Try what? Social capitalism found in Europe? That works well when they can
export, but not so well when U.S. exports are competitive and U.S. consumer
spending falls.
Capitalist ideals did not stop in 1787, they have been built upon and
refined using John Locke, David Codero et al as the basis for the evolution
of capitalism. Capitalism has changed much in the past 300 years. It is best
form yet right now.
For years, the left derided corporations and capitalists for not helping he
third world. Now that the third world is becoming the global manufacturing
base and its standard of living is rising, they cry fouls as unskilled and
semi-skilled U.S. workers suffer. You can't have it both ways, unless you
have a centrally planned economy. The results of which is equal misery for
everyone (except the ruling intellectual elite). Take a look at most left
leaning organizations. They are led by those from elite academia and
supported by those with barely adequate educations. This is like a master
and a dog.
The elite want to have the power to decide who gets thrown what scraps from
the table and labor fights to be first in line for the scraps. I have
friends who are very intelligent and have advanced degrees and they think
that its horrible and unfair as their much less intelligent plumber makes
more than they.
That disrupts their hierarchy and makes them unnecessary. Do not doubt for a
second that this is the attitude of the academic left.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pindell, Tim P" <TPindell@otterbein.edu>
To: <dml@dakota-truck.net>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 3:52 PM
Subject: RE: DML: Made in China
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
>> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of
>> Tom Byrne
>> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 2:04 PM
>> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
>> Subject: Re: DML: Made in China
>>
>>
>> Though Jon may be right of center, he is not entirely
>> incorrect. The government SHOULD let markets function and set
>> prices and wages. Tim, you bash 18th century ideals. There
>> was a great article this week in the Wall Street Journal as
>> to why the far left shuns history. The author has his own
>> ideas and I will let the reader decide if he is right, but I
>> do see the left deride history as either irrelevant or dangerous.
>>
>> Tell me, why is 18th century precedent worse than 20th
>> century precedent. I would argue that the libertine society
>> set forth by our founding fathers in the 18th century was
>> much better than Marxism developed in the 19th Century or
>> extreme Soviet-style socialism of the 20th century. Newer
>> ideas are not always better ideas.
>>
>> New products, services and governments fail all the time, yet
>> some age-old ideas still hold true today. Thomas Jefferson (a
>> Federalist mind you) said it best: "That government is best
>> which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
>>
>
> "But that doesn't mean that some of the things we've learned from [the
> 18th century] aren't worth keeping or that we can't learn and add to our
> understanding as time moves on." I didn't think that was bashing. Just
> stating that 18th-century history isn't all there is to know. There were
> some great ideas there. Of course, we must keep those. We didn't stop
> making history in 1787, nor did we stop advancing our understanding.
> Why toss out 230 years of history?
>
> I never argued that the government should set prices and wages, I simply
> voiced my disgust at wanton greed and corruption and questioned whether
> or not the higher pay was worth the risk. That makes me completely
> far-left now?
>
> I'm not going to defend the far left. Extremists are dangerous no
> matter who they are. History is far from irrelevant or dangerous. It's
> facinating to see where we came from! Take a few semesters of Western
> Civilization! There is plenty we can learn from it (just don't
> cherry-pick the good parts.) However, why toss out new things as we
> learn them? Marxism and Socialism failed. Great. Now we know. How about
> we not do that? We've got a much better method, of course. If there
> exists a good idea, let's keep it. If there is something else that
> might be more effective, let's do it. If it doesn't work very well,
> let's try something else. I don't see why this is a big deal.
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 02 2008 - 02:10:10 EST