dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
A story about a free market capitalist utopian experiment gone horribly, horribly wrong:
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
Government Specific UUs
- Thread starter Teabeard
- Start date
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Actually, after the Cultural Revolution, the leadership in China realized that Communist economics did not fit their culture and societies strengths. China was one of the first truly capitalistic societies in the world and remained so for a few thousand years. Twenty years under Mao will not change that. That country has been under slow economic reform since then. Its proof that capitalist economies can work in non-representative political systems.
Communism as a theory is not a bad thing. However Marx warned against its use as a political system. He realized better than anyone that the need for central organization would create a leader position. Inevitably almost all the 'communist' states in Earth history have developed into oligarchies, whether benevolent or malevolent.
Communism as a theory is not a bad thing. However Marx warned against its use as a political system. He realized better than anyone that the need for central organization would create a leader position. Inevitably almost all the 'communist' states in Earth history have developed into oligarchies, whether benevolent or malevolent.
dh_epic said:
Here's an article about Sweden:
Sweden: From Capitalist Success to Welfare-State Sclerosis
Proof mixed economies become stagnant welfare states.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Teabeard, the US is a partially mixed economy. Consider the Securities and Exchange Commision, the Federal Reserve, and the Anti-Trust Act of 1904. In a truly laissez-faire economy non of these acts or government organizations would exist.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Again, Teabeard, I think you look at the small picture. Economics is not the only measure of a great state. In fact, there is a HUUUUGE backlash to "neoliberalism" in Latin America: the idea that freeing the markets up as much as possible will lead to great prosperity and a greater quality of life. This is after huge crashes in Argentina, and repeated coups and unrest in states where poverty skyrockets (in spite of "growing economies").
Economic success is valuable, that's why you need a free market.
But a government also needs to ensure basic tenents of fairness and justice.
Why?
Because an unfair and unjust society is unstable. It will fall. And it doesn't matter how rich a state is, when it falls for any reason, none of that economic success matters.
And to focus on the specific case of Sweden, there IS a balance. You can go too far to socialization of the economy -- communist states are the extreme of that, but even some European countries have it wrong. But the few cases of unrestricted capitalism are a very scary, dangerous thing.
Economic success is valuable, that's why you need a free market.
But a government also needs to ensure basic tenents of fairness and justice.
Why?
Because an unfair and unjust society is unstable. It will fall. And it doesn't matter how rich a state is, when it falls for any reason, none of that economic success matters.
And to focus on the specific case of Sweden, there IS a balance. You can go too far to socialization of the economy -- communist states are the extreme of that, but even some European countries have it wrong. But the few cases of unrestricted capitalism are a very scary, dangerous thing.
Alright, you want restraints imposed by the government? How are bureaucrats any more trustworthy than businessmen? What ends up happening is bureaucrats end up being paid off by big business/special interest groups when they have the power to abuse. That's why you don't want to give government power, because it will abuse it and whatever business bribes the politicians the most will be able to influence the government to ban competitors products, approve unsafe products, lobby for subsidies, lobby the government to initiate logging or mining on federal property, lobby for tariffs, and etc. This is what happens when you get the government in the market place. However has the most political pull is the one who controls the government, and that is never you or me - it is big business and special interests and they are looking out for themselves not us.
In a free market there are natural restraints which are far more effective. Ever heard of the invisible hand? Adam Smith wrote of how free markets seem to be guided by some higher power. There doesn't need to be an artificial authority because there is already a natural one, God.
In a free market there are natural restraints which are far more effective. Ever heard of the invisible hand? Adam Smith wrote of how free markets seem to be guided by some higher power. There doesn't need to be an artificial authority because there is already a natural one, God.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Woah, woah, woah. The Invisible Hand? I think Adam Smith was referring to why innovation was important and how pricing works. It is not an endorsement of economic anarchy. God does not prevent trusts, worker abuse, or any of the crimes of overpowered corporations, or humans for that matter.
