State property

[Antilogic]

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.

I am only responding in part because these discussions tend to grow old, and I don't have much time.

Water in the United States is not free (I don't know what gave you that idea). You pay for water separately from your taxes, and that money goes to a "company" which happens to have a government-sanctioned monopoly to operate in the particular region where you live, and receives significant government assistance. Like the Army Corps of Engineers construction reserviors and such.

Simply because people are less tolerant of fraud does not mean I want to see the regulations put in place by governments concerning food products, for example, disappear into a storm of vigilante corporate justice. Just as it is possible for someone to expose a scheme of corporate fraud, it is equally possible for a golden-tongued orator or gifted writer to invent a threat where there is none.

I frankly have to respond to you the same way I have to respond to those "workers' paradise" types: your idea is utopian, and in practice, the history shows a very different picture. The "American Dream" of rags to riches is popularized in American education, and the few stories (like Andrew Carnegie) of success are repeated over and over; however, the exception does not prove the rule. Most poor stay poor, and most rich stay rich. The actual social mobility is far less than is theoretically possible given the system in place.

It is refreshing to see such idealism on occassion, though. I'm glad you think there are enough private individuals who will provide services to the masses, whom you called immoral (something I think was quite uncalled for). However, your statements alone are somewhat self-defeating: you claim that a "perfect" monopoly that exists in a purely competitive free market can serve everyone's needs and is "ubercheap, ubereffective" and all that nonsense. However, it seems as if in the same breath you talk about the bureaucratic costs of maintaining a large corporation, and how large corporations tend to have growing numbers of non-productive lieutenants. I don't know what bureaucratic managerial wizardry you think exists in this world... My advice is to think pragmatically. A corporation that does not have to deal with (for example) the medical problems associated by its operations is not going to write that down on the bottom line if they can keep it quiet (again, for example, Monsanto). And if it shows up, it'll be the cost of settling the legal affairs out of court.


I'm going to start posting on topic or not at all, now, because the above discussion is more appropriate in the off-topic or world history forums. The BtS pre-release doesn't seem to indicate that the economic civics affect diplomacy, but they will influence how (if at all) corporations do business in the game. I'm willing to wait just over a week to find out how they operate before suggesting any "fixes" for the civics.

 

[pickle]

larklight, you say that in a free market all transactions are mutually beneficial, this is a truly naiive way of looking at it. you do not account for the masses of people that do not know the worth of what they are selling.

and to say that if there is a slip from the megacorporation then the little guy can get in and take over the market. what about microsoft? they sell buggy software at a high price but because it is the standard a better, cheaper system cannot get any market share.

what you are saying about a free market assumes that people aren't stupid, which they are

 

[qwert]

Well, of course you need some tipe of govement interference in order to have a truly free market, but it has to be the minimal necessary interference. Just the same way that there has to be the minimal necessary interference of corporations inside goverments.
I strongly support that some basic necessities, like education, health care and social security, are provided by goverment funding. But this has to be made in a way that this doesn´t make impossible for individuals to take profit for providing such services at the same time as the goverment does it, Singapore again has an excellent example of how a private health industry can work together with the goverment and provide to all its citizens a basic health care without damaging the most important part of capitalism: Freedom of choice.

About state owned corporations: It doesn´t matter who owns a corporation as long as it tries to make a profit by selling a service or good that people want to buy.
The problem comes when such corporations are runned not for economical profit (which ultimately is profit for everybody) but for political (and economical) profit for certain individuals. This is the point at which state owned corporations begin to fail. Transforming themselves into disfunctional institutions which are maintained by every citizen even if they don´t use it, and often tend to be transformed into monopolies.

 

[Molon Labe]

larklight, you say that in a free market all transactions are mutually beneficial, this is a truly naiive way of looking at it. you do not account for the masses of people that do not know the worth of what they are selling.

and to say that if there is a slip from the megacorporation then the little guy can get in and take over the market. what about microsoft? they sell buggy software at a high price but because it is the standard a better, cheaper system cannot get any market share.

what you are saying about a free market assumes that people aren't stupid, which they are

But you trust a government to know more than the people? Seems far more naive to me.

