State property

[PimpyMicPimp]

My $.02 Regarding Capitlism and Communism:

100% either way isn't a very good idea.

I don't think we've found a perfect form of government, yet. We need to keep progressing

 

[chickenfur]

That is all. Read it.

 

[Cannae]

I hate to tell you righties but without restrictions on the market the end result is that you end up with a government that is anything but free.

 

[Zachron]

Hold on a minute, youre talking about how well capitalism works in comparison, tlaking about famines in communist countries, did it occur to you that capitalism is not just the system in place in Northern America, Europe and Japan? Its also the system that has over seen countless famines in Africa, has left the majority of the worlds population in relative poverty, and was responsible for countless death in the industrial revolution (probably more than Stalin killed). Defenders of capitalism always seem to forget that for every French or German or american economy that has done well under capitalism, there are 5 Nigerias, Argentinas, or Indonesias that have been devastated by it

I wasn't speaking of a capitalistic country at all. I was speaking of a country that was for al intents and purposes a socialist country... although modern conventions do not recognize it as such becuase the nation predated the philosophies of Karl Marx by 3 millinia, and it was also a theocratic state. Observe that the Nation I was cross referencing with Soviet Russia, was ancient Egypt, not America, France, or Germany... My argument was neither pro-capitalistic nor anti-capitalistic, nore was it pro or anti-communistic. I was simply saying that an ancient civilization was better at implementing a system of state property than any modern socialist state. Now if there were any other conclusions you could draw from what I said, well then that's your problem not mine.

 

[qwert]

1) As a capitalist country I supose most people means a country in which the goverment has very litle control of the economy and usually doesnt try to drive or affect it.

2) Withouth capitalism no economy can work. This is demostrated by the fact that any non capitalist country is poor (I am including countries which have some limited goverment intervention like most of Europe). But on the other side a capitalist system alone doesn´t guarantee prosperity.

3) After independence many african and asian countries began to run under comunist or socialist systems. Under such systems the goverment controlls most aspects of the economy. As a result, a very big an inefficient burocracy is established which requires for high taxes or bribes. This when combined the goverments massive intervention makes that there is really no benefit in establissing a bussines. Effectively stoping any economic activity. Add to this the massive nationalizations of companies of many of these goverments and you have an idea about why nobody is going to invest there.

4) Most people thinks that industrialization was a bad period for the workers. This is mostly wrong. Just try to answer this question:
¿Why would you work in factory if you are better now?
The only way that millions of people left the fields and go to the cities to search work in the factories was because they came better off this way. In fact during the entire Industrial revolution there was a constant increase in the wealth and quality of life of the lower classes. Something similar happens today in countries which are developing, like China and India. Many people believes that multinationals are abusing of poor workers. But in reality these workers who work in these factories receive very high salaries if compared with the average for the country, and salaries are increasing as demand for more workers increases.

 

[Larklight]

Swedens empoyment is roughly 2-3%. and I'm not going to take your unfounded prediction that it will slip into recession as fact thank you. Nor I think would most poeple. Sweden, as I said, has less social unrest than any one of the countries you list as capitalist. high standard of living, very little problems with drugs, racism, crime etc... yeah you can keeop pure capitalism man. I'd take sweden any day of the week. Or even non-capitalist Ireland, as you would bizarrely classify it

Ireland has a very strong economy: the Celtic Tiger. Taxation is very low (12.5) corporate tax! ), and very business-friendly.

According to Jan Edling, the actual rate is much higher, more like 20%, because of the various groups not counted in the official statistics.

I'm not deliberately invoking Godwin's Law, but this is similar to the Nazi economic miracle, where women, Jews and the like weren't counted on the statistics.

If I may say, though, I'm quite glad the US government taxes me and uses it to fund great administrative features like the FDA. They prevent paint thinner from getting in my mustard and the use of the carcinogen benzene to decaffeinate coffee (both real examples).

Also, take a look at some municipal services, like water. If the free market was allowed to run things (as they did in the US in the 19th century), a large number of people would not have running water or electricity. I'm also glad my "socialist" comrades fought for municipal water, so that I am guaranteed access to it.

I would say many but the most hardcore capitalists nowadays agree with the notion of "gas and water socialism", to use the British term.

