Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Market Proven to Fix Things?

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 3:26:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What is the theoretical justification for the notion that the free market alone can recover and maintain the economy and can work properly without regulation?

I know that we can see that the current system of government intervention hasn't worked, but then people say "leave it to the free market, that'll solve the problem." While I may be inclined to agree, I want to know what arguments support this notion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 4:38:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Prices effectively allocate and ration scarce resources. Profit serves as a signal for capital.

For example, if it were not propped up by the fed, the housing market would have collapsed. The lower prices would incentivize more people to buy houses, fewer houses to be built for a while, and resources to move to other sectors.

The absurdity of unemployment is rather simple too. If people are sitting around, they aren't being productive. You can turn a profit by finding something for them to do.

In addition to employment, deflation also makes the recession easier on the poor. Falling prices mean they can afford more goods. Additionally, the lower price of capital means entrepreneurs can move around capital more quickly, solving whatever structural problems.

Thats about as much as I can say without getting into specific types of depressions...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 4:54:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The solution is yawning . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 4:58:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You can start by reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. It's concise, not at all dry or dull, and does a good job of outlining all the basics.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 9:50:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
For some reason people think with government intervention we can continue to live beyond our means, free market means we'd all have to recognize this and revert to a sustainable economy. Essentially the majority don't want to bite the bullet for a free market, or don't realize they have to at some point.

The idea that our entire economy is controlled by a private company in blatant defiance of our constitution tends to make people uneasy as well.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 10:09:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Proof can be had by observing. Compare highly regulated economies to economies having little regulation. Taiwan v. chna, South Korea v. North Korea, West Germany v. East Germany. There is India in its time under ocialism v. recent years under capitalism, or China under Mao v. the increased capitalism of today's China, or the Soviet Union before and after capitalism. Every incremental reduction in regulation produces and incremental increase in prosperity. It works on a less grand scale as well, compare bankrupt and highly regulated California with prosperous and less regulated Texas.

I think the notion is that while every past attempt at regulated economies has failed, modern liberals are so brilliant that the new regulation they will only impose smart regulations that are effective. Those Soviets, Chinese, etc, etc, just didn't know how to do it, but we do. If so, the brilliance is yet to strike, and I don't see any evidence of that about to happen. Obamacare is a fresh example of supposed "brilliant" regulation and it is a disaster. Health care costs ae skyrocketing as a result. The 1099 provision creates $50 billion in private sector accounting costs so that the government can supposedly get an extra $20 billion in taxes.

The problem is that a small set of bureaucrats cannot outguess the millions of decisions that go into a free market, with each person intend on making the right decision. It is entirely amount non-democratic decisions versus the free decisions of the marketplace. The 1099 debacle is one of those, "Gee, how could we have know that would happen?" That's the general problem with regulation. The people making the decision don't know what the consequences will be.

The government has a role in enforcing contracts and preventing crime. That's well agreed to. The problem is with regulation that directs otherwise free transactions.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 10:17:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 3:26:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
What is the theoretical justification for the notion that the free market alone can recover and maintain the economy and can work properly without regulation?

The justification is one of forgetfulness. Capitalism calls for regulation at every turn, with all sorts of market failures and inefficiencies that need to be patched up. We don't have these incredibly complex administrative institutions fof nothing... any trend towards de-regulation is only a slight and temporary slowing down of its expansion.

I know that we can see that the current system of government intervention hasn't worked, but then people say "leave it to the free market, that'll solve the problem." While I may be inclined to agree, I want to know what arguments support this notion.

Current trend of regulation hasn't worked? ha! That statement has no basis in reality, and is like saying our current trend in law enforcement hasn't worked. The free market needs regs to operate like a whore needs a pimp to regulate... one does not exist without the other.
no comment
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 10:26:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, for one, the government subsidized the purchasing of houses through Fannie and Freddie.

Now, unemployment is high at a time when companies are forced to outsource jobs because they cannot find domestic workers, since people are not moving around like they used to - because they're tied to their houses (the "interstate move rate is at an all time low").

Any market intervention inevitably causes a market distortion that creates problems elsewhere in the economy.

The free market would instead have resulted in the correct number of homeowners. Only people with greater job security would have bought homes.

Another:
Allowing the banks to fail would have resulted in the free market re-allocating resources and restructuring itself to take on less risk. The bailouts have simply cemented the same risk taking behavior, making another stock market collapse inevitable.