We both agree that in any system, economic or political, someone has to be the head of it. You complain about bureaucrats being corrupt and accepting bribes. You have three choices for who can be the head of the economic system. Government, corporations, or organized labour. The problem with organized labour is that they tend to value only their industry over consumers in general, such as the AFLCIO or UAW. That leaves governments and corporations, which both favour big business because of money reasons. Would you rather have focused, efficient, and completely malicious corporations determine the rules or slow, inefficient, beauracrats?
The United States had a completely free market from Andrew Jackson till Rosevelt. During that time was something known as the 'Guilded Age'. It is consider guilded because politics was controlled directly by business because no regulations existed to stop that. Also, economic flucuations in markets were much bigger, making recessions into depressions. During this time there was no concept of consumer safety or quality. Companies could sell infected meat, bad medicine, whatever they wanted because few were organized enough to do anything about it. Income disparity was huge and in general only the rich prospered while leaving employees under what was virtually economic slavery.
Dh brings up a good point about 'neoliberalism' in Latin and South America. The big body in any system needs to be either inefficient or indifferent, both of which match the description of government in an economy. The government should try to keep anybody else from determing the rules.
We both agree that in any system, economic or political, someone has to be the head of it. You complain about bureaucrats being corrupt and accepting bribes. You have three choices for who can be the head of the economic system. Government, corporations, or organized labour. The problem with organized labour is that they tend to value only their industry over consumers in general, such as the AFLCIO or UAW. That leaves governments and corporations, which both favour big business because of money reasons. Would you rather have focused, efficient, and completely malicious corporations determine the rules or slow, inefficient, beauracrats?
The United States had a completely free market from Andrew Jackson till Rosevelt. During that time was something known as the 'Guilded Age'. It is consider guilded because politics was controlled directly by business because no regulations existed to stop that. Also, economic flucuations in markets were much bigger, making recessions into depressions. During this time there was no concept of consumer safety or quality. Companies could sell infected meat, bad medicine, whatever they wanted because few were organized enough to do anything about it. Income disparity was huge and in general only the rich prospered while leaving employees under what was virtually economic slavery.
Dh brings up a good point about 'neoliberalism' in Latin and South America. The big body in any system needs to be either inefficient or indifferent, both of which match the description of government in an economy. The government should try to keep anybody else from determing the rules.
NP300
Prince
You misunderstand me. I do not believe in unrestrained capitalism. I do favor some regulation. I was just trying to point out that Marx was full of BS, and in fact that he had an ulterior agenda. I was also trying to point out errors in your interpretation.
But does wealth really end up in fewer and fewer hands? It is not always the case. It depends on circumstances. I would also question what you mean by "unfairness". You need to provide concrete examples.
No, Marx was much more specific than you are being. Marx started with the labor theory of value. From this he concluded that the workers MUST be being exploited and not getting their fair due. He believed the managers did no real work.
I foget his exact logical progression but he also concluded that the wages must fall and fall until the bare substince level needed to keep workers alive.
Thus, all his specific predictions failed. His theory is utter BS.
Now if you want to say that in a totally unrestrained system there will be revolution for whatever reason then you can but that is not what Marx said. In fact, I personally believe that capitalism has instabilities that are likely to lead to revolutions and/or self-destruction but for reasons completely different from Marx's. Marx said it would happen in a specific manner, in specific countries, for specific reasons. Marx's theory has been as completely falsified as the flat-earth theory or Lamarckianism and yet it is astonishing how many continue to want to believe in Marxism. It strikes me as quite similar to creationism.
NP300
Prince
rhialto said:
Well, I see the ad-hominem attack. Isn't this what people resort to when they run out of arguments?
You must also believe Winston Churchill was a loony though, as he clearly believed the same thing.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
The issue isn't an endorsement of more government -- we've seen places where they've embraced as much government as possible, and it's dangerous for too many reasons. And it's not an endorsement of less government either, because that leads to all kinds of dangers of nepotism, tampering, and unbreakable cycles of poverty (and those are just if you eliminate regulation on the economy).