We live to serve

But these are services that can be supplied on the markets. I'm a Briton and have never had a problem with my privatised water system. It is in their interests to supply me with water: it is my interests to pay for it. If they are ineffective or expensive, another firm can come into the market and undercut them. If they are run by the state with no competition, there is no reason for improvement.

If a company does something secretive, like watering down stuff, then the free market can find them out. It is a lot of people's interests to do so.

Firstly, their competitors. They would love to be able to show them up as bad and get the extra trade.

Secondly, the consumers. Clearly, they do not want to be hacked off. While one man can make a difference, it is easyer if they pay for a

Consumer Watchdog, like Which, to safeguard their interests

Lastly, and decent individuals, who do so because they believe in fair trading practices. They might even be rewarded by one of the first three groups.

¿Why would you work in factory if you are better now?

Exactly: by offering people free choice, they can decide for themselves what is best. Only when Governments force you to do soemthing is effiency reduced.

 

[Antilogic]

We live to serve

But these are services that can be supplied on the markets. I'm a Briton and have never had a problem with my privatised water system. It is in their interests to supply me with water: it is my interests to pay for it. If they are ineffective or expensive, another firm can come into the market and undercut them. If they are run by the state with no competition, there is no reason for improvement.

If a company does something secretive, like watering down stuff, then the free market can find them out. It is a lot of people's interests to do so.

Firstly, their competitors. They would love to be able to show them up as bad and get the extra trade.

Secondly, the consumers. Clearly, they do not want to be hacked off. While one man can make a difference, it is easyer if they pay for a

Consumer Watchdog, like Which, to safeguard their interests

Lastly, and decent individuals, who do so because they believe in fair trading practices. They might even be rewarded by one of the first three groups.

Well, I'm glad you are fine in Britain now, but from my historical readings on the United States in the 19th century, I can tell you that the free market failed abysmally on providing effective water services and insuring corporate "honesty" when it comes to the purity/pernicious nature of their products. The state-run with no competition does have the onus for improvement, because several elected officials might lose their jobs if they prove to be utterly ineffective.

Historically, consumer watchdog agencies haven't been as strong as they are today. Perhaps it was because the media was more limited, and there wasn't an Internet, national TV stations, etc. Very often, with a few choice bribes to political bosses, corrupt corporations could stay corrupt and cheating/killing their consumers for years on end. You present an idealized system of how it works, and today it might seem less utopian because people are less tolerant of corruption and pernicious products. However, historically, state-run services like municipal water and the FDA have been proven effective at providing water to the vast majority of their citizens and improving the quality of consumer products (at least in the USA).

Again on the municipal water example: if you have money, you can get privatized water. However, for those living in cities, and the lower working classes, their neighborhoods were often ignored by private water companies because they would not turn enough of a profit. Same thing with the sanitation business, or paved streets with lights. The end result is only the select "higher" classes get running water, and the poor are left out. This turns poor districts into breeding grounds for diseases, riots, and crime, which has other "social" costs that do not fit neatly on a corporation's financial bottom line. I used to think more along your lines, but ever since I looked into American urban history, I have recognized the necessity of having some state-run services. Balance is key, for otherwise, you may have a situation like in France, 1780's.

 

[Larklight]

Well, I'm glad you are fine in Britain now, but from my historical readings on the United States in the 19th century, I can tell you that the free market failed abysmally on providing effective water services and insuring corporate "honesty" when it comes to the purity/pernicious nature of their products. The state-run with no competition does have the onus for improvement, because several elected officials might lose their jobs if they prove to be utterly ineffective.

Historically, consumer watchdog agencies haven't been as strong as they are today. Perhaps it was because the media was more limited, and there wasn't an Internet, national TV stations, etc. Very often, with a few choice bribes to political bosses, corrupt corporations could stay corrupt and cheating/killing their consumers for years on end. You present an idealized system of how it works, and today it might seem less utopian because people are less tolerant of corruption and pernicious products. However, historically, state-run services like municipal water and the FDA have been proven effective at providing water to the vast majority of their citizens and improving the quality of consumer products (at least in the USA).