The problem with communism and true socialism is that it places a higher necessity on altruism than self-interest. This works well in small examples and specific situations, but as a basis for an economy or a form of governance for the masses, it is simply doomed for failure.

 

[Roxlimn]

Larklight:

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.

Free Markets tend to concentrate economic power. Monopolies are at the extreme end of that. Even though it doesn't always happen, there's a pretty strong trend towards it.

And yes, this is a bad thing. Monopolies remove competition, and that's one of the factors that makes the free market ideal great. Without competition, there's no powerful incentive for efficiency and quality product. The power and water situation in the Philippines during the 70s and 80s are examples where a monopoly was incredibly bad for the country and its people.

To my knowledge, IT experts also blame Microsoft for a similar explosion of rather bad product (Windows) despite its flaws.

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.

That doesn't rule out a monopoly at all. That is, unless you're acquainted with nothing but a top-down management strategy for managing companies. It also doesn't rule out cartels and similar such arrangements.

As long as you're efficient, you can set up a company with multiple ever-expanding cells.

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.

That's seriously naive. In any given market, a company can be big enough to have a monopoly or virtual monopoly. There are any number of crushing policies a more powerful company can do to smaller start-up companies to take them out of the running almost as soon as they hit the ground.

Americans simply aren't aware of how much their laws are influencing the so-called "free market."

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.

Really? So the telecoms breakup in American business history implies that AT&T was a state owned monopoly? What of Microsoft's monopoly on IBM-compatible operating systems? Microsoft is state owned as well?

And don't tell me that Windows is good, or cheap, or uber-effective.

The belief that free markets encourage excellence comes from a poor knowledge of how REAL free markets work.

Real free market encourages companies THAT ARE GOOD AT KILLING OTHER COMPANIES. While this may hinge on a policy of excellence and efficiency, it could easily be due to other factors such as hyper-effective marketing, government collusion or influence, bundled product dominance, or other such "underhanded" tricks.

You don't need to be good to survive as a company. You just need to be able to kill every other company in competition. It doesn't matter how.


Controls on free markets are necessary in order to bring about the ideal you think is natural. It's not. It's artificial.

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.

Irrelevant. One can theoretically imagine a market where everything is owned by various competing and independent government agencies. Everything would be state-owned, but they would all also be in competition. Whether a company is private or state-owned is only relevant in that a state-owned company can usually count state influence as one of its kill-cards, so there's less drive to be excellent in the product or efficient in the management. A private company with similar influence would be in exactly the same situation.


Strong government controls are necessary, from anti-trust laws, to monetary control through interest and currency management, to consumer protection. These are NOT minimal. That would be like saying that removing cultural protection percentages would be a minimal change to Civ IV combat.

Just because few Westerners give it thought doesn't mean that it isn't true or that it doesn't exist.

Molon Labe:

The problem with "socialism" and "communism" is that most examples being trotted out of them tends to be of the totalitarian or feudalistic kind of company. There are no markets that can be brought forth as examples of socialism or communism because those are theoretical ideals that rely on highly unlikely assumptions.

I suppose controls can be placed on them to make them work, but fundamentally, they're more likely to fail because they're both broad political concepts at heart, not really serious economic policy that's meant to be implemented.

 

[Larklight]

Water in the United States is not free (I don't know what gave you that idea). You pay for water separately from your taxes, and that money goes to a "company" which happens to have a government-sanctioned monopoly to operate in the particular region where you live, and receives significant government assistance. Like the Army Corps of Engineers construction reserviors and such.

Sorry- that was the inferance I got from your post. But if there is only one company, there is effectivly only one choice. It is a Government monopoly- if they have taken away your choice, then they are effectivly state. The fact that you said that preveously the poor hadn't had water made me think it was free-at-point-of-use.

Just as it is possible for someone to expose a scheme of corporate fraud, it is equally possible for a golden-tongued orator or gifted writer to invent a threat where there is none.

Just like a Government could do. This is the point: the free market can do everything that a state can do, but it can do so much more!

Those who invented one could be found out: watchdogs that made up stuff, or other companies that lied, would get a reputation as lyers.

Most poor stay poor, and most rich stay rich. The actual social mobility is far less than is theoretically possible given the system in place.

