2 ms·

>Whole peoples have collectively said that the needs of life are more important than the needs of business and aligned their laws accordingly. While others wit

by hueving 11y ago

>Whole peoples have collectively said that the needs of life are more important than the needs of business and aligned their laws accordingly. While others with the capacity for critical thinking have realized that the economy is what enables a good life. Greece has been pretty good about guaranteeing 'the needs of life' for government employees and look what good it did them.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
acdha 11y ago
This is the famous libertarian cognitive vice, assuming that the quality of government is constant: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/the_libertarian.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/the... Your theory needs to account for how e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc. also provide “the needs of life” with economies which are rather different than Greece. It's just possible that quality of implementation matters as much as the original idea.
- hueving 11y ago
  What are you talking about? I was showing how ridiculous the strawman is that it's a simple 'people vs business' decision. People and business are ultimately one and the same. There is not one single country that has a terrible economy with a good life for its citizens. Unless the country is just riding on massive natural resources, the people have to work enough to sustain the lifestyle they live. Other countries aren't going to support them indefinitely.
  - acdha 11y ago
    You haven't shown anything of the sort. iandanforth made the factual observation that various countries define the worker:employer relationship differently and you responded with a facile assertion that only foolish people would fail to put economic interests over people and a single cherry-picked example, which itself was too simplistic to be of use[1]. Now you're going on with some narrative about how people don't want to work which is straight out of right-wing talk radio and which you've failed to supported even with an anecdote this time. It's absurd to claim that poor countries are poor because they provide too many benefits to workers at the expense of business when we regularly hear reports about the brutally unforgiving lifestyles of sweatshop workers, subsistence farmers, etc. Conversely, you've failed to even show awareness that some countries have both strong economies and significant social support – Germany provides significantly more for workers than the United States but it would be absurd to claim that this depends on other countries to “support them indefinitely”. So … could you start over and explain precisely the principle you believe is in effect here, and how it holds true across e.g. the G-10 countries? 1. Greece's economy wasn't exactly great before but their immediate crisis was caused by corruption aided by malfeasance by major banks, not inefficiencies which they've had for generations. Absolutely none of it had to do with benefits to workers or people being lazy.
chris_wot 11y ago
Greece is an outlier. You'd be better off looking at Australia.
pron 11y ago
The economy (although I'm not sure exactly what you mean b/c the definition can be pretty wide, but assuming you mean economic productivity) is one tool in service of a good life. And like others, it works well in certain dosages -- not too little, but not too much, either, and, as usual in social constructs, there are always competing interests at play. That's why other people with the capacity for critical thinking have decided to offset the interests of those who most benefit from maximal productivity with that of those whose lives it affects the most by ensuring that power stemming from control of resources is balanced with power in numbers, thus ensuring that some types of freedom do not so overwhelmingly crush other types of freedom.
anon4 11y ago
North Korea also doesn't have vacations. On a more philosophical note, what good is an economy if you can't enjoy it?

by hueving 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

acdha 11y ago

This is the famous libertarian cognitive vice, assuming that the quality of government is constant: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/the_libertarian.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/the... Your theory needs to account for how e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc. also provide “the needs of life” with economies which are rather different than Greece. It's just possible that quality of implementation matters as much as the original idea.

hueving 11y ago
What are you talking about? I was showing how ridiculous the strawman is that it's a simple 'people vs business' decision. People and business are ultimately one and the same. There is not one single country that has a terrible economy with a good life for its citizens. Unless the country is just riding on massive natural resources, the people have to work enough to sustain the lifestyle they live. Other countries aren't going to support them indefinitely.
- acdha 11y ago
  You haven't shown anything of the sort. iandanforth made the factual observation that various countries define the worker:employer relationship differently and you responded with a facile assertion that only foolish people would fail to put economic interests over people and a single cherry-picked example, which itself was too simplistic to be of use[1]. Now you're going on with some narrative about how people don't want to work which is straight out of right-wing talk radio and which you've failed to supported even with an anecdote this time. It's absurd to claim that poor countries are poor because they provide too many benefits to workers at the expense of business when we regularly hear reports about the brutally unforgiving lifestyles of sweatshop workers, subsistence farmers, etc. Conversely, you've failed to even show awareness that some countries have both strong economies and significant social support – Germany provides significantly more for workers than the United States but it would be absurd to claim that this depends on other countries to “support them indefinitely”. So … could you start over and explain precisely the principle you believe is in effect here, and how it holds true across e.g. the G-10 countries? 1. Greece's economy wasn't exactly great before but their immediate crisis was caused by corruption aided by malfeasance by major banks, not inefficiencies which they've had for generations. Absolutely none of it had to do with benefits to workers or people being lazy.

chris_wot 11y ago

Greece is an outlier. You'd be better off looking at Australia.

pron 11y ago

The economy (although I'm not sure exactly what you mean b/c the definition can be pretty wide, but assuming you mean economic productivity) is one tool in service of a good life. And like others, it works well in certain dosages -- not too little, but not too much, either, and, as usual in social constructs, there are always competing interests at play. That's why other people with the capacity for critical thinking have decided to offset the interests of those who most benefit from maximal productivity with that of those whose lives it affects the most by ensuring that power stemming from control of resources is balanced with power in numbers, thus ensuring that some types of freedom do not so overwhelmingly crush other types of freedom.

anon4 11y ago

North Korea also doesn't have vacations. On a more philosophical note, what good is an economy if you can't enjoy it?