The finite limit of liberal politics

[Amorphos]

The finite limit of liberal politics



Just a quick question; what happens when we reach the finite limits of liberal politics. For example, England is full or even over populated [esp as concerns infrastructure, housing etc], so we have to change our politics accordingly. If we don’t we will be making life worse for people who are already here. Yet how can we say something like; I want the right to live anywhere, and not give the same rights to others. The political ethic seams fine given infinite land, resources and infrastructure, but then we come back to the age old reason why people are prejudice to begin with, we live in a finite world!

Aside from hate politics, how does one resolve this paradox? I am looking for intelligent non racist answers.

[The Dude]

I've wondered that too. Looking at socialists and social democrats in my country who want to expand and expand and expand on the social safety net, third world aid, immigration policies and whatnot... I can't help but wonder what'll happen by the time there's nothing left to expand on.

For one I sincerely doubt a country with 0 elements of the opposing political spectrum would be a pleasant one to live in.

Secondly, I doubt that left wingers would suddenly stop being left wing and become conservatives, ie protect the established laws and regulations against of further progressive politics.

[Amorphos]

Looking at socialists and social democrats in my country who want to expand and expand and expand on the social safety net, third world aid, immigration policies and whatnot... I can't help but wonder what'll happen by the time there's nothing left to expand on.

In places like USA there is still plenty of room, just as there was in Europe during the indistrial revolution and beyond. We have however, reached its limits.

Sure you got to have opposing elements in politics, or else it wont change with the times and circumstances as needs be.

Secondly, I doubt that left wingers would suddenly stop being left wing and become conservatives, ie protect the established laws and regulations against of further progressive politics.

Well I am left wing, but I understand limits, hence I want to find answers to this problem.

[Phier]

Well I am left wing, but I understand limits, hence I want to find answers to this problem.

Welcome to the right, problems solved.

[Amorphos]

Welcome to the right, problems solved.

Nah, the right would get in foreign workers for cheap labour, or for whatever suits their purposes.

Aside from that just being right wing doesn’t solve the paradoxical problem with reason and logic, racism isn’t clever.

[Phier]

Nah, the right would get in foreign workers for cheap labour, or for whatever suits their purposes.

Aside from that just being right wing doesn’t solve the paradoxical problem with reason and logic, racism isn’t clever.

Don't confuse right wing economics with 'right wing' as portrayed politically.

[Bleda]

Nah, the right would get in foreign workers for cheap labour, or for whatever suits their purposes.

Aside from that just being right wing doesn’t solve the paradoxical problem with reason and logic, racism isn’t clever.

Places like Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, with their varying amount socialist parties in power, who had labor shortage after WWII imported an unskilled labor force from the 3rd world. Regardless of right or left, it happens. Unskilled labor was (and still is) in demand.

[Defianc4]

I've wondered that too. Looking at socialists and social democrats in my country who want to expand and expand and expand on the social safety net, third world aid, immigration policies and whatnot... I can't help but wonder what'll happen by the time there's nothing left to expand on.

For one I sincerely doubt a country with 0 elements of the opposing political spectrum would be a pleasant one to live in.

Secondly, I doubt that left wingers would suddenly stop being left wing and become conservatives, ie protect the established laws and regulations against of further progressive politics.

As Churchill said, Socialism eventually leads to tyranny. How right he was; just look at Obama.

The underlying flaw with government programs is that they are not programs tailored specifically for each individual. Plus, they are run by an institution that incentivises mediocrity. This is opposed to the private sector, which tailors its plans to the individual, as creating something beneficial to the consumer is in its best interests, as it wishes to retain that individual's business. The private sector also incentivises excellence. If the business does not perform excellently or well, then it will fall apart and be replaced by its superior competition, and the cycle continues, forcing the most successful business to constantly innovate, lower prices, etc. to stay ahead of the competition.

By being excellent and developing technology in the particular field, the standard of living for everyone goes up. In this way, promoting one's own self-survival provides a fountainhead that all else will automatically benefit from, since excellence is allowed to reach to unparalleled heights.

This is why the free market is the best economic system. The alternative leads only the opposite way, and attempts to act moral by reversing the inherent value system in every human, plant, and animal.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

As Churchill said, Socialism eventually leads to tyranny. How right he was; just look at Obama.

The underlying flaw with government programs is that they are not programs tailored specifically for each individual. Plus, they are run by an institution that incentivises mediocrity. This is opposed to the private sector, which tailors its plans to the individual, as creating something beneficial to the consumer is in its best interests, as it wishes to retain that individual's business. The private sector also incentivises excellence. If the business does not perform excellently or well, then it will fall apart and be replaced by its superior competition, and the cycle continues, forcing the most successful business to constantly innovate, lower prices, etc. to stay ahead of the competition.