The issue is smart government. And every once in a while, we develop a new institution or branch to help combat a problem from the previous era. For example, unions. Then that branch becomes corrupt, or experiences small problems of its own. And another check and balance needs to come into place. Or things spin so out of control from that previous check that did not work the way it was supposed to.
That's why there's no simple answer. Of course I hate bad government, and nepotism and lobbyists. But the answer isn't to open the whole economic organism to complete anarchy, nor is it necessarily to add another branch of government completely, nor another middle man who is supposed to be impartial. It's to really think -- what is the problem, and what should a solution try to accomplish?
For example, here's one large problem. If you're wealthy, it's much easier to provide your children with a good education than if you are poor. You can afford to pay tuition fees, you can afford to send your children to private schools, you can afford to pay for tutors, and there's even a good chance that your children learn things from you at home that they don't learn at school. You can even afford to live in a good area that keeps your children in a good public school, and keeps your children out of trouble.
The question is what the solution is -- and I, by no means am endorsing any one of them. For example, we have a public school system that is -- what do you know -- paid for with public funds. Some people want higher standards for teachers. Some people want to make add incentives for teachers to teach in "bad" areas, to help close the divide between good and bad schools. Others want more funding for schools on the whole. Others want to cap, lower, or even subsidize college tuition. Others want to provide vouchers so people can go to private schools. And then there are imperatives to break the cycle of poverty by providing parents with advantages for their children, so that hopefully their children don't need to be given such advantages.
And everyone debates these solutions endlessly. And some of these solutions will do more damage than good. But that does not mean that the best solution is for the government to step out of the education system.
And NP300, I'm completely content to deviate from Marx's original theories. I think that was my point -- not his predictions about what an ideal economic system would be or economic determinism... but the effects of a system where you do not feel like hard work is rewarded (sometimes called "the working poor"), and a system where people can be disenfranchised from society completely -- that results in a lot more damage than people think, in spite of a "powerful economy". But I think we see eye to eye -- a purely regulated economy is arguably as dangerous as a completely unregulated economy.
The issue is smart government. And every once in a while, we develop a new institution or branch to help combat a problem from the previous era. For example, unions. Then that branch becomes corrupt, or experiences small problems of its own. And another check and balance needs to come into place. Or things spin so out of control from that previous check that did not work the way it was supposed to.
That's why there's no simple answer. Of course I hate bad government, and nepotism and lobbyists. But the answer isn't to open the whole economic organism to complete anarchy, nor is it necessarily to add another branch of government completely, nor another middle man who is supposed to be impartial. It's to really think -- what is the problem, and what should a solution try to accomplish?
For example, here's one large problem. If you're wealthy, it's much easier to provide your children with a good education than if you are poor. You can afford to pay tuition fees, you can afford to send your children to private schools, you can afford to pay for tutors, and there's even a good chance that your children learn things from you at home that they don't learn at school. You can even afford to live in a good area that keeps your children in a good public school, and keeps your children out of trouble.
The question is what the solution is -- and I, by no means am endorsing any one of them. For example, we have a public school system that is -- what do you know -- paid for with public funds. Some people want higher standards for teachers. Some people want to make add incentives for teachers to teach in "bad" areas, to help close the divide between good and bad schools. Others want more funding for schools on the whole. Others want to cap, lower, or even subsidize college tuition. Others want to provide vouchers so people can go to private schools. And then there are imperatives to break the cycle of poverty by providing parents with advantages for their children, so that hopefully their children don't need to be given such advantages.
And everyone debates these solutions endlessly. And some of these solutions will do more damage than good. But that does not mean that the best solution is for the government to step out of the education system.
And NP300, I'm completely content to deviate from Marx's original theories. I think that was my point -- not his predictions about what an ideal economic system would be or economic determinism... but the effects of a system where you do not feel like hard work is rewarded (sometimes called "the working poor"), and a system where people can be disenfranchised from society completely -- that results in a lot more damage than people think, in spite of a "powerful economy". But I think we see eye to eye -- a purely regulated economy is arguably as dangerous as a completely unregulated economy.
