4 ms·

I guess you're suggesting labor party is better at helping ordinary workers than corporations are when it is a fact that free market capitalism has lifted billi

I guess you're suggesting labor party is better at helping ordinary workers than corporations are when it is a fact that free market capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty in countries like Peru where I used to live and all around the world. Before countries like Peru embraced free market like they did in the late 90's, they were extremely poor, they now have a great and growing economy unlike say Venezuela or Cuba who refused to embrace the free market and kept their "labour party that caters to the needs of ordinary workers". How did that work out?

hackuser 11y ago
Labor parties in Western countries are free market capitalists. They aren't purists but neither are the parties of business, who use government to aid their constituents and distort marketplaces. For a counter-example, the period of greatest (I think) growth in the 'West' was the 1950's and 60s, when their economies was much more highly regulated, government much more directly involved, and unions much stronger. Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated.
- patrickaljord 11y ago
  > Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated. Correlation != causation. Besides, people today live longer and healthier than in the 50's and the 60's. Even in the late 80's, middle class people could barely afford a tv and even less so a microwave, now many people even in the lower classes have a smartphone, microwaves, laptops, flat tvs, travel more and cheaper thanks to flights deregulation etc. Free market has been so efficient that people now have better lives than they used to for cheaper, which explains why incomes haven't gone up that much as it hasn't been needed. It's a proven fact that the world has never been as peaceful, wealthy, well off and advanced as ever despite supposedly evil deregulation and free market.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > Even in the late 80's, middle class people could barely afford a tv This is not true. Color TV ownership, I'm pretty sure, was nearly universal in the late 1980s and I expect most households had more than one. > Free market has been so efficient that people now have better lives than they used to for cheaper, which explains why incomes haven't gone up that much as it hasn't been needed. I'd be interested in some basis for this. Not everything is cheaper, for example health care and gasoline. I don't think I've seen anything suggesting purchasing power overall has increased, but I suppose it's possible. > It's a proven fact that the world has never been as peaceful, wealthy, well off and advanced ... That seems like something that would be very hard to prove or to establish factually. Also, while economies have grown in aggregate, that hasn't made individuals better off. My income could grow from $100 million to $1 billion while 99 people could stay stuck at $10; our aggregate gain would be $900 million or a wonderful $9 million per capita, but that's no help to the other 99 who can't make ends meet. EDIT: I should add that the world overall certainly is wealthier and many fewer are in extreme poverty. To attribute that to the 'free market' (as in purist free-market capitalism, not its usual forms which include elements of many approaches) is erroneous, I think; most was achieved by developing countries following not the market but government-directed industrial policies.
    - patrickaljord 11y ago
      > This is not true. Color TV ownership, I'm pretty sure, was nearly universal in the late 1980s and I expect most households had more than one. Not in the rest of the world (I didn't grow up in the US) > Not everything is cheaper, for example health care and gasoline. Healthcare medicines from the 80's did get cheaper, people always want the latest (or are made to buy the latest) which includes the latest tech and is therefor equally expensive or more so. Besides, healthcare is very heavily regulated in the US so if anything this is an example of regulations making things more expensive. Same goes for gasoline. > That seems like something that would be very hard to prove or to establish factually. http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becoming-more-peaceful-believe-it-or-not http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becomin... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-stats_n_1026723.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-...
littletimmy 11y ago
Wealth is not the only consideration. Political power is also an important consideration. While wealth is not a zero-sum game, political power is. Given that wealth is transferrable to political power, we find that increasing inequality impoverishes labor of his political power even if he is economically better off. THAT is the problem. Would you rather be a rich slave or a poor free man?
- patrickaljord 11y ago
  > Would you rather be a rich slave or a poor free man? False dichotomy?
Synaesthesia 11y ago
Cuba actually has a higher human development index than Peru despite a lower GDP per capita - despite the economic sanctions against Cuba.

hackuser 11y ago

Labor parties in Western countries are free market capitalists. They aren't purists but neither are the parties of business, who use government to aid their constituents and distort marketplaces. For a counter-example, the period of greatest (I think) growth in the 'West' was the 1950's and 60s, when their economies was much more highly regulated, government much more directly involved, and unions much stronger. Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated.

patrickaljord 11y ago
> Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated. Correlation != causation. Besides, people today live longer and healthier than in the 50's and the 60's. Even in the late 80's, middle class people could barely afford a tv and even less so a microwave, now many people even in the lower classes have a smartphone, microwaves, laptops, flat tvs, travel more and cheaper thanks to flights deregulation etc. Free market has been so efficient that people now have better lives than they used to for cheaper, which explains why incomes haven't gone up that much as it hasn't been needed. It's a proven fact that the world has never been as peaceful, wealthy, well off and advanced as ever despite supposedly evil deregulation and free market.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Even in the late 80's, middle class people could barely afford a tv This is not true. Color TV ownership, I'm pretty sure, was nearly universal in the late 1980s and I expect most households had more than one. > Free market has been so efficient that people now have better lives than they used to for cheaper, which explains why incomes haven't gone up that much as it hasn't been needed. I'd be interested in some basis for this. Not everything is cheaper, for example health care and gasoline. I don't think I've seen anything suggesting purchasing power overall has increased, but I suppose it's possible. > It's a proven fact that the world has never been as peaceful, wealthy, well off and advanced ... That seems like something that would be very hard to prove or to establish factually. Also, while economies have grown in aggregate, that hasn't made individuals better off. My income could grow from $100 million to $1 billion while 99 people could stay stuck at $10; our aggregate gain would be $900 million or a wonderful $9 million per capita, but that's no help to the other 99 who can't make ends meet. EDIT: I should add that the world overall certainly is wealthier and many fewer are in extreme poverty. To attribute that to the 'free market' (as in purist free-market capitalism, not its usual forms which include elements of many approaches) is erroneous, I think; most was achieved by developing countries following not the market but government-directed industrial policies.
  - patrickaljord 11y ago
    > This is not true. Color TV ownership, I'm pretty sure, was nearly universal in the late 1980s and I expect most households had more than one. Not in the rest of the world (I didn't grow up in the US) > Not everything is cheaper, for example health care and gasoline. Healthcare medicines from the 80's did get cheaper, people always want the latest (or are made to buy the latest) which includes the latest tech and is therefor equally expensive or more so. Besides, healthcare is very heavily regulated in the US so if anything this is an example of regulations making things more expensive. Same goes for gasoline. > That seems like something that would be very hard to prove or to establish factually. http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becoming-more-peaceful-believe-it-or-not http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becomin... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-stats_n_1026723.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-...

littletimmy 11y ago

Wealth is not the only consideration. Political power is also an important consideration. While wealth is not a zero-sum game, political power is. Given that wealth is transferrable to political power, we find that increasing inequality impoverishes labor of his political power even if he is economically better off. THAT is the problem. Would you rather be a rich slave or a poor free man?

patrickaljord 11y ago
> Would you rather be a rich slave or a poor free man? False dichotomy?

Synaesthesia 11y ago

Cuba actually has a higher human development index than Peru despite a lower GDP per capita - despite the economic sanctions against Cuba.