in, or the bank owners, the end result is the same.
House wins after gambling with depositor funds.

 

[Kulindahr]

The regulators can seize it, and use the haircut of depositor's money to ensure the survival of the bank.
Whether the regulators are called in, or the bank owners, the end result is the same.
House wins after gambling with depositor funds.

Something like that:

Here's what can happen to your deposits in the next banking crisis.

If your too-big-to-fail (TBTF) bank is failing because they can't pay off derivative bets they made, and the government refuses to bail them out, under a mandate titled "Adequacy of Loss-Absorbing Capacity of Global Systemically Important Banks in Resolution," approved on Nov. 16, 2014, by the G20's Financial Stability Board, they can take your deposited money and turn it into shares of equity capital to try and keep your TBTF bank from failing.

source

 

[jbrown329]

I stand with Bernie. If a bank is "to big to fail", it's "to big to exist".

 

[Kulindahr]

I stand with Bernie. If a bank is "to big to fail", it's "to big to exist".

Jefferson's measure was that if a corporation is big enough to own legislators, it's too big to exist.

 

[Benvolio]

Something like that:



source

The FDIC still insures deposits, backed by the full faith and credit of the US, the G20 to the contrary notwithstanding.

- - - Updated - - -

Jefferson's measure was that if a corporation is big enough to own legislators, it's too big to exist.

He said nothing of the sort.

 

[jbrown329]

If the Jefferson being referred to is Thomas.........

Thomas Jefferson Feared an Aristocracy of Corporations
The author of the Declaration of Independence warned against the threat to democracy posed by big banks and big corporations. Too bad the Supreme Court does respect the original intent of the founders.
http://www.thenation.com/article/thomas-jefferson-feared-aristocracy-corporations/

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
~Thomas Jefferson (attrib)
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/end-democracyquotation

 

[xbuzzerx]

If the Jefferson being referred to is Thomas.........

Thomas Jefferson Feared an Aristocracy of Corporations
The author of the Declaration of Independence warned against the threat to democracy posed by big banks and big corporations. Too bad the Supreme Court does respect the original intent of the founders.
http://www.thenation.com/article/thomas-jefferson-feared-aristocracy-corporations/

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
~Thomas Jefferson (attrib)
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/end-democracyquotation

Geez what a Mexican.

 

[jbrown329]

^^ ????????