1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

State property

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Petros, Jul 8, 2007.

  1. Larklight

    Larklight Warlord

    Jun 28, 2007
    Free markets tailor supply to demand. If there is a lot of demand for pure science, there will be a lot undertaken. Unis and philantropic individuals could fund it (and do), as well as the scientists themselves.

    Pure science cannot go on forever without practical, nor visa versa. Anyway, the two are not all that different realy.

    Somehtings may at first appear to be entirely theoretical, but then have dramatic consequences. DNA- who forsore that it would spawn a massive pharmacuitical industry?

    Free markets let individuals do exactly what they want with their knowledge, their resources and their labour, with no regard to basically arbitrary rules which only cause ineffiency.
  2. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Feb 11, 2005
    And again I have to question blind adherence to the assumption that "free markets" are a godsend and do miraculous things other economic systems do not, apparently because people who don't operate in a free market somehow lose their minds or become insane.

    A University or a philanthropic individual could fund research in whatever field of study he chooses whatever the economic structure is. Free market is no requirement for this. In fact, most such flowerings of culture and knowledge evidently stem from large concentrations of wealth accompanied by a need to legitimize a political coup - not something that's normally associated with free markets.

    Nonsense. Individual destructive competition is often more a cause of inefficiency than otherwise. Just think of how much faster the structure of DNA could have been discovered if all the scientists working on it hadn't been so busy backstabbing and sabotaging each other!

    Rules made with a mind towards making an efficient system will usually make for an efficient system, whether or not that system is "free." And indeed, what differentiates "Environmentalism" from "Free Market" other than that "Environmentalism" puts a focus on renewable and nondestructive economic practices? It could be that in the future, we will discover that this is, in fact, more efficient than "free markets" because the "arbitrary rule" of being "green" saves the economy as a whole from the effort of cleaning up after itself!

    What then? Does "Environmentalism" then become "Free Market" simply because "Free Market" is evidently defined as "whatever wins?"

    The most successful economies of today are less about a laissez-faire attitude and the promotion of individual economic freedom and more about more or less open economic warfare and the establishment of extranational corporate identities.
  3. Larklight

    Larklight Warlord

    Jun 28, 2007
    He can only give the money if he is allowed to. In a communism he would have nothing to give, in a socialism it would have to be looked over by officials. With tariffs and the like, protectionism, he is again limited by what he can give, and to where.

    You have got that one point fundamentally wrong: the only economic system where people are free is a free market.

    Which is why every planned economy to date has fallen, and yet the free ones have thrived... A free market allows each individual to maximise his or her utility. Far far better than any beuarocrat could do so.

    Please, the sarcasm isn't helpful. If people were made to pay for their cost to the enviroment, we would this massive disaster of the commons. The Free market will always be defined by being free, a beast so complex that none could hope to out-do it. If we presume that no-one wants to commit suicide, then a free market could, and should save us from eco-disaster

    You're confusing the cause with the symptoms. Individual economic liberty made the economy, and is necessary for corperations, which are, after all, only ways for individuals to unite for all their interests. No reason why they shouldn't act in a green way if their shareholders want them to.

    Open economic warfare? If it's concentual, that's fine. After all, it imporves the service.
  4. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Feb 11, 2005

    That's absurd. In an ideal communism, he wouldn't need to give money to fund research because all people would research whatever is necessary with the maximum fervor without the need for monetary return.

    As long as we're only talking about ideal states, then it's only right to discuss everything in ideal states.

    In the totalitarianism common of most "communist" states, he wouldn't be a philanthropist if he weren't already a rich and powerful man, which is true in both communist and capitalist states, and in both cases, he has the wealth and power to do what he wants.

    In a socialist state, he is limited by laws that reserve certain resources for general social entities like gas and water and the like, but other than that, he can do what he likes, depending on the extent of "socialism" and what you mean by it.

    Right. Using large percentages of your efforts just to sabotage other competing efforts to nobody's direct gain is an efficient use of your time and energy.

    Really? So the environmental disaster of Industrial Age Britain never happened, because nobody in Britain wanted it and everyone knew the best ways to deal with it?


    And these oil spills that happen on a worldwide basis occur because we want to commit suicide and also incidentally want to extinguish entire species and ecosystems early while we destroy the planet?

    And we WANT people to go hungry and wander and suffer meaningless lives on the street because we're just that kind of people.


    This is a little sarcastic, I suppose, but your statements are so ideal and so completely disjoined from reality that their inherent self-contradictory nature leaves nothing to refute. They refute themselves.
  5. rabidveggie

    rabidveggie King

    Apr 4, 2007
    Communism looks good on paper, but when applied to humans greed, and a need for distinction stop the idea cold. Why should a doctor train for 7 additional years to make the same as someone who dropped out and is working as a cashier? Some of you may argue that it is simply the need to help others which should satisfy this demand, but in reality you would get too few who care. Stalin's communism was more a dictatorship, but that will likely happen when you give total power to one person.

    Now democracy and free trade are fine for fully developed countries at the top of production and technology, but it is far less ideal for countries who had stagnated economies to begin with. Free trade forces some countries to rely on one or two agricultural, or forced labor products as its impossible for them to compete in even their own market against the better made American, Japanese or even Chinese products. Canada was only able to survive next to the States by exercising stiff control on Imports and Exports or else risk having fledgling Canadian companies run out of business.

    Is State property overpowered comparative to its real world counterpart? Certainly, but its a game and it helps to have it when your Empire stretches from one end of the world to the other. :)
  6. Calavente

    Calavente Richard's voice

    Jun 4, 2006
    I would like to add a comment :

    debt in africa ...

    why is there apparently 200% taxe ....

    oh ... because even with 200% taxe they can't even pay the interest on there debt ... and the IMF force them to pay this.
    so ok, there are some (lot) of corruption and some leaders want to take the money in their pocket. but it is a drop in a bucket comparred to what debt international capitalist rules and greedy (western) people put on them.

    US and UK and western europe industrialisation was possible, not through free market but because they were the first to built.

    no poor guy in africa can built a new competitive producing company. there is always already a western, more advanced, more powerful company. and it can produce it cheaper (because it can invest in robotisation or more powerful tools) !!!

    IMO, Capitalism, free market works for a country only if there are other countries to take ressources from. it does not produces wealth in itself.
    sending weapons to africa boosted western economy. it couldn't have worked if western governement didn't build those war.

    (france has a heavy past with that, but also the US...etc)

    And a drawback of free market is a expension of wealth variation inside the society. poor people are poorer in USA than in less capitalism France.
    in a free market, poorest people (financialy or intellectually or socially) have to work way harder than richer people than in a less free market country.
    ie: in a free market : ruthlessness, chance and hard work are better rewarded, but illness, bad luck, error and gentlness are punished way stronger
    you can only survive those if you are already rich :) (and pay insurances..)
  7. Larklight

    Larklight Warlord

    Jun 28, 2007
    How to decide what to Support? In communism you need a massive state to make arbitrary decisions all the time. And it would be economists asigning the funding, not scientists, leading to short term planning.

    The state cannot know anything: short of 1984 that is. The market is the best indicator we have.

    Ideal system? Even in an unideal Capitalism, you can still give where-ever you want (hint, this must be true, byu definition!) Whereas in an unideal Communism (hmm... most of 'em by the looks of it) it all goes downhill. I wonder wghich is a better safe-bet?

    What do you mean by sabotage? If you mean it literally, then again that would be forbiden in a free market, as that isd an infringement of their property rights. If you mean it in a more metaphorical sense, please explain.

    Get rid of public property, and every case of pollution can be broguht to account. Everyone manages their own possessions. If you dump oil in my water, I'll sue you for the damage. 'What is common to most is valued least of all'. If everyything is owned, there is the incentive to keep it.

    If everything is owned by an individual, then they will look after what they own. Oil slicks- see many happeneding in private waters? I'd want insurance and tax 'em before I let them through mine. Smog over your house? Demand that they clean up, or go for compensation.

    The eternal whine. :p These aren't some sort of rules we imposed on them, they agreed to the terms. We didn't force them to take the money.

    200% taxes- of course they won't get anywhere! Germany and Japan and Italy recovered after WWII with massive debts. A tax hike now might increase your income this year, but it'll be less next year. Look at Ireland, Hong Kong, Syngapor- lower the taxes and you will grow! Please, 200%? Maybe they meant 20% (still too big realy), and soemone added an extra '0' by accident.

