|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 05 2014 11:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 10:12 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:50 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 09:23 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:20 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 08:23 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 07:01 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Why must high taxes go alongside unpredictable rules? Also why does transferring wealth from rich to the poor necessarily involve less wealth creation? I see absolutely no reason for that. The rich don't act to maximise wealth creation, they act to maximise wealth creation for them. They don't care if, for example, moving jobs overseas leaves an entire city idle as the loss of employment causes dependent businesses to fail because those are negative externalities which become the problem of society as a whole. The overall output of society may have gone down as groups of people find themselves outside the business models of the financiers but the wealth of the few has grown. Wealth is created when people engage in productive labour, redistribution stimulates and revitalises economies. It allows parents to work fewer hours and spend more time raising decent kids, it strengthens community bonds and injects capital into the local economy that creates productive labour where before there could be none.
Unless you advocate the abolition of the minimum wage, working hour legislation, employee rights, workplace safety and so forth Americans are not going to be able to compete on an even playing field with Chinese people and this is only going to get worse as mechanisation replaces the Chinese. There is a surplus of American labour that capitalism has no use for, its creation dismissed as a societal externality with the associated loss of wealth not appearing on any balance sheet. Normal people are not getting a fair chance to make a good life for themselves. A great many are condemned to unemployment by a capitalist system that has discarded them. If there is more than enough pie for everyone but people are going hungry then why is the concern not making sure everyone gets fed? At the end of it all there won't be an awards ceremony with a prize for biggest pie. Likewise, the case is made that some public servant ostensibly hired for purposes of benevolence won't know enough or be altruistic enough to decide where to redistribute the money so as to "stimulate and revitalize economies." It could just as well be redistributed to the impact groups with the most political clout. Buggy-whip manufacturers unjustly impacted by the rise in cars, we need to redistribute those greedy capitalist's money to them. Big Shoes are putting cobblers out of business, we need to redistribute money to them to stimulate the economy. Rather, the free economy engages in creative destruction, opening up new jobs as others are destroyed, outsourced, or automated. Manufacturing jobs in place of tasks done by hand. New industries never even heard of before. iPods were not invented by directive of a government agency, and now how many more people find jobs from that avenue? Sure, locally administered welfare programs for the temporarily jobless and poor and hungry, designed to help them receive training for the next and discourage dependency. Then, grow the pie, don't redistribute the pie. We talk about wealth creators because of the discouragement confiscatory taxation has on wealth creators. Stop expanding your business, stop hiring on more employers, stop (gasp) getting financing for new ventures, because you're only allowed to keep 50cents for every extra dollar you make whereas your increased workload still burdens you. Capitalism is unique for its unparalleled capacity to inspire people to make products people didn't even know they wanted before. Wealth redistribution as wealth creation is the ticket to stagnation, fueled by envy of the rich for their wealth and jealousy for the hard worker that made sacrifices to get ahead. You know all your point of view is base on chimera, an hypothetic system called "capitalism", "unique for its unparalleled capacity to inspire people" blablabla. Something that never existed and that cannot exist in the first place. That's why I rarely use the term capitalism, that's why I always feel bored when I hear or read anyone talking about "capitalism". Creative destruction is a really interesting topic. But why do you use this idea while defending the idea of free market ? The idea of creative destruction was used by schumpeter to explain why the economy goes out of a slump, it is a concept that was used in his theory of the evolution economic, and more exactly a way for him to explain recovery after slump in relation to the existence of economic cycle - an empirical constatation. The problem is that the idea of slump and economic cycle have never been fully explained by free marketist and it is, by itself, a proof that free market doesn't work. If the economy naturally tend to cycle with slump and recovery, and if the market is always optimal, does this mean that slump are optimal ? (and yes some economists defended this and it was wrong) Why should we not try to act and prevent the cycle from happening ? What's so important about creative destruction that we cannot do with economic policy ? Your answer to that will always be that the economic policy do more arm than good, but that is also not true empirically. Ho but yeah, reality doesn't matter right. Let the kids die of hunger so that the population regulate itself, and let the economy create and destroy because it is the most efficient way to maximise capital accumulation. By the way, in a "free" society the iphone would never have appeared, because there would be no incentive for such tool to appear : with no government, no private property, no money, no regulation, no pattern, etc. Hong Kong for an era, Singapore too. United States in its beginnings, becoming less and less true around the turn of the 20th century. Of course, France is largely in a post-capitalistic era. How's the unemployment working out for you? How about that 75% tax rate? Gerard Depardieu certainly liked it all the way to the airport. Socialism is in its heyday there. I see you've finally cured your society of its ills; congratulations! Try not to mortgage