By being excellent and developing technology in the particular field, the standard of living for everyone goes up. In this way, promoting one's own self-survival provides a fountainhead that all else will automatically benefit from, since excellence is allowed to reach to unparalleled heights.

This is why the free market is the best economic system. The alternative leads only the opposite way, and attempts to act moral by reversing the inherent value system in every human, plant, and animal.

Yes..because Obama is totally a Socialist, and Socialism is really about Social Programs and not a worker-controlled government and economy...

Another thing which is never taken into account is technology. While the ability for some goods is finite, the ability to produce them faster/cheaper/better has not been tapped out. Capitalism spurs on such innovation, socialism spurs on limitations.

Yet rather than produce them faster/cheaper/better the majority of profits go to the rich, the cost of which goes back to the poor, Why is it that you have never thought of collaboration as a driving force of technology?

[BNS]

Yet rather than produce them faster/cheaper/better the majority of profits go to the rich, the cost of which goes back to the poor, Why is it that you have never thought of collaboration as a driving force of technology?

Are you saying technology doesn't improve in a market economy? It's a rather absurd claim.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Are you saying technology doesn't improve in a market economy? It's a rather absurd claim.

Of course not, but I think it is also absurd to claim that competition is the only thing which drives innovation, Why is it that pro-capitalists never think about the fact that collaboration could work just as well, or better?

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Yet rather than produce them faster/cheaper/better the majority of profits go to the rich, the cost of which goes back to the poor, Why is it that you have never thought of collaboration as a driving force of technology?

...what? This is simple economics mate. We produce things far more efficiently than just a few decades ago. Also, we find alternate ways of making things. For example, in the 1950s people were afraid that we would run out of tin and copper, but then we started making things out of plastic and fiber optic cables due to technological advances. The best way to judge if something is in short supply in a capitalist economy is to look at prices. When a shortage occurs, prices will go up. Do we see that happening? No, prices are stable or going down in the long run on almost all natural resources.

[justicar5]

As Churchill said, Socialism eventually leads to tyranny. How right he was; just look at Obama.

.

Oh please when did Obama suspend habeas corpus? When did he stop elections? when did he launch a purge? When did he silence political opposition? The second every republican politician and talking head vanishes into a gulag is the second you would be right in calling Obama a tyrant.

[BNS]

Answer to a finite world market pricing. Full parking lot? Charge it and make people adjust to the scarcity.

[Amorphos]

Answer to a finite world market pricing. Full parking lot? Charge it and make people adjust to the scarcity.

So charge foreigners to get in? not good for tourism, but maybe for workers, hmm its an idea but I don’t think it would work. ….if that’s what you meant.

[BNS]

So charge foreigners to get in? not good for tourism, but maybe for workers, hmm its an idea but I don’t think it would work. ….if that’s what you meant.

Um no. But you could let them finance their own way into, British I assume, society instead of paying for their every "need".

[Amorphos]

you could let them finance their own way into, British I assume, society instead of paying for their every "need".

Indeed, that has to be paramount. These days people have to have a job to come to, so that’s kinda how they work it. However still loads get in, and we are overpopulated, [and have a lot of unemployment].

[BNS]

Indeed, that has to be paramount. These days people have to have a job to come to, so that’s kinda how they work it. However still loads get in, and we are overpopulated, [and have a lot of unemployment].

Overpopulated according to you. If Britain really was overpopulated then economics would force people away from the island not have them gravitate towards it. No need to revive Malthus.

The only real issues Britain faces with regard to population are artificial and caused by the welfare state.

[The spartan]

Answer to a finite world market pricing. Full parking lot? Charge it and make people adjust to the scarcity.

Indeed, allow the parking lot to charge and the market would take care of the rest. Though, this does not work with everything (or there are some things we don't want it to work for). Public goods can be a good thing, depending on what you are trying to make a public good.

[Oddsworm]

Are there limits to growth?

The finite supply of natural resources has led some to conclude that there must be a limit to the extent of economic growth. But those arguments ignore the fact that economic growth can take the form of increasing quality as well as increasing quantity.

Economic growth can occur through the more efficient use of existing resources and through the development of new technologies. Thus, economic growth need not take the form of more and more of the same old stuff; it can mean newer, better and perhaps cleaner and more efficient goods and services.

In addition, the price system will continue to allocate resources efficiently in a growing economy and will allow neccesary adjustments to be made in the way scarce resources are used. For example, during the oil crisis of the 1970s, newspapers were filled with stories about imminent crisis and the depletion of world oil supplies. Yet 30 years later, the worlds known oil reserves were greater than they were in 1970. This is because the market went to work. In short, shortages in any resource will trigger price changes that induce suppliers and demanders to deal with the problem. Simply using current economic trends to predict the future ignores the power of the market.

However, i wil note here that this does not apply yet to global environmental quality. But since we are talking about the limitations of resources that dosent really apply here.