#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Individuality vs. Nationalism
Is it more important to work together as a nation, or strive to be an individual?
Be yourself all the way?
Or help eachother?
Individuality
Side Score: 41
|
 |
Nationalism
Side Score: 36
|
|
3
points
Personally, I strive for individuality if you exclude wildlife as being 'others'. Consequently, in order to strive and achieve 'great' things you must do things that helps others (even investing, in a sense, is helping others). If I am wrong, name one renowned individual who created/did something that only helped him/herself. Side: Individuality
There is nothing wrong with both. We are all individuals and each of us can strive to reach whatever goals we set for ourselves and in doing so that can also mean that our own personal achievements also add to the sum of our family, to the sum of our community, and to the sum of our country. Nationalism is born from individuals and the achievements of their collective endeavours that creates a sense of a unity of purpose. Side: Individuality
You have tunnel vision. When I worked in North Vietnam the people I worked with did not belong to a capitalist society yet they had goals that they wanted to achieve and in so doing they were proud to be contributing to the benefit of their families, their community and their nation. You do not have to be a capitalist to engage in achievements that benefit everyone. Side: Individuality
I was talking about the theory that individual achievements lead/equate to community achievements. That is a fundamental capitalistic theory which has never worked that well in practice. This does not mean individuals cannot pursue individual goals along with community goals. I am just showing how community goals achieved through nationalistic ideals are more important than individual goals achieved through individualistic ideals (per the topic of debate). Side: Nationalism
|
Almost no scientific advancement was achieved alone. Just because Newton gets the credit doesn't mean he came up with everything alone. I am not referring to the Leibniz controversy. I am referring to the various thinkers who provided the foundations for Newton. The fundamental ideas for calculus and gravitation were presented long before Newton ever published his works. From Archimedes all the way to Fermat, Newton himself recognized the works of his predecessors. "Isaac Newton would later write that his own early ideas about calculus came directly from "Fermat's way of drawing tangents." Einstein hung the pictures of Maxwell, Faraday, and Newton on his walls to remind him of the people that he "worked with". Collaboration is a fundamental aspect of discovery. Side: Nationalism
I never said anything about advancements being created alone, I said almost every advancement made was made through self interest. A society where people work toward their own self interests doesn't get rid of collaboration, in fact it often has the opposite effect. Often people will collaborate with others that have similar goals. Side: Individuality
Then you are arguing the same thing as DKCairns. "The theory that individual achievements lead/equate to community achievements." That doesn't work. The practice of capitalism. Even with regulations that try to prevent monopolies/trusts/conglomerates, who generally slow down advancements in order to control the market, it still has not worked. Side: Nationalism
1
point
Individuals and firms compete. Even when there are national monopolies, the firm must compete with other nations if there is free trade. I guess you have never heard of international trusts, conglomerates, business groups, etc. I guess the fact that the largest US corporations are international entities that lobby in countries other than the US escapes you. It is not like the US has international business groups doing business in its markets... But hey, the TPP will definitely be a boon to the Pacific region considering how well free trade agreements have done in the past. Side: Individuality
Of course they do. You should probably look up what a "perfect market" is and then consider current popular business practices. You do not even seem to know what a free market is suppose to look like. Side: Nationalism
You: A perfect market is impossible . Me: Of course it is. You: There has never been an a fully free market and there cannot actually be a perfect market. Why are you disputing me when we are in agreement on a perfect market being impossible? Me: The point of a free market is to get close to a perfect market. Anti-competitive practices by international entities tend to be going away from that idea. You move towards it. Hopefully this time you actually read my comments. Side: Individuality
I apologize for the misunderstanding. The point of the free market is not to move toward a theory of functionality, it is to maximize peoples ability to make thier own economic choices and reap the fruits of their labor whether they are positive or negative. Side: Individuality
Don't forget "to maximize peoples ability to make thier own economic choices and reap the fruits of their labor whether they are positive or negative." A free market needs market forces. If some trust controls everything, then there are no natural market forces. No choices, no fruits unless the big guy says so. Side: Nationalism
A free market needs market forces That's incorrect. A free market creates market forces. If some trust controls everything, then there are no natural market forces. No choices, no fruits unless the big guy says so That's an if that can't happen without government support. It's not possible for someone to force your economic choices by the sheer power of their wealth. They must first buy political power for that kind of control. This can and does happen, but it's not a market failure, a capitalist failure, or an individualistic failure; it's a government failure. Side: Individuality
That's incorrect. A free market creates market forces. Manipulation also creates market forces. I was implying that a free market needs free market forces. That's an if that can't happen without government support. It's not possible for someone to force your economic choices by the sheer power of their wealth. They must first buy political power for that kind of control. This can and does happen, but it's not a market failure, a capitalist failure, or an individualistic failure; it's a government failure. The government is made up of people. Corporations are made up for people. People make the market. Why is it not everyone's fault? This may be my cynicism, but do you really hold democratically elected officials to a higher standard? I would hold a police officer to a higher standard because there is standardized training. I would hold a teacher or a doctor to a higher standard as well. Career politicians have no standardized training, so I do not expect much from them. Honestly, though, I don't expect much from anyone. Side: Nationalism