your Eiffel Tower when the new 3bil euro hike in taxes fails to keep pace with spending. It was talked about by John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, and a host of others more than 100 years ago. It isn't the cure for never experiencing a slump, it is the quickest way back out should an economy find itself in one. Demagogues like you leap from freedom of choice to the dying kids, and it's your right to give us laughs if you choose. Oh yeah, and do us a favor and look up the profit motive. Look up the ideas of Adam Smith on the system existing with such state structures as police force, divisions for public cleanliness of streets etc. Don't be so foolish as to mistake capitalism for anarchy. Don't be so foolish to assume societies just don't develop naturally alongside a division of labor before there were any governments. You're the demagogue it seems as Mill was never a free marketist, same for Smith. Do us a favor and read what you quote. Do you even know that Mill considered that the purchasing of wealth accumalation - your capitalism - was just a bad part of human history that was bound to end. That s why he is a choice author for leftist ecologists who seek "decroissance" - negative growth. And my free market brethren co-opted a term used by Marx in naming. Smith is essentially the father of capitalism--he spoke nothing but free trade, the primacy of the individual, and the invisible hand in a land dominated by mercantalism. These are huge building blocks for the system of economic organization. Mill's intro to On Liberty: "The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection." Hume's writings as well. Sounds a lot like freedom of the individual standing in stark contrast to the powers of the state, does it not? This make take some mental work, and respond whenever you please, but not every economist and philosopher has to write down every point detailing an entire economic system for them to be huge in its development. Just as you chose to not respond to every single point in my second paragraph, sometimes great thinkers detail on aspect or another. And as mentioned earlier, France is doing its best to prove capitalism's merits by departing from almost everything that made it great in the distant past and reaping the rewards! How many more of your most successful will have to renounce their citizenship before you reconsider letting individuals pursue their separate interests with low state intervention in their finances and lives? Hollande says he "didn't like" the rich back before announcing his millionaire's tax. Clearly foundational in your system to (well, should you support one ... sometimes all critics do is criticize and I shouldn't assume). That's it exactly ! Stupid people can't understand complexity. Read two sentence of Mill, think he understands it all. Read Smith's wealth of nation, who cares about moral sentiments and whatnot ? And please, don't talk about France, it spunds wrong everytime. I guess that's my question to you if you have or stand for any kind of system. When you don't stare down your nose at people with an intellectual air, what do you advocate? In my naivete, I thought a well-read man would understand some complex connections, but I was wrong. You yourself dismiss arguments out of hand because it's easy, as evidenced in your last two posts. Since you mentioned it, I ask you, have you even read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations since you respond to none of the points I made from it? I argued against wealth redistribution and for increasing the pie available, and you responded by saying capitalism has never existed and all its merits are just blablabla. Do you advocate any kind of system at all? Do you rest your pen after calling my system "letting kids die of hunger" and that the iphone would never have appeared in a free society? I'm sorry but go back in time and take a good look. You start by saying creative destruction is how the economy solve problems. I respond to you that creative destruction is a theory that tries to explains why there are economic cycle - why there are recovery after slump. The simple existence of slump is a proof of non optimality of the market. The existence of slump is a problem and justify economic policy in a sense - unless the policy have no positive impact on the slump, something that is not proven empirically - again history prove that. And economic policy is always wealth redistribution. You respond to that by quoting smith and mill, XVIII th century author. Not to mention they are nothing but anachronism in this case, they where not blindly in love for the market - but yes I guess it is too hard for you to understands complexity. This will make the third time I've asked, but in amongst all this criticism of, you know, individualism and freedom and free markets, I am still wondering what you would like to propose as an alternative. I mean, prattling on and on about blind belief in market solutions might be all the rage where you come from, but do you have something to stick aside it and profit by the comparison? I tried to point to France's current governance, but, in your words, "it spunds wrong everytime." I'll hear you out even if you've discovered an omniscient deity on earth willing to reward individuals on their merits and not the value of their assets and labor in a market system.
An omniscient deity is not required. A better system than free markets, all the time, is to leave those industries free that produce satisfactory results, but to interfere where they do not. In my view it is unacceptable that some people are unable to get medical treatment when they are sick or injured, such a market state is not satisfactory. A system where enormous amounts of waste occur due to lack of incentive is also unacceptable, so in health care a right balance between market mechanisms and government sponsorship must be found.
|
I have two questions:
For the ones against capitalism (or deregulation, or whatever you may call it): what's the alternative? Is there anything besides what we have now that works and that has a chance of working in the future? I ask this because, from what I know of economics (very little, actually), I don't think that the current economic system will work with things like almost complete automation, 3D printers available for everyone... (as you may have imagined, I'm talking 50/100 years in the future).
