|
Zonie63 -> RE: The Conservatives in Arizona have a plan... (2/25/2014 5:44:43 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, because discrimination against one group is different from discrimination against another, depending the group?
I think the general rule of thumb to go by is by looking at the defining characteristics of the group in question and determine whether the discrimination is over an immutable condition or whether it can be changed. If there's discrimination over hair styles, clothing, or one's net worth, these are mutable conditions which can change at any time. But if there's discrimination over gender, race, sexual orientation or other immutable conditions, then that's not the same thing.
quote:
The problem is that government having to come in (and I'm not arguing there wasn't a need) then means jack shit to what they need to do now. Times have changed. Unless you're supporting the idea that it's worse now than it was then, why would the level of intrusion stay the same?
I'm not saying that times are better or worse now. Politically, we may be slightly more "enlightened" than we were in the 1950s, although economically, I would say we're on shakier ground than we were back then.
quote:
Seriously? Where are the Markets working freely?
During the Cold War, we used to differentiate between the Communist Bloc and the so-called "Free World," so according to the defining parameters of America's Cold War propagandists (who were also advocates for capitalism and free markets), any non-communist country would fall into that category. Or perhaps any country which has McDonald's or Coca-Cola might be considered a "free market" country according to the standards commonly embraced by capitalists today.
I recognize that your point seems to be that there are no "free market" countries based on the definition you might use, but if that's the case, how do you even know if the "free market" would even work if it's never been put into practice?
quote:
Are they working in the Middle East (the most common location of current political instability)? With as much intrusion as the US enacts in the Middle East, there certainly isn't.
Those who live in oil-rich nations like Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar - I'm sure they would probably be big advocates for the free market, since they're doing so well. They go around the world and buy up everything. Of course, they're scared of and feel threatened by their neighbors who aren't doing quite so well, but then again, a "free market" under authoritarian regimes can't possibly be all that "free," can it?
That's another problem with economists. They think that as long as the market is "free" (which, in their terms, only means "non-communist"), there doesn't need to be any political freedom for the market to work. And that brings us back to the topic of the thread, since it's about political freedom more than economic freedom.
In short, I don't think it's really possible to have a free market without political freedom, and as long as a certain segment of the population can be marginalized and isolated politically, then it really doesn't matter how "free" the market actually is.
quote:
The economic turmoil in the EU isn't a symptom of a free Market, quite the opposite, I'd say.
Actually, I would suggest that the consequences of a globalized "free" market are the cause, to some degree. On a global scale, the bulk of the world's wealth has been concentrated in the hands of relatively few nations, but as national barriers are removed and the world shifts to a global economy, then there would naturally be a push towards equilibrium. The wealth of the West will trickle out and find its way to the less affluent areas of the world. We've seen it happen in our lifetime.
Back when I was a kid, a lot of the countries in the developing world (although we used the term "Third World" back in those days) were in dire straits: Destitute, starving, helpless, and in dire need of aid from the West. But over the course of my lifetime, there has been measurable improvement, especially for countries like China and India. They still have a long way to go, but by design, the standard of living in the developing world will slowly improve until global equilibrium is reached (theoretically). The West won't die or anything like that, but we won't have the same advantage that we've enjoyed for all this time.
My main criticism of the powers that be (whether in the US or EU) is that they should have seen this coming and should have been better prepared for it. I think they were blinded by ideology and acted recklessly, all believing that the free market would be some kind of magical thing. In that sense, I wouldn't so much blame the free market as much as I would blame too much blind faith in the free market.
quote:
The only knock on the Market is that it can be slow to react to some things. It was slower in the past to right the wrongs of discrimination than it would be today. The speed at which information travels is so much faster now and the ability of a Market to show profit/loss is much faster, too.
The political system also moves slow, but another point that should be mentioned is that very often, people make choices at the marketplace based on factors which don't involve taking a stand on anything.
You're right that times have changed, and the speed at which information travels is so much faster now. But with that also comes the amount of information (and misinformation). I would also suggest that people don't have the same level of stamina and attention-span that they once had back during the days of the Civil Rights Movement. Back then, boycotts were effective because people were willing to hold out and keep up the fight, but nowadays...when was the last time you've ever heard of a boycott that actually worked? The Chick-Fil-A thing fizzled out quickly, and even the Occupy movement was rather short-lived. People have far more distractions today than they used to have.
Another thing I've observed is that an aspect of our culture is that people are very narcissistic and self-centered. Everything revolves around "me, me, me." There's no single, unifying cause that people will get behind, which is why the Occupy movement failed (and it's also a problem within the Tea Party). What they have is a cacophony of various unrelated pet causes trying to put themselves into a bigger tent and wondering why they can't get anything done.
quote:
I've already stated that even if Brewer signs it, I don't see it as lasting long.
The Governor has until the end of the week to make her decision, although given that both AZ Senators have urged her to veto it and even some of those who voted for it now reversing themselves, it looks like it won't get passed. The business community is firmly against it, and the religious community is mixed.
|
|
|
|