And I will have to reply with the statistic I gave you, of how easy it is for the hard working to rise, when their start, or connections in Government, or any other arbitrary factor. Free markets like hard work and sweat and skill and determination: all factors that affirmative action couldn't care less for.

It is refreshing to see such idealism on occassion, though. I'm glad you think there are enough private individuals who will provide services to the masses, whom you called immoral (something I think was quite uncalled for). However, your statements alone are somewhat self-defeating: you claim that a "perfect" monopoly that exists in a purely competitive free market can serve everyone's needs and is "ubercheap, ubereffective" and all that nonsense.

If you act with property rights as a basis, then all Governments are immoral, as they need to thieve to survive. While giving away free healthcare may be kind, fundign it with stolen goods is not.

People care about other people: why else would they elect Labour Governments? And if they didn't, why should your desire to give them this be taken as perferance above everyone else's?

You call my statements uncalledfor, and then disregard my (albeit slightly exagerated, and I've never used the prefix 'uber-' before) claim as nonsense? If one company could do all that it would become a monopoly. And a very nice one. If it can't (as none have done so far) it won't (as none have done so far)

 

[crocodiledundee]

Larklight, I don't want to join the capitalist bashing, but I really can't stand the idea of you converting people to your rhetoric of 'Africans getting the hell on earth they deserve' and refusing to ever give aid to any African nation. Calling high taxes and regulatory fees the sole reason for their poverty shows total lack of respect for Africans and suggests they are inherently inferior as a people.

No nation in history has developed under a free market system because industrialisation cannot occur in the face of established competition. Britain industrialised due to its monopoly throughout the empire that was created militarily; many of the workers in British factories were forced to cities by the enclosures that forced smallholders from the countryside. The US developed in the 19th century through tariffs directed against European industry and later, through massive state investment in military-industrial complex. Free markets will not enrich a nation as a whole and expecting it of Africans is disingenuous. The only ones advocating that are established corporations and their representatives, such as the US-dominated World Bank, the source of your stats.

In Civ terms, I think free market is fine as it is and definitely does not deserve "all cottages/hamlets etc. produce 4+ gold" or whatever other ridiculous proposal you have in mind. Free markets are not widespread purely because of their benefits; I'll argue that with you if I have to. Mercantilism is logically translated in the game, although I admit diplomatic hostility should be factored in. State property obviously warrants high maintenance, but its inevitable collapse can't be assumed. I suggest bonuses in health, happiness and hammers offset by underperforming cottages etc.

 

[Larklight]

Larklight, I don't want to join the capitalist bashing, but I really can't stand the idea of you converting people to your rhetoric of 'Africans getting the hell on earth they deserve' and refusing to ever give aid to any African nation. Calling high taxes and regulatory fees the sole reason for their poverty shows total lack of respect for Africans and suggests they are inherently inferior as a people.

Firstly, I have never spoken against aid, merely saying that it isn't particularly effective. Secondly, this in no way shows Africans as infereor: any people with such high taxes and regulations would be poor. This gives an explaination of why they are poor, and vindicated the people of any inherant flaw.

In Civ terms, I think free market is fine as it is and definitely does not deserve "all cottages/hamlets etc. produce 4+ gold" or whatever other ridiculous proposal you have in mind. Free markets are not widespread purely because of their benefits; I'll argue that with you if I have to. Mercantilism is logically translated in the game, although I admit diplomatic hostility should be factored in. State property obviously warrants high maintenance, but its inevitable collapse can't be assumed. I suggest bonuses in health, happiness and hammers offset by underperforming cottages etc.

Again, I object that you are misrepresenting me. I want Civ to be ballanced too, so the only thing I said for Free markets was firstly: a drop to low upkeep. Secondly, for the target city of the trade route to receve half the income that you do, to represent that it is benefiting too. This would show that 'hubs of commerce' are emerging.

Mercantalism: surely trade routes to vassals should be allowed?

 

[Stalker0]

Just as a note, the flaws that people are pointing out about free markets were known since the beginning of economic policy, its nothing new.

