Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Today, anti-corporatists want corporations to put some vague notion of
altruism ahead of profit, innovation, and investment. That's terribly
shortsighted. Capitalism has proven to be the best way of creating wealth
because it trusts that the collective wisdom millions of people voluntarily
engaging in millions of mutually-beneficial transactions every day is the best
way for an economy to allocate its resources."


Commentary, The Cato Institute, "Altruism? Bah, Humbug" by Radley Balko
December 24, 2004, http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-24-04.html

(Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute.)

--
..
"The Purpose and Limits of Government,"
by Roger Pilon, 1999 (PDF, screen optimized, 256 kb)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
(Hardcopy $1.00, call 800-767-1241)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Certainly true if you think monetary wealth is the only standard by which we
should judge humanity.



"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:41cc277b_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
> "Today, anti-corporatists want corporations to put some vague notion of
> altruism ahead of profit, innovation, and investment. That's terribly
> shortsighted. Capitalism has proven to be the best way of creating wealth
> because it trusts that the collective wisdom millions of people voluntarily
> engaging in millions of mutually-beneficial transactions every day is the
> best
> way for an economy to allocate its resources."
>
>
> Commentary, The Cato Institute, "Altruism? Bah, Humbug" by Radley Balko
> December 24, 2004, http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-24-04.html
>
> (Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute.)
>
> --
> .
> "The Purpose and Limits of Government,"
> by Roger Pilon, 1999 (PDF, screen optimized, 256 kb)
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
> (Hardcopy $1.00, call 800-767-1241)
>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

It is the primary tool by which all else can more easily be attained. Can
you be happy in a cave? Yes, I suppose you can, but happiness can be more
easily attained with the comforts of modern living that only money can
bring, all other things being equal.

"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2TVyd.5876$hc7.700@trnddc06...
> Certainly true if you think monetary wealth is the only standard by which
> we should judge humanity.
>
>
>
> "T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:41cc277b_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
>> "Today, anti-corporatists want corporations to put some vague notion of
>> altruism ahead of profit, innovation, and investment. That's terribly
>> shortsighted. Capitalism has proven to be the best way of creating wealth
>> because it trusts that the collective wisdom millions of people
>> voluntarily
>> engaging in millions of mutually-beneficial transactions every day is the
>> best
>> way for an economy to allocate its resources."
>>
>>
>> Commentary, The Cato Institute, "Altruism? Bah, Humbug" by Radley Balko
>> December 24, 2004, http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-24-04.html
>>
>> (Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute.)
>>
>> --
>> .
>> "The Purpose and Limits of Government,"
>> by Roger Pilon, 1999 (PDF, screen optimized, 256 kb)
>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
>> (Hardcopy $1.00, call 800-767-1241)
>>
>
>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Frank" <dontspamme@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:Y4Zyd.8655$RH4.7378@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> It is the primary tool by which all else can more easily be attained. Can
> you be happy in a cave? Yes, I suppose you can, but happiness can be more
> easily attained with the comforts of modern living that only money can
> bring, all other things being equal.
>

Ah, but there is the rub ... things being equal. We live in society where the
rich make the rules. Those rules aren't even close to equal. Start with a
"minimum wage" law that is far below what one person can live on "comfortably"
much less a family living with "the comforts of modern living". Again, I do
not dispute the investors and owners should profit ... the dispute is the
level of profit. I am uncomfortable with a society of our level of
"civilization" that still has huge gaps in housing, healthcare, employment,
education, etc. I think this could be changed without significantly
impoverishing the capitalistic system. And forget about all the "communist,
socialist, etc." labels that most immediately resort to ... there are ways to
make a democratic republic work properly without bowing completely to the
capitalist money mongers. I suspect investigating and fixing our system of
"lobbyists" and "campaign finance" would be a good start. Our representative
government shouldn't go to the highest bidder. Representatives should be
forced to honestly represent.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>
>Ah, but there is the rub ... things being equal. We live in society where
>the
>rich make the rules. Those rules aren't even close to equal. Start with a
>"minimum wage" law that is far below what one person can live on
>"comfortably"
>much less a family living with "the comforts of modern living". Again, I do
>not dispute the investors and owners should profit ... the dispute is the
>level of profit. I

And from the result of all these low wages going around we the tax payer have
to make up for it by making food stamps and governmental substidized housing
possible. If someone has a kid or so and making at or near minimum wage, it's
real easy to get.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Boomerlake" <boomerlake@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20041224142834.23218.00002480@mb-m03.aol.com...
>
> And from the result of all these low wages going around we the tax payer
> have
> to make up for it by making food stamps and governmental substidized housing
> possible. If someone has a kid or so and making at or near minimum wage,
> it's
> real easy to get.

