Laissez Faire

[Sims2789]

What are you talking about? I never said anything about few regulations. I proposed regulations when they are necessary. Whether that number is large or few doesn't matter. I have been arguing against complete laissez faire capitalism this whole time.

Fine:

What you propose is a pipedream. A capitalist state with regulations, like the one you described in your previous posts, will fail as the United States has in terms of the enviroment and resource depletion as the corporations will, with time, gain a strong enough grip on the government to get it to deregulate.

 

[Yom]

Fine:

What you propose is a pipedream. A capitalist state with regulations, like the one you described in your previous posts, will fail as the United States has in terms of the enviroment and resource depletion as the corporations will, with time, gain a strong enough grip on the government to get it to deregulate.

That is a problem with the system of government, not the economic policies. With a sufficiently technocratic government, what you propose will not happen.

 

[Souron]

It is worth mentioning that the Great Depression was caused by the failure of unregulated Capitalism.

 

[Sims2789]

That is a problem with the system of government, not the economic policies. With a sufficiently technocratic government, what you propose will not happen.

How do you expect to keep even a non-elected government from becoming corrupt without your theory going into the "pipedream" column?

 

[Yom]

How do you expect to keep even a non-elected government from becoming corrupt without your theory going into the "pipedream" column?

Delete this, mods. The forum went crazy on me.

 

[Yom]

How do you expect to keep even a non-elected government from becoming corrupt without your theory going into the "pipedream" column?

What exactly are you saying? I'm saying that in a democracy with certain educational requirements as prerequisites to voting, the public will vote into power technocrats who will do the voting population's very specific demands (specific due to their education). Though this does not mean that there will be no corruption, there will certainly be less. Required complete transparency is the way to go if you want to get rid of all corruption.

You can always make any relationship between business and government illegal, by the way, so that governments and firms don't develop any dangerous relationships.

 

[sebanaj]

You need to reduce the State to stop the corruption...
The crisis of 29 was because of speculation and overvalued titles... people paid for their mistakes.
Speculation losses generated the rest of the chained problems...
I see a problem with laissez faire to regulate the property rights of software and music for example... and to regulate the roads, the cars, all that.
It means it would need some burocracy at least, appart from police and judges.

 

[Rhymes]

You need to reduce the State to stop the corruption...
The crisis of 29 was because of speculation and overvalued titles... people paid for their mistakes.
Speculation losses generated the rest of the chained problems...
I see a problem with laissez faire to regulate the property rights of software and music for example... and to regulate the roads, the cars, all that.
It means it would need some burocracy at least, appart from police and judges.

And what do you do about inflation?

 

[allhailIndia]

Inflation can happen because of a lot of things..consulting a standard textbook on micro-economics will give you the full details.

It is not something which will just go away by itself and sometimes the state has to step in to reduce it. The best example is the current high levels of oil prices...if they are allowed to fluctuate in the same way in the market, it will cause chaos to say the least, not only for consumers, but also businesses. If, however, the state sets a kind of regulatory board, which determines the price every 3 months or so, based on international prices, teh fluctuations will be reduced and generally, be easier for businesses to account expenditures and so on. Even in the USA, which does not have a price regulatory authority, political compunctions will force the government to put pressure on the oil companies not to constantly change prices.

 

[Stapel]

Laisser Faire Capitalism has failures (Akka, why laissez, and not laisser?).

I think the government does have some more tasks then just law and police. It is the government´s job, to provide an environment and infrastructure, where economy can grow.
Yet, it should NEVER interfere with the ways companies run, unless some neccisary aspects of capitalism miss:
-competition
-profit

An example:
It is debatable if electricity counts as part of an environment and infrastructure, where economy can grow.
The total lack of real competition (here in NL), makes it totally ridiculous to hand it over to privatised companies.
Government created fake-competition, is even worse than a state-run automobile company, or agricultural subsidies for rich countires with massive over-production.

Education, imho, also (partly) counts as environment&infrastructure.

 

[Akka]

Laisser Faire Capitalism has failures (Akka, why laissez, and not laisser?).

Well, "laisser" is the infinitive, "laissez" is the plural "you". I guess I picture the concept as someone yelling "let them do it" rather than the calm descriptive "to let them do it" ^^

 

[E-Raser]

WE THE PEOPLE...

This means politics must be a matter for the people taking in consideration what are the needs and wishes of the people nowadays.
So people need energie, education, a health system, firefighters, police, transport systems and so on. This basic needs should be provided from a state for resonable prices for it's people by any cost should not be a matter of speculations. Left wing opinion in this case. But in this case people must also agree to pay their taxes rather more than to avoid them. Shortly dicussing why comunism doesn't work we'll answer because of individual egoism. And this is exactly the reason why capitalsm must be superwised, because otherwise the biggest companies would raise monopolism for energy, hospitals and everything - sucking the blood out of the ppl.