Again on the municipal water example: if you have money, you can get privatized water. However, for those living in cities, and the lower working classes, their neighborhoods were often ignored by private water companies because they would not turn enough of a profit. Same thing with the sanitation business, or paved streets with lights. The end result is only the select "higher" classes get running water, and the poor are left out. This turns poor districts into breeding grounds for diseases, riots, and crime, which has other "social" costs that do not fit neatly on a corporation's financial bottom line. I used to think more along your lines, but ever since I looked into American urban history, I have recognized the necessity of having some state-run services. Balance is key, for otherwise, you may have a situation like in France, 1780's.

Funny how we have free-at-point-of-use healthcare, whereas you buy insurance, and you have free water, whereas we pay for it... ergh the NHS is the perfect voter-grab. Simply say NHS a lot and people will fall in love with you.

"The National religion"
Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I have a great deal of respect for the 19th century liberals, who fought for free markets at a time when they lacked many of the arguments and statistics we have now, and there were so many other forms of opposition.

If people are less tolerant of fraud and there are stronger watchdogs, surely this means that we can liberalise economically? Even if it wasn’t justified in the past, does this not now make it look even more attractive?

And now for the grand argument... (dun dun dun). If people support help for the poor, or other a NHS (the example I normally use as everyone in Britain relates to it), they can voluntarily pay for it. If everyone is willing to pay 5% of their income for the NHS, then they can do so willingly. Likewise for free water, income support.

The invariable counter-argument to this is that most people wouldn't pay. But why else do they vote in Labour Governments, and support socialist policies? Everyone presumes there is a massive proportion of the population that is too stingy to pay: one that I have yet to find. If it is any it is the poor, who it doesn't matter so much about. Charitable giving goes up with increased earnings, and it also goes up with reduced Government action. Some charities have recorded a loss of £1.50 from the public for every £1 give by the state, as they were no longer seen as so deserving. The RNL Lifeboat service runs entirely on contributions and never ceases to advertise the fact.

 

[qwert]

In my opinion many people makes the mistake of saying that the 19 century saw more economicall freedom than today. This is wrong. During the 19 century most countries had gigantic state runned corporations or state granted monopolies. Most european countries for example had state owned post, railway, power and water companies. There where also strong barriers against international trade which served as an important excuse to justify imperialism and colonialism.

In the US the problem was similar. Because of certain problems (corruption among others) the goverment was unable to provide a real free market by avoiding monopolies to form or granting monopolies or goverment contracts to certain corporations.

The existence of corporations doesn´t mean that there is a free market.

For a free market to be efficient there has to be an effective goverment supervision (but minimal intervention). In the US this failed during the 19 century. It is unjust to relate this deffect to free market, because it was mostly a goverment problem, at the same time this is the proof that goverment intervention in economy should be minimal, simply because there is litle alicient to doing it well.

 

[Roxlimn]

Technically, Free Markets are something of a misnomer. The true free market ideal of the "laissez-faire" variety turned out to be something of a disaster and practically no sane politician or bureaucrat would endorse it today.

Even markets that purport to be "free" easily recognize the necessity of some controls.

The Chinese ideal of business is the ideal of a Confucian Businessman, or that of a mostly free agent who still recognizes that he is a part of society and has ties and obligations to it.

In fact, a truly "free" economy, as it turns out, generates monopolies for the simple reason that economic power begets more economic power, and economic power tends to concentrate in an uncontrolled environment, much as political power does also.

This is a reality that is realized in many situations, not just in those included in European experience. While the 19th century may have seen many state-granted monopolies, this is simply also a recognition by government that economy is power and that it cannot function without involving itself in such.

Government involvement in economy cannot be "minimal." It must be significant, or the ideals and benefits of a "free market" will not surface. For instance, America's laws against monopolies are touted to be "minimal" interventionist policy, but it is anything but. It is beneficial, but it profoundly affects anyone who wants to do business in the US. Laws that protect the consumer and ensure quality product are ALSO strong interventions.