I think there are only a few of the hard hearted who would deny the
necessities to someone truly in need. If anything, the last election was
perhaps a referendum on just those values. Yet many believe there is too much
"welfare" ... too many "handouts" to easily had. I believe that over the
years we have been applying these "band aid" fixes to poverty rather than
addressing the root problem. A living wage. It is absolutely wrong for
anyone working a full time job to rely on food stamps to feed their family.
We shouldn't be subsidizing business in this manner through the taxpayer.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>
>I think there are only a few of the hard hearted who would deny the
>necessities to someone truly in need. If anything, the last election was
>perhaps a referendum on just those values. Yet many believe there is too
>much
>"welfare" ... too many "handouts" to easily had. I believe that over the
>years we have been applying these "band aid" fixes to poverty rather than
>addressing the root problem. A living wage. It is absolutely wrong for
>anyone working a full time job to rely on food stamps to feed their family.
>We shouldn't be subsidizing business in this manner through the taxpayer.
>

Agree. But the people who complain the loudest about welfare are likely to be
elected Republicans who don't want to hear anything about raising the minimum
wage, much less about a living wage. For instance here's what the conservative
Daily Oklahoman thinks about a living wage as expressed in a recent editorial:

JOB KILLER: WAGE LAWS MANIPULATE MARKETS

As euphemisms go, "living wage" is a dandy -- right up there with "pregnancy
termination" for abortion. The "living wage" is merely the minimum wage dressed
in more appealing colors. Its chief advocate is the Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which has had some success in getting
cities, counties and other government entities to create local minimum-wage
rules. Last week in Oklahoma City, the Citizens League of Central Oklahoma held
a forum to discuss the concept of local minimum wage laws. This was mostly an
academic discussion because, as one panelist noted, there is little chance of
the concept being adopted around here any time soon.

For good reason. Unlike the federal minimum-wage law, which applies everywhere,
local living-wage ordinances can be easily avoided by relocating across a
municipal boundary. They can also hurt the poor by driving up prices. They
impose an artificial value on labor rather than a market value.

If there's to be a minimum wage for Oklahoma City, why not a maximum wage? Or
why not set the living wage at $30 an hour? Why not price controls? They're
another form of artificial manipulation of the marketplace.

Besides the many economic arguments against the living wage, there is a
philosophical dimension: Should the government arbitrarily decide what labor is
worth to a business?

Perhaps the best argument against the living wage is one made by ACORN itself
in the mid-1990s. The organization filed suit in California seeking to exempt
itself from paying minimum wage to its own employees. ACORN, which lost its
legal battle, said higher wages would force it to hire fewer workers and thus
be less effective as an advocate.

"That is precisely the point employers and economists have been making in
vain," conservative syndicated columnist Jeff Jacoby noted at the time.
"Minimum-wage laws kill jobs."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Business cries all the time about every thing that they have to do.
They cried about seat belts but it did not hurt. They cried about the
family medical leave act but it has had no mesurable negitive effect.
When the min wage goes up they always say it will cost jobs but it
never does. Business men LIE all the time.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Boomerlake" <boomerlake@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20041224204726.12272.00002680@mb-m28.aol.com...
>
> Agree. But the people who complain the loudest about welfare are likely to
> be
> elected Republicans who don't want to hear anything about raising the
> minimum
> wage, much less about a living wage. For instance here's what the
> conservative
> Daily Oklahoman thinks about a living wage as expressed in a recent
> editorial:
>
> JOB KILLER: WAGE LAWS MANIPULATE MARKETS
>
They
> impose an artificial value on labor rather than a market value.
>

This is the capitalists' mantra ... place a "market value" on a person's
ability to make a living. The simple fact is that capitalists would have us
work for free if they could figure out how to do it. There really is no way
to let "the market" work in this manner unless ALL participants are free in
their actions. This complete freedom would be called anarchy by most educated
people. So we make rules and regulate trade ... a part of which is human
labor. Unfortunately we have never insisted on government taking care of all
the participants, merely those with the resources to buy off the government.
Imagine if business had to build it's own infrastructure and provide it's own
protection ... instead of the taxpayer footing those bills. Imagine if we
determined that ALL employees of a company had to receive a decent wage? It
would be a different world. It can't happen unless the majority of us take
interest and make an effort.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Charity and Minimum Wage is the responsibility of the society we live
in, not Government.
If it is reasonable to set a minimum wage it is also reasonable to
set a maximum wage. If done so how would free choice exist? Doesn't that
sound like we are trading our freedom for security?
The reason individual charity has declined is that Government has
institutionalized the art of giving and then reaping the rewards of
charity (welfare programs).
Oh, for the return of true capitalism.
and stop hiding our responsibilities in the labyrinth called
Government.