    You know what happenes to countries who get their loans canceled? They take out more. And those who actually work hard and pay back what they owe get slightly annoyed, that it turns out they didn't need to do any work after all.

    No, no-one in Africa can do anything becuase it costs too much! AS I have preveously said, the amount of fees and taxes and registrations... no-one can afford to becuase their Government's strangle them. If there were less restrictions, we could employ them cheaply, saving us money and giving them work. But we can't: so they starve.

    Saying only the first countries can make it work is rubbish- look at the Asian Tigers! Look at ireland! The golden stars of Capitalism, from poverty to prosperity in 50 years.

    In a non-capitalist country, the poor starve.

    In a Capitalist one, they can get jobs (huzzah!) becuase the rich are allowed to employ them.

    The USA and France! Ha. France has 10% unemployed, and they count those in poverty after state aid. America counts them before.
  8. Calavente

    Calavente Richard's voice

    Jun 4, 2006
    technically YOU said some things like 126 or 136% taxes ... my 200% where just to show you the absurdity of your claim.
    furthermore those countries are forced to take the loans : if you don't take a loan, you can't pay the interest of the debt... so pay or be embargoed by all civilised world... they pay for the errors of their greatfathers that sold huge contracts for almost nothing, not knowing the value of what they sold.
    and the debt are never fully canceled : all that was ever cancelled are the public part of some debt : ie the money the african country ows to a state. that's nothing, less than 10% of what they need to give back. (private bank never cancel their loans). and those cancellation usually come with more incentiv to buy from the former owner state : spending more money outside with few counterpart sales.

    what they really need is closing all african borders, constructing their own continental economy and then opening border again.

    in france AFAIK, there are no people doing two full time job being pauper. either part time / no job and pauper; or a full job and not pauper. or you may have huge debt but that's another story. with many children and only one full time low diplom job you can't be said rich at all but you are not a pauper.

    In urss, nobody starved ... everybody had something to eat, and a roof, and a job. everybody had money in surplus..
    but you didn't eat meat every day nor had a car, nor fancy things... because their were not enough in stock ! but not because of price.

    and returning to free market : do you know that success story exist, but they are marginal.

    free market is ideally a real no brainer magic system but to work it needs :
    -access to all "price + environnemental cost + liability of the firm " for each time you want to buy a product. (so that you can change)
    -the education and intelligence to understand that.
    -that everyone aims for 1) its own good; 2)its futur good; 3) eventually the society good.

    it is utopian.

    if you search deep enough, all fully fonctinnal free trad countries have dark secrets...
    it is easier to do a bad deed and the apologize, being powerfull than not doing the bad thing and starve.
    japan / corea began theire economics by raping intellectual property rights. microsoft : idem...etc. USA (not a free trade market) or UK began with absorbing money and wealth from 'colonies'. it is easier to stole for a hundred years and then defend the actual property rights and use of it than being the one stolen. it is then easier to compet when a worldwide 'free trade' is imposed.
  9. rabidveggie

    rabidveggie King

    Apr 4, 2007
    What you are referring to is more mercantilism, which was the British economic theory when they had plenty of colonies. Now what we are seeing are corporations moving to poor countries in order to benefit from the countries cheap labor and corrupt officials. If anything these companies actions hurt the economy as jobs are lost as these corporations move to these countries. Now that the post war boom has ended we will soon see the leading economic theory switch back to survival of the fittest.
  10. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Feb 11, 2005

    If we're going to argue ideals, then the state ought to be just as all-knowing as the corporations.

    In various kinds of unideal capitalistic states, the only difference between it and a totalitarian government is that a private individual holds all the power.

    Again, I'm pointing out that you're insisting on an ideal capitalistic theory while bashing specific RL failures of political systems (not really economic systems). State Property is not Communism.

    Competition in any form implies a contest, and in such contests, the one which kills its enemies wins. Even in supposedly ideal free markets, corporations and individuals spend plenty of effort just hammering away at their competition. Direct sabotage, marketing, patent wars, and so on. All these activities produce nothing, and yet occupy disproportionate fractions of people's time.

    Privatize AIR? And public spaces? And fresh drinking water? You're insane. All that'll do is give individuals leeway to destroy what they already own, regardless of how it affects the environment. We already have something of that in the destruction of forested private property. Logging in such places promotes the production of greenhouse gases through machinery and denudes forests vital to the world's ecosystems, and yet they can't be curtailed because it's all aboveground and legal, these being private interests.

    You're assuming that people will care about the environment and take care of it. Past and present prove that nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, it takes external government controls on free markets to curtail pollution produced by a wholly private sector. Heck, people eat bad diets and smoke and drink themselves to death all the time. You think they'll care about pollution?

    Seriously, that's about the most naive thing you've posted on this thread, and you've posted a lot of pretty idealistic stuff.
  11. Larklight

    Larklight Warlord

    Jun 28, 2007
    I know I said it, and sourced it too. It's correct, and absurd in that it is a very stupid policy to take, not becuase they aren't trying to do it.

    I was talking about the origional debts- they weren't forced to take them, and didn't need to either: other countries have industrealised quite fine without them.

    Actually, I do oppose states taking out debts, but then again I oppose all states, inc. lending money. So while I wouldn't have lent the money, we can't now cancel it either.

    African GDP has fallen by 8% since Colonialism ended.

    Please! That's what they've been trying to do for decades! And it hasn't worked one bit! The more open they've been, the better they are. The most introverted ones (Zimbabwe) are the worst off now.

    I'm sorry but I couldn't understand that at all. Are you saying that in France some people are paupers with no jobs, and some aren't and have jobs, but no-one has a job and is a pauper?

    Firstly, by definition no-one can do two full time jobs.

    Secondly, that doesn't avoid the problem that 10% don't have any work. And are thus 'paupers'. This is clearly a bad thing, compared with much lower rates in freer countries.

    So everyone had plently of money, but no goods? In that case you'll have hyperinflation quick as a flash. I presume you mean the USSR, but what you describe doesn't sound like it, so I'll argue against both.

    The USSR, beyond the initial success of the 'Virgin Lands' project, had numerous famines and shortages. Many people starved, added to the 20million Stalin killed.

    As you seem to be saying: there was not enough food in stock. This, surely, shows that the system failed? In the west, there is alwasy plenty on the shelves, and no-one starves.

    It is utopian, in that it is amazing. It does not need for everyone to know everything, and never has. However, it is in several groups interests to keep the consumers well informed.

    Firstly, obveosuly, the consumers.

    Secondly, the best companies out there clearly want it to be known that they are the best, and will advertise as such.

    Thirdly, independant watchdogs. It isn't so hard to be well-informed realy.

    Neither does it need people to work for their own good, present or future, or for everyone's good. It presumes that people act for their own good (call it greed or self-interest), but anything more than this merely improves the system.

    Strangely, you seem to think that Capitalism needs everyone to constantly think of the present, future and others- at who's expense is this exactly? This is all the groups!

    The USA never had colonies... :confused: And neither did Ireland or Hong Kong or Syngapor...

    Free trade 'imposed'? How can you impose it- everyhting is volentary! That's like saying I'm imposing freedom of speech on you! You don't even have to use it if you don't want to, you can act as if you have petty tariffs if you want to...

    Who said that Corperations have to be all-knowing? They don't have to be, but it is in their interests to be to a certain extent. And they only ever need a fraction of the knowledge that a state would need.

    And where is the problem with private individuals having all the power? It's not likely to ever condense onto one person, and as I've explained before, monopolies of vital resources are even rarer...

    Hong Kong, I suppose, is as close to a Capitalism without liberal leadership as you're likely to get, and it seems fine. The fact is that there are no grand stories of Capitalism killing millions of people, unlike Communism. Becuase it doesn't.

    Ahh, but in a free market, life or death is given by the consumers, not actual strength. Companies cannot physically harm each other, cannot make them any less absolute in their standing. Only consumers can do that.

    While all the frills of the markets seem to achieve little, on the whole they create a system with very little wastage. And any their is could be solved with more interested consumers.

    Don't forget, thsi is what the people want. With every dollar spent they're voting for a product. Corperations are answerable to the consumers, and their share-holders.

    That is becuase not all the costs are covered. If they were made to pay the full cost to the enviroment, the real cost, then these problems would not arrise. Air could be hard to privatise, so instead anyone who polluted it could be held liable to everyone by pollution cost/world's population. What's wrong with privatising water- it largely is already.