A lot of people point out Adam Smith as the father of the "free market" idea, but they forget he was highly in favor of government control....to a very SPECIFIC degree.

Part of the "The Wealth of Nations" details the inherent flaws of a pure capitalist system. Monopolies, worker abuse, private control of public facilities (water, sewage) were all detailed in the book.

Adam Smith himself said that a capitalist system is the best system AS LONG as its flaws are controlled by a central authority.

So yes the idea of a pure capitalist system is absolutely crazy, but as long as its flaws are controlled (and not overcontrolled) the general population tends to increase their wealth and thrive.

With the fall of communism in most of the world, the big debate now is how much freedom should be provided to a free market. There are capitalistic socialists and socialistic capitalists, its a spectrum of ideas.

In general, I believe in a limited government and a mostly free market. I do recognize main of the benefits of socialism, some of their health care systems look pretty good. And that socialist system does really well AS LONG as there is a good old free market in the world somewhere.

Why? Because you still cannot beat the free market when it comes to innovation. New technology, new drugs, the vast majority of it comes from free market countries. Socialist countries get all the benefits when they get these innovations, but if the whole world became socialist, I think you would see a marked decline in innovation.

 

[crocodiledundee]

Stalker, if you want to talk innovation look at the US. Their advances in terms of military/computer technologies, including the internet, have all been driven by government-sponsored research and development. The military's importance to the US economy is such that you can't correlate American advances solely with those of the free market.

Larklight, good point about mercantilism. I think the free market civic needs to recognise its ill-effects in terms of health and happinness along with the benefits you mention.

Secondly, what you're saying is that the Africans running their countries are too stupid to realise that all they have to do is lower taxes and their problems will be solved. That is, it's a simple solution that they do not implement because they are ******** Africans. In reality, African elite are often educated in the west to utilise the same theories you do. The problems are the massive burdens African states face.

We are talking about states that simply don't have the resources to do the 'simple' things you implore them do to, like enforcing contracts, and they can't just drop the rates to say 30% like Australia's. Anyway, foreign business does operate in third-world countries, but in such a way that IMF-regulated labour costs are pathetically low and profits are redirected to first-world sharemarkets. Meanwhile, poor countries are torn apart by internal and external warfare, which has historically been fomented on a regular basis by rich nations for their own benefit.

Honestly, anybody in the first-world ignoring international inequality and refusing to give to charity should wake up to themself, or at least keep such views to themself.

 

[Larklight]

Secondly, what you're saying is that the Africans running their countries are too stupid to realise that all they have to do is lower taxes and their problems will be solved. That is, it's a simple solution that they do not implement because they are ******** Africans. In reality, African elite are often educated in the west to utilise the same theories you do. The problems are the massive burdens African states face.

No more ******** than Europeans or Asians or Americans who institue the same systems. Socialism has sprung up on every continent, pritty much every country.

However, look at South Korea or Island or Chile and you can see how a free market can bring a nation from poverty to prosperity in 50 years. The industrealising stage is necessary, if unpleasant.

Honestly, anybody in the first-world ignoring international inequality and refusing to give to charity should wake up to themself, or at least keep such views to themself.

Again, you are typcasting me wrongly! If this was wikipedia I'd say WP: personal attacks, buit it isn't. I do give to various charitys that do actually help, and I'm a signed up memeber of Amnesty. Which is more than most of my peers do, since, being students without jobs, we lack much disposable income. If you have ever given away a month's income on the spur on the moment, then feel free to criticise me.

Even if I didn't, I should still try to perswade others that my views were right, unless you are too scared that you might be wrong.

 

[Roxlimn]

Stalker0:

I would have to agree also. A completely free market kills innovation about as much as it helps it, if at all. The only difference is who gets the benefit of the innovation.

In an idealized (optimally controlled) market, makers and builders of ideas get to benefit from the concepts and products they create. In a free market, the most powerful man who happens upon an idea gets to benefit from it, regardless of whether it was his idea or not. In a largely state controlled economy (including state-controlled economic segments within an otherwise free market), the state benefits from it.

The conviction that free markets somehow stimulate more economic activity and more innovation is unsupported and insupportable. The thing is not inherent. If anything, free markets are merely a tool for economic warfare, whereby stronger companies can devastate weaker entities, and stronger economies and exploit or wage war against other economies.