Common-cents says "Freedom without Responsibility
is an illusion".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"gary baldwin" <common-cents@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24595-41CD99AF-1532@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net...
> Charity and Minimum Wage is the responsibility of the society we live
> in, not Government.
> If it is reasonable to set a minimum wage it is also reasonable to
> set a maximum wage. If done so how would free choice exist? Doesn't that
> sound like we are trading our freedom for security?
> The reason individual charity has declined is that Government has
> institutionalized the art of giving and then reaping the rewards of
> charity (welfare programs).
> Oh, for the return of true capitalism.
> and stop hiding our responsibilities in the labyrinth called
> Government.

Our government provides the framework of rules which our society lives within.
Our government is supposed to represent the people of our society ... not just
those who happen to run corporations ... all of them. Minimum wage is not
charity. It is the least amount a worker shall earn for providing labor. If
a person cannot live and raise a family on that wage, then society, in one
form or another, be it government or otherwise ... must either support that
family or provide for the means to bury them after they starve or freeze to
death. It is reasonable to set a maximum wage. I would personally love to
see the maximum set at 20 times. So if the CEO, owner, or whomever wants to
take more money home and you can only take home 20 times the amount of the
least paid employee ... you have to raise his/her wages to raise your own. I
see very little connection between creating effective wage laws and free
choice. Again, I am not advocating making the rich destitute, just a bit less
rich. I don't suppose the Gates, Waltons, or other gazillionaires will ever
spend all their money anyway.

"and stop hiding our responsibilities" ... and who decides what those might
be. You? Me? A government which represents the capitalist? A government
which represents ALL of its' constituants? It is all good and well to paint
some drab picture of minimum wage earners as lazy-good-for-nothings ... but
that view doesn't represent reality. Many people work long hours at manual
labor for little pay. They have no hope of owning their own homes or sending
their children to college. Yet those same jobs paid 3-4 times as much just 15
years ago. Many of our manufacturing jobs don't even exist in this country
anymore. So whose "responsibility" is it to keep America's economy rich and
viable for ALL Americans?

The bottom line is that our elected representatives are doing a poor job of
governing. I personally think that is because they must collect millions of
dollars to run their election campaigns and they turn to the most affluent in
our society to get the money. Therefore they represent the most affluent in
most of their decisions.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> I would personally love to
> see the maximum set at 20 times.

That is the surest way to send the American economy flushing right down one
gigantic toilet. What an assine view, truly assinine.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Frank" <dontspamme@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:LYRzd.10161$RH4.8218@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> I would personally love to
>> see the maximum set at 20 times.
>
> That is the surest way to send the American economy flushing right down one
> gigantic toilet. What an assine view, truly assinine.
>

Gosh it sure is nice to have a discussion isn't it. And who died and made you
the economic expert?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Michael Legel wrote:
> "Frank" <dontspamme@anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:LYRzd.10161$RH4.8218@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>>I would personally love to
>>>see the maximum set at 20 times.
>>
>>That is the surest way to send the American economy flushing right down one
>>gigantic toilet. What an assine view, truly assinine.
>>
>
>
> Gosh it sure is nice to have a discussion isn't it. And who died and made you
> the economic expert?
>
>
Oh, he's not an economics expert. But he sure seems to know a lot about
toilet flushing. No doubt that's were his compassion and social
responsibility went.
Go figure...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> That is the surest way to send the American economy flushing right down
one
> gigantic toilet. What an assine view, truly assinine.

Yep, truly asinine, one ore two of the kids living in absolute luxury,
the rest living on the street, in prison, sucided, refused healthcare etc.
A few dollars in the bank! that is one way to maintain an economy
I suppose.

However, there are many of us who believe, as the boss once said,
"No one wins unless everybody wins."

pjl

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged