Why Is Youth So Left-Wing?

[insurgent]

Indeed it is, and if a child is considered mature enough to take such decision I see no problems with this kid working.

Let me rephrase:
1) How young a child could in your opinion make a decision to work out of free will?
2) Don't you suppose that some children below what you consider the age of maturity would claim to be working voluntarily? Do you feel certain that you know that better than them?

But I see your point. The free choice argument gets a little more shaky when we're talking immature children. Still, I don't see why it is fundamentally different.

 

[10Seven]

""The only competition that is crushed is the inefficcient one, that was not pleasing the consumers enough.""

I don't think I'm confused at all.

The statement is clearly incorrect, that organisations that have pleased the pants off people have been crushed by others with a history of not-pleasing.

That's all I said, and you guys wanted to then redefine the argument by using a different opening statement or changing the words slightly - so claiming that I was wrong because I was still arguing the old one? Cheecky tarts

 

[insurgent]

The youth do too many drugs, and you have to be on drugs to vote for the left

This thread has been threadjacked. Please keep the posts off topic.

 

[insurgent]

The statement is clearly incorrect, that organisations that have pleased the pants off people have been crushed by others with a history of not-pleasing.

You seem to want to discuss irrelevant semantics. If a company that does not please the consumers wins in competition, it is as a result of the conscious choice of the consumer, and thus this company must in some way or another satisfy the consumer better. Like it or not.

That's all I said, and you guys wanted to then redefine the argument by using a different opening statement or changing the words slightly - so claiming that I was wrong because I was still arguing the old one? Cheecky tarts

I see the grave and significant injustice we have perpetrated against you now.

 

[luiz]

Let me rephrase:
1) How young a child could in your opinion make a decision to work out of free will?
2) Don't you suppose that some children below what you consider the age of maturity would claim to be working voluntarily? Do you feel certain that you know that better than them?

But I see your point. The free choice argument gets a little more shaky when we're talking immature children. Still, I don't see why it is fundamentally different.

1)Depends on what you define as "young". Really young children, like say a 5 year old, should not be able to work regardless of what he says.
2)Yes, some would. But the overwhelmeing majority wouldn't, and as such it's really hard to judge.

Of course kids above a certain age(14?) are able to rationally decide. But certainly really young children are not. They lack critical thinking, their intelectual development is only beginning. And even among the ones that work, most would like to stop. A research regarding child workers in the brazilian interior reported that roughly 75% only work because of father' orders, and 90% would rather be in school.

Free will depends on conscience. Young kids cannot be held by the same standards as adults.

Child protection laws are not in conflict with the Libertarian ideal(albeit it's in conflict with anarcho-capitalis), because as I said Libertarianism is about the decisions of "consenting adults".

 

[10Seven]

Insurgent.

Did you MEAN to say, 'Please keep the posts off topic.'?

 

[insurgent]

Of course kids above a certain age(14?) are able to rationally decide. But certainly really young children are not. They lack critical thinking, their intelectual development is only beginning. And even among the ones that work, most would like to stop. A research regarding child workers in the brazilian interior reported that roughly 75% only work because of father' orders, and 90% would rather be in school.

And isn't this already illegal?

But yes, you may be right. I'll have to think about it a little more from that angle.

10Seven: It's a joke. Obviously, we're not discussing why the youth is leftist anymore.

 

[10Seven]

...it is as a result of the conscious choice of the consumer, and thus this company must in some way or another satisfy the consumer better. Like it or not.

Ok, I may be wrong, but what I've been hearing is that monopoly is ok because to have become a monopoly the monopolist, basically, had to be pretty bloody good at something, whatever, and, thus, deserves it's position.

There doesn't seem anything to argue - unless we want to get into ethics - but I was arguing the statement posted by Luiz.

"You seem to want to discuss irrelevant semantics."

Perhaps I was being too specific, but, if that's the case, we're both guilty.

As I said, I was addressing the statement, and then follows some quick changes as the original statement is ignored in order to win, I assume.

If you didn't want to discuss it, then say so

 

[10Seven]

10Seven: It's a joke. Obviously, we're not discussing why the youth is leftist anymore.

I hoped so because I thought it sounded really funny, but didn't want to say, else it would've been all negative, like

 

[luiz]

And isn't this already illegal?