People talk as if it were all that different from mercantiism, but they can both be used the much the same effect.

 

[Molon Labe]

Stalker, if you want to talk innovation look at the US. Their advances in terms of military/computer technologies, including the internet, have all been driven by government-sponsored research and development. The military's importance to the US economy is such that you can't correlate American advances solely with those of the free market.

This is a bit extreme, don't you think? Sure the basic, bare bones internet was a government project, but the world wide web sure wasn't and that's what we really use. There's a reason the internet isn't just a bunch of old school BBS anymore, and it's not something I'd credit the government with.

Similarly you seem to be arguing that the military is what drives advancement in the US? I live in Europe now, but I'm an American and I spent six years in the Navy doing all the high tech nuclear stuff from the commercials. I can tell you it isn't that innovative or high tech. It could be run better and more efficiently with other methods, but the military sticks with the tried and true. Seriously, the military, of any nation, is probably the last in line when it comes to innovation.

Secondly, what you're saying is that the Africans running their countries are too stupid to realise that all they have to do is lower taxes and their problems will be solved. That is, it's a simple solution that they do not implement because they are ******** Africans. In reality, African elite are often educated in the west to utilise the same theories you do. The problems are the massive burdens African states face.

What is this ******** talk? I think that just reduces any potential argument towards bickering over words that are out of place. I would argue that the problem in Africa is that the governments and the despots in power are keeping their countries and people backwards and in misery because it personally benefits them. That's the massive burden.

We are talking about states that simply don't have the resources to do the 'simple' things you implore them do to, like enforcing contracts, and they can't just drop the rates to say 30% like Australia's. Anyway, foreign business does operate in third-world countries, but in such a way that IMF-regulated labour costs are pathetically low and profits are redirected to third-world sharemarkets. Meanwhile, poor countries are torn apart by internal and external warfare, which has historically been fomented on a regular basis by rich nations for their own benefit.

These states do, by and large, have the resources. Their governing bodies and various dictators, however, have decided that it's not in their interest to allow free markets and democratic ideals to flourish. Look at Zimbabwe, do you honestly think the problem there is a lack of resources or rather the despot in charge? Historically, sure, there were conflicts and destabilizing efforts made because it benefited some foreign power. Now that is not the case. We can talk about colonial Britain, but I doubt it will make those in Zimbabwe feel any better about Mugabe's reign.

Honestly, anybody in the first-world ignoring international inequality and refusing to give to charity should wake up to themself, or at least keep such views to themself.

I think I agree with you if you are saying that people should do what they can to alleviate the suffering and better the situations of these people. I also think that those of us blessed to be in the so-called first-world ought to honestly look at where the problem lies and address it as such.

 

[ATopic22]

you have to look at some of the better comunist regimes that did good for the people instead of the infamous russia with its horrible leaders. look at yugoslavia and what tito did for it. he basically abolished all poverty. communism is a good goverment or should i say socialism but its just bad leaders that are way too power hungry that mess it up for their people and make communism look bad.

 

[Stalker0]

communism is a good goverment or should i say socialism but its just bad leaders that are way too power hungry that mess it up for their people and make communism look bad.

If we are taking out the effects of bad leaders then monarchy is by far the best government system ever invented. If you have a really good king, you can get a lot done under a monarchy. What he says goes, there's no bureaucracy, no debate, its just accomplished.

But unfortunately we are talking about humans, and with humans power tends to corrupt. Any system where a body can accumulate power tends to become corrupt. Communism does this from the get go, it gives the state all of the power. So while yes it can work with a very good state, the lesson of history is that states very rarely are uncorrupted.

 

[Stalker0]

Stalker0:

I would have to agree also. A completely free market kills innovation about as much as it helps it, if at all. The only difference is who gets the benefit of the innovation.

In an idealized (optimally controlled) market, makers and builders of ideas get to benefit from the concepts and products they create. In a free market, the most powerful man who happens upon an idea gets to benefit from it, regardless of whether it was his idea or not. In a largely state controlled economy (including state-controlled economic segments within an otherwise free market), the state benefits from it.

