$640.00 to fill the tanks...

Jay Honeck wrote:
Exactly. And it is sad to say, but public (government) schools are
doing a fine job of insuring new generations will go forth with
limited understanding of the real power of economic freedom and
just how precious it is to maintain.


Actually -- so far -- the schools in Iowa City have done a pretty good
job of teaching the free-market system to my kids. Of course, this is
done with an undertone of self-consciousness -- as if they are somehow
ashamed to live in a capitalist system -- and there is always the
message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
crush the weak and weary.

Luckily, the kids spend many hours each week in the "real world",
working at the hotel. There, they can see life as it really is, in bold
relief -- sometimes in ways that their school teachers could never
dream of...

True. It is unfortunate, but unionized teachers are about as insulated
from the real world as it gets. Only politicians are more insulated.

Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

Actually -- so far -- the schools in Iowa City have done a pretty good
job of teaching the free-market system to my kids. Of course . . .
. . . . there is always the
message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
crush the weak and weary.

Well, I should think you'd want them taught "the facts of life". The
final sentence above is pretty much an emperically proven fact, is it
not?

I'm not putting down the free market system or capitalism in saying
this; not at all. I believe the underlying laws of free market
economics are demonstrated economic (and/or psychological) principles,
more or less as valid, universal, reliable, and inescapable as the laws
of physics that I know a fair amount about.

And I'm also in full agreement with, was it Churchill?, who supposedly
once said something like: "Democratic capitalism is not a particularly
good social or economic system. It's just substantially better than any
other social system that mankind has come up with." True enough, then
and now.

But when Free Market Economics turns into, not a set of economic laws to
help shape our broader policy making, but into an ideology, a economic
theology, before which we're all supposed to bow down -- that's bad news.

When FME becomes an economic religion which, as interpreted by its
acolytes and ayatollahs is supposed to reign dominant over every other
consideration in our lives, then indeed a lot of crushing of the weak,
the weary, the unfortunate, the innocent -- not to mention a lot of
exploitation of them and others -- is certain to result.

AES wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:


Actually -- so far -- the schools in Iowa City have done a pretty good
job of teaching the free-market system to my kids. Of course . . .
. . . . there is always the
message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
crush the weak and weary.


Well, I should think you'd want them taught "the facts of life". The
final sentence above is pretty much an emperically proven fact, is it
not?

I'm not putting down the free market system or capitalism in saying
this; not at all. I believe the underlying laws of free market
economics are demonstrated economic (and/or psychological) principles,
more or less as valid, universal, reliable, and inescapable as the laws
of physics that I know a fair amount about.

I think part of the problem is that no economy is ever completely
capitalistic. For one thing, many "costs" aren't easily quantifiable or
assigned to the entity that created those costs. That is one reason
that "pure" capitalism tends to not be very nice to the environment.
The costs of pollution historically haven't been borne by the polluters.
I realize that Germany, as one example, is trying to change this with
their "cradle to grave" responsibility that a company bears for its
products. I suspect that this will have a profound effect over time.
If the makers of things that pollute have to bear all of those costs,
then capitalism is still very effective, even at preventing pollution.

So, I still think capitalism is a pretty good system, the problem is
that we seldom truly practice capitalism, and I don't think it is even
possible to do so.


Matt

Of course . . .
there is always the
message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
crush the weak and weary.

Well, I should think you'd want them taught "the facts of life". The
final sentence above is pretty much an emperically proven fact, is it
not?

Capitalism is ruthlessly fair. It treats everyone the same, regardless
of race, creed, or political affiliation. It is the ultimate
democracy, and its basic rules are immutable.

It does not suffer fools gladly, however. Folks who ignore what is
happening around them get steam-rolled by events, in a capitalist
system.

I'm up against it every day, in my business. Two days ago, a $60
million (that's not a typo) Marriott Hotel opened up less than 5 miles
away -- and our phone stopped ringing. We went from having a
gangbusters August, to being behind last year, in two days.

The fact that this hotel was built entirely with taxpayer's money, by
the City of Coralville, might surprise you. On the other hand, in a
socialist area like the one I live in, this kind of thing happens all
the time. (The University of Iowa has a government-built-and-owned
hotel, the Iowa House. They also have a government-owned-and-operated
daily newspaper, the Daily Iowan, that I used to compete against in my
previous life.)

The local Sheraton -- itself the beneficiary of almost unbelieveable
tax breaks -- filed suit against the City of Coralville, to stop this
obviously illegal undertaking by a local city government. Incredibly,
the case went all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court, and the courts
ruled that there was no law prohibiting an Iowa city from building a
hotel. So, the case was thrown out, and we are now fighting for our
lives against an additional 285 suites (we have 28) in a market that no
independent business felt was necessary to build.

Is this fair? Will the Marriott kill us? Will we survive the next two
years, between them and the new $80 million dollar casino hotel they're
building just south of town? I have no idea -- but I'll keep swinging
for the fences in the meantime.