And for the ones that support capitalism/deregulation/whatever, what are good examples of such a society working? (Doesn't need to be a present example, you can give as an example a country from 100 years ago if it worked as you think a country should).
P.S.: If I'm asking this is because I have no idea, so don't ask me. Also, don't tell me to just google it since I'd like to know what you all think.
|
I don't think anyone (or at least not very many people) are against capitalism in the modern day.
Most of the issues arise from different views on how to handle (or whether to handle) the consequences of the basic system - ie what happens at the very bottom and at the very top of the social hierarchy.
For example, when the wealth distribution is skewed in favor of a very few people, that isn't only an economic issue. It becomes a general issue because the distribution of power is also skewed in favor of the same people to the extent where they can (ab)use that power to influence or control institutions - such as parliaments or courts - that are necessary to ensure the fundamental rules of the society remain fair and appropriately enforced.
Likewise, if poverty is too crippling at the very bottom, and the means to escape or manage poverty without infringing on individual rights and freedoms are limited or non-existent, you end up with a large population of people that are easily manipulated and exploitable.
The bottom line is, the economic system - no matter what it is - has to operate in a sandbox. It cannot be allowed encapsulate the society itself. No matter how small of a government someone wants, at the end of the day, you want the parliament to pass laws that are in the public interest, you want the police and courts to act on those laws independently, you want the military that protects your country and ensures your safety rather than being a corporate task force. The more these institutions are compromised by private interest, the less you can claim to live in a free society.
|
On January 05 2014 11:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 10:12 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:50 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 09:23 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:20 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 08:23 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 07:01 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Why must high taxes go alongside unpredictable rules? Also why does transferring wealth from rich to the poor necessarily involve less wealth creation? I see absolutely no reason for that. The rich don't act to maximise wealth creation, they act to maximise wealth creation for them. They don't care if, for example, moving jobs overseas leaves an entire city idle as the loss of employment causes dependent businesses to fail because those are negative externalities which become the problem of society as a whole. The overall output of society may have gone down as groups of people find themselves outside the business models of the financiers but the wealth of the few has grown. Wealth is created when people engage in productive labour, redistribution stimulates and revitalises economies. It allows parents to work fewer hours and spend more time raising decent kids, it strengthens community bonds and injects capital into the local economy that creates productive labour where before there could be none.
Unless you advocate the abolition of the minimum wage, working hour legislation, employee rights, workplace safety and so forth Americans are not going to be able to compete on an even playing field with Chinese people and this is only going to get worse as mechanisation replaces the Chinese. There is a surplus of American labour that capitalism has no use for, its creation dismissed as a societal externality with the associated loss of wealth not appearing on any balance sheet. Normal people are not getting a fair chance to make a good life for themselves. A great many are condemned to unemployment by a capitalist system that has discarded them. If there is more than enough pie for everyone but people are going hungry then why is the concern not making sure everyone gets fed? At the end of it all there won't be an awards ceremony with a prize for biggest pie. Likewise, the case is made that some public servant ostensibly hired for purposes of benevolence won't know enough or be altruistic enough to decide where to redistribute the money so as to "stimulate and revitalize economies." It could just as well be redistributed to the impact groups with the most political clout. Buggy-whip manufacturers unjustly impacted by the rise in cars, we need to redistribute those greedy capitalist's money to them. Big Shoes are putting cobblers out of business, we need to redistribute money to them to stimulate the economy. Rather, the free economy engages in creative destruction, opening up new jobs as others are destroyed, outsourced, or automated. Manufacturing jobs in place of tasks done by hand. New industries never even heard of before. iPods were not invented by directive of a government agency, and now how many more people find jobs from that avenue? Sure, locally administered welfare programs for the temporarily jobless and poor and hungry, designed to help them receive training for the next and discourage dependency. Then, grow the pie, don't redistribute the pie. We talk about wealth creators because of the discouragement confiscatory taxation has on wealth creators. Stop expanding your business, stop hiring on more employers, stop (gasp) getting financing for new ventures, because you're only allowed to keep 50cents for every extra dollar you make whereas your increased workload still burdens you. Capitalism is unique for its unparalleled capacity to inspire people to make products people didn't even know they wanted before. Wealth redistribution as wealth creation is the ticket to stagnation, fueled by envy of the rich for their wealth and jealousy for the hard worker that made sacrifices to get ahead. You know all your point of view is base on chimera, an hypothetic system called "capitalism", "unique for its unparalleled capacity to inspire people" blablabla. Something that never existed and that cannot exist in the first place. That's why I rarely use the term capitalism, that's why I always feel bored when I hear or read anyone talking about "capitalism". Creative destruction is a really interesting topic. But why do you use this idea while defending the idea of free market ? The idea of creative destruction was used by schumpeter to explain why the economy goes out of a slump, it is a concept that was used in his theory of the evolution economic, and more exactly a way for him to explain recovery after slump in relation to the existence of economic cycle - an empirical constatation. The problem is that the idea of slump and economic cycle have never been fully explained by free marketist and it is, by itself, a proof that free market doesn't work. If the economy naturally tend to cycle with slump and recovery, and if the market is always optimal, does this mean that slump are optimal ? (and yes some economists defended this and it was wrong) Why should we not try to act and prevent the cycle from happening ? What's so important about creative destruction that we cannot do with economic policy ? Your answer to that will always be that the economic policy do more arm than good, but that is also not true empirically. Ho but yeah, reality doesn't matter right. Let the kids die of hunger so that the population regulate itself, and let the economy create and destroy because it is the most efficient way to maximise capital accumulation. By the way, in a "free" society the iphone would never have appeared, because there would be no incentive for such tool to appear : with no government, no private property, no money, no regulation, no pattern, etc. Hong Kong for an era, Singapore too. United States in its beginnings, becoming less and less true around the turn of the 20th century. Of course, France is largely in a post-capitalistic era. How's the unemployment working out for you? How about that 75% tax rate? Gerard Depardieu certainly liked it all the way to the airport. Socialism is in its heyday there. I see you've finally cured your society of its ills; congratulations! Try not to mortgage your Eiffel Tower when the new 3bil euro hike in taxes fails to keep pace with spending. It was talked about by John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, and a host of others more than 100 years ago. It isn't the cure for never experiencing a slump, it is the quickest way back out should an economy find itself in one. Demagogues like you leap from freedom of choice to the dying kids, and it's your right to give us laughs if you choose. Oh yeah, and do us a favor and look up the profit motive. Look up the ideas of Adam Smith on the system existing with such state structures as police force, divisions for public cleanliness of streets etc. Don't be so foolish as to mistake capitalism for anarchy. Don't be so foolish to assume societies just don't develop naturally alongside a division of labor before there were any governments. You're the demagogue it seems as Mill was never a free marketist, same for Smith. Do us a favor and read what you quote. Do you even know that Mill considered that the purchasing of wealth accumalation - your capitalism - was just a bad part of human history that was bound to end. That s why he is a choice author for leftist ecologists who seek "decroissance" - negative growth. And my free market brethren co-opted a term used by Marx in naming. Smith is essentially the father of capitalism--he spoke nothing but free trade, the primacy of the individual, and the invisible hand in a land dominated by mercantalism. These are huge building blocks for the system of economic organization. Mill's intro to On Liberty: "The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection." Hume's writings as well. Sounds a lot like freedom of the individual standing in stark contrast to the powers of the state, does it not? This make take some mental work, and respond whenever you please, but not every economist and philosopher has to write down every point detailing an entire economic system for them to be huge in its development. Just as you chose to not respond to every single point in my second paragraph, sometimes great thinkers detail on aspect or another. And as mentioned earlier, France is doing its best to prove capitalism's merits by departing from almost everything that made it great in the distant past and reaping the rewards! How many more of your most successful will have to renounce their citizenship before you reconsider letting individuals pursue their separate interests with low state intervention in their finances and lives? Hollande says he "didn't like" the rich back before announcing his millionaire's tax. Clearly foundational in your system to (well, should you support one ... sometimes all critics do is criticize and I shouldn't assume). That's it exactly ! Stupid people can't understand complexity. Read two sentence of Mill, think he understands it all. Read Smith's wealth of nation, who cares about moral sentiments and whatnot ? And please, don't talk about France, it spunds wrong everytime. I guess that's my question to you if you have or stand for any kind of system. When you don't stare down your nose at people with an intellectual air, what do you advocate? In my naivete, I thought a well-read man would understand some complex connections, but I was wrong. You yourself dismiss arguments out of hand because it's easy, as evidenced in your last two posts. Since you mentioned it, I ask you, have you even read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations since you respond to none of the points I made from it? I argued against wealth redistribution and for increasing the pie available, and you responded by saying capitalism has never existed and all its merits are just blablabla. Do you advocate any kind of system at all? Do you rest your pen after calling my system "letting kids die of hunger" and that the iphone would never have appeared in a free society? I'm sorry but go back in time and take a good look. You start by saying creative destruction is how the economy solve problems. I respond to you that creative destruction is a theory that tries to explains why there are economic cycle - why there are recovery after slump. The simple existence of slump is a proof of non optimality of the market. The existence of slump is a problem and justify economic policy in a sense - unless the policy have no positive impact on the slump, something that is not proven empirically - again history prove that. And economic policy is always wealth