    Public spaces- whyever not?
  12. Calavente

    Calavente Richard's voice

    Jun 4, 2006
    1) if you have food... bad one ok but food : you do not starve.
    saying you can't buy meat doesn't mean you starve !
    2) in ussr (I said urss, sorry) theire can't be inflation: government is imposing the price (I never said it was a good system, only that what you said was false)

    3) the early debts in africa were made way before now.
    4) they couldn't have GNP before independance as they were colonies... and all profitable market (in africa) was mostly owned by... europeans...)

    5) in free market you are supposed to think for your own good ..ok? that mean your actual self ... but not at the expense of killing yourself tomorrow? ok. and not at the expense of killing your children ... that's what I mean.

    6) you can impose free trade : I am protectionnist but if you do not allow free trade in your country : I will embargoe you !!! the world bank does that all the time for 3rd world countries and never for US or europe... strange.

    7) USA never had colonies but easily assassinated people in south america so that no 'communist' state will work. and so that those country will accept US weapons, and make profitable contracts with US companies instead of building it themselvs.. (and earning the money).

    8) if you think that a company cannot harm an other unless through consumer 'vote'.. you're totaly ignorant. OPA ?? negation of patents ? patent stealing ? rumors? forced sales ? ...Etc.

    9) who will make that all costs are covered? how will someone evaluate air pollution and it's impact ? the state?

    10) I have no idea about singapor or ireland... but search hard enough... there are other phenomenon than free trading
  13. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Dec 31, 2005
    Looks like I've missed a lot since I was gone:) I'll try to hit a lot of different points in different paragraphs.

    State Efficiency vs Free Market Efficiency.

    The market or the state can be in charge of regulating production of goods, pricing, and so forth. However, in general the market tends to be more efficient at this.

    Why? If the state is voted on by the people, it only has to make sure a minimum amount of good work is done to ensure votes. If the state isn't elected, they don't even have that much to worry about. In order for a company to sell products, it has to make products that people want. If another company comes around that makes a better product, then they will gain more money. Every business decision has a direct impact on profits, so ever decision is important.

    Now, the issue of infighting and patent wars and so forth were brought up. These things definitely happen, and it does consume a portion of efficiency. Now when I say free market I am assuming Adam Smith capitalism and not completely uncontrolled anarchy. As such, there are governmental regulations that go into place to curb some of this infighting and to encourage companies to compete "in the marketplace."

    However, even with the infighting that occurs, there is direct competition that produces one very positive side effect, innovation. Companies are encouraged to make products quicker, better, and cheaper to compete against one another. The state just needs to maintain the needs of the populace, it has no incentive to produce innately better goods.

    The argument of innovation has been brought up, and the talk of scientific research has been discussion. However, pure science is a small part of innovation. Changes in product lines, distribution networks, chemical formulas to increase product quality, etc are all innovations that are important.

    Further, I agree that not all innovations are rewarded under a capitalist system. There have been people with great ideas that aren't rewarded for them. But at the same time, innovation is an important part of competition. If company B is doing better than company A, company A has to improve through innovation or die out. That means workers that get laid off. Those workers have innate incentives to promote innovation in their own company for their own individual interest (keep their job) which translates into a benefit for the whole company (improved innovation).

    The example of Italy and the Renaissance were mentioned as a model for innovation. I agree, that system produces some wonderful scientific discoveries. Unfortunately it requires a very wealthy upper class supported by a large poor population. Basically you need people who have tons of money and all the time in the world to sit around and think of stuff. The middle classes of today's countries would not tolerate such a system.

    Speaking of the wealthy and poor, it was mentioned that capitalist systems tend to breed wide distributions between wealthy and poor. Problem with statistics like these is you have to be careful of how you define poor. I mean, is a person who has a car and a television but little free income considered poor? Do you have to be starving to be poor? There are many people in the united states that are considered below the poverty line, yet they have no problems feeding themselves and have things middle class people in other countries don't. Should poor be defined country by country, or should there be a worldwide definition of poor?

    Finally, I come to the issue of pollution. Speaking as someone with experience in the oil industry of the United States, I can say that free market and environmentalism are not so spread apart as you think. The thing is, often times being green is good for the wallet!! Free companies in the US plant more trees than they cut down, its just good business. Companies are learning to waste less because increasing efficiency increases profits. A company with heavy water pollution may be paid incentives by a fishing company to decrease pollution so that they can increase fishing. Probably the biggest example recently is the increase in gasoline prices, which has caused phenomenal innovation in alternate fuels and gas efficient cars.