NP300
Prince
dh_epic said:
I don't think Iraq is a good example. Under Baathism Iraq had a free market economy that was highly regulated. It was probably very similar to the system France used to have, where many industries were state-owned.
The conflict there has nothing to do with economic systems and everything to do with ethnic interests, religion and nationalism. The Iraqis are refusing to bend over to the Zionist US-Israel alliance. Obviously the war with Iraq was not about bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq.
I think the US and Western Europe will soon become examples of capitalist-democratic-individualistic utopian experiments gone horribly wrong though.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
By all means, NP300, the problems in Iraq have everything to do with ethnic and religious conflict too. But as unrestricted capitalism flowed into the nation, prior businesses and individuals were unable to conduct business, and unemployment skyrocketed as they could not compete. And in a society with double digit unemployment rates, you might find it pretty easy to convince someone to throw a grenade at an American civilian for $1,000. It has certainly made the job of our troops much harder.
Again, not to say the solution is a communist Iraq, or that the free market is bad. But there obviously needed to be some checks and balances. Or, as you say, you end up with a capitalist-democratic-individualistic utopian experiment gone horribly wrong.
Again, not to say the solution is a communist Iraq, or that the free market is bad. But there obviously needed to be some checks and balances. Or, as you say, you end up with a capitalist-democratic-individualistic utopian experiment gone horribly wrong.
NP300
Prince
dh_epic said:
I would suggest that you not buy into environmental determinism. Yes, the environment is a factor in predicting economic and social "success". However, numerous twin studies have shown that social "success", be it economical, educational, athletic or otherwise has a very important genetic component. Smarter people are smart largely because of their genes and they pass on their genes to their children. Thus, parents who have high education tend to have children who have high educational achievements and it is not merely because of the environment but also because of genetics. This has been corroborated by studies of twins separated at birth, adopted children and the like.
I could agree on that. Unregulated economies can also have some very dangerous pathologies.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I think if there's one lesson from this, it's that you should not use only one variable for anything. Again, that was one of Marx's key flaws, to describe nearly all social conflict in economic terms. I would say the same thing for those who speak of genetic OR environmental determinism, let alone some other kind of determinism. But the reality is these are all factors.
But yeah, my only point wasn't an endorsement of a regulated economy but the dangers of a completely unregulated economy. There is a certain amount of mixing in America, as there should be. And I think we're still trying to find those optimal regulations without stifling the economy.
But yeah, my only point wasn't an endorsement of a regulated economy but the dangers of a completely unregulated economy. There is a certain amount of mixing in America, as there should be. And I think we're still trying to find those optimal regulations without stifling the economy.
A system where politicians are open to bribery is of course bad, but it has to be better than a system where the politicians aren't bribed because the big businesses are so unrestrained and free to over-run basic human rights that there is no need to bribe the politicians, no?
http://www.hrw.org/about/initiatives/corp.html
http://www.senser.com/01-03-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11442
You'd be surprised. BP for example has been charged with funding Columbian death squads. In some factories, Nike has demanded five signatures as proof that an employee was sick. Coca Cola has knowingly purchased sugar made with child labour. Just put your favourite company name and "human rights abuse" into google and read.
http://www.senser.com/01-03-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11442
You'd be surprised. BP for example has been charged with funding Columbian death squads. In some factories, Nike has demanded five signatures as proof that an employee was sick. Coca Cola has knowingly purchased sugar made with child labour. Just put your favourite company name and "human rights abuse" into google and read.
Ivan the Kulak
King
Teabeard said:
Teabeard, I believe you could benefit greatly from reading a few books, like "The Jungle", by Upton Sinclair, or "The Iron Heel", by Jack London, if you haven't already. These guys told it how it was from the point of the workers back in the early 20th century. Imagine yourself in some of the situations you encounter in these books and you may come to view things from a different perspective. You are not always, for example, free to leave your employer and work elsewhere. Though things are better today, the fundamental ideas expressed in this literature still apply. And we could go back to these bad old times very quickly, if the right people got into power.
Similar threads