Too, State Property referring to a state-owned activity need not be inefficient nor burderned with bureaucracy. Singapore Airlines is one such example. Though it is a state-owned venture, the government runs it for profit and with a premium to efficiency and quality. As long as efficiency, quality, and profit (as a reflection of necessity) are your priorities, it doesn't matter WHO owns the venture.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Eh, this is one of many reasons why I'm an Independent. I believe in the balance of economic forces. There are some things that the government needs to be responsible for, and other things that they should never touch. We just haven't figured out the right combination yet.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

Eh, this is one of many reasons why I'm an Independent. I believe in the balance of economic forces. There are some things that the government needs to be responsible for, and other things that they should never touch. We just haven't figured out the right combination yet.

That's about how I feel, too.

To very extreme examples that come to my mind right now are health care (I don't think anyone should be making money of it. I love national health care, even though I think it needs a few tweaks.) where I think the government needs to be involved, and the press (I don't think I need to explain why the government having control over the media is a bad idea ).

 

[Larklight]

Technically, Free Markets are something of a misnomer. The true free market ideal of the "laissez-faire" variety turned out to be something of a disaster and practically no sane politician or bureaucrat would endorse it today.

Even markets that purport to be "free" easily recognize the necessity of some controls.

The Chinese ideal of business is the ideal of a Confucian Businessman, or that of a mostly free agent who still recognizes that he is a part of society and has ties and obligations to it.

In fact, a truly "free" economy, as it turns out, generates monopolies for the simple reason that economic power begets more economic power, and economic power tends to concentrate in an uncontrolled environment, much as political power does also.

This is a reality that is realized in many situations, not just in those included in European experience. While the 19th century may have seen many state-granted monopolies, this is simply also a recognition by government that economy is power and that it cannot function without involving itself in such.

Government involvement in economy cannot be "minimal." It must be significant, or the ideals and benefits of a "free market" will not surface. For instance, America's laws against monopolies are touted to be "minimal" interventionist policy, but it is anything but. It is beneficial, but it profoundly affects anyone who wants to do business in the US. Laws that protect the consumer and ensure quality product are ALSO strong interventions.

Too, State Property referring to a state-owned activity need not be inefficient nor burderned with bureaucracy. Singapore Airlines is one such example. Though it is a state-owned venture, the government runs it for profit and with a premium to efficiency and quality. As long as efficiency, quality, and profit (as a reflection of necessity) are your priorities, it doesn't matter WHO owns the venture.

Can you give examples of a laissez-faire market collapsing?

True, what I call the 7 free market states are more like the 7 freeist. But still, economic power does not always create monopolies, and where it does, this is not a bad thing.

Companies do not grow ad infinitum for two reasons really. The first is that the bigger the company, the more administration, human resources, lawyers, semi-under-lieutenant-directors and the like you need, none of whom contribute to the company's production, but instead are necessary for its smooth running. Eventually they reach an inhuman size, unless they are carefully controlled.

'The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy’

Secondly, in a free market if the first company are either A) smaller than the market or B) less than perfect (in all cases this is true: there are no perfect gargantuan companies the size of the world). The former easily allows another company to arrive and meet the needs of those that the first cannot cover.

When this happens, the best thing about the free market emerges. It rewards those who do what the consumers want, and punishes those who don't. So the company that sells cheaply, sells good products and is eco-friendly, will do well, whereas the ineffective, rubbish and polluting company will do well.

As a result of this, any company which reaches the status of monopoly in a free market is ubercheap, ubereffective and uberfriendly (otherwise it would not have gained the poor market, the rich market and the eco-warrior market). And what could be better than a perfect firm supplying everyone? The only monopoly that can survive while being rubbish is a state one.

And if they fall behind a bit... competition can enter the market, and take it away from the.

Free markets reward excellence, and any control impinges on this.

Singapore Airlines (Grace bless Singapore!) is an example of state capitalism: it is in competition, and so has to perform well. Anyway, Singapore is just great. It's bound to be good.

 

[fegguk]

Can you give examples of a laissez-faire market collapsing?

The whaling industry comes to mind and fishing in some part of the world.

rewards those who do what the consumers want, and punishes those who don't.

Giving the consumer what they want is not always a good idea in the long run see above.

There have never been any completely free market states. A soon as you have some form of government there is no longer a free market. Civilisation is dependent on having some form of state, no state = barbarianism. By the same token state property does not nessecarily mean the state owns and runs everything all states own a protion of the national property. The question is how much is too much.