do you really hold democratically elected officials to a higher standard? It's not everyone's fault, it's the fault of the people involved. A free market economy cannot flourish without appropriate institutions properly maintained. The laws that govern the economy are going to come from and through the government. If the government itself is not built with appropriate incentives, checks, and balances there will be a failure of government to control for corruption. The extent to which the government institutions are effective correlates with the extent to which markets progress unimpeded coercive manipulations. Given your clear recognition of human short-comings, I'm surprised you would be so in favor of Nationalism. Side: Individuality
Given your clear recognition of human short-comings, I'm surprised you would be so in favor of Nationalism. I am a cynical optimist (assuming my connotations match your connotations). In the end, democracies elect the officials. The government is responsible for regulating the private sector, but the citizens are responsible for regulating the government. It is easier to blame the "other side", even though we are actually all on the same side. Side: Nationalism
Your assertion that individuals relying on cumulative knowledge developed by others in the past does not support the position of nationalism over individualism, neither does the baseless claim that capitalism fails. All around the world countries are moving toward capitalism by expanding the role of free markets and allowing for free enterprise. This move correlates with increased quality of life. National endeavors have given us advances that are connected with the defense sector, the space program, and now ObamaCare. Other than that, it has been self-interested individuals and firms that have created the vast majority of our goods and services. If your argument against capitalism is that self interested firms decrease competition, one must ask who is competing. Competition is still between self interested individuals and firms. Side: Individuality
All around the world countries are moving toward capitalism by expanding the role of free markets and allowing for free enterprise. This move correlates with increased quality of life. A well executed communist country has shown more growth than any capitalistic country. Does that mean all developing countries should turn to Chinese communism? Just because there is growth does not suggest it was because of the economic system in place. The growth might even be there despite the system. National endeavors have given us advances that are connected with the defense sector, the space program, and now ObamaCare. Other than that, it has been self-interested individuals and firms that have created the vast majority of our goods and services. I should probably have explained my connotation of nationalism. It would be a similar idea to the xenophobia I was using in another debate. Basically my group is more important than your group instead of my country is more important than your country. The group can be as small as a family unit or as large as the entire human race. These groups will often times work within itself to achieve a common goal. Two heads are better than one and other idioms of the sort. If your argument against capitalism is that self interested firms decrease competition, one must ask who is competing. Competition is still between self interested individuals and firms. Free competition leads to no competition. Once you monopolize a market, you control the prices and no longer need to compete to innovate for competitive advantage. That is where regulations come in, and we have seen how that has worked. If you don't like my idea, we can go with the standard definition. Then, I would just cite examples of extremely nationalistic countries that tend to have great growth. China (a lot of propaganda), Korea, Singapore, Japan, Nazi Germany (a lot of propaganda), etc. Korea would probably be first. Not many countries have citizens that voluntarily donate large amounts of money to the government during economic downturns. Most of these countries have seen tremendous levels of growth through nationalistic effort. Side: Nationalism
When I said that countries around the world are moving toward capitalism, I was specifically thinking of China. China is not a well executed communism, it's a gradual abandonment of communist ideas in favor of capitalist ones. S.Korea and Singapore are great examples of how capitalism and nationalism are not in conflict. These are primarily capitalist nations. It has never been the case that free competition has lead to no competition. Every monopoly that has ever existed has been the result of artificial barriers to entry which can only be imposed by regulation. The plausible natural monopolies that could exist in a free market would still requires said monopoly to make the best product it can at the lowest price it can afford lest some other firm capitalize on monopoly's short comings. This forces one to realize that monopolies are not bad in and of themselves. Side: Individuality
When I said that countries around the world are moving toward capitalism, I was specifically thinking of China. China is not a well executed communism, it's a gradual abandonment of communist ideas in favor of capitalist ones. Most of China's growth occurred while everything was still state-controlled. Most industries are still state-controlled in China and will continue to be so for many more decades. All media is censored and state controlled. Indoctrination is still part of the core curriculum. The perfect example of what a technocratic fascist state can achieve. They have fake elections just like Singapore. S.Korea and Singapore are great examples of how capitalism and nationalism are not in conflict. They actually have very different types of "capitalism" than the west. While consumerism is rampant in both nations (as well as China), many of the industries are heavily regulated/invested by the state. Singapore is nearly as fascist as China with one party in control for the last five decades (since the beginning). Many officials run unopposed and opposition leaders are regularly thrown in jail for speaking out. Singapore is a heavily state controlled state that practices "democratic" elections. The fascist government has been able to achieve astronomical growth due to the solid control they have on the direction of the economy. S. Korea, on the other hand, is an extreme version of capitalism. The corporations built the country from the ground up. They are heavily invested into everything. The chaebols control most of the country. Just imagine a super lobby that controls every decision in the country. So instead of state-controlled industries, S. Korea has an industry-controlled state. The growth rates are fantastic because everything is controlled by one group. There is no real competition in any of these countries, only extreme nationalism. The theories of capitalism/communism differ greatly from the practice. Forgot to mention Taiwan earlier. It is not as bad as the other three. Side: Nationalism
