After the failure of capitalism

[Sibirsky]

Regulations had nothing to do with it. Capitalism is the reason advances were made in medicine and production. OSHA had almost no effect on workplace safety.

You realize of course nothing you said actually counters what he said. The only substantive, non-tangential thing you said was effectively "nuh uh."

Sure I did. Regulations had nothing to do with a shorter workday, or the end of children having to work. An increase in production is the reason for that.

[Sibirsky]

Regulations had nothing to do with it. Capitalism is the reason advances were made in medicine and production. OSHA had almost no effect on workplace safety.

Ah, more Sibirsky revisionism.

You're the revisionist here. Open your eyes and look at this chart,

The chart shows exactly what I fucking said.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ah, more Sibirsky revisionism.

You're the revisionist here. Open your eyes and look at this chart,

The chart shows exactly what I fucking said.

No it doesn't.

It neither says "OSHA had almost no effect on workplace safety", nor "Capitalism is the reason advances were made in medicine and production".

More of your revisionist bullshit, which you attempt to attach to 'source' material that simply doesn't back your claims.

Look, you keep telling us you were born in the Soviet Bloc, but that doesn't mean you get to redefine reality to match your rebellion against your perceived evil empire.

We can have different opinions, but I'm just going to let you have different facts.

[Tahar Joblis]

You realize of course nothing you said actually counters what he said. The only substantive, non-tangential thing you said was effectively "nuh uh."

Sure I did. Regulations had nothing to do with a shorter workday, or the end of children having to work. An increase in production is the reason for that.

Er... actually, it took regulation to stop child labor in the US. Child labor continues in many countries. (So does slavery.)

Regulations - and the hard work of unions - have everything to do with the length of the work day. This is why the work day is much shorter in France than the US - because France has passed laws to make it so. It is not because France has vastly greater production than the US.

[United Dependencies]

Juche is the way!

The collapse of the globalist capitalist system of exploitation and imperialism is entering its death throes, comrades!

Ha. If the numerous economic downturns and depressions before this one haven't killed capitalism then I sincerely doubt that this recession will be able to kill it.

[Sibirsky]

Sure I did. Regulations had nothing to do with a shorter workday, or the end of children having to work. An increase in production is the reason for that.

Er... actually, it took regulation to stop child labor in the US. Child labor continues in many countries. (So does slavery.)

Regulations - and the hard work of unions - have everything to do with the length of the work day. This is why the work day is much shorter in France than the US - because France has passed laws to make it so. It is not because France has vastly greater production than the US.

There is child labor in many developing countries. Had they been capitalist they would have advanced well past that point. If such regulations existed in, say China, they would be even poorer than they are. Such regulations are nice if you can afford them, but do nothing to address the issue of poverty.

[Sibirsky]

You're the revisionist here. Open your eyes and look at this chart,

The chart shows exactly what I fucking said.

No it doesn't.

It neither says "OSHA had almost no effect on workplace safety", nor "Capitalism is the reason advances were made in medicine and production".

More of your revisionist bullshit, which you attempt to attach to 'source' material that simply doesn't back your claims.

Look, you keep telling us you were born in the Soviet Bloc, but that doesn't mean you get to redefine reality to match your rebellion against your perceived evil empire.

We can have different opinions, but I'm just going to let you have different facts.

Facts. I said OSHA had almost no effects on workplace safety. That chart is do damn small, and looks like it had no effect at all, but there was a small dip in deaths. As far as increase in production, that's just common sense. But you keep tooting your own horn and your non revisionism.

[Grave_n_idle]

Juche is the way!

The collapse of the globalist capitalist system of exploitation and imperialism is entering its death throes, comrades!

Ha. If the numerous economic downturns and depressions before this one haven't killed capitalism then I sincerely doubt that this recession will be able to kill it.

The last time the world economy fell in the pan like this, it ended with the entire world at war. Thankfully, MAD pretty much wasn't off the drawing board at that point. Unfortunately, it is now. Also, at that point - there was the stabilising effect of 'communist' (-ish) economies, something there is arguably much less of today. Even Red China is tied up massively in this market model.

But there's an interesting point in what you said - 'numerous economic downturns and depressions'. Indeed, the capitalist model is prone to all kinds of vicissitudes. The interesting thing is that you ignore the fact it veers wildly... by pinning your hopes to the lucky fact that it tends to swing back. But that lucky streak is only consistent... well, as long as it's consistent.