redistribution. You respond to that by quoting smith and mill, XVIII th century author. Not to mention they are nothing but anachronism in this case, they where not blindly in love for the market - but yes I guess it is too hard for you to understands complexity. I said nothing in the kind. Invent your own conversation partner if you want to argue something unsaid. I used creative destruction to elaborate on why Kwark's wealth redistribution falls flat. Jobs are constantly changing and a government does not have access to what the next job market or product will be. It can only forcibly take and move, and beyond the impoverished, it is a destructive process that hurts incentive. Again, find yourself somebody else to talk about creative destruction and economic cycles. I suppose everybody is blind to you. You will not analyze the argument for its merits. Since you refuse this analysis, you can only group philosophers into "blindly in love with the market" and "not capitalist." Sorry if the proponents of individual liberty don't fit in your neatly arranged capitalist stereotypes. I'm with Mills, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." Hands off, man. Taking my money for the purposes of benevolence for my own good, as is the case of mandated standards of insurance in Obamacare, is not a legitimate exercise of state power. This will make the third time I've asked, but in amongst all this criticism of, you know, individualism and freedom and free markets, I am still wondering what you would like to propose as an alternative. I mean, prattling on and on about blind belief in market solutions might be all the rage where you come from, but do you have something to stick aside it and profit by the comparison? I tried to point to France's current governance, but, in your words, "it spunds wrong everytime." I'll hear you out even if you've discovered an omniscient deity on earth willing to reward individuals on their merits and not the value of their assets and labor in a market system.
Here is the problem obviously. You don't even understand what you say... When you talk about creative destruction you talk about cycle, don't you understands it ? If you need to destroy to reallocate ressources, then it means there is a moment when you destroy (the slump) and a moment where you reallocate (the recovery). It goes against the idea of market equilibrium, the basis of all free marketist economic (because if the market is in an equilibrium, it is both stable and efficient). I'll quote you to make sure :
Rather, the free economy engages in creative destruction, opening up new jobs as others are destroyed, outsourced, or automated. Manufacturing jobs in place of tasks done by hand. New industries never even heard of before.
The "free" economy engage in creative destruction : it means the "free" economy has economic cycle and get out of slumps through the process of creative destruction. I was actually analyzing "the argument for its merits" but you sadly didn't understands it. The existence of economic cycle is a justification for wealth redistribution : why should we not try to flatten the cycle ? Why should we not try to permit people to acquire enough knowledge and education so that they can move from jobs to jobs faster, why should we not help people who suffer from the slump ? For what reason should we actually let the market run free while it is destroying jobs and corporations ? On what ground can you say that the government will always have a negative impact on the economy if the economy, by itself, needs destruction to move on ?
I don't believe in merit by the way, nor in free market. You can believe in whatever you want, jesus christ, merit, free market or even your own intelligence, but please don't try to force me into discussion your god with you.
Finally, this is the third time you've asked your question and I will try not to give you a stupid answer. How about a mixed regime where we use the benefit of a "free market economy" (expression that doesn't mean a thing, but you only use vague expressiong, like capitalism, free , market, freedom, that's your modus operandi, I use the idea of free market economy here in the strict sense to refer to a situation where prices appears through the confrontation of offer and demand by opposition to a system where price are determined by a central government) but still control its problem by reallocating ressources in specific key topics - healthcare, unemployment, inequalities, etc.
I'll not even try to question the idea of changing our property right (most notably, there are discussion about the idea of changing the "usus and abusus" part) - the property right of the environment and the property right of the means of production - to change our society for the better. I don't want to start a meaningless discussion.
And again you don't know shit about France, so please...
|
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Sunday said he could support extending the longterm unemployment benefits that expired at the end of 2013 if the program is paid for.
"I'm not against having unemployment insurance," he said on ABC's "This Week." "It needs to be payed for."
Paul has previously expressed caution about extending the longterm benefits. But he said that if Congress came up with a way to pay for the benefits, and if Paul could add a provision about economic freedom zones, he may support reinstating the benefits.
Source
|
On January 05 2014 19:40 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 11:02 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 10:12 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:50 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 09:23 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:20 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 08:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Likewise, the case is made that some public servant ostensibly hired for purposes of benevolence won't know enough or be altruistic enough to decide where to redistribute the money so as to "stimulate and revitalize economies." It could just as well be redistributed to the impact groups with the most political clout. Buggy-whip manufacturers unjustly impacted by the rise in cars, we need to redistribute those greedy capitalist's money to them. Big Shoes are putting cobblers out of business, we need to redistribute money to them to stimulate the economy.
