...everything happens because of ignorance."

http://m.bbc.com/news/magazine-26260978

Seems like it could be a good mantra for conservatives to adopt and build ideas around, if conservatives actually cared about helping middle class and poor people.

3/4/2014 10:41:49 AM

Quote :

"Muruganantham seemed set for fame and fortune, but he was not interested in profit. "Imagine, I got patent rights to the only machine in the world to make low-cost sanitary napkins - a hot-cake product," he says. "Anyone with an MBA would immediately accumulate the maximum money. But I did not want to. Why? Because from childhood I know no human being died because of poverty - everything happens because of ignorance." He believes that big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas he prefers the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," he says. "

Conservatives against big business?

3/4/2014 10:55:23 AM

Logically, they should be. Any of us should be.

3/4/2014 11:14:18 AM

big business is bad only because of the people who run them. They have the means and ability to be better stewards to the people, economy as a whole, environment, and even competitors.

3/4/2014 11:49:01 AM

Quote :

" big business is bad only because of the people who run them."

People are bad (as a group). Especially people who crave power or the desire to accumulate wealth.

[Edited on March 4, 2014 at 12:12 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2014 12:12:27 PM

Quote :

"Logically, they should be. Any of us should be."

Yes, subsistence farming would be wonderful.

Mom and pops can't feed the billions of hungry people in the world. Only mass production can do that.

Quote :

"Especially people who crave power or the desire to accumulate wealth."

People like you? I don't see you giving away everything you own to assist the poor. Best you'll do is demand that the government do something while you do nothing. Meanwhile, you're probably in the top 5-10% in the world in terms of wealth.

Practically everyone is trying to accumulate wealth. You have some arbitrary standard for how much wealth someone should be allowed to have, but you shouldn't expect anyone to respect that standard.

3/4/2014 1:47:35 PM

Quote :

"Mom and pops can't feed the billions of hungry people in the world. Only mass production can do that."

I mean... the entire point of the article is that mass production has inexplicably failed to provide sanitary pads to the people who most need them, at even within orders of magnitude of the cost of production. You know... that whole point of the free market and mass production.

3/4/2014 3:29:53 PM

^^ the majority of people aren't trying to accumulate wealth. You're pretty out of touch if you feel that way. It's why most people are poor/middle class (and growing poorer). Most people just want to live their life, they want a comfortable house, a 9-5 job, and enough money to buy beer and pizza. They don't go home and argue politics on message boards, they don't read articles about science, they don't teach themselves how to use photoshop or iOS programming, they don't take free online courses on Coursera, or do any of the things to enhance their skills to get better paying jobs. They are happy being a bank teller, retail sales, fast food employee, etc.. This demographic represents, necessarily, the vast majority of humanity.

It's the "elite" (in the intellectual/educational sense-- most people aren't that smart or have a degree that allows them to accumulate wealth) that want the luxury vehicles, large houses, and to be upper middle-class/middle class.

The problem is that politicians surround themselves with the elite that want these things, and presume, like you, that everyone wants those things, then also presume that people who don't have those things are just lazy. This leads to the situation we have now, where rich people successfully complain about being oppressed, while our economic system becomes increasingly more regressive, while the disenfranchised unmotivated poor have their voices crowded out.

^ not to mention our food system is WAY too centralized. If you've travelled around the country, it's a travesty that almost all restaurants have the same small selection of drinks. Locally sourced beverages are pretty much non existent. You of course do need some level of mass production, but I don't see how anyone can argue we've not WAY overdone our mass production of food. Our food int he US is probably the best example of a massive failure of the free market.

[Edited on March 4, 2014 at 4:39 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2014 4:37:09 PM

locally-sourced food is a desire of wealthy people only, poor people just want it cheap

[Edited on March 4, 2014 at 4:41 PM. Reason : but access is a different issue than variety ]

3/4/2014 4:41:03 PM

^ ha true, but there's a better balance than we have now.

There shouldn't be incentive to put harmful foaming chemicals or saw dust to bolster the appearance of quality, as has been done.

We're getting off track but http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-Food-Eaters-Manifesto/product-reviews/1594201455?pageNumber=2 is a decent read on this.

[Edited on March 4, 2014 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2014 4:41:54 PM

Quote :

"Our food int he US is probably the best example of a massive failure of the free market. "

You can't call anything that includes massive government subsidies "free market".

3/4/2014 5:14:42 PM

99% of things have government subsidies practically everywhere in the world except Africa and Bitcoin.

3/4/2014 5:24:33 PM

Yes, and none of those are free markets. That's why you should criticism the systems as they are, for what they are, rather than chalking it up to "the free market".

3/4/2014 5:28:22 PM

The point you're missing, and that you always miss, is that this system evolved naturally, it's what people want. Considering this, it would take a heavier hand, more force, to enact the system you want vs. creating a system that adapts to real-world problems and addresses specific issues and needs in an account way.

3/4/2014 5:54:51 PM

free markets don't want free markets, corporations want and cause obstructions to free markets. there is no such thing as a true or pure free market, so the only examples possible are just "kind-of" free markets.

[Edited on March 4, 2014 at 6:44 PM. Reason : .]

3/4/2014 6:43:33 PM

Quote :

"The point you're missing, and that you always miss, is that this system evolved naturally, it's what people want."

The fact that it evolved naturally says nothing about the whether all people want it. Rape also "evolved naturally", and people (the rapists) do want to rape. That doesn't mean that people in general want it, and it certainly says nothing about the morality of rape.

Quote :

"free markets don't want free markets"

That is true in a way. People don't always want fairness. Many people would prefer to overpower others and take everything they have.

The government does nothing to solve this fundamental problem with humanity. If there are people that want to grab power and steal from others, creating an organization that legalizes power and theft is probably not the way to stop them.

3/4/2014 8:18:11 PM

more musings from fantasy libertarianland

3/4/2014 8:31:49 PM

^^but those people will just create corporations to steal power, and corporations will create governments to protect their interests. Free markets lead to corporations which lead to governments

3/4/2014 9:07:24 PM

I'm sure you're aware that incorporation is a status granted by the state. You can't have corporations without a system of the law that creates and protects it.

3/4/2014 10:05:17 PM

And I'm sure that you understand that I was using it to mean a large company and not in a legal sense. But thanks for recognizing that my point is correct.

3/4/2014 10:16:27 PM

Quote :

"free markets don't want free markets"

hmm...

...effective point.

3/4/2014 11:09:36 PM

Effective response, aaronburro

3/5/2014 7:19:30 AM