    If consumers want a good environment companies are willing to provide. As pollution increases, it gets more expensive to continue polluting. There's a natural balance point where pollution just becomes bad business, and companies will innovate themselves to pollute less.
  14. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Feb 11, 2005

    That's actually not true. US "protectorates" such as the Philippines and Guam are, for most intents and purposes, colonies.

    Complete nonsense. They're both groups of people. If a privately owned outfit can find out facts that helps it attend to the needs of the state and the population, then a state-owned one can, too.

    There are no grand stories of capitalism killing millions of people because it isn't a political system. Duh.

    What is the problem with private individuals having all the power? Dictatorship.

    Very little wastage? Companies spend millions and millions of dollars on marketing and advertising, efforts that do nothing except promote them over their competitors. Likewise, they spend at least as much on legal protections so that their enemies can't saddle them with patent protection lawsuits and such. Sony recently lost a VERY expensive patent battle.

    I can't see this as producing anything worthwhile.

    Ideal, ideal, ideal. Every time I point out a problem, you give me a theoretical ideal situation that doesn't exist. Why stop there? Capitalism is great because everyone who works in a capitalism suddenly develops a golden heart and powers of near-omniscience!


    It's a pointless and general statement. BOTH state regulations and consumer spending are necessary forces for an efficient system to arise. Extremes of one or the other are not good.

    Idiotic! Whoever said that consumer feedback can't be incorporated into a state-owned enterprise? Singapore Airlines is state-owned, but it is efficient and profitable.

    Adam Smith's ideal free market is about as commonplace as Marx's communism. If we're going to assume an ideal Adam Smith idea, then for fairness, we ought to also assume an equal amount of theoretical ideal for state-owned concepts.

    Companies in competition are encouraged to be efficient, regardless of who owns them.

    They're also encouraged more directly to engage in efforts that will allow them to kill their competitors, regardless of whether it makes for a better product or if it's actually innovative.

    Releasing shoddy product, for instance, at a cheaper price can result in a net benefit for the company. There are any number of shoddy product in many market places today that prove the truth and efficacy of this strategy. Product quality is a weapon, but cheap pricing, even at the cost of quality is also a weapon.

    In fact, cheap pricing is so powerful a weapon that external quality controls from the state are necessary to protect consumers, even from economies that boast to be the best of what free markets have to offer.

    Quality control is what makes better product, not competition. State-owned outfits with quality control are just as likely if not more to produce quality product and innovative ideas.

    Complete nonsense. Senseless propaganda. If you're going to present an argument, you should present a credible one.

    You're assuming that Company A has to improve through innovation to survive. That's not true. If it was engaging in efficient practices, then one way to compete would be to remove these practices. It could also saddle Company B with legal attacks, or nasty rumors, or any number of completely permissible attacks. It can form exclusive deals with associated product or arrange a merger with a larger company, or flee to a niche market.

    It could find an alternate position on the supply/demand curve that sacrifices quality over price, and if that's a more profitable position, then it might even encourage Company B to make shoddier product to compete.

    Product development is a major concern of entities at war, but that's not the only way to win, and it isn't an exclusive property of the free market.

    Modern companies are essentially a very wealthy upper class who have tons of money and all the time in the world to sit around and think of stuff. It's much the same.

    The only difference is, Americans belong to a wealthier nation and thus assume that all nations that adopt capitalism will achieve equal amounts of wealth.

    In fact, one of the key properties of free markets is the accumulation of wealth by powerful individuals at the expense of the many, and state regulations have to fight this tendency for a more equitable distribution of wealth.

    Compared to its upper 500 companies, most of America's middle class ARE poor.

    This is just pointless rhetoric. The tendency of capitalist systems to concentrate wealth is well-known but not fully understood. This is a observable phenomenon that's empirical, and needs no proof.

    Apparently, free market is defined as whichever economic system happens to be winning...


    If I'm coming across as hostile, please forgive the tone, but I'm getting rather weary of repeatedly refuting rosy idealized views of the free market idea. It's not the best system that exists. It has flaws. Having the state own most if not all of the nation's property doesn't mean that everyone suddenly turns into morons.