Rather, the free economy engages in creative destruction, opening up new jobs as others are destroyed, outsourced, or automated. Manufacturing jobs in place of tasks done by hand. New industries never even heard of before. iPods were not invented by directive of a government agency, and now how many more people find jobs from that avenue?
Sure, locally administered welfare programs for the temporarily jobless and poor and hungry, designed to help them receive training for the next and discourage dependency. Then, grow the pie, don't redistribute the pie. We talk about wealth creators because of the discouragement confiscatory taxation has on wealth creators. Stop expanding your business, stop hiring on more employers, stop (gasp) getting financing for new ventures, because you're only allowed to keep 50cents for every extra dollar you make whereas your increased workload still burdens you. Capitalism is unique for its unparalleled capacity to inspire people to make products people didn't even know they wanted before. Wealth redistribution as wealth creation is the ticket to stagnation, fueled by envy of the rich for their wealth and jealousy for the hard worker that made sacrifices to get ahead. You know all your point of view is base on chimera, an hypothetic system called "capitalism", "unique for its unparalleled capacity to inspire people" blablabla. Something that never existed and that cannot exist in the first place. That's why I rarely use the term capitalism, that's why I always feel bored when I hear or read anyone talking about "capitalism". Creative destruction is a really interesting topic. But why do you use this idea while defending the idea of free market ? The idea of creative destruction was used by schumpeter to explain why the economy goes out of a slump, it is a concept that was used in his theory of the evolution economic, and more exactly a way for him to explain recovery after slump in relation to the existence of economic cycle - an empirical constatation. The problem is that the idea of slump and economic cycle have never been fully explained by free marketist and it is, by itself, a proof that free market doesn't work. If the economy naturally tend to cycle with slump and recovery, and if the market is always optimal, does this mean that slump are optimal ? (and yes some economists defended this and it was wrong) Why should we not try to act and prevent the cycle from happening ? What's so important about creative destruction that we cannot do with economic policy ? Your answer to that will always be that the economic policy do more arm than good, but that is also not true empirically. Ho but yeah, reality doesn't matter right. Let the kids die of hunger so that the population regulate itself, and let the economy create and destroy because it is the most efficient way to maximise capital accumulation. By the way, in a "free" society the iphone would never have appeared, because there would be no incentive for such tool to appear : with no government, no private property, no money, no regulation, no pattern, etc. Hong Kong for an era, Singapore too. United States in its beginnings, becoming less and less true around the turn of the 20th century. Of course, France is largely in a post-capitalistic era. How's the unemployment working out for you? How about that 75% tax rate? Gerard Depardieu certainly liked it all the way to the airport. Socialism is in its heyday there. I see you've finally cured your society of its ills; congratulations! Try not to mortgage your Eiffel Tower when the new 3bil euro hike in taxes fails to keep pace with spending. It was talked about by John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, and a host of others more than 100 years ago. It isn't the cure for never experiencing a slump, it is the quickest way back out should an economy find itself in one. Demagogues like you leap from freedom of choice to the dying kids, and it's your right to give us laughs if you choose. Oh yeah, and do us a favor and look up the profit motive. Look up the ideas of Adam Smith on the system existing with such state structures as police force, divisions for public cleanliness of streets etc. Don't be so foolish as to mistake capitalism for anarchy. Don't be so foolish to assume societies just don't develop naturally alongside a division of labor before there were any governments. You're the demagogue it seems as Mill was never a free marketist, same for Smith. Do us a favor and read what you quote. Do you even know that Mill considered that the purchasing of wealth accumalation - your capitalism - was just a bad part of human history that was bound to end. That s why he is a choice author for leftist ecologists who seek "decroissance" - negative growth. And my free market brethren co-opted a term used by Marx in naming. Smith is essentially the father of capitalism--he spoke nothing but free trade, the primacy of the individual, and the invisible hand in a land dominated by mercantalism. These are huge building blocks for the system of economic organization. Mill's intro to On Liberty: "The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection." Hume's writings as well. Sounds a lot like freedom of the individual standing in stark contrast to the powers of the state, does it not? This make take some mental work, and respond whenever you please, but not every economist and philosopher has to write down every point detailing an entire economic system for them to be huge in its development. Just as you chose to not respond to every single point in my second paragraph, sometimes great thinkers detail on aspect or another. And as mentioned earlier, France is doing its best to prove capitalism's merits by departing from almost everything that made it great in the distant past and reaping the rewards! How many more of your most successful will have to renounce their citizenship before you reconsider letting individuals pursue their separate interests with low state intervention in their finances and lives? Hollande says he "didn't like" the rich back before announcing his millionaire's tax. Clearly foundational in your system to (well, should you support one ... sometimes all critics do is criticize and I shouldn't assume). That's it exactly ! Stupid people can't understand complexity. Read two sentence of Mill, think he understands it all. Read Smith's wealth of nation, who cares about moral sentiments and whatnot ? And please, don't talk about France, it spunds wrong everytime. I guess that's my question to you if you have or stand for any kind of system. When you don't stare down your nose at people with an intellectual air, what do you advocate? In my naivete, I thought a well-read man