We shoud also try to remember that relative wealth does not equal happyness, though absolute poverty is usualy equated with misery.

The freemarket and state property are moderated by the other civic that you choose in the game just as in the real world they can't be viewed in isolation.

 

[Larklight]

The whaling industry comes to mind and fishing in some part of the world.

Part of the problem there is that everyone was allowed to fish/whale. It was communal. If the waters had been privately owned, there would have been the incentive for them to conserve (for future profits) and eco-groups and individuals could have bought shares in the industry, and pushed for lower quotas.

There have never been any completely free market states. A soon as you have some form of government there is no longer a free market. Civilisation is dependent on having some form of state, no state = barbarianism. By the same token state property does not nessecarily mean the state owns and runs everything all states own a protion of the national property. The question is how much is too much.

The implication is that with state property is that it is the majority of the property, like in Russia. Otherwise that counts as the small amount that the Free Market Civic allows (energy and weapons etc.)

No state= barbarism? Everything that is done my the state can be done by private individuals, without the need for the immoral mass to steal from us.

We shoud also try to remember that relative wealth does not equal happyness, though absolute poverty is usualy equated with misery.

Although it has been found to correlate.

Wealth allows you to choose what you want to do, what to eat, what to use, rather than receive the arbitrary decision of a bureaucrat. It gives freedom, and private property is the only guarantee of this.

 

[fegguk]

There is a world of difference between what is economicallly efficient and what most people would be consider to be just. A free market if it were every to be achievable would end up with alot of people living in abject poverty and a few nervious people with all the cash. Not a world that most people would want to live in.

Attempting to find free market solutions for every problems is simplistic and ultimately insane.

 

[Larklight]

There is a world of difference between what is economicallly efficient and what most people would be consider to be just. A free market if it were every to be achievable would end up with alot of people living in abject poverty and a few nervious people with all the cash. Not a world that most people would want to live in.

Attempting to find free market solutions for every problems is simplistic and ultimately insane.

How will they decend into poverty? If every deal profits them, they can only grow.

If your neighbours grow wealthy, they can more afford to buy your goods and labour.

Look at the America, where someone can go from the bottom quintile to one of the top two in 10 years if they work hard. Lots of social mbility, becuase the free market rewards hard work.

Attempting to find free market solutions means not forcing people to do what they don't want to, and maximising individual liberty.

Short post, just presume I'm right, got to go. Tschuss!

 

[Cannae]

How will they decend into poverty? If every deal profits them, they can only grow.

The problem with your thinking on this matter is that no matter how hard you try to make the poor richer in a laissez-faire society it will not work because of inflation. That's why instead of making the poor richer it's better to make everybody more equal.

 

[Mewtarthio]

The problem with your thinking on this matter is that no matter how hard you try to make the poor richer in a laissez-faire society it will not work because of inflation. That's why instead of making the poor richer it's better to make everybody more equal.

Or declare war on a crazy WMD-guy.

 

[Propertarian]

The economic policies are definitely problematic. State Property or Environmentalism should actually reduce your wealth and lead to universal poverty. Historically, Communist countries have been poor and the only reason China and Vietnam are doing so well is because they're actually more Capitalist than the United States at the moment (the more Capitalist you are, the wealthier everybody is; laissez-faire is good, but a pure free market with no government is even better, but no Socialist or Green country can be wealthy).

You'd would think that Environmentalism would be a complete disaster to use and that State Property would destroy your finances, but strengthen your military. Free Markets should lead to a strong economy, but also stronger opposition to war (Adam Smith's writing, while definitely flawed in his theory of value and by his willingness to compromise, was especially sound on free trade and why it leads to peace; countries have traditionally abandoned the Gold Standard, a vital part of laissez-faire, during wartime).

Mercantilism should make other countries angry at you and lead to more wars. Mercantilism is most often referred to as Protectionism these days, but it was an economic policy that believed in restricting foreign trade, which is a good way to irritate other people. It can even irritate regions of your own country that aren't as industrialized (The American Civil War was actually a revolt over a tariff increase by the rural South; slavery was not an issue in the secession, especially since Lincoln tried to pass an constitutional amendment banning a constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery).

This game is definitely way off on the economics, though very few people understand it well enough to be able to do a good job.