johnson1010 wrote:Yes, Walmart not being in your community is a good thing. Yes, paying more by not shopping at walmart is a good thing. Have you really ever thought about the fact that you can buy a pair of shoes for 15 bucks? What are the implications there? If you learned how to make a shoe, how much would you want to be paid for the effort? How much is reasonable? Assembly lines can drastically reduce the cost of doing business, but ultimately there are people out there who are putting in sweat and effort to produce these goods. In sweat shops actually.

Johnson, turning the tables on your comment, have you really ever thought about the fact that the global median income is about $3 a day?

Thats right. Half the people living on our planet exist on less than $3 per day, although in purchasing power parity terms $3 buys a lot more in poor countries than it does in the rich world. But still, in the USA ten times that amount is still very poor.

So, you have to think about the consequences of your moral call to ban sweat shops. The alternative for poor people in China and wherever is to go back to subsistence agriculture, working as a peasant on a tiny plot, dependent on the rain to avoid starvation, tied to the soil with no hope of change.

For people in such circumstances, factory employment to provide your $15 shoes is an improvement on their real alternative. As well, industrial production builds their skills and wealth, giving them the potential to educate their children so they can be as productive as rich people, and eventually as wealthy.

You call for protection of high cost US producers, such as cobblers. The moral result of such protection is that you are saying to someone in China, even though you are willing to provide the same product for much lower cost, you are banned from doing so because of geography. That is not just.

The challenge for the US to retain its wealth is to invest in human capital, so that people can still be just as wealthy within a free market. If people don't want to work at Walmart, they can get an education which will enable them to find a better job.

When cars replaced horses and when other technological improvements came along, some people lost out in the disruption of change. Supermarkets are a far more efficient retail system than many traditional markets. In Asia, there is a supermarket revolution because people appreciate the convenience, safety, standards, quality, value, freshness and range. It makes things tough for traditional market sellers, but it produces overall economic growth which means people can adapt and find new lines of employment at a higher level. It is just this sort of change that has driven rich countries towards a focus on high value services rather than low value production, for which other countries now have a comparative advantage. Economics by romance is not rational.

Robert Tulip wrote:So, you have to think about the consequences of your moral call to ban sweat shops.

Has he actually argued that they should be banned? I haven't read the entire thread, maybe he has... but what I've seen is an argument that you shouldn't shop at WalMart not that you shouldn't have the option of shopping at WalMart.

The alternative for poor people in China and wherever is to go back to subsistence agriculture, working as a peasant on a tiny plot, dependent on the rain to avoid starvation, tied to the soil with no hope of change.

Really? That's it - WalMart on the one hand and perpetually rolling in the dirt on the other? I think there's at least a third option, and one that is a reasonable one - highly regulated markets. After all, who doesn't want regulation? Does Big Pharma, say, argue that patent protection should be done away with? Maybe so, but I doubt it. Regulation brings more freedom than does handing the keys over to WalMart, Monsanto and so on...

For people in such circumstances, factory employment to provide your $15 shoes is an improvement on their real alternative. As well, industrial production builds their skills and wealth, giving them the potential to educate their children so they can be as productive as rich people, and eventually as wealthy.

My perception is that over the last 40 years or so the middle class in the the US, UK and western europe has tended to drift more to the lower rather than the higher class... which if true makes your above statement seem far too optimistic. There will always be peasants to exploit... and today's cheap labor will be tomorrow's victims of cheap labor if they're even that lucky.

You call for protection of high cost US producers, such as cobblers. The moral result of such protection is that you are saying to someone in China, even though you are willing to provide the same product for much lower cost, you are banned from doing so because of geography. That is not just.

No, what I am saying (nopt speaking for Johnson) is that it is being said to WalMart et al... and again with the banned... there doesn't have to be a ban when a fee will do.

Robert Tulip wrote:


The challenge for the US to retain its wealth is to invest in human capital, so that people can still be just as wealthy within a free market. If people don't want to work at Walmart, they can get an education which will enable them to find a better job.

When cars replaced horses and when other technological improvements came along, some people lost out in the disruption of change. Supermarkets are a far more efficient retail system than many traditional markets. In Asia, there is a supermarket revolution because people appreciate the convenience, safety, standards, quality, value, freshness and range. It makes things tough for traditional market sellers, but it produces overall economic growth which means people can adapt and find new lines of employment at a higher level. It is just this sort of change that has driven rich countries towards a focus on high value services rather than low value production, for which other countries now have a comparative advantage. Economics by romance is not rational.