But yes, you may be right. I'll have to think about it a little more from that angle.

In Brazil is illegal to work when you're below 14 years, but younger kids do work in certain rural areas and it's impossible to stop them.

 

[insurgent]

What I meant was that doesn't slavery legislation ban that already? Doesn't it make child labour legislation superfluous?

Besides, don't you think it is in the rational self-interest of a company not to use child labour? At least, don't you think it would be if the consumers were expected to take responsibility instead of await government intervention?

 

[luiz]

What I meant was that doesn't slavery legislation ban that already? Doesn't it make child labour legislation superfluous?

Besides, don't you think it is in the rational self-interest of a company not to use child labour? At least, don't you think it would be if the consumers were expected to take responsibility instead of await government intervention?

No, because slavery technically is working in a forced regime without monetary payment. The kids do not work on forced regimes and they do get paid, their parents are the ones forcing them to work, not the employer.

As for the second part of your paragraph, it would true be in society with highly aware people, but not in most societies.
We can't reasonably expect the consumers to always police the means of corporations.

 

[Archer 007]

So the commercial pleases them...
The decision of what is good and what isn't should be up to the consumers, not you or the government.

Very good point.

 

[Archer 007]

Nah. But I still can't help finding it interesting that you don't think that government should necessarily have a monopoly on police and security.

Right now, we have private sercurity companies that guard specific things (stadiums, banks, gated communties). I dont see why that couldnt work on a larger scale.

 

[Mise]

It's a bitter irony that you claim "young children" can't make rational decisions, when it is clear from both experience and observation that adults find making rational decisions difficult also.

It also confuses me when "liberals" make arguements that the market will automagically filter out all of the "bad" companies who e.g. exploit children, when in reality these are the largest companies in the world.

I don't really want to turn this into a different debate, but it is true to say that most if not all of the top 10 companies in the world engage in unfair practices. Microsoft antitrust immediately springs to mind. The invisible hand is fine when it comes to distributing goods, but it cannot determine what is moral or what is legal. While there have been many instances where the consumer has voted with their feet against immoral activities (such as the "embargo" against South African products), it still requires some sort of government intervention to prevent illegal practices. And don't tell me that simply keeping the court in government hands will solve anything. The US courts have been turning a blind eye to unfair practices since the 1980's at least.

 

[Mise]

But you seem to deviate from that belief when you say that free companies' means should not be judged by the consumers but by the government - by collectivists like Mise, who think their judgment og values and priorities supersede those of others

I must have missed this one. I resent being called a collectivist, and I certainly don't think my judgement is any better than others'. In fact, it is for this reason that the government should intervene, since on our own, we are often misinformed and misguided and thus make poor decisions. A democratically elected government OTOH has the benefit of the collective intelligence, experience and opinion of the entire population. In effect, it is a sort of "mini-market", which is capable of seeing the bigger picture. I believe that the free market is the best way to distribute goods. But when it comes to legislation, and making sure that companies play fairly, the government and not the individual is in the best position to judge, since its the government's job to know what a company is doing wrong, whereas the individual is only concerned with getting the best deal at the shops.

I don't know if this has already been said, since the debate has moved on a lot. But really, I just resent being called a "collectivist", whatever that means

 

[Evertonian]

Seriously, you seem very confused. In free and legal competition, the company that satisfies the consumer wins. That is the only relevant measure of efficiency. Whether you consider it "fair competition" or not.

Reading this, and other posts in the last couple of pages, it is clear there is some confusion about what efficiency means, and what advocates of the free market system claim are its benefits.

Efficiency means maximising the output from a particular amount of inputs. In the context of takeovers, which was being talked about, this is a very very different concept from having the liquid funds available to carry out a takeover. Look at the experience in the late 1990s, when some demonstrably inefficient companies were able to raise vast sums and carry out takeovers, an example here in Britain was Marconi for example, who went on an orgy of aquisition but their operations were very inefficient.

And the reasons that companies make profits are not down solely to consumer satisfaction. Market power, available liquidity, etc. all play a huge role in determining the success or otherwise of the subject. To suggest that consumers effectively vote for the products they buy is to fundementally misunderstand the psychology involved in shopping and consumption, and the evidence available on people's attitudes towards spending money.

On that subject, one of the greatest fallacies of the famous right wing economist Milton Friedman was that he made no distinction between companies who's object was to maximise profits and the companies that actually did when he likened the market to a Darwinian survival of the fittest operation.

The (extremely mainstream) Oxford University professor Nickell (who now sits on the committee that decides UK interest rates), wrote a paper in the late 80s/early 90s, which demonstrated that in a 2-firm industry, and normal economics assumptions applying, if one firm was a revenue maximiser and one firm was a profit maximiser then the revenue maximiser would make bigger profits. Friedman was wrong to assume profit maximisers automatically make the biggest profits even in the idealised world of economics. Thus the firm that doesn't maximise profits is more likely to be able to execute a takeover!

Yet this (and other) fallacies get introduced into debates like this, as if they were universaly recognisable truths, rather than things to be debated over.

 

[insurgent]

I must have missed this one. I resent being called a collectivist, and I certainly don't think my judgement is any better than others'. In fact, it is for this reason that the government should intervene, since on our own, we are often misinformed and misguided and thus make poor decisions.

Right, so you want some popular majority to dictate the choices of the minority. That is collectivism, democratic or not. And government is not always right. This has been discussed in this thread.

A democratically elected government OTOH has the benefit of the collective intelligence, experience and opinion of the entire population.

Seriously, that's rubbish.

But when it comes to legislation, and making sure that companies play fairly, the government and not the individual is in the best position to judge, since its the government's job to know what a company is doing wrong, whereas the individual is only concerned with getting the best deal at the shops.

Allow me to quote myself from an old thread:

Yeah, most people want that. The problem is that once you start intervening in the market, further intervention follows suit. If one problem with the market are solved by the government and not by free will and enterprise, people will turn to the government to solve the next problem as well. This is bad, as a government solution per se implies coercion, while the free market solution would be voluntary and beneficial to all parties (in that logically all voluntary transactions are beneficial to both trading parties).
This may seem a little complicated, but it can be explained rather easily. If the government intervenes to improve the economic position of a certain group in society - the poor for instance, it will do so, if it can find a majority to support it and a minority to pay for it. Consequently taxes will increase and a welfare programme will be started. The people who pay for this welfare programme now pay more in taxes. Where will they turn if they themselves need to solve some economic problem? The government of course. They will find some initiative for which they can get a majority to suppport, and get another minority to pay for. Consequently another government intervention follows and taxes rise. Of course, as this happens more, more people will be affected and the effect of this vicious circle intensify. Now, the same function applies to other kinds of intervention - the splitting up of monopolies for instance. If consumers expect the government to get rid of a monopoly for them, what are the chances of them trying to solve the problem themselves.
So, government solutions bring further government solutions. When there's a problem, ask the government, and it'll solve the problem for you. As this continues, people will find it harder to find any other solutions than those potentially provided by the government. People's attitudes change and they become inactive as they lose incentive to improve their own situation. The government becomes increasingly active.
That's just one of the reasons why the government always grows in size and oppressiveness. The bribery effect of welfare programmes is another. Another is the basic fact that politicians are per definition people who want to make decisions - even decisions that have nothing to do with themselves, and thus they will want their reach to grow, so they can solve more of the problems of us citizens of little knowledge.
That's happened in every single country on earth. Then, when reality strikes, the economy can suddenly collapse, and some countries have to alter their systems fundamentally. That happened in the Soviet Union, that happened in New Zealand, and that'll happen some day in Denmark and the rest of socialist Europe. The demographic problems, the migration problems and all that are symptomes of the upcoming collapse. We will have to rethink our economic systems fundamentally, and if we return to the roots of our Western civilisation and prosperity - the free will, enterprise, market, and individual responsibility, that is - then we will prosper once again. Whether we will have learned from our mistakes is doubtful. The same development will probably follow, but there will be some time of freedom. NZ is already heading down the same road they did until 1973 (the EU enlargement that included the UK and therefore forced NZ to liberalise her economy substantially) and the US, even though it was founded on principles of small government and freedom is heading the same way with constantly growing government.