[Grave_n_idle]

No it doesn't.

It neither says "OSHA had almost no effect on workplace safety", nor "Capitalism is the reason advances were made in medicine and production".

More of your revisionist bullshit, which you attempt to attach to 'source' material that simply doesn't back your claims.

Look, you keep telling us you were born in the Soviet Bloc, but that doesn't mean you get to redefine reality to match your rebellion against your perceived evil empire.

We can have different opinions, but I'm just going to let you have different facts.

Facts. I said OSHA had almost no effects on workplace safety. That chart is do damn small, and looks like it had no effect at all, but there was a small dip in deaths. As far as increase in production, that's just common sense. But you keep tooting your own horn and your non revisionism.

The chart could have levelled off in 1972, as general improved safety plateaued. So there's really no WAY you can know how much of an effect OSHA might have had, since ALL of the continued downward trend COULD be due to OSHA.

Anything you say to contradict that is theology, and I'm not interested in what you believe - only in what you can prove.

Given that communist Russia (fr example) saw massive increases in production, I'd say your 'common sense' isn't worth the paper it's written on. And that's allowing for the fact that it's not written on paper. And you completely failed to support the claim that 'capitalism' is the 'reason' for advances in medicine.

In other words, you preach, and you fail. I don't care about your opinions, and they are not going to sway me to accept your theology as fact.

[Arkinesia]

You're the revisionist here. Open your eyes and look at this chart,

The chart shows exactly what I fucking said.

No it doesn't.

It definitely does, mate. OSHA was passed in 1971 and the drop starts about 30 years prior.

[Bendira]

You're the revisionist here. Open your eyes and look at this chart,

The chart shows exactly what I fucking said.

No it doesn't.

It neither says "OSHA had almost no effect on workplace safety", nor "Capitalism is the reason advances were made in medicine and production".

More of your revisionist bullshit, which you attempt to attach to 'source' material that simply doesn't back your claims.

Look, you keep telling us you were born in the Soviet Bloc, but that doesn't mean you get to redefine reality to match your rebellion against your perceived evil empire.

We can have different opinions, but I'm just going to let you have different facts.

Im not sure why in the face of such overwhelming evidence, people choose to still believe in falsehoods.

[Hydesland]

lucky fact that it tends to swing back.

It's not lucky, it's basic economics. Most troughs in the business cycle are not very significant, and actually this cyclical nature happens in every single modern economic model I have ever seen. For the US, this time is different, in the middle of a recession a major financial collapse occured (yes, the recession happened BEFORE the financial crisis), this causes longer term structural problems (mostly, if not entirely nominal now), but these things have very little in common with normal downturns, a situation like this is by no means common.

[Sibirsky]

Ha. If the numerous economic downturns and depressions before this one haven't killed capitalism then I sincerely doubt that this recession will be able to kill it.

The last time the world economy fell in the pan like this, it ended with the entire world at war. Thankfully, MAD pretty much wasn't off the drawing board at that point. Unfortunately, it is now. Also, at that point - there was the stabilising effect of 'communist' (-ish) economies, something there is arguably much less of today. Even Red China is tied up massively in this market model.

But there's an interesting point in what you said - 'numerous economic downturns and depressions'. Indeed, the capitalist model is prone to all kinds of vicissitudes. The interesting thing is that you ignore the fact it veers wildly... by pinning your hopes to the lucky fact that it tends to swing back. But that lucky streak is only consistent... well, as long as it's consistent.

Numerous downturns and depressions are the result of state control of the money supply. Central planning if you will.

[Hydesland]

Numerous downturns and depressions are the result of state control of the money supply.

I wish people didn't hold this belief, it really annoys me you know.

[Grave_n_idle]

No it doesn't.

It definitely does, mate. OSHA was passed in 1971 and the drop starts about 30 years prior.

Indeed. Workplace fatalities peaked in the early 30s, and trended down afterward. That doesn't mean that OSHA had no effect, it just means that workplaces tended to get less fatal after roughly the mid-30s.

Since we don't have any way to compare America-post-1971-with-OSHA against America-post-1971-without-OSHA, any argument that OSHA must have had no effect is obviously speculation.

[Grave_n_idle]

The last time the world economy fell in the pan like this, it ended with the entire world at war. Thankfully, MAD pretty much wasn't off the drawing board at that point. Unfortunately, it is now. Also, at that point - there was the stabilising effect of 'communist' (-ish) economies, something there is arguably much less of today. Even Red China is tied up massively in this market model.