Most industries are still state-controlled in China and will continue to be so for many more decades Lots of countries can burst from the bottom under poor economic institutions. But the extent to which China's growth will continue will be the extent to which it's institutions are freed over time. The Soviet Union saw rapid early growth that was unsustainable without free markets and China knows this. Singapore is nearly as fascist as China with one party in control for the last five decades It is not necessarily the case that less political freedom correlates with less economic freedom. Singapore is very high on the economic freedom index which undermines the assertion that their economy is fascist in nature. There is no real competition in any of these countries, only extreme nationalism This in entirely baseless. Singapore has a 0% tariff rate. While S. Korea is less economically free than the U.S., I would hardly call their arrangement "extreme nationalism". All if this country comparison aside, working in groups does not equal nationalism, nor does it undermine individualism. Individuals working together in firms, all for their individual self-interest, not only works but it works on a daily basis in most peoples lives. Nationalism is a particular kind of directed collectivism that plays a relatively small role in modern society when compared to the advances wrought by individualism. Side: Individuality
Lots of countries can burst from the bottom under poor economic institutions. But the extent to which China's growth will continue will be the extent to which it's institutions are freed over time. The Soviet Union saw rapid early growth that was unsustainable without free markets and China knows this. USSR was very different from China. You should probably google Deng Xiao Ping and learn about post-Mao economic reforms. I am assuming you are a westerner because you seem to understand very little about China but make broad generalizations regarding its economic policies. It is not necessarily the case that less political freedom correlates with less economic freedom. Singapore is very high on the economic freedom index which undermines the assertion that their economy is fascist in nature. Do more in-depth research. Doesn't actually have to be that in-depth. Even with a state-controlled media, it is hard to stop all information from leaking out in the Digital Age. Even Wikipedia has grabbed onto a few kernels of truth. This in entirely baseless. Singapore has a 0% tariff rate. While S. Korea is less economically free than the U.S., I would hardly call their arrangement "extreme nationalism". You should do more research about the Orient. All if this country comparison aside, working in groups does not equal nationalism, nor does it undermine individualism. Individuals working together in firms, all for their individual self-interest, not only works but it works on a daily basis in most peoples lives. Nationalism is a particular kind of directed collectivism that plays a relatively small role in modern society when compared to the advances wrought by individualism. You obviously understand very little about nationalism in these countries. I have given you the starting point and some key words. If you are interested in learning about an entire new world, go do research. Side: Nationalism
Your entire response amounts to "you should do more research". This, while you fail to understand what qualifies as economic fascism. You have previously made unsupported assertions about what works and what doesn't concerning individuality. I might suggest that in a debate you support your position. I'll give you an example Side: Individuality
Read the Wikipedia page. Use critical thinking Learn economics; use critical thinking. Does this really seem like a legitimate rebuttal? It isn't. "Why Nations Fail" is another good read that presents the ways in which institutions positively and negatively effect an economy. These effects are demonstrated across cultures. Simply saying that it is obvious that I don't know something does not support your yet unsupported positions. The economic freedom index is used by economists of various backgrounds and personal biases. The methodology underlying the index is legitimate. Side: Individuality
The economic freedom index is used by economists of various backgrounds and personal biases. The methodology underlying the index is legitimate. The data is legitimate, the conclusions the heritage foundation draws from it is not. What do you think a high economic freedom index means for the country and its populace? Side: Nationalism
I responded to the point you were trying to make with your wiki reference. Lack of political freedom is not the same as lack of economic freedom. Furthermore, you continuously make arguments that individualistic cultures somehow fail implying that nationalist collective economies are more successful. This is baseless. Economies that start at the bottom can rise quickly under nationalistic direction, but they must eventually free up their markets, invade their neighbors, or wallow in totalitarian poverty. Think Estonia, Germany, and N.Korea respectively. Your responses have consisted of "cultures differ", " you should study", and "wikipedia is research". Your implication that I am ignorant or my sources are flawed is little more than ad-hominem attacks that fail to support your position. Rather than making valid points, you make baseless assertions. Side: Individuality
I responded to the point you were trying to make with your wiki reference. Lack of political freedom is not the same as lack of economic freedom. So you believe that giant state-control monopolies promote economic freedom while limiting individual freedoms? No reason to limit competition. Limiting individual freedoms is enough. Increasing wealth gap must be the result of all the wonderful economic freedom they enjoy. Furthermore, you continuously make arguments that individualistic cultures somehow fail implying that nationalist collective economies are more successful. This is baseless. Economies that start at the bottom can rise quickly under nationalistic direction, but they must eventually free up their markets, invade their neighbors, or wallow in totalitarian poverty. Think Estonia, Germany, and N.Korea respectively. Considering Singapore and S. Korea have not freed up their markets at all, how is your argument not baseless? I am guessing you have already forgotten a certain Korean keyword. Side: Nationalism