It's harder to say that "the free market would have no problems," however. It's easier to point out current problems with market interventions by the government.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 10:54:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 10:09:24 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Proof can be had by observing. Compare highly regulated economies to economies having little regulation. Taiwan v. chna, South Korea v. North Korea, West Germany v. East Germany. There is India in its time under ocialism v. recent years under capitalism, or China under Mao v. the increased capitalism of today's China, or the Soviet Union before and after capitalism. Every incremental reduction in regulation produces and incremental increase in prosperity. It works on a less grand scale as well, compare bankrupt and highly regulated California with prosperous and less regulated Texas.

I think the notion is that while every past attempt at regulated economies has failed, modern liberals are so brilliant that the new regulation they will only impose smart regulations that are effective. Those Soviets, Chinese, etc, etc, just didn't know how to do it, but we do. If so, the brilliance is yet to strike, and I don't see any evidence of that about to happen. Obamacare is a fresh example of supposed "brilliant" regulation and it is a disaster. Health care costs ae skyrocketing as a result. The 1099 provision creates $50 billion in private sector accounting costs so that the government can supposedly get an extra $20 billion in taxes.

The problem is that a small set of bureaucrats cannot outguess the millions of decisions that go into a free market, with each person intend on making the right decision. It is entirely amount non-democratic decisions versus the free decisions of the marketplace. The 1099 debacle is one of those, "Gee, how could we have know that would happen?" That's the general problem with regulation. The people making the decision don't know what the consequences will be.

The government has a role in enforcing contracts and preventing crime. That's well agreed to. The problem is with regulation that directs otherwise free transactions.

We just need a new system of money that has some tangible basis
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 11:13:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
A purely free market has never existed. It would be interesting to at least try it to see what happens to confirm whether it works or not. Like we already know communism doesn't work since it has been tried numerous times...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 11:21:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 10:09:24 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Geo was referring to the minimalist theoretical libertarian states thought of the likes of Hayek or Rothbard that many on DDO unwittingly wish to live in.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 11:56:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 11:13:04 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
A purely free market has never existed. It would be interesting to at least try it to see what happens to confirm whether it works or not. Like we already know communism doesn't work since it has been tried numerous times...

LOL the only reason I would agree we should try it is to remind you all how ridiculous it would be. Pollution going unchecked, monopolies forming left and right in many industries, tragedy of the commons destroying our resources in the name of short-term profits, public resources being under-provided, information being so tightly controlled by profiteers that innovation comes to a standstill, income disparity spiraling out of control, ghettos taking the worst of all environmental damage because they can't afford to avoid it, wealthy completely over-running the political system (although this has arguably already happened), any positive technologies that threaten profits being hidden and suppressed, health and safety taking a back-seat to profits... You people seem to think that regulations are just something some liberal thought up yesterday that ruined our great capitalist economy. Regulations keep being added to try and offset the damage from capitaliism, and to date, they are not able to keep up.
no comment
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:01:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 11:56:29 AM, Caramel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 11:13:04 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
A purely free market has never existed. It would be interesting to at least try it to see what happens to confirm whether it works or not. Like we already know communism doesn't work since it has been tried numerous times...

LOL the only reason I would agree we should try it is to remind you all how ridiculous it would be. Pollution going unchecked, monopolies forming left and right in many industries, tragedy of the commons destroying our resources in the name of short-term profits, public resources being under-provided, information being so tightly controlled by profiteers that innovation comes to a standstill, income disparity spiraling out of control, ghettos taking the worst of all environmental damage because they can't afford to avoid it, wealthy completely over-running the political system (although this has arguably already happened), any positive technologies that threaten profits being hidden and suppressed, health and safety taking a back-seat to profits... You people seem to think that regulations are just something some liberal thought up yesterday that ruined our great capitalist economy. Regulations keep being added to try and offset the damage from capitaliism, and to date, they are not able to keep up.

Monopolies wouldn't exist in a free market. They exist due to government intervention in the economy. I'm no libertarian(I'm conservative-ish), but we need the government out of the economy. Also, if people want to protect the environment they'll just not buy from environmentally unfriendly companies.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:08:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
True capitalism can only be achieved in space . . .
True socialism can only be achieved in space . . .
True anarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True communism can only be achieved in space . . .
True fascism can only be achieved in space . . .
True monarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True theocracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True democracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True dictatorship can only be achieved in space . . .
True oligarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True autocracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True laissez faire can only be achieved in space . . .
The simple solution is to go to space . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:15:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 10:09:24 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Proof can be had by observing. Compare highly regulated economies to economies having little regulation. Taiwan v. chna, South Korea v. North Korea, West Germany v. East Germany. There is India in its time under ocialism v. recent years under capitalism, or China under Mao v. the increased capitalism of today's China, or the Soviet Union before and after capitalism. Every incremental reduction in regulation produces and incremental increase in prosperity. It works on a less grand scale as well, compare bankrupt and highly regulated California with prosperous and less regulated Texas.