But there's an interesting point in what you said - 'numerous economic downturns and depressions'. Indeed, the capitalist model is prone to all kinds of vicissitudes. The interesting thing is that you ignore the fact it veers wildly... by pinning your hopes to the lucky fact that it tends to swing back. But that lucky streak is only consistent... well, as long as it's consistent.

Numerous downturns and depressions are the result of state control of the money supply. Central planning if you will.

Confess your sins and Jesus can save even you.

[Grave_n_idle]

lucky fact that it tends to swing back.

It's not lucky...

No, it's lucky. There is no guarantee that an economy must always act as a simple harmonic oscillation.

[Sibirsky]

Facts. I said OSHA had almost no effects on workplace safety. That chart is do damn small, and looks like it had no effect at all, but there was a small dip in deaths. As far as increase in production, that's just common sense. But you keep tooting your own horn and your non revisionism.

The chart could have levelled off in 1972, as general improved safety plateaued. So there's really no WAY you can know how much of an effect OSHA might have had, since ALL of the continued downward trend COULD be due to OSHA.

Anything you say to contradict that is theology, and I'm not interested in what you believe - only in what you can prove.

Given that communist Russia (fr example) saw massive increases in production, I'd say your 'common sense' isn't worth the paper it's written on. And that's allowing for the fact that it's not written on paper. And you completely failed to support the claim that 'capitalism' is the 'reason' for advances in medicine.

In other words, you preach, and you fail. I don't care about your opinions, and they are not going to sway me to accept your theology as fact.

You're the one that is full of theology. The Soviet Union's increase in production came at the cost of a massive famine in Ukraine (Holodomor) and on the backs of state slaves. With the end result being tens of millions dead.

[Grave_n_idle]

No it doesn't.

It neither says "OSHA had almost no effect on workplace safety", nor "Capitalism is the reason advances were made in medicine and production".

More of your revisionist bullshit, which you attempt to attach to 'source' material that simply doesn't back your claims.

Look, you keep telling us you were born in the Soviet Bloc, but that doesn't mean you get to redefine reality to match your rebellion against your perceived evil empire.

We can have different opinions, but I'm just going to let you have different facts.

Im not sure why in the face of such overwhelming evidence, people choose to still believe in falsehoods.

Indeed. Which is why I constantly try to help those people.

[Hydesland]

Since we don't have any way to compare America-post-1971-with-OSHA against America-post-1971-without-OSHA, any argument that OSHA must have had no effect is obviously speculation.

I agree and disagree. You're right, we should always compare to the counter factor, or what could have happened, simply looking at a trend is meaningless and is not an argument. On the other hand, I disagree it's impossible to construct compelling arguments and/or evidence showing what America would have looked like without OSHA, it's just most likely beyond the ability of people in this thread.

[Sibirsky]

Numerous downturns and depressions are the result of state control of the money supply.

I wish people didn't hold this belief, it really annoys me you know.

I'm sorry Hydesland. I respect you and your opinion, so I am a little bit bothered by the fact that I annoy you.

[Grave_n_idle]

You're the one that is full of theology.

I'm saying your argument is not supported - much less with what you claim as evidence. That's not a matter of 'belief', that's a matter of your poor evidence.

The Soviet Union's increase in production came at the cost of a massive famine in Ukraine (Holodomor) and on the backs of state slaves. With the end result being tens of millions dead.

Which is irrelevant to the point. Seriously, if you can't make an on-topic argument without shifting the goalposts, you're wasting my time.

[Sibirsky]

It's not lucky...

No, it's lucky. There is no guarantee that an economy must always act as a simple harmonic oscillation.

What is obvious is that without OSHA the number of workplace deaths would instantly skyrocket!

[Hydesland]

No, it's lucky. There is no guarantee that an economy must always act as a simple harmonic oscillation.

I'm not saying that. But the mechanisms aren't simply spontaneous, there are good reasons with lots of evidence, if you read the literature, why an economy will recover from a downturn eventually, and why it keeps happening in the past. I'm not saying it's akin to a physical law of the universe, but it's hardly a random game of chance.

[Tekania]

What I have learned from the various experts of the various houses of economic theory is that no economic system is a failure because no economic system has ever really existed.