That's capitalism -- and I don't want my kids teachers sugar-coating
it. All that will do is weaken them for their upcoming battle, in a
field called "life".
--
Jay Honeck
Owner/Innkeeper
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

Capitalism is ruthlessly fair. It treats everyone the same, regardless
of race, creed, or political affiliation. It is the ultimate
democracy, and its basic rules are immutable.

No, it is not.

Capitalism is sort of mostly fair when it's practiced by equals. But
capitalism makes some powerful and some not. The next generation
inherets this, and at that point it becomes inherently unfair.

Small companies are far more influenced by individuals than large ones.
This allows large ones to get away with more. If they become large
enough to become monopolistic and get away with it, the key has been
thrown out.

Large companies can purchase more votes than small ones, or individuals,
and those votes keep them large and influential, despite any quality
issues with their products. WalMart, with its decrees about RFID tags,
may well be the biggest threat to privacy there is, but it is largely
unstoppable because there is little of equivalent size with sufficient
coherency to fight it.

Capitalism is also about passing costs on to others, who cannot defend
themselves against such a large entity. Dumping waste upstream harms
all those downstream, but those downstream have little recourse against
the capitalists upstream, especially when they are not in the market for
the product in the first place. This is inherently unfair. Outsourcing
is also "capitalism at work", yet has been derided as "unfair", both to
American workers, and to the foreign ecosystem.

But that's the way unrestrained capitalism works.

Some restraints are necessary. The key is which ones, and preventing
unrestrained government from becoming the evil we are trying to avoid
with unrestrained capitalism.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

Capitalism is ruthlessly fair. It treats everyone the same, regardless
of race, creed, or political affiliation. It is the ultimate
democracy, and its basic rules are immutable.


No, it is not.

Capitalism is sort of mostly fair when it's practiced by equals. But
capitalism makes some powerful and some not. The next generation
inherets this, and at that point it becomes inherently unfair.

Small companies are far more influenced by individuals than large ones.
This allows large ones to get away with more. If they become large
enough to become monopolistic and get away with it, the key has been
thrown out.

Large companies can purchase more votes than small ones, or individuals,
and those votes keep them large and influential, despite any quality
issues with their products. WalMart, with its decrees about RFID tags,
may well be the biggest threat to privacy there is, but it is largely
unstoppable because there is little of equivalent size with sufficient
coherency to fight it.

Nobody forces anybody to shop at Wal-Mart. If people are worried about
their privacy, they can simply shop elsewhere. That will correct the
problem quickly.

Matt

Nobody forces anybody to shop at Wal-Mart. If people are worried about their privacy, they can simply shop elsewhere. That will correct the problem quickly.

That works, so long as there is an "elsewhere". As the larger companies
gobble up the smaller ones, the number of "elsewheres" diminishes, and
the power of the individual to affect WalMart by shopping elsewhere
diminishes. It is an unstable slope with a stable end point - Walmart
or nothing.

As for privacy, you missed the point entirely. The scenario is: Walmart
requires RFID tags. Companies respond by putting them in all their
products (because it's cheaper to put it in everywhere than it is to
selectively leave them out). So, even if you buy from the corner drug
store, you walk around with an RFID tag on everything.

It's not here yet, but it's very close.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Nobody forces anybody to shop at Wal-Mart. If people are worried
about their privacy, they can simply shop elsewhere. That will
correct the problem quickly.


That works, so long as there is an "elsewhere". As the larger companies
gobble up the smaller ones, the number of "elsewheres" diminishes, and
the power of the individual to affect WalMart by shopping elsewhere
diminishes. It is an unstable slope with a stable end point - Walmart
or nothing.

That was said about IBM before DEC and Microsoft came along. And DEC
before Dell came along. And GM before Toyota came along. And Toyota
before Hyundai came along...


As for privacy, you missed the point entirely. The scenario is: Walmart
requires RFID tags. Companies respond by putting them in all their
products (because it's cheaper to put it in everywhere than it is to
selectively leave them out). So, even if you buy from the corner drug
store, you walk around with an RFID tag on everything.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. The point is you have choices and
can use the free market system to fight back. Will it cause you some
inconvenience? Most likely. The point is that capitalism provides a
solution to the privacy problem, it just isn't as easy as whinning about
the problem.


It's not here yet, but it's very close.

As someone who is working with RFID technology, it isn't as capable as
many in the media have made it out to be.


Matt

Jose wrote:

Capitalism is sort of mostly fair when it's practiced by equals. But
capitalism makes some powerful and some not. The next generation
inherets this, and at that point it becomes inherently unfair.

Nothing in life guarantees you "fairness". Just exactly what is 'fair'?
What you define or what Jay defines it as... or what the government
defines it as... what how Fidel Castro defines it as?

Sorry, but whenever someone intervenes into the 'fairness' game
things go to hell.

Nothing in life guarantees you "fairness".

True enough. But the claim was made that capitalism is "fair". I
refute that claim. Nothing more.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.