As I mentioned in a previous post, there is no such thing as complete free market economics. Even Adam Smith, who is called the father of the the free market system, didn't believe in a completely free market.

And another concept he talked about was the importance of property protection. Citizens have to be able to own property, whether its physical or intellectual. Your completely right, if a system prevents a citizen from benefiting from his ideas innovation is stifled. And this is exactly what happens in a heavy socialist or communist system. If a researcher doesn't receive more benefit from coming up with a new idea than any other person, then what's the point of researching? After all, its hard work often full of failure.

In a free market system where the researching intellectual property is protected, then the incentive for innovation is present. He is well compensated for a good idea. As such he sells that idea to others, and the benefits of that idea spreads throughout the system.

History has shown that while general progress is made through the hardwork of large groups of people, true breakthroughs are often made through small groups or individual people. Any system that encourages the individual to work hard to make these breakthroughs will tend to have more scientific innovation.

 

[crocodiledundee]

Larklight, I agree that industrialisation is a necessary stage for poor countries, just not that this occurs through the utopian free market economy. A nation cannot establish a manufacturing base in the face of open competition from already established internationals. This is why protectionism, while not ultimately desirable, is temporarily required. As I've said, history does not support your argument and neither does the example of South Korea, which used tariffs to establish its economy, or Chile, which is still not prosperous despite mass privatisations of basic services (that caused chaos). The case of Ireland I don't know.

Perpetuation of the free market myth of development comes from the interest groups created in the first-world by the flow of profits to our stock exchanges. e.g. overseas earnings of US corporations in 2005, which accounted for 40% of profits growth and $2.7 trillion in market capitalisation. Roughly a third of all stock is owned by the rcihest 1%.

Molon, the armed forces don't innovate, but a lot of innovation has started with military technology that the US government subsidises. Computer and arms technologies are intertwined. The process goes back at least to radar and jet engines in WWII and the early COld War. The US government also subsidises biotechnology.(Republicans aren't right-wing in the sense that Larklight supports, even though he/she claims the US as a free market success.) Once you add advances from government-funded university research, there's not much left to attribute to free market-driven innovation.

In relation to Africa, my objection is that the situation as it stands is their own fault, fix it yourselves etc...Zimbabwe is an exception. The chaos caused by violent foreign intervention and foreign support for dictators is widespread and lasting: recently Congo held its first elections since the CIA assassinated its PM and backed the dictator Mobutu in the 60s. This is not the history of a distant past; the global players are the same today. The economic arguments about resistance to free trade are invalid and a distraction.

 

[Stalker0]

Larklight, I agree that industrialisation is a necessary stage for poor countries, just not that this occurs through the utopian free market economy. A nation cannot establish a manufacturing base in the face of open competition from already established internationals. This is why protectionism, while not ultimately desirable, is temporarily required.

Molon, the armed forces don't innovate, but a lot of innovation has started with military technology that the US government subsidises. Computer and arms technologies are intertwined. The process goes back at least to radar and jet engines in WWII and the early COld War. The US government also subsidises biotechnology.(Republicans aren't right-wing in the sense that Larklight supports, even though he/she claims the US as a free market success.) Once you add advances from government-funded university research, there's not much left to attribute to free market-driven innovation.

I will agree with the first point. Basically in order to break in to the established system from the ground up, either you have to develop a product that no one else wants to produce (or at the low prices your willing to charge) or set up deterrents for others so that your goods can thrive. Its a tricky transition, but a necessary for any new economy to stabalish.

I will also assume for the moment that your second point is correct, lets assume for the sake of argument that government and military do constitute a heavy amount of innovation. They still have to pay the bills. The US government can do all of that innovation because they have a ton of money, yet US taxes are relatively low. A free market system generates tremendous wealth, and the government of that system can tax that wealth in order to drive innovation. A poor government cannot.

But the tricky thing about government taxes is sometimes less is more. If you tax people too much, you set up deterrents for trade, new business, and skilled labor forces. This leads to a drain on the market, resulting in fewer profits, which actually results in less tax dollars. There's a balance between the government getting more money through taxes and slowing down the economy.