Considering Singapore and S. Korea have not freed up their markets at all, how is your argument not baseless? Primarily because in this last post, I didn't even mention Singapore or S. Korea. So you believe that giant state-control monopolies promote economic freedom while limiting individual freedoms? Singapore has signed over ten free trade agreements. This coupled with the ease of starting and doing business is the reason it is recognized as a highly competitive, market oriented economy. Even though the government plays a substantial role in the economy, government operations (presumably including State owned enterprises which fund the treasury) account for about 22% of GDP leaving plenty of room for capitalism. It is ranked as one of the least corrupt nations in the world. Increasing wealth gap must be the result of all the wonderful economic freedom they enjoy A sizable wealth gap should be expected to result from economic freedom. When people complain about the wealth gap (an expression injustice based on envy), they fail to recognize the improved conditions of those at the bottom. Singapore's average life expectancy is 84.38 years (an indication of general well-being). With economic freedom, the rich get a lot richer and the poor get a little richer (they just feel worse about it looking at the vast wealth of those on top). You can repeat that individuality doesn't work as much as you like. It won't change the fact that, though Henry Ford was wildly better off than the country's sizable number of poor, I am better off than him, and it is partially because of him. http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ https://www.cia. Side: Individuality
Primarily because in this last post, I didn't even mention Singapore or S. Korea. You are using your examples as proof of a general principle that would be contradicted by those countries. So how is your argument not baseless? Singapore has signed over ten free trade agreements. This coupled with the ease of starting and doing business is the reason it is recognized as a highly competitive, market oriented economy. Even though the government plays a substantial role in the economy, government operations (presumably including State owned enterprises which fund the treasury) account for about 22% of GDP leaving plenty of room for capitalism. It is ranked as one of the least corrupt nations in the world. I guess there is some disconnect for you. In the US, when a private sector entity is responsible for its own regulation and review, people generally criticize it as a excuse for corruption and negligence. But when a government entity, CPIB, is responsible for regulating and reviewing all public and private sector corruption including its own, it must be a prime example of honesty. Now, we include the some other factors: the media is state controlled, the CPIB director reports directly to the Prime Minister, recent scandals involving top officials that headed departments responsible for self-regulation, the judiciary bias favoring the PAP, the general disenfranchisement of the population, and more, we can conclude that it is the picture of perfection. This guy sums it up a lot better than me. http://thehearttruths.com/2013/01/29/ A sizable wealth gap should be expected to result from economic freedom. When people complain about the wealth gap (an expression injustice based on envy), they fail to recognize the improved conditions of those at the bottom. Singapore's average life expectancy is 84.38 years (an indication of general well-being). With economic freedom, the rich get a lot richer and the poor get a little richer (they just feel worse about it looking at the vast wealth of those on top). The massive growth must be due to free economic growth because Singapore has finally achieved the elusive "perfect market". There is no way it is due to market manipulation, after all, it is ranked as the 2nd? freest economy in the world by some very well informed Westerners. I wonder if you know how Singapore attracts so much foreign business? Do you know how interest rates are set? I suggest you google for Iceland and "interest bubble". There is some disconnect here as well. The average Chinese person's quality of life has improved tremendously as well. They must be ranked real high on the economic freedom index as well. You can repeat that individuality doesn't work as much as you like. It won't change the fact that, though Henry Ford was wildly better off than the country's sizable number of poor, I am better off than him, and it is partially because of him. You seem to be confusing personal ambition with actual achievements. It takes more than personal ambition to achieve something. I guess you think Henry Ford did everything by himself. You probably also picture Archimedes shouting "Eureka!" every time some lone genius comes up with an idea. Side: Nationalism
You are using your examples as proof of a general principle that would be contradicted by those countries. So how is your argument not baseless? 1: This yet unsubstantiated assertion does not undermine what I have presented with substantial data and analysis. 2: Your assertion that my point was baseless was specifically in reply to 3 examples I provided. This means that even if you were correct about your pet countries (nothing provided so far indicates this), the examples provided would still stand on their own providing a basis for my position. Concerning your reply to the corruption perception index: The tricky nature of collecting data on corruption is accounted for in the methodology and it doesn't claim 100% accuracy. Nonetheless, if your counter-arguments were valid, North Korea would rank well on the list, rather than second from the bottom. The massive growth must be due to free economic growth because Singapore has finally achieved the elusive "perfect market" You should go argue with the straw man that said this, because I never did. by some very well informed Westerners Implied ad-hominem through sarcasm doesn't actually strengthen your argument. I suggest you google for Iceland and "interest bubble" I suggest you do your own research for your own argument and then present it in a debate for yourself. I hope that's not too individualistic. The average Chinese person's quality of life has improved tremendously as well. They must be ranked real high on the economic freedom index as well You keep forgetting the point I have made repeatedly about nations rising fast from the bottom even with bad economic institutions. This point is well established by MIT's Daron Acemoglu and Harvad's James Robinson in their well received book "Why Nations Fail" which I previously alluded to. Acemoglu is not a westerner by the way. I guess you think Henry Ford did everything by himself No I don't, but what he did had not yet been done without him, and that's worth something. You keep mistaking the use of established knowledge as equivalent to collectivism and you somehow think it supports the notions of nationalism. Side: Individuality