would understand some complex connections, but I was wrong. You yourself dismiss arguments out of hand because it's easy, as evidenced in your last two posts. Since you mentioned it, I ask you, have you even read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations since you respond to none of the points I made from it? I argued against wealth redistribution and for increasing the pie available, and you responded by saying capitalism has never existed and all its merits are just blablabla. Do you advocate any kind of system at all? Do you rest your pen after calling my system "letting kids die of hunger" and that the iphone would never have appeared in a free society? I'm sorry but go back in time and take a good look. You start by saying creative destruction is how the economy solve problems. I respond to you that creative destruction is a theory that tries to explains why there are economic cycle - why there are recovery after slump. The simple existence of slump is a proof of non optimality of the market. The existence of slump is a problem and justify economic policy in a sense - unless the policy have no positive impact on the slump, something that is not proven empirically - again history prove that. And economic policy is always wealth redistribution. You respond to that by quoting smith and mill, XVIII th century author. Not to mention they are nothing but anachronism in this case, they where not blindly in love for the market - but yes I guess it is too hard for you to understands complexity. This will make the third time I've asked, but in amongst all this criticism of, you know, individualism and freedom and free markets, I am still wondering what you would like to propose as an alternative. I mean, prattling on and on about blind belief in market solutions might be all the rage where you come from, but do you have something to stick aside it and profit by the comparison? I tried to point to France's current governance, but, in your words, "it spunds wrong everytime." I'll hear you out even if you've discovered an omniscient deity on earth willing to reward individuals on their merits and not the value of their assets and labor in a market system. An omniscient deity is not required. A better system than free markets, all the time, is to leave those industries free that produce satisfactory results, but to interfere where they do not. In my view it is unacceptable that some people are unable to get medical treatment when they are sick or injured, such a market state is not satisfactory. A system where enormous amounts of waste occur due to lack of incentive is also unacceptable, so in health care a right balance between market mechanisms and government sponsorship must be found.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
|
All the Government proponents need to read Anthony De Jasay's The State. Relying on such an institution is inherently flawed due to human motivations and interests. The same reason for what happened in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Beyond this utilitarian concession, morally, the State is unjustified. I also get bored to the people who keep saying we have a 'market', then using this as their strawmen to tear down. You would have a strong case in 1905 that the healthcare industry was largely a market system, but then again, you distort and obfuscate that time period (snake oil salesman), instead of looking at the facts of the basic metrics compared to other Countries of the time, as well as the costs associated (extremely low cost). We used to have Doctors visiting our houses for cheap, generic OTC's, no FDA to exorbitantly raise their costs, etc. Oh, but you know, everyone was dying in the streets, starving, and well...May I have some more please? Talk about the ignorant!
It is conducive to the state's ultimate purposes to substitute conscious direction of the social system for automatism, for every such "voluntarist" step is likely, by cumulative systemic changes, to induce a need for more guidance in some of the most unexpected places. The less efficient (at least in the sense of "the less self-sustaining," "the less spontaneous" and "the less self-regulating") the workings of the economic and social system become, the more direct control the state will have over people's livelihoods. It is one of the numerous paradoxes of rational action that a degree of well-intentioned bungling in economic and social management and the usual failure to foresee the effects of its own policies, are peculiarly appropriate means to the state's ends. It is government incompetence which, by creating a need for putting right its consequences, steadily enlarges the scope for the state to concentrate economic power in its own hands and best contributes to the merging of economic with political power. It is very doubtful whether government competence could ever get the process going from a democratic starting position.
5.1.13
Stressing the paradox, we might go a little further and argue that the spirit which best helps the state emancipate itself from its ungrateful role of democratic drudge is one of confident innocence and uncomprehending sincerity. In my choice of adjectives, I am inspired by the example of a tract by a socialist theorist on the programme of the united French Left prior to its 1981 electoral victory. In this work, it is explained in manifest good faith that nationalization of large-scale industry and banking would reduce statism and bureaucracy, provide an additional safeguard for pluralistic democracy and create a really free market.*50
5.1.14
Schematically, the state would find itself advancing, by small and steady degrees, towards discretionary power by first merely following the standard liberal prescription. It should at the outset "rely on prices and markets" for the allocation of resources "and then" proceed to redistribute the resulting social product "as justice required."*51 The inconsistency between an allocation and a distribution arrived at in this way, should alone suffice to bring about partial imbalances, false signals and symptoms of waste. In the face of the emerging evidence that "markets do not work," industries fail to adapt to changes in time, unemployment persists and prices misbehave, support should build up for the state to launch more ambitious policies. Their intended effect would be the correction of malfunctions induced by the initial policy. One of their unintended effects may be to make the malfunctions worse or cause them to crop up somewhere else. Another is almost inevitably to make some existences, jobs, businesses if not whole industries, wholly dependent on "economic policy," while making many others feel some partial dependence.