A question Robert: When developing countries have the capability, and the educated work forces, to design software, build spacecraft, high speed trains, and all the other items previously limited to western countries, what sort of investments and education will provide us continuing wealth? Under an globalized free market, why provide any new technology or service at western prices when it could be done for so much less in China, India, or others in similar states of authoritarian government or urgent demographic need?

etudiant wrote:A question Robert: When developing countries have the capability, and the educated work forces, to design software, build spacecraft, high speed trains, and all the other items previously limited to western countries, what sort of investments and education will provide us continuing wealth? Under an globalized free market, why provide any new technology or service at western prices when it could be done for so much less in China, India, or others in similar states of authoritarian government or urgent demographic need?

If poor countries achieve the level of productivity of the rich world, then the level of abundance in rich countries will be even greater due to trade. My opinion is that our planet has resources to enable wealth for all, and that growth in one country enables trade, and is good for growth in other countries.

As an example in response to your suggestion that the rich world might lose out from growing wealth in the poor world, at the moment, mining companies working in poor countries choose to bring in high level experts from rich countries. If they could source the same level of expertise locally, they would, as they are driven by profit. In a just economy, income reflects productivity. If shareholders assess that a CEO has delivered exceptional leadership, then that CEO deserves exceptional pay. It is not for outsiders to judge pay scales, since the shareholders set remuneration with a view to maximising profit.

There will always be opportunities for people of talent and drive. Any population that thinks it can bludge is headed for poverty.

Australia has a long list of occupations available for skilled immigrants. If there were too many Australians with skills and qualifications in these fields, they would not be open to foreigners.

I don't think that authoritarian government is capable of achieving prosperity. China is something of an exception, but they are reaching a tipping point where the population will demand democratic processes. Wealth brings demand for accountability.

My view is that new technology will enable abundant low cost energy, and new occupations will emerge to tap growing global wealth.

Kevin wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:So, you have to think about the consequences of your moral call to ban sweat shops.

Has he actually argued that they should be banned?

That was an inference I drew from Johnson's post, that the moral evil of Nike-style inequality should not be allowed, and a new crusade is needed like the abolition of slavery.

WalMart on the one hand and perpetually rolling in the dirt on the other? I think there's at least a third option, and one that is a reasonable one - highly regulated markets.

Property rights can only be protected through regulation, or by a return to Dark Ages methods of anarchy constrained by local force. The big question in Atlas Shrugged is the risk of pernicious regulation with collusion between populist governments and cartels. If a government regulates to force a private firm to trade with one supplier or customer and not with another, without any objective basis of demonstrable harm from allowing free trade, it opens the door to injustice.

Your call for 'highly regulated markets' is something I agree with regarding harmful products, or areas of genuine need for restriction such as protection of biodiversity, but apart from those type of areas firms should be free to trade on a level playing field based on their own commercial interests. Once governments start to distort markets they are on the path of rent-seeking, socialism, stagnation and corruption.

My perception is that over the last 40 years or so the middle class in the the US, UK and western europe has tended to drift more to the lower rather than the higher class.

And is that perceived hollowing out of the middle class due to too much objectivism or not enough? I suspect the latter. If we encouraged competition, we would provide incentive for growth, with resulting demand for more goods and services, through a middle class able to supply them.

In fact, the income and wealth of all quintiles has grown. Perceptions of middle class decline are not supported by census statistics in the USA. Since 1967, the median household income in the United States has risen by 31%

today's cheap labor will be tomorrow's victims of cheap labor if they're even that lucky.

What a dismal view you have Kevin! There is a common tendency to generalise from hard luck stories, ignoring the statistics that show things are generally improving. If tomorrow people are unwilling to work for low wages, it will only be because their skills and productivity have risen so they can obtain something better. Hardly victims.

there doesn't have to be a ban when a fee will do.

So you propose a tariff barrier to trade like the current unjust arrangements that support the US bloated farm lobby. That sort of protectionism is a beggar thy neighbour policy that has the same effect as a ban, and that actually does harm to the buyer by denying them the right to obtain goods from the most efficient producer.

johnson1010 wrote: As one conquering business moves on to the next mom-and-pop it becomes easier and easier to dominate them. Fairness does't come into play here.

What do you mean by "fairness" anyways?

johnson1010 wrote:Have you really ever thought about the fact that you can buy a pair of shoes for 15 bucks? What are the implications there? If you learned how to make a shoe, how much would you want to be paid for the effort? How much is reasonable? Assembly lines can drastically reduce the cost of doing business, but ultimately there are people out there who are putting in sweat and effort to produce these goods.