You attribute Singapore's growth to its free market practices, but China's growth to rising from the bottom. Iceland had the same lures for business as Singapore and eventually could not sustain the bubble. Singapore non-existent tariffs for business does attract a lot of foreign money, but it cannot be sustained. Acemoglu is Turkish. That is part of the West. Even its Middle Eastern identity is debatable. It is most definitely not East Asian. As for his book, they did so little research on S. Korea. Not one mention of chaebol. They complain about American entities that have too much influence when they couldn't even be bothered to do a little research on powerful Korean entities that do the exact same thing. No I don't, but what he did had not yet been done without him, and that's worth something. You keep mistaking the use of established knowledge as equivalent to collectivism and you somehow think it supports the notions of nationalism. Established knowledge is in regards to science. Since the person before you was talking about discoveries, that was the argument regarding his point. Right now, I am arguing for community accomplishments over individual accomplishments. Individualistic goals and efforts lead no where. High productivity is not gained through individualism. It is always about the community. Even though, these countries have corrupt practices, they still incurred the largest gains through common goals and shared effort. You should look up Adam Grant if you want to learn about human productivity. Side: Nationalism
Iceland had a large stake in the American sub-prime housing market. Acemoglu does not need to be east asian to not be western. The book used S. Korea's institutions as one example among many. The focus was not on S. Korea. I don't recall complaints about American entities in the book. Either way, if you are trying to undermine the credibility of the source, you should probably site a credible source that actually read it. Maybe Krugman or something. Your argument for people working together does not equate to nationalism. Nor does the concept of working together undermine the concept of individualism. As others have pointed out, and you have failed to counter, individualism works quite well with cooperation while remaining distinct from collectivism. High productivity being achieved with collectivism in the short with burgeoning economies, does not effectively counter the fact that individualistic economies not only achieve productivity in the short run (Estonia), but maintain it in the long run (U.S. and U.K). This is the case regardless of the nationalistic sectors that function within the larger economies. You even mentioned earlier that competition is best for lowering prices of goods and services. How do you think it happens? Through cost cutting innovations on the part of individual firms in competition with other individual firms. Side: Individuality
Iceland had a large stake in the American sub-prime housing market. Finally. Some head way. Interest abuse. http://www.forbes. Acemoglu does not need to be east asian to not be western. Turkey is western by most standards, even its own. http://www.thetimes.co. Your argument for people working together does not equate to nationalism. Nor does the concept of working together undermine the concept of individualism. As others have pointed out, and you have failed to counter, individualism works quite well with cooperation while remaining distinct from collectivism. I am saying individualism does not fit with cooperation. That was why I told you to look up Adam Grant's research into organizational productivity. It talks about the differences between someone who thinks of themselves versus someone who thinks for the greater good (even if the greater good might be propaganda). Like medical professionals who wash their hands more when they see "Washing hands reduces chances of infecting patients" as opposed to "Washing hands reduces chance of infecting yourself". The image of some lone genius with lofty ambitions coming up with some innovation is just hollywood magic. Through cost cutting innovations on the part of individual firms in competition with other individual firms. The point is that the practice is different from the theory. They don't compete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Side: Nationalism
Finally. Some head way Indeed, I'm glad you finally presented something of merit. Looks like market manipulation could lead to trouble down the road for Singapore. Now, earlier you argued that I was ignorant to think Singapore was actually market oriented and you named all the different ways in which the country was nationalistic with government owned monopolies. Are you now saying it is going to crash because of nationalistic government directed financial sector policies? I am saying individualism does not fit with cooperation That's because you don't understand individualism. Look again at your example of doctors. Their livelihood depends on successfully helping patients. They are sued often and easily if they screw up. You show them a sign that says "Washing hands reduces chances of infecting patients" and you think that they are now more altruistic? Grants argument for elevating the giver over the matcher or taker argues that they are more successful. He has a mountain of precedent to overcome since historically and mathematically the matcher maximizes the utility of both involved. But lets really look at what he is saying. Givers are more successful? Should I be a giver then? Will that make me personally more successful? If what he says is true (unlikely), then any self-interested individual should act on his analysis. The image of some lone genius with lofty ambitions coming up with some innovation is just hollywood magic Go argue this irrelevant point with whomever it belongs to, not me. The point is that the practice is different from the theory. They don't compete. The wikipedia page show a list of definitions of different forms of anti-competitive practices. It doesn't illustrate their general failure to occur on any kind of regular basis. The best you could do is find an example or two. What that would do is show how anti-competitive practices are relatively rare when compared to the innumerable market transactions that happen every day and on every level. John Forbes Nash can explain why a number these practices happen relatively rarely and why agreements on things like price fixing usually fall of their own weight. Nash equilibrium and game theory. Side: Individuality