    State owned companies aren't confined to the Soviet Union, not are they tied to so-called "communist" totalitarian governments.

    If you want a study of free market gone bad, I direct you to Philippine economic history from its occupation by American to circa 1990.

    A state-owned company that prioritizes efficiency, profitability, and innovation is no different from a private one. I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to fault Singapore Airlines for being an inefficient company because of its state-owned status.
  15. PimpyMicPimp

    PimpyMicPimp Regrets His Username.

    May 18, 2007
    Regina, Saskatchewan
    Mixed economy.

  16. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Dec 31, 2005
    I'm enjoying this debate, I really am, but I am getting rather weary of your constant bashing of people who wish to debate with you. You call me idiotic and rosy eyed, sorry, but that doesn't win you an argument. I'm seeing a lot of bashing of my ideas, so let's see some more of yours.

    Your contention that the disparity in wealth from a capitalist system is empirical I agree with, capitalist systems always have a disparity in wealth. But to write that off without considering further facts is what is nonsense.

    One of the reasons this is important is to determine which of the following is a more preferable situation:

    A: Everyone has relatively equal wealth but standards of living are low.
    B: There is a disparity in wealth. The rich are very rich compared to the poor, but even the poor have better or near equal standards of living compared to Situation A.

    For example, if we assume that Americans have a big disparity of wealth, but our poor are well off compared to the rest of the world, is that a bad situation?

    Well first of all, we would have to determine standards of living, what it means to be poor, etc. Then, there are further considerations. What if the poor are mobile, aka, they don't remain poor? One contention of a "good" capitalist system is the chance for people to rise above their station. Statistics are needed to determine if that happens, or is it that the poor remain poor and the rich remain rich? Further, are the standards of living for equalized wealth people really that much lower? Are they in fact just as good, and it really is capitalist propaganda? You have to have facts to prove the point one way or the other.

    Now, you have also made the contention repeatedly that companies engage in all of this hostile company warfare as opposed to marketplace competition. Certainly some of that happens, but saying this is the standard way of business is just as rosy eyed an opinion as the one you claim I have. There are consequences to these practices.

    For example, in America a company called Enron practically went under when illegal dealings were found in its management practices. Corporately speaking, they paid the ultimate price for their mistakes.

    Now I will turn the tables on your state sponsored companies. You mentioned the singapore airport. I don't have any numbers to look out, but I'll agree with what your saying for the sake of argument. However, let's say the state company decides to produce shoddy products, or use harmful tactics to compete with other suppliers. What is there to stop them? In corporate competition, companies keep each other in check. If company A is producing a shoddy good, don't you think Company B will throw some of that advertising budget into letting the people know about it? Your right, companies do spy on each other, and part of that keeps them in check. There's only so much they can get away with before their competitors will bash them down.

    But there's nothing to oppose the state. It makes the rules, it does what it wants. If it decides to be good and generous that's wonderful. If it doesn't, there's no competition to stop them. This is my original point about the monarchy. With a good king, you really can't beat the system. He can make things smooth, clean, and efficient with but a single command. But history has shown good kings don't last forever, they are inevitably replaced with bad kings who screw up everything. Companies have other companies to keep them in check, states do not.
  17. gamedude107

    gamedude107 Permanoob(i play settler)

    Feb 12, 2007
    god isnt real

    Deal with it
  18. AThousandYoung

    AThousandYoung Prince

    Apr 17, 2007
    That's actually not true. US "protectorates" such as the Philippines and Guam are, for most intents and purposes, colonies.

    Puerto Rico voted to maintain it's status with the US three times with the last time being in 1998. Does that make a difference?
  19. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Feb 11, 2005

    Yes, actually it does. Puerto Rico's economic deals with the US are profitable to it and it would be a fool to refuse the link. The Philippines itself currently HAS to export to the US to sustain its economy, although many analysts would say that the US, through laws and economic manipulation, arranged for that relationship in the first place.


    If you'll look closely, I don't call people idiotic. I call statements idiotic, but whether that's reflective of those who say them is something for you to decide.

    I think a more telling question would be "Why is America so rich whereas allies like the Philippines who have a similar and a sponsored and approved economic system poor?"

    Ever since the Philippines was an American colony, it has used the same economic philosophies and theories that support American economy, and indeed, under the Tydings-Mcduffie Act, most of its economic actions and trade were virtually under the direct control of the US Congress.