How much is reasonable, is determined by the market. How much are people willing to pay or are willing to work for, how much do people value the product/service/business, many factors, mechanisms involved in the market. If someone is willing to make shoes for $4.00 an hour, there is absolutely nothing wrong, evil, immoral, nor illegal with that in Rand's laisez-faire capitalism, since no ones rights are being violated. But if the government were to step in and tell them they have to pay them a minimum of $8.00, that is in violation of a businesses right to set their own wage rate, and against the right of a person to be able to work for $4.00.

Robert Tulip wrote:Property rights can only be protected through regulation

Support that claim.

In Rand's laissez-faire capitalism, property rights are protected through government which bans the initiation of the use of force.

Mr A wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Property rights can only be protected through regulation

Support that claim.
In Rand's laissez-faire capitalism, property rights are protected through government which bans the initiation of the use of force.

Mr A, your comment here illustrates how words mean different things to different people. "Regulation" is used in economic literature to mean much the same as "rule of law". For example, a government banning the use of force has to use its legal powers to do so, through regulation. Wikipedia defines regulation as "a legal provision that creates, limits, or constrains a right, creates or limits a duty, or allocates a responsibility." This clearly includes creation of property rights.

Regulation can be good or bad. In Atlas Shrugged, the regulations used to control Rearden's and Taggart's enterprises are bad, but the implication is not that there is no need for government. Rather it is that government should regulate well to enable free enterprise prosperity and competition, for example through protection of property rights.

And is that perceived hollowing out of the middle class due to too much objectivism or not enough? I suspect the latter. If we encouraged competition, we would provide incentive for growth, with resulting demand for more goods and services, through a middle class able to supply them.

You don't solve demand-side issues by 'encouraging competition'. Demand side issues are due to people's inability to purchase what they desire. Increased competition with no consumers would not help the US. If increased competition lead to higher wages, then it would lift up some of the lower class. But that is causally removed from increasing competition. There are more direct methods to stimulate the demand side of the economy, with multipliers when comparing stimulus vs. GDP. The higher the multiplier, the more effective the stimulus. Most of the changes proposed by Objectivism that I've looked over show neutral multipliers, or can't be quantified because we've never tried them. Others, such as tax breaks for the "job creators", have failed outright; they do not work.

The current emphasis on objectivist policies promote those that would deregulate areas where we NEED regulation, and would increase rent-seeking opportunities as a result. What's more, the most pressing issues of our nation such as high inequality and high debt can't be solved in the short term by objectivist ideas. We're too far off track.

We can't delete our government and replace it with objectivism. Well, it's 'possible', but would never happen. The conversation is moot. In selecting which baby steps to take in the direction of objectivism, the policy drift has only made matters worse. In a vacuum the ideology may work, but we need different solutions to solve the issues currently facing us. Proposing more baby steps towards objectivism will only further entrench the already entrenched private interests. Every baby step we make will favor them as long as they have great influence over politics.

If someone is willing to make shoes for $4.00 an hour, there is absolutely nothing wrong, evil, immoral, nor illegal with that in Rand's laisez-faire capitalism, since no ones rights are being violated.

That is why we can't accept Rand's objectivism wholesale. You misunderstand the relationship between employee and employer. Employers have leverage that allows for unfairness. This leaves employees with the option of "unfair" or "very unfair". They settle for unfair, and are thus labeled as "willing". But if they refused every job offered, they'd be unemployed and even worse off. Employees need to be defended against such failures of the market. Competition must be "regulated" in some areas to ensure fairness.

Robert Tulip wrote:

etudiant wrote:A question Robert: When developing countries have the capability, and the educated work forces, to design software, build spacecraft, high speed trains, and all the other items previously limited to western countries, what sort of investments and education will provide us continuing wealth? Under an globalized free market, why provide any new technology or service at western prices when it could be done for so much less in China, India, or others in similar states of authoritarian government or urgent demographic need?

If poor countries achieve the level of productivity of the rich world, then the level of abundance in rich countries will be even greater due to trade. My opinion is that our planet has resources to enable wealth for all, and that growth in one country enables trade, and is good for growth in other countries.

But exactly how will abundance be greater? The mantra of those in favour of free trade has always been that lower levels of economic activity, like basic maufacturing, can be left to the developing world, while the advanced countries ratchet ever higher due to improved technology and effeciency. They work harder (and for less) while we work smarter, and each will climb the ladder together.

But today we are seeing the end product of this process. Not too surprisingly, with education and improving infrastructure, formerly third world countries can now do many other things besides low level industry. China is taking a leading role in green technologies, Brazil has a competitive aerospace industry, computer softwear is written in India, and the hardwear manufactured in South Korea. It seems to me a little self-satisfied to imagine that the west will simply rise above the common herd, forever.