I am cynical so I don't think there are any markets that could be considered free. Singapore is one of the less free ones just because of how much control the government holds. There are even stories about how many government raids of corrupt businessmen end up finding "suicide" notes along with admission of guilt. Hard to know what is real or not since the media is also state controlled. S. Korea is on the other end of the spectrum. The government is controlled by the corporations and the chaebols, controlling families, manipulate the market, real estate, government policy however they want. I don't think that is free either. "Washing hands reduces chances of infecting patients" and you think that they are now more altruistic? That has more to do with the general focus of Adam Grant's studies. He focuses on social altruism as a means for motivation. One study was regarding a sales call center for an motivational book. By bringing in someone who has been helped and sharing their story, they were able to improve sales and call lengths by more than 400% in some cases. Of course, this is just another way for corporate entities to squeeze productivity out of employees without actually providing more financial compensation. John Forbes Nash can explain why a number these practices happen relatively rarely and why agreements on things like price fixing usually fall of their own weight. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/ex-cable-and-wireless-lobbyist-confirmed-as-fcc-chairman/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030601594.html http://www.politico.com//story/2014/02/netflix-comcast-cut-deal-for-smoother-service-103822.html Probably too many years of reading junk like this. Can't see free market possibility. Side: Individuality
I am cynical so I don't think there are any markets that could be considered free Here is some common ground. Some sectors are more free than others, some countries are freer than others, but none today could be said to be entirely free. By bringing in someone who has been helped and sharing their story, they were able to improve sales and call lengths by more than 400% in some cases This could be because the sales people now care more about the product they are selling so they try 400% harder, or it could be that a self-interested sales person is much much more effective when they have a first hand account to reference when convincing the buyer. I'm sure there are a number of variables this could be attributed to. Probably too many years of reading junk like this. Can't see free market possibility Corruption is, in every case, a failure of government or of those tasked to govern. It is not however, existent in the vast majority of first world economic situations. Side: Individuality
none today could be said to be entirely free. I am looking at this from the glass mostly empty case. I would say that none today are even "halfway" free. This could be because the sales people now care more about the product they are selling so they try 400% harder, or it could be that a self-interested sales person is much much more effective when they have a first hand account to reference when convincing the buyer. I'm sure there are a number of variables this could be attributed to. Definitely. Follow up interviews indicated that the call center employees did not even know the increased productivity was due to the guest. They had attributed it to the standard metrics like management, training, morale, etc. They already had sales scripts with "first-hand" accounts of the effectiveness of the product so it wasn't the introduction of a new story. "I'm sure there are a number of variables this could be attributed to." Grant conducted this same experiment several times in order to isolate the specific reason. It was the direct link established between their job and a grateful consumer. People seem to intrinsically value one another. It could be evolutionary or social or something else. Grant has also conducted studies on the contagiousness of gratitude and how it appeals to an intrinsic helpful nature. Corruption is, in every case, a failure of government or of those tasked to govern. It is not however, existent in the vast majority of first world economic situations. Those were articles about one company, over 1 year. It is not even a comprehensive list, just the ones that I recalled. Corruption is fairly extensive for large entities. I noticed you blamed the government in another post as well. People run corporations as well as governments. I don't really see how one entity is more at fault than another, especially when the government is elected by the people in a democratic nation. Side: Individuality
I noticed you blamed the government in another post as well. People run corporations as well as governments. I don't really see how one entity is more at fault than another If you found 100 American companies that were corrupt, the common denominator would be the one monopoly we all deal with; the government. I can choose not to utilize the goods or services of any given monopoly except for the government. The companies involved certainly deserve blame, but companies as such do not. Government also deserves blame. Given it is always the common denominator for corruption, we must seek to correct the government in order to correct the negative impact on the economy. The best way to do this is to get the government out in as many ways as possible. Without government pals, a corporation would be more likely to properly compensate for a given crime Side: Individuality
I can choose not to utilize the goods or services of any given monopoly except for the government. In the US, many utilities are government regulated monopolies. It would be nearly impossible to refuse sewage/water, waste, electricity, gas, etc. It would still be very difficult to refuse certain monopolies. For example, certain healthcare groups collude with one another by dividing up regions of coverage. This way, there is no competition for the individual regions. In this scenario, there is also nearly impossible to refuse services. The best way to do this is to get the government out in as many ways as possible. Without government pals, a corporation would be more likely to properly compensate for a given crime The government punishes crime. If you limits its control over an industry, then it has less ways to regulate and enforce. Those actions prevent crimes. Preventative action is generally the preferred method. Side: Individuality