This is where I think socialism goes wrong. Taxing people for the common good is a fine idea, and in many cases its necessary. There are certain things that a government does better than the private sector. But all too often governments take money to do a less efficient job. Meanwhile, their taxes hinder other parts of the economy.

As for Africa, I don't think ANYONE is saying we shouldn't give aid, and throwing insults like that is not a good argument. However, I would love to hear more on this subject, some of the numbers being presented are of interest to me.

 

[Larklight]

Larklight, I agree that industrialisation is a necessary stage for poor countries, just not that this occurs through the utopian free market economy. A nation cannot establish a manufacturing base in the face of open competition from already established internationals. This is why protectionism, while not ultimately desirable, is temporarily required. As I've said, history does not support your argument and neither does the example of South Korea, which used tariffs to establish its economy, or Chile, which is still not prosperous despite mass privatisations of basic services (that caused chaos). The case of Ireland I don't know.

Hong Kong, Syngapor. After other nations have become prosperous they don't want to work cheaply, so they outsource, and that is how you industralise: by selling your labour cheaper than them!

There is no point internalising: if you are poor, no-one in the country will be able to buy your goods. The markets are abroad.

 

[Roxlimn]

Stalker0:

And another concept he talked about was the importance of property protection. Citizens have to be able to own property, whether its physical or intellectual. Your completely right, if a system prevents a citizen from benefiting from his ideas innovation is stifled. And this is exactly what happens in a heavy socialist or communist system. If a researcher doesn't receive more benefit from coming up with a new idea than any other person, then what's the point of researching? After all, its hard work often full of failure.

Property protection ideas, ideals and practical application often finds itself in a lot of quandaries regarding this so-called encouragement of innovation.

For instance, during the race to discover the basic structure of the DNA, Watson and Crick won out, but much of the work wasn't theirs to begin with, and several other researchers also put in equivalent or greater effort, but did not share in the glory. Both Watson and Crick themselves admit that the fact that they were first was a product of both politics and luck.

There's no great drive for innovation there that free market encourages. In fact, the large costs inherent in discovery and research rather skews research only towards those things which are saleable in a free market - products rather than pure science.

Furthermore, this patent system that purports to protect intellectual rights is just as fraught with injustices as any other system. It merely skews the power towards those who understand and can manipulate the bureaucracy of patents. Whether or not inventors benefit from their discoveries is still uncertain at best - there's a whole lot of people in the US who don't benefit from original intellectual property other than a rather low 9-to-5 salary, whereas their employers enjoy all the benefits of the produced intellectual property.

Compare this to the flowering of culture in Renaissance Italy, which did NOT sport free markets, or the flowering of religious and philosophical thought in Ancient Athens and India, neither of which sported free markets. Compare also to the various zeniths of technological and scientific innovation in Chinese empires, which ALSO didn't sport free markets.

The theory is cute, but it's flawed, because it doesn't consider real world wrinkles and dangers, much like the political theory of communism.

History has shown that while general progress is made through the hard work of large groups of people, true breakthroughs are often made through small groups or individual people. Any system that encourages the individual to work hard to make these breakthroughs will tend to have more scientific innovation.

I strongly disagree. Being a practical scientist myself following on the history of scientific and technological innovation through the centuries, I would have to say that so-called "breakthroughs" are only apparently made by small groups of people because someone is inevitably first to something or other. If you track a large number of people in a marathon, someone is always going to be first, but it doesn't mean that no one would have finished if that someone didn't go through the finish line first.

Many innovations are the result of other innovations being brought together, often by some rather ordinary people, sometimes years after they each have individually been made. Innovations like flight and cannons, for instance, are made possible by a number of other innovations and discoveries, and their development is often simply a matter of bringing together ideas that have already been developed beforehand.

Microscopy, as another example, is simply a matter of using lens to look at tiny objects rather than far away objects. The technology of lens making and the science of magnification had already been developed. It was simply that no one thought to look at small things before, and anyone could have. It seems inevitable that sooner or later, the notion would have occurred to someone to look - it is not a masterstroke of genius.

It's romantic to think of scientific progress being primarily propelled by single prominent geniuses or even groups of geniuses, but it's just a myth.