Before we care about your burning house plz. pay us only 99.95. Credit cards accepted. Or similar.

And this answers why capitalism can not work in a fair way. Because of individual egoism. So however I consider the best system a inbetween of both systems with a resonable balance between free market and gouvernmental supervision. But that 90% of the wealth of a country is owne by only 10% of the ppl, with increasing tendency, can somehow not be ok.

So finally I would argue a certain supervision of economic systems are vital in capitalistic systems also.

 

[Stapel]

So people need energie, education, a health system, firefighters, police, transport systems and so on. This basic needs should be provided from a state for resonable prices for it's people by any cost should not be a matter of speculations.

People also need food as a basic need. Do you propose that food production&distibution is also controlled by the government?

I agree on police, and firefighters. All others aspects you mentioned should be treated more carefully.
First, split them up in supply and demand.
And then see where the governemnt NEEDS to control things.
I think it is fair that the government partly controls the demand for health care (make sure health insurance companies can´t refuse people or ask ridiculous premiums for people with a higher probability to need care).
I even think a government could raise a public funded bsic health insurance organisation for the poor.
Yet, when it comes to the supply of healthcare, it strikes me as a horrible thing the government even partly controls hospitals (like they do here in NL).

 

[Stapel]

Well, "laisser" is the infinitive, "laissez" is the plural "you". I guess I picture the concept as someone yelling "let them do it" rather than the calm descriptive "to let them do it" ^^

I do speak French (well, a bit) .
Using the infinitive makes more sense to me.
In Dutch, using the (either plural or polite) imperative, instead of the infinitive, would not make sense.
My guess it doesn´t make sense in French either.

 

[Yom]

I do speak French (well, a bit) .
Using the infinitive makes more sense to me.
In Dutch, using the (either plural or polite) imperative, instead of the infinitive, would not make sense.
My guess it doesn´t make sense in French either.

The whole phrase is "laissez faire, laissez passer." Let things alone, and let them pass (translation according to wiki, it's a little unsatisfactory to me, though).

 

[Stapel]

The whole phrase is "laissez faire, laissez passer." Let things alone, and let them pass (translation according to wiki, it's a little unsatisfactory to me, though).

Seems plausibel to me.
Thanks .

 

[Rhymes]

Inflation can happen because of a lot of things..consulting a standard textbook on micro-economics will give you the full details.

It is not something which will just go away by itself and sometimes the state has to step in to reduce it. The best example is the current high levels of oil prices...if they are allowed to fluctuate in the same way in the market, it will cause chaos to say the least, not only for consumers, but also businesses. If, however, the state sets a kind of regulatory board, which determines the price every 3 months or so, based on international prices, teh fluctuations will be reduced and generally, be easier for businesses to account expenditures and so on. Even in the USA, which does not have a price regulatory authority, political compunctions will force the government to put pressure on the oil companies not to constantly change prices.

¸Yeah it was a trick question, I know about that, its my main argument as why the government has to regulate the economy, too much laissez-faire leads to ovre-inflation.

 

[Sims2789]

What exactly are you saying? I'm saying that in a democracy with certain educational requirements as prerequisites to voting, the public will vote into power technocrats who will do the voting population's very specific demands (specific due to their education). Though this does not mean that there will be no corruption, there will certainly be less. Required complete transparency is the way to go if you want to get rid of all corruption.

You can always make any relationship between business and government illegal, by the way, so that governments and firms don't develop any dangerous relationships.

The uneducated masses will yearn for the freedom to vote, thus once again making your technocracy a pipedream, as this factor, among others such as corruption, must be eliminated for it to work. Factors such as this must be considered when choosing the type of government.

In Britain, a nation that once had voting requirements, the people who were allowed to vote had to slowly make concessions to the masses, as any conservative government eventually will have to do, or else face a revolution. Their technocracy eventually evolved into a democracy. A technocracy imposed on a society that has already evolved into what we call a modern democracy cannot have a technocracy imposed on it, as the people will yearn for the freedoms they previously experienced and will thus revolt.

In conclusion, because your technocracy would require one to eliminate many factors of modern society in order for it to function, I feel it appropriate to label it a pipedream.

 

[Yom]

The uneducated masses will yearn for the freedom to vote, thus once again making your technocracy a pipedream, as this factor, among others such as corruption, must be eliminated for it to work. Factors such as this must be considered when choosing the type of government.

There will be no uneducated masses. All education will be provided by the state.