This doesn't "prove" anything. You just took a bunch of countries and compared their prosperity, but there are so many confounding variables mixed into your analysis that no specific conclusions can be drawn from it. Scientific analysis requires that all variable remain fixed while only one is changed, and observing the results. Your examples all differ in space and time, and don't take into account millions of variables, not the least of which is the presence of authoritative regimes in your socialist/communist examples. I don't think anyone on DDO proposes some kind of highly authoritative communist state to replace capitalism.

I think the notion is that while every past attempt at regulated economies has failed, modern liberals are so brilliant that the new regulation they will only impose smart regulations that are effective. Those Soviets, Chinese, etc, etc, just didn't know how to do it, but we do. If so, the brilliance is yet to strike, and I don't see any evidence of that about to happen. Obamacare is a fresh example of supposed "brilliant" regulation and it is a disaster. Health care costs ae skyrocketing as a result. The 1099 provision creates $50 billion in private sector accounting costs so that the government can supposedly get an extra $20 billion in taxes.

We passed the healthcare bill, get over it. It won't be until a few years before we have any idea whether it is going to do what it is supposed to do. I wouldn't be surprised that it would cost us more, because we are actually going to provide healthcare to everyone instead of just certain people. Who cares if we pay more for it? I know you would rather just exclude everyone out of being able to use hospital services unless they mke $25k or more, because they get in front of you in line at the pharmacy, but that type of thinking actually ends up costing the US more in long-term problems with unhealthy people.

The problem is that a small set of bureaucrats cannot outguess the millions of decisions that go into a free market, with each person intend on making the right decision.

So then why are you intent on decreasing the amount of bureaucrats if there simply isn't enough of them?

It is entirely amount non-democratic decisions versus the free decisions of the marketplace. The 1099 debacle is one of those, "Gee, how could we have know that would happen?" That's the general problem with regulation. The people making the decision don't know what the consequences will be.

Um, if we let business pollute rivers and degrade land then we have at least a pretty good guess.

The government has a role in enforcing contracts and preventing crime. That's well agreed to. The problem is with regulation that directs otherwise free transactions.

The government creates more crime than it prevents. One needs only to look at the DEA for evidence of that. Contracts protect business interests, but often harm people who are forced into them with no other means of participating in the system. They have the choice to either participate or not to participate; once they choose to participate they are subjecty to lengthy contracts that strip them of any power.
no comment
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:23:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 11:21:52 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 11/7/2010 10:09:24 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Geo was referring to the minimalist theoretical libertarian states thought of the likes of Hayek or Rothbard that many on DDO unwittingly wish to live in.

There are many examples, like Hong Kong, tht are close to that extreme and which work very well. Note that government regulation was invented long after there was free trade, so we had a thousand years or more of trade prospering without regulation.

There is another point. If you make a conceptual graph of prosperity versus amount of regulation, clearly prosperity decreases with regulation. The notion that the world would explode on the prosperous end of the curve is therefore unlikely. The argument that collapse would come from no regulation is usually the starting point for arguing that we must therefore need a lot of regulation. they idea is to justify the notion that regulation is essential and therefore always good.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:39:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Monopolies wouldn't exist in a free market. They exist due to government intervention in the economy. I'm no libertarian(I'm conservative-ish), but we need the government out of the economy. Also, if people want to protect the environment they'll just not buy from environmentally unfriendly companies.

No offense but that makes no sense. Business success in most markets leads to monopolies because of increasing economies of scale... Have you ever heard of a man named Rockefeller? You should read up on him... He helped shape most of our antitrust law based on his ruthless capitalistic oil practices. He would come into a community that was competing with him and say "join me or go out of business." Either they could join his monopoly or they could watch as he came into town, lowered his prices way lower than they could ever afford to compete with, and bled them dry until he owned the town. He was eventually brought down by the government after we just couldn't stand by anymore and watch his empire destroy small business after small business...

There's nothing stopping most industries from falling to this fate without rules to prevent it. I am floored every time I hear libertarians (or whoever) say that monopolies don't form in capitalism/are created by government and I can't recall anyone even attempting to defend that statement because of how ridiculous it is.
no comment
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:42:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 10:09:24 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Proof can be had by observing. Compare highly regulated economies to economies having little regulation. Taiwan v. chna, South Korea v. North Korea, West Germany v. East Germany. There is India in its time under ocialism v. recent years under capitalism, or China under Mao v. the increased capitalism of today's China, or the Soviet Union before and after capitalism. Every incremental reduction in regulation produces and incremental increase in prosperity. It works on a less grand scale as well, compare bankrupt and highly regulated California with prosperous and less regulated Texas.