Britain led the way during the industrial revolution, and did stay ahead for a while, as other countries climbed the ladder of industrial development. But no one could say today that Britain leads the way, as they have advanced as quickly as, say, Europe and America have gone through their own industrial revolutions. There is a time when all catch up. And that time is near.

Robert Tulip wrote: As an example in response to your suggestion that the rich world might lose out from growing wealth in the poor world, at the moment, mining companies working in poor countries choose to bring in high level experts from rich countries. If they could source the same level of expertise locally, they would, as they are driven by profit. In a just economy, income reflects productivity. If shareholders assess that a CEO has delivered exceptional leadership, then that CEO deserves exceptional pay. It is not for outsiders to judge pay scales, since the shareholders set remuneration with a view to maximising profit.

There will always be opportunities for people of talent and drive. Any population that thinks it can bludge is headed for poverty.

But again, times change. When California ruminated on building a high speed rail network, they consulted with China, as there where people with experience there. If we are assuming the west will have a lock on educated and experienced professionals in the future, then I think it is misguided.

Robert Tulip wrote:[
Australia has a long list of occupations available for skilled immigrants. If there were too many Australians with skills and qualifications in these fields, they would not be open to foreigners.

I don't think that authoritarian government is capable of achieving prosperity. China is something of an exception, but they are reaching a tipping point where the population will demand democratic processes. Wealth brings demand for accountability.

My view is that new technology will enable abundant low cost energy, and new occupations will emerge to tap growing global wealth.

I've heard the same things about Canada. In fact BC is now bringing in coal miners from China, saying there arent' "qualified" people here to do the job. Whether or not this may be true in some limited cases, it does no alter the global employment picture. New technology and improving effeciency means that we need less people in the workforce. This is a central dilemma in our world today. What to do with the excess labour? Europe has tended in the direction of throwing them some of societies resources. The US has tended in the direction of shutting them out of the process, except during election time.

Of course there will be new jobs, in green technology, in I.T., in research, etc. But the point is that employment is going through techtonic shifts right now. The masses that were needed to man machine tool stations, or work the plow, are no longer needed. For the thousands of jobs displaced, hundreds are created.

Trade is a good thing, but the evidence so far with the vastly increased trade of recent years has indicated that jobs exported can be hard to replace. Unemployment is not only high, but work has shifted from high paying, essential jobs, to low paying, peripheral jobs. Those that used to manufacture refrigerators now may find themselves running a used clothing store, simply to get by.

There are always of course opportunities for those with drive and ability. But this statement confuses individual merit with demographic and economic reality. If a given economy will only provide employment (or at least meaningful employment) to 85% of the potential workforce (and this is likley not too far off the mark for both the US and Europe) it really matters not that the most ambitious rise to the top. There will still be a segment left out.

Historically, countries that have had a succesful record of developing their economies have done exactly what Ayn Rand would have gagged over. They set social goals, intervened heavily in their economies, redistrubted resources, set protectionist tariffs, and otherwise presided over a top down, heavily state infuenced economy. Britain and America did it way back, the Asian Tigers did it in recent decades, and China is doing it today.

Leaving the world's economy to "market forces", Ayn Rand style, will only result in distortions and skewing of relationships. The rich will grab what they can. The organized will prevail. The weak and disconnected will loose out.

Robert Tulip wrote: Regulation can be good or bad.

In Rand's view, it's either, or - black, or white.

Regulations are immoral/bad/evil/illegal in her system, as any of them in some way, violate man's rights, period.

It all comes down to principles with her - in this case, the principle of individual rights.

Interbane wrote: You misunderstand the relationship between employee and employer.

No, I do not. An employer and potential employee reach an agreement between each other on their own terms. This goes for what is involved with the job, how many hours, how much pay, etc. If either have have a problem with the other - no agreement can be reached, and the employer can seek to hire others, the potential employee can seek employment elsewhere. But, if governmental intervention occurs in any of this, it's a violation of their rights. There is no way around that. The principle of individual rights is paramount. To Rand. To me. But obviously, not to you. You'd rather violate rights. In the name of 'fairness".

This reminds me of Mr. Mowen says here, in Atlas Shrugged:

I’ve been waiting six months for an order of steel from Orren Boyle— and now he says he can’t promise me anything, because Rearden Metal has shot his market to hell, there’s a run on that Metal, Boyle has to retrench. It isn’t fair— Rearden being allowed to ruin other people’s markets that way. . . .

Is this what you mean by “fairness”?

In Rand’s view, in lassiez-faire capitalism, since no rights are being violated by Rearden, he would be doing absolutely nothing wrong/illegal/immoral with being successful in the marketplace in that way. Boyle would not be able to get governmental intervention in the economy to “bridle” Rearden with any regulations, controls, policies and so forth.