The government punishes crime. If you limits its control over an industry, then it has less ways to regulate and enforce If government regulation of business was limited to enforcement against crimes of a civil or contract nature, the kinds of law we are used to, there would be far far less regulation. Much of the regulation created is supported by large corporations and act as another barrier to entry for smaller competitors. This is why I said less is better. Side: Individuality
Much of the regulation created is supported by large corporations and act as another barrier to entry for smaller competitors. This is why I said less is better. Regulations made by corrupt Congressmen does not prove the government's fault. It proves the voters' fault for electing corrupt politicians in the first place and for not removing them from office once revealed as such. S. Korea is an excellent example of what happens when governments have an extremely limited role in regulating the market. Giant entities take over. Side: Individuality
Regulations made by corrupt Congressmen does not prove the government's fault The fact that the corrupt congressmen can push and pass bad regulations reflects directly upon the institution that allows it. A government with insufficient checks on power will always devolve into a corrupt shuffling of other peoples money earned through unscrupulous coercion. This is why democracy as such is insufficient to the goal of just governance. A proper framework of checks on power is the required to harness the democratic method. The sufficient balance of checks has yet to be devised. Side: Individuality
I'm not sure if that was meant to misrepresent my views or not. I am against most regulation because most of it is bad regulation. Democracy is insufficient to bring about good regulation regardless of the character of the masses. Anyone who is for democracy, without any qualifiers, has probably not thought it through. Side: Individuality
How are you going to say it doesn't work, look at all the everyday items you use every day, cars, computers, phones, even new forms of medicine are all results of people following their own self interests. I think its fair to say these thing help benefit society. If capitalism slows down advancements,then why are the country's with the freest markets are the most advanced. Side: Individuality
While all humans do have self interest, most humans understand the importance of cooperation. It is corporations that are creating these innovations, not individuals. They actively stall innovation to eliminate smaller competitors and maintain monopolies. source When corporations are in control, self-interest stalls innovation. If capitalism slows down advancements,then why are the country's with the freest markets are the most advanced. The US has the least free market out of the western world. It has the most cases of monopolies, trusts, vertical conglomerates that manipulate the market to their advantage which is generally to the consumer's disadvantage. The US has been falling behind in innovation for many decades even though corporate profits are at an all time high. If your theory that individual self interest leads to community gains, then the US should still be the innovative leader according to quarterly reports. You also need to account for the isolation of Asia. The industrial revolution started 250 years ago for the west. It started 50 years ago for China. When you compare the rate of growth of nationalist countries, those with the singular goal of catching up, versus the individualistic countries, those who only care about individual profit, most developing nations fail miserably under a free capitalistic system. Most of the recent technological innovations have come out of Asia even with their late start. Japan's economy is similar to Korea's. In fact, Koreans have copied most of their strategies from Japan. Two conglomerates control 70% of all industry in Japan. Those two groups make sure all goals are synced, all competition is negotiated, and all gains are shared. They work together toward a stronger economy. Side: Nationalism
The anti-trust case for google is being brought based on the fact that google tried "to maintain the monopoly through secret agreements with device makers to load its own suite of applications on their devices". The evil giant corporation want's to maintain a competitive edge by giving things to consumers for free. Bundling only becomes an anti-trust issue when competitors can't afford to do the same. Hard to say that free apps hurt consumers. It's always a reach to say that bundling stifles innovation. The US has the least free market out of the western world It certainly could be better. Even so, source? It has the most cases of monopolies, trusts, vertical conglomerates that manipulate the market to their advantage which is generally to the consumer's disadvantage Source? The US has been falling behind in innovation for many decades even though corporate profits are at an all time high Well, the US is 6th according to Bloomberg. Even so, innovation is only one measure to consider. If your theory that individual self interest leads to community gains, then the US should still be the innovative leader according to quarterly reports That actually doesn't follow at all. Besides, didn't you start by asserting that the US has the least free market? Japan is second in innovation and they have had a long painful stagnation for years. You also need to account for the isolation of Asia. The industrial revolution started 250 years ago for the west. It started 50 years ago for China I did account. Remember when I said that when starting at the bottom a country can rise quickly even under bad economic institutions? When you compare the rate of growth of nationalist countries, those with the singular goal of catching up, versus the individualistic countries, those who only care about individual profit, most developing nations fail miserably under a free capitalistic system Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Source? Concerning Japans conglomerates They work together toward a stronger economy Japan has been suffering economically for years. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EconomyofJapan#Macro-economictrend Side: Individuality
1
point
1
point