Yes, proof of the reality of capitalism can be had by observing. So much prosperity being created by cutthroat capitalism, aka "the free market", and so many moderately to horrendously poor people in the world who never get to taste and enjoy it! The ability of capitalist countries to successfully generate obscene wealth for a small well-positioned elite is no more evidence of the superiority of capitalism than Mussolini's ability to keep the trains running on time was evidence of the superiority of fascism. The real historical and moral litmus test of any socio-economic system is the quality of life it gives its people. Now go forth and survey the working poor of America and the literally starving masses of the Third World and let them enlighten you about the kind of quality of life they're enjoying under capitalism. Vox populi, vox dei.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:42:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 12:23:13 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/7/2010 11:21:52 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 11/7/2010 10:09:24 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Geo was referring to the minimalist theoretical libertarian states thought of the likes of Hayek or Rothbard that many on DDO unwittingly wish to live in.

There are many examples, like Hong Kong, tht are close to that extreme and which work very well. Note that government regulation was invented long after there was free trade, so we had a thousand years or more of trade prospering without regulation.

There is another point. If you make a conceptual graph of prosperity versus amount of regulation, clearly prosperity decreases with regulation. The notion that the world would explode on the prosperous end of the curve is therefore unlikely. The argument that collapse would come from no regulation is usually the starting point for arguing that we must therefore need a lot of regulation. they idea is to justify the notion that regulation is essential and therefore always good.

Your definition of prosperity is most likely flawed. Income disparity skews prosperity, and pollution and resource degradation don't show up until much later. A country can be a hell of a lot more happy, healthy, and prosperous with half the amount of money that it could have under capitalism (going towards yachts, golf-courses, and ferraris) if the money is distributed equitably, the environment is kept healthy, and oppression is minimized.
no comment
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:45:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Economies Change . . .
http://www.debate.org...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:45:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 12:42:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/7/2010 10:09:24 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Proof can be had by observing. Compare highly regulated economies to economies having little regulation. Taiwan v. chna, South Korea v. North Korea, West Germany v. East Germany. There is India in its time under ocialism v. recent years under capitalism, or China under Mao v. the increased capitalism of today's China, or the Soviet Union before and after capitalism. Every incremental reduction in regulation produces and incremental increase in prosperity. It works on a less grand scale as well, compare bankrupt and highly regulated California with prosperous and less regulated Texas.

Yes, proof of the reality of capitalism can be had by observing. So much prosperity being created by cutthroat capitalism, aka "the free market", and so many moderately to horrendously poor people in the world who never get to taste and enjoy it! The ability of capitalist countries to successfully generate obscene wealth for a small well-positioned elite is no more evidence of the superiority of capitalism than Mussolini's ability to keep the trains running on time was evidence of the superiority of fascism. The real historical and moral litmus test of any socio-economic system is the quality of life it gives its people. Now go forth and survey the working poor of America and the literally starving masses of the Third World and let them enlighten you about the kind of quality of life they're enjoying under capitalism. Vox populi, vox dei.

You forget that Roy is a conservative and addresses that argument through the principle of "personal responsibility." Those poor are not responsible and not darwinistically deserving of any wealth or happiness. Besides, they will be better off with the rich businessmen as shepherds, while they exist as pawns being moved around and sacrificed on the fanciful whim of their capitalist masters. That is the natural order of things.
no comment
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:51:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 12:45:30 PM, Caramel wrote:

You forget that Roy is a conservative and addresses that argument through the principle of "personal responsibility." Those poor are not responsible and not darwinistically deserving of any wealth or happiness. Besides, they will be better off with the rich businessmen as shepherds, while they exist as pawns being moved around and sacrificed on the fanciful whim of their capitalist masters. That is the natural order of things.

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, what a lovely state of the world we have today thanks to the free-market fundamentalism and social Darwinism of conservatives.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 1:42:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 12:51:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/7/2010 12:45:30 PM, Caramel wrote:

You forget that Roy is a conservative and addresses that argument through the principle of "personal responsibility." Those poor are not responsible and not darwinistically deserving of any wealth or happiness. Besides, they will be better off with the rich businessmen as shepherds, while they exist as pawns being moved around and sacrificed on the fanciful whim of their capitalist masters. That is the natural order of things.

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, what a lovely state of the world we have today thanks to the free-market fundamentalism and social Darwinism of conservatives.