In Denmark, there is a corporation that holds monopoly on milk production. Now, recently this company tried to increase prices substantially, and people were enraged. They wanted government intervention to split the monopoly "and give consumers a choice". Nothing happened on the market, people continued to buy the same milk as always, expecting the politicians to solve the problem. But the government said no, and refused to act, resulting in unpopularity and discontent among the voters. But then something happened. The consumers realised that they would have to solve the problem themselves, and suddenly all kinds of other dairy producers arose and took large market shares from the monopoly, forcing the monopoly to actually apologise and lower prices. Since, the monopoly has been broken - the company is still dominant, but it is not alone.
That reveals the true nature of a free market monopoly. It exists as long as the consumers want it - ie. they buy the products. If they want something else and are willing to act, alternatives will arise. Thus the monopoly cannot be exploited. There you see the difference between private enterprise solving a problem and government coercion doing it. This was just one example - in general when consumers in Denmark have a problem, legislation follows. Why the government drew a line in the sand in this particular case puzzles me. But you see, if individuals need to solve a problem and can only rely on themselves to do it, they will get it done. Voluntarily.

It's about consumer responsibility - individual responsibility as opposed to collective responsibility. Solutions that can be supplied by the free market should not be employed with coercion, and all that does is to limit freedom of choice and the free will and free enterprise. That is why you are a collectivist, whereas I am an individualist.

I don't know if this has already been said, since the debate has moved on a lot. But really, I just resent being called a "collectivist", whatever that means

Your opinions bear a clear trait of collectivism.

From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: col·lec·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: k&-'lek-ti-"vi-z&m
Function: noun
: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

Really, it's just the name with which liberal movements have branded its political opponents since Hayek.

 

[insurgent]

Reading this, and other posts in the last couple of pages, it is clear there is some confusion about what efficiency means, and what advocates of the free market system claim are its benefits.

Surely, a company can be efficient or inefficient at satisfying the consumer. That's what I'm interested in.

And the reasons that companies make profits are not down solely to consumer satisfaction. Market power, available liquidity, etc. all play a huge role in determining the success or otherwise of the subject. To suggest that consumers effectively vote for the products they buy is to fundementally misunderstand the psychology involved in shopping and consumption, and the evidence available on people's attitudes towards spending money.

All that is just great, but no matter how you disguise it and try to blur the nature of the whole thing, it all comes down to a consumer choice.

The (extremely mainstream) Oxford University professor Nickell (who now sits on the committee that decides UK interest rates), wrote a paper in the late 80s/early 90s, which demonstrated that in a 2-firm industry, and normal economics assumptions applying, if one firm was a revenue maximiser and one firm was a profit maximiser then the revenue maximiser would make bigger profits. Friedman was wrong to assume profit maximisers automatically make the biggest profits even in the idealised world of economics. Thus the firm that doesn't maximise profits is more likely to be able to execute a takeover!

And why is that? Because consumers have decided to buy the product of the revenue maximising company.

Yet this (and other) fallacies get introduced into debates like this, as if they were universaly recognisable truths, rather than things to be debated over.

You introduced the fallacy.

 

[luiz]

It's a bitter irony that you claim "young children" can't make rational decisions, when it is clear from both experience and observation that adults find making rational decisions difficult also.

It also confuses me when "liberals" make arguements that the market will automagically filter out all of the "bad" companies who e.g. exploit children, when in reality these are the largest companies in the world.

I don't really want to turn this into a different debate, but it is true to say that most if not all of the top 10 companies in the world engage in unfair practices. Microsoft antitrust immediately springs to mind. The invisible hand is fine when it comes to distributing goods, but it cannot determine what is moral or what is legal. While there have been many instances where the consumer has voted with their feet against immoral activities (such as the "embargo" against South African products), it still requires some sort of government intervention to prevent illegal practices. And don't tell me that simply keeping the court in government hands will solve anything. The US courts have been turning a blind eye to unfair practices since the 1980's at least.

If adults can't make rational decisions then who can? The government and its goons?

Individuals know what is best for them, not some bureaucrat stranger.

And yes, courts are able to do the job, but we need a bit more government: some entity to enforce the decision of the courts.

And this talk about "american courts are turning a blind eye to unfair practics" is either a meaningless rant or infantile anti-americanism.