    So why is it that Japan, Thailand, and South Korea, with looser ties to the US economy and whose economic systems are superficially similar but profoundly different, better off?

    Capitalist systems proclaim that poor people within their system have a chance to "make it big," and for a small number of extraordinary people, this is true. By the same token, peasants in monarchial systems also have a chance to become king, and even caste system societies have occasional social movement up or down.

    Series examples do not make these claims valid. By and large, people who own large corporations and properties in the US and elsewhere were rich to begin with, hence the name "Old Rich." "New Rich" people are rarely from a poor background, simply because the poor do not usually have the means to do anything other than survive. Usually, they are branches of rich families that have fallen into middle class, or middle class people who have risen from poor roots. In both occasions, New Rich founders tend to be people of extraordinary capability, and are exceptions.

    If you can find me a perfectly ordinary poor person in a capitalist system that became rich, and show that this is the norm, then I'll accept that capitalist systems truly provide for economic mobility.

    My father works in the marketing business, and I've had occasion to work for him for some projects. His share of the budget pie is rather large, and ultimately, all he does is combat the influence of competing companies. He doesn't produce goods, nor any service that will benefit his company's customers.

    Then there's the corporate legal department, which is at least as influential as the marketing one, and frequently also boasts similar budgetary allowances.

    I'm familiar with all this corporate warfare because I've seen and worked with it firsthand. Can you say the same?

    You're making a mistaken assumption that state companies are immune from this sort of attack. Some of them are, and that's a bad practice generally speaking, and it's not an apriori property of state companies. For that matter, private companies in the US with strong political lobby also enjoy similar protections.

    For instance, the farming community in the US enjoys incredible amounts of government subsidy which allows them to sell their products on the international market at what would otherwise be a huge loss to them. This kind of subsidy means that US farmers are less inclined to be efficient and more inclined to finds ways by which they can get even more subsidy, since the latter usually takes less effort. Moreover, this allows them to compete unfairly against agricultural products from developing nations that can't afford to subsidize their farmers. "Free Trade" in this case actually means "Unfair Trade."

    Similar accusations were leveled by Beoing against Airbus and vice versa. Contrary to what you think, these kinds of protections and market dealings are NOT confined to state properties, and are not inherent to one or the other.

    A state doesn't necessarily protect its own company. Singapore makes a point of NOT supporting Singapore Airlines in any way, shape or form, which is more than what you can say about most of the supposedly "free markets" in the world today, which are usually modified or supported by their respective governments one way or the other.

    A state company is NOT the state itself, and market protections and subsidies in the world today are to be found largely in "free markets."
  20. tucnymaster

    tucnymaster Chieftain

    Aug 6, 2006
    Although there are a few exceptions, liberalism has those flaws:

    First, it doesn't give more choices or cheaper prices because there is competition. Money always concentrate and finally it eleminates compeition. Privatisation of public facilities always resulted for the people as a lower quality product or more expansive, short-term investments only good for immediate profit.

    Second, Even if there would be competition, you can't really choose your product for its qualities, because business are not transparent. You don't really know the qualities of its products so competition doesn't work.

    Third, liberalism doesn't really grow economy. What is better; a state-planned economy growing 2% per year with 0% inflation or a liberalist economy running 10% per year with 20% inflation. China has actually more inflation than growing so in fact they are getting poorer with liberalisation.

    Fourth, liberalism isnt stable at long-term. It can result in a sudden crash if the economy is running because too many products are produced or it can lead to poverty because investments are getting scarcer because of the going down value of shares. Which is better ?

    Fifth, capitalism can't produce wealth. Wealth usually needs creativity. Creativity requires sustained long-term investment which capitalism doesnt care of. Capitalism has to do short term investment to thrive. Even worse it destroys wealth. For example, a company (dont remember the name) decided to do a gold mine in Chile. They needed to destroy the ice caps at the top of the mountains. The problem is that the people of the bottom need the ice cause when it melts it gives the water the people under the mountains need for agriculture etc. So capitalism can ruin a whole economy which slowly built in centuries to zero in a few years only for immediate profit.

    To produce 1 dollar money, capitalism must destroy 100 dollars.

    Capitalism has all the flaws of communism, except it doenst have its qualities.

Share This Page