The state of the world we have today has been subject to massive governmental regulations and corporatism. The countries freeing up their economies are becoming more successful, those moving towards socialism are becoming less successful, correct? you can spout any pro-socialist arguments you want but if you step back and look at who's successful in the world economy and who's not it's simple to see capitalism works better all around. I think everyone can agree that's the most convincing evidence that can be put forward, which one works for countries and which one doesn't.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 2:01:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yes, what a lovely state of the world we have today thanks to the free-market fundamentalism and social Darwinism of conservatives.

The concept of the free market has specific economic meaning; I've noticed that right-wingers thrive on confusion of terminology. The free market is equated to freedom in general, however freedom is restricted more in a free market because in order to have a market in the first place certain restrictions must be implemented.

First, we have to have a police force to enforce property rights. We need to have a judiciary to control the police, and legislature to define how the judiciary works. The executives are necessery implement the legislation. Finally, the private sector must be handed the keys to the car and this is obiquitously controlled by the incredibly wealthy. So much so, that they can't help abusing their powers to control the former members on the list. And people must give up their rights to make these institutions intrinsically authoritative.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 3:05:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The state of the world we have today has been subject to massive governmental regulations and corporatism.

I'm saying that the reason for the regulations is capitalism itself - capitalism is the prime mover for regulations. Corporatism is simply capitalism spilling out into the public sector, which is completely inevitable.

The countries freeing up their economies are becoming more successful, those moving towards socialism are becoming less successful, correct?

No. Incorrect. We are all dying a slow death as our resources deplete, land and water degrades, and our climate becomes more disturbed. Species diversity is being lost, the poor are increasing and the affluent are tightening their grip against the outward pressure of those like me who would question whether they deserve their empires. Libertarian tools continue to argue from their capitalistic Platonic Cave, as the reasoning behind our regulations is lost in history and memory as if Harry Reid just invented govt regs during Bush's second term. The stories of Rockefeller, Bell and AT&T, and other monopolies are fading into the past and we are ready to create them once again amongst a new generation of idealists who claim they were only the result of the actions we took to finally smite them.

you can spout any pro-socialist arguments you want but if you step back and look at who's successful in the world economy and who's not it's simple to see capitalism works better all around.

I assure you that your definition of "all-around" is not ubiquitous in the least.

I think everyone can agree that's the most convincing evidence that can be put forward, which one works for countries and which one doesn't.

Our planet is filled with greedy empires diseased with religion and authority. There aren't any diamonds in the rough, my friend, and I don't accept that since some capitalist countries are getting richer that we should follow their lead. McDonalds is rich as all hell, and that doesn't mean they are creating a fine example for duplication. I think that a detailed analysis of you and Roy's reasoning would unfurl a host of confounding variables, mis-defined concepts, and ignored values of importance.
no comment
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 3:28:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 12:39:46 PM, Caramel wrote:
No offense but that makes no sense. Business success in most markets leads to monopolies because of increasing economies of scale...

False, due to diseconomies of scale. Which is precisely why the State should not run things.

Also, no barriers to competition.

There's nothing stopping most industries from falling to this fate without rules to prevent it. I am floored every time I hear libertarians (or whoever) say that monopolies don't form in capitalism/are created by government and I can't recall anyone even attempting to defend that statement because of how ridiculous it is.

Monopolies are created by government. It's the government that puts in place the artificial barriers to entry. It's the government that subsidizes big business.

Have you ever heard of transportation subsidies, intellectual property, tariffs, etc.? Hell, sometimes the government just grants a direct right of monopoly, like the Dutch East India Company.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 4:21:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 3:50:08 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
Singapore.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The economy of Singapore is a developed country and highly developed state capitalist market economy. The state controls and owns firms that comprise at least 60% of the GDP through government entities such as the sovereign wealth fund Temasek."

"The government promotes high levels of savings and investment through a mandatory retirement savings scheme known as the Central Provident Fund, and large portions of its budget are expended in education and technology, with the former having a current rate as of 21% in 2001"

Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has one of the most heavily and most-effectively regulated financial industries in the world.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 4:27:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 4:21:20 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/7/2010 3:50:08 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
Singapore.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The economy of Singapore is a developed country and highly developed state capitalist market economy. The state controls and owns firms that comprise at least 60% of the GDP through government entities such as the sovereign wealth fund Temasek."

"The government promotes high levels of savings and investment through a mandatory retirement savings scheme known as the Central Provident Fund, and large portions of its budget are expended in education and technology, with the former having a current rate as of 21% in 2001"

Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has one of the most heavily and most-effectively regulated financial industries in the world.

I retract my bid.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!