5.1.15
This stage—often approvingly called the "mixed economy," suggesting a civilized compromise between the complementary interests of private initiative and social control—has, however, merely pierced, without razing to the ground, the maze of obstacles, ramparts and bunkers where private enterprise can in the last resort, and at a cost, shelter the livelihood of those, owners and non-owners alike, who have occasion to oppose the state. Only the abolition of private capital ownership ensures the disappearance of these shelters. A "mixed economy" needs to go to extreme lengths in terms of state controls in order for private enterprise to cease being a potential base of political obstruction or defiance. Planning, industrial policy and distributive justice are promising yet imperfect substitutes for state ownership; the essential, almost irreplaceable attribute of the latter is not the power it lends to the state, but the power it takes out of civil society, like the stuffing you take out of a rag doll.
|
Yeah, lets read some obvious polemic and couple that with a total ignorance in regards to the progression of medical knowledge beneath that oh so scary Government.
No thx.
|
On January 06 2014 03:18 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, lets read some obvious polemic and couple that with a total ignorance in regards to the progression of medical knowledge beneath that oh so scary Government.
No thx.
Your detached reality is amusing. Carry on. This mythical 'mixed' State-run benevolence will surely bring us all to enlightenment...
|
On January 06 2014 03:30 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2014 03:18 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, lets read some obvious polemic and couple that with a total ignorance in regards to the progression of medical knowledge beneath that oh so scary Government.
No thx. Your detached reality is amusing. Carry on. This mythical 'mixed' State-run benevolence will surely bring us all to enlightenment...
If states were so bad, how are so many nations with advanced mixed-market economies doing so well and have so many well fed people? (USA, Canada, Northern Europe, pretty much every Asian economy is mixed market and successful)
|
I wish that libertarians and socialists would buy some parcel of land and set up their own local governments, and we could all see what the results are. I'm sure there will be hundreds of people who say "they didn't do it right", but at least we would make some progress in our understanding. These theoretical debates are so tiresome. Lets see some modern-day, practical evidence that these societies work already! I'm guessing there are plenty of fed up libertarians, anarchists, and tea party members who would love to flock to some deserted area and set up a free-market haven. These things used to happen all the time in the olden days back when the government didn't occupy everything and there weren't as many people (for example, Robert Owen's utopian socialist community he attempted in 1825 - which failed by the way). (minor grammar edits)
|
United States42803 Posts
People still try to do that. Some cult leader tried to make a perfect society for Americans in South America before he gave up and had them mass suicide. You could probably rent out a decent sized chunk of Africa, or for that matter just all move to Somalia and make your own little fiefdom. It's not like they have border controls there.
The nature of the resource allocation problems associated with government vs free market have changed dramatically since the advent of computing and modelling societies needs. The tools with which to run a planned economy have improved by an inconceivable degree.
Edit: Imagine if Ender's Game was more like Sim City and less like Starcraft and it turned out that instead of defeating the aliens in real life they just fixed society. If they released a game based on real world problems that mimicked human responses to things accurately and then just implemented whatever the highest scoring solution was.
|
Yeah, we need more leaders who are good at SimCity and are gamers.
There actually is some merit to that in mindset - we want people who view winning and success in terms of how their "territory" does, rather than their own career.
Meritocratic promotion systems for government.
|
On January 05 2014 19:40 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 11:02 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 10:12 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:50 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 09:23 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:20 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 08:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Likewise, the case is made that some public servant ostensibly hired for purposes of benevolence won't know enough or be altruistic enough to decide where to redistribute the money so as to "stimulate and revitalize economies." It could just as well be redistributed to the impact groups with the most political clout. Buggy-whip manufacturers unjustly impacted by the rise in cars, we need to redistribute those greedy capitalist's money to them. Big Shoes are putting cobblers out of business, we need to redistribute money to them to stimulate the economy.
Rather, the free economy engages in creative destruction, opening up new jobs as others are destroyed, outsourced, or automated. Manufacturing jobs in place of tasks done by hand. New industries never even heard of before. iPods were not invented by directive of a government