You can still be your individual and unique and still take pride in your nation and strongly identify with it and support it. I can understand why if you lived in a shit country like America you would be unpatriotic but I am fortunate to live in a country worth taking pride in. Side: Nationalism
1
point
2
points
Actually it was us that saved us from the Germans, not you. In 1940, before either the USA or the USSR were in the war and Britain was pretty much on its own against Hitler, we won control of the skies in the Battle of Britain, scotching the threat of a Nazi invasion. Secondly, with or without you Hitler would have been defeated by the Soviets. 90% of German casualties were on the Eastern front. Your contribution meant very little. Also you only joined the war for your own selfish reasons. The majority of Americans wanted to leave Britain to it, until the Japanese attacked you. I am not a tory, "tory" refers to the conservative party and I don't support them, I support the UK Independence Party. Also why do you think there is something bad about drinking tea? It just shows we are more civilized than you. Only barbarians do not drink tea, and I'm not even joking when I say that. Side: Nationalism
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Also why do you think there is something bad about drinking tea? It just shows we are more civilized than you. Only barbarians do not drink tea, and I'm not even joking when I say that. I drink tea somewhat regularly myself, but I still rather object to this notion. Americans are known to be coffee-drinkers rather than tea drinkers. Tea is prepared by steeping carefully prepared and dried leaves in water of a temperature that varies depending on the variety of tea. Coffee is prepared by doing largely the same, just with the ground seed of a plant rather than leaves. The distinction seems rather arbitrary. Are you referring to the various cultural practices surrounding the way you take your tea, more than the tea itself? Side: Individuality
1
point
Are you referring to the various cultural practices surrounding the way you take your tea, more than the tea itself? Both. Tea just seems more sophisticated than drinking coffee. I'm not hating on coffee, I love it, I have my own coffee machine and I would really struggle in the morning without it but people who only drink coffee and never tea genuinely disgust me. Side: Nationalism
1
point
If we're taking into account the entire experience, I'll have to generally agree with you. The service alone matters- Ornate coffee service is relatively rare, but it's generally easy to find a nice silver and bone china tea set, even in the US. Probably a result of more history going into it as an art form, which is definitely tied into your culture and that of the east. I do see coffee as more of a utilitarian thing and tea as more of an experience, I was mainly just curious as to why you felt the way you did. Still, I'd hesitate to call eschewing tea barbaric. Side: Individuality
1
point
Tea just seems more sophisticated than drinking coffee. But why? but people who only drink coffee and never tea genuinely disgust me. That is an absurdly powerful emotion for something so incredibly arbitrary. "People who consume liquid derived from heated beans as opposed to heated leaves are scum". Side: Individuality
1
point
But why? Tea has more sophisticated connotations than coffee. Coffee is what even the slovenliest of people drink. Tea is just generally accepted as more cultured. That is an absurdly powerful emotion for something so incredibly arbitrary. Well they are philistines. Maybe disgust is too strong though. Side: Individuality
1
point
Tea has more sophisticated connotations than coffee. How so? Coffee is what even the slovenliest of people drink. Tea is just generally accepted as more cultured. Where is this universal acceptance indicated or demonstrated? Well they are philistines. Maybe disgust is too strong though. Fairly sure coffee isn't found in the Levant. Side: Individuality
1
point
How so? Afternoon tea is regarded as a civilized thing to take part in. Tea is the kind of thing the Queen drinks. Coffee is what some slovenly truck driver in some backwater part of America solely drinks. I meant "philistines" as in someone who doesn't appreciate culture, not as in the people in the Bible. Side: Individuality
1
point
1
point
A culture to start with. A language that actually is ours. A history the spans more than a few centuries. Food (from our own country) that is more than some hormone injected, processed meat in a caramelized bun. We also have less religious people. Muslims are minority in England but Christians a majority in America so they are clearly worse. Being spied on by the government just doesn't worry me that much. Side: Nationalism
A language that actually is ours. The fact that most of the world speaks American English rather than British English indicates otherwise. A culture to start with. No clue what you mean by that. Every society has a culture. Food (from our own country) that is more than some hormone injected, processed meat in a caramelized bun. Considering the culinary world recognizes American cuisine, I am not sure what you mean. Muslims are minority in England but Christians a majority in America so they are clearly worse. Christians are also a majority in the UK at 60%. Side: Individuality
1
point
American English is barely different to English English. It is the same language; our language. America has no culture of its own, just steals over countries'. Aside from fast food you have no cuisine and also copy other countries' food. America is 78% Christian. Also I've heard only 37% of people in the UK even believe in God so I find 60% being Christian hard to believe. Side: Nationalism
American English is barely different to English English. It is the same language; our language. They are the same in the form of standard English. Formal writing. I am assuming you have never studied British literature or American literature or you would note the stark differences. The spoken forms have drifted considerably as well. Even in just the US, geographical distances have produced a myriad of dialects. America has no culture of its own, just steals over countries'. Aside from fast food you have no cuisine and also copy other countries' food. I suggest you look up the definition of cuisine. It might also help to find out what American cuisine is before making generalizations about it. America is 78% Christian. Also I've heard only 37% of people in the UK even believe in God so I find 60% being Christian hard to believe. The 2011 UK census seems to disagree with you. You are very limited in your perspective regarding a wide array of topics. Side: Individuality
|
