We don't live in a true capitalist society at all...
We sure don't live in a Marxist society, so stop blowing your credibility like some Republican fundamentalist. Save the buzzwords for the intellectual cretins who are (or should be) beneath you.
we live in a society that legislatively pigeonholes various economic segments into varying strata of economic freedom.
That's known as a "mixed economy", meaning that government supplies a few services society has deemed public necessities (police, fire, sometimes transit, etc), more-or-less loosely regulates some others, such as (publicly-owned) radio and television bandwidth, and very loosely regulates most of the rest of the economy with minimum wage laws, land-use bylaws and environmental regulations, to name a few.
...the economic segments that are the most free are also the ones that work best ... the used CD industry ... 2-for-1 pizza[s] ... dollar stores.
Your definition of "work best" is bizarrely myopic. The industries you cite provide nothing but Mcjobs. As Henry Ford understood very well, if our entire economy were to be run according to Walmart, there would be no market for 2-for1 pizza slices because nobody could afford them.
The closest local example to true capitalism we have is the illegal pot industry...
Not to mention a growing monopolization, as organized crime moves into more and more aspects of the industry which will, ultimately, lead to higher prices and fewer choices, which is the ultimate goal of the capitalist system.
The TTC is the closest local example to Marxism ...
The price goes up because transit is a service, not a business. With one exception (Hong Kong, which, according to the CIA, has a population of 6,855,125 and a land-area of 1,042 sq km), no public transit system in the world makes money.
The benefits of public transit include all kinds of things (tangible and not) that could never appear on a quarterly report.
The price also goes up because, over roughly the past 10 years, almost all public funding has been withdrawn. The TTC recoups 80% of its expenses from the fare-box which - again with the exception of Hong Kong - is more than any other system in the world. Calling it a "local example of Marxism" is either ignorant or dishonest.
...the most powerful unions ... most repeatedly prone to striking are all unionized against state-controlled monopolies.
That is simply not true. I grew up in Sudbury and I know. What is true, is that unions can bargain for better deals with large organizations because such beasts can, at least in the short run, afford to pay for labour peace (take General Motors as an example).
They aren't striking against Microsoft and Blockbuster and Dominos...
See above. And note that companies like Walmart prefer to close stores than bargain with a union.
A TTC worker cannot easily ... tell the government to fuck off and go work for another mass transit company...
If you think you can start a profitable mass transit company that can succesfully compete with the TTC while providing equivalent service, go right ahead.
...the government always finds itself in a vicious circle, which is the inevitable result of all Marxist economic models.
Again, get your terminology right. You sound like a yahoo.
Its monopolistic business practices cause strikes...
That's a different issue. My position is: if a service really is essential, don't allow strikes and use binding arbitration; if it isn't, it is morally reprehensible to legislate striking workers back to their jobs.
There is an argument to be made, in large part because of the points you made, for banning public service strikes entirely in favour of binding arbitration. (Though I note that politicians don't much like that, either, because the settlements tend to be larger than they might otherwise be.)
You well-meaning leftists...
You really ought to knock of the ad hominems, unless you're using them to disguise the fact you haven't thought through your own position.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 12:14 am (UTC)We sure don't live in a Marxist society, so stop blowing your credibility like some Republican fundamentalist. Save the buzzwords for the intellectual cretins who are (or should be) beneath you.
we live in a society that legislatively pigeonholes various economic segments into varying strata of economic freedom.
That's known as a "mixed economy", meaning that government supplies a few services society has deemed public necessities (police, fire, sometimes transit, etc), more-or-less loosely regulates some others, such as (publicly-owned) radio and television bandwidth, and very loosely regulates most of the rest of the economy with minimum wage laws, land-use bylaws and environmental regulations, to name a few.
...the economic segments that are the most free are also the ones that work best ... the used CD industry ... 2-for-1 pizza[s] ... dollar stores.
Your definition of "work best" is bizarrely myopic. The industries you cite provide nothing but Mcjobs. As Henry Ford understood very well, if our entire economy were to be run according to Walmart, there would be no market for 2-for1 pizza slices because nobody could afford them.
The closest local example to true capitalism we have is the illegal pot industry...
Not to mention a growing monopolization, as organized crime moves into more and more aspects of the industry which will, ultimately, lead to higher prices and fewer choices, which is the ultimate goal of the capitalist system.
The TTC is the closest local example to Marxism ...
The price goes up because transit is a service, not a business. With one exception (Hong Kong, which, according to the CIA, has a population of 6,855,125 and a land-area of 1,042 sq km), no public transit system in the world makes money.
The benefits of public transit include all kinds of things (tangible and not) that could never appear on a quarterly report.
The price also goes up because, over roughly the past 10 years, almost all public funding has been withdrawn. The TTC recoups 80% of its expenses from the fare-box which - again with the exception of Hong Kong - is more than any other system in the world. Calling it a "local example of Marxism" is either ignorant or dishonest.
...the most powerful unions ... most repeatedly prone to striking are all unionized against state-controlled monopolies.
That is simply not true. I grew up in Sudbury and I know. What is true, is that unions can bargain for better deals with large organizations because such beasts can, at least in the short run, afford to pay for labour peace (take General Motors as an example).
They aren't striking against Microsoft and Blockbuster and Dominos...
See above. And note that companies like Walmart prefer to close stores than bargain with a union.
A TTC worker cannot easily ... tell the government to fuck off and go work for another mass transit company...
If you think you can start a profitable mass transit company that can succesfully compete with the TTC while providing equivalent service, go right ahead.
...the government always finds itself in a vicious circle, which is the inevitable result of all Marxist economic models.
Again, get your terminology right. You sound like a yahoo.
Its monopolistic business practices cause strikes...
That's a different issue. My position is: if a service really is essential, don't allow strikes and use binding arbitration; if it isn't, it is morally reprehensible to legislate striking workers back to their jobs.
There is an argument to be made, in large part because of the points you made, for banning public service strikes entirely in favour of binding arbitration. (Though I note that politicians don't much like that, either, because the settlements tend to be larger than they might otherwise be.)
You well-meaning leftists...
You really ought to knock of the ad hominems, unless you're using them to disguise the fact you haven't thought through your own position.