Hi,
As for the rest, " . . . well, you know, we all want to save the world . . ." Trouble is, everyone has his own plan, and too few are willing to compromise. So the pendulum swings, pausing at the extremes and spending little time at the balanced medium. And the talking heads, the pundits, the social and political demagogues, blow every little item out of proportion to the point that no consensus can be reached, no compromise can be agreed on, and no progress can be made.
Bah. /rant off
--Pete
Quote:Perhaps it is a false dichotomy, and I realize there is much gray area, but it strikes to some of the truths that Marx was philosophically wrestling.The problem is that in Marx's time, organized labor was being suppressed by the governments of the industrial nations. Because of the extreme conditions, Marx was only able to see extreme solutions. Surrounded by the excesses of unbounded capitalism, the only solution he saw was to abolish it completely. He never did work out the potential of labor and management, each needing the other, to work together in a dynamic equilibrium. Instead, he came up with a simple, easy to understand, *wrong*, answer. Like so many, he failed to understand that the right question is not, "What is the solution?", but rather, "What are the solutions?"
Quote:Those who follow the rules get burnt, while those that cheat the system win.And from this, you conclude that the system is wrong? That is not a logical conclusion -- the failure of a system that is not being followed tells you nothing of the system, only of the people in it.
Quote: . . . we are trying to provide the same product with fewer people. This means that as an employee you are expected to do the work of two people (60 - 80 hour weeks) at the same or slightly higher salary.Maybe so, maybe not. A worker with a front loader can move a lot more dirt than one with a wheelbarrow, and doesn't have to work as hard to do it. Ditto for the factory workers equipped with modern machinery as opposed to hand tools. Productivity is a function of much more than hours worked. "Work smarter, not harder.", is a trite cliché, but true nonetheless.
Quote: . . . like remove corporate / business taxes . . .I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them on to their customers. So if our industry is taxed and the competition isn't, then the competition has an unfair advantage. On the other hand, corporations are taxed on profits. Since the corporation would rather keep the money, they are better off expanding and improving, which is to the nation's benefit. On odd numbered days I'm pro corporate taxes, on even I'm con, and on leap day I don't give a damn. ;)
Quote: . . . streamline or remove as many regulations on business as is possible.Funny, but while I totally agree with this statement, I suspect if we started to discuss specific cases, you and I would soon part company on the details. Except for extremists on either side, I suspect everyone wants regulated business, but only with the minimum regulations needed. What that minimum is, however, has sparked riots and revolutions in the past. And may do so again in the future. (I live in Seattle -- think WTO.)
As for the rest, " . . . well, you know, we all want to save the world . . ." Trouble is, everyone has his own plan, and too few are willing to compromise. So the pendulum swings, pausing at the extremes and spending little time at the balanced medium. And the talking heads, the pundits, the social and political demagogues, blow every little item out of proportion to the point that no consensus can be reached, no compromise can be agreed on, and no progress can be made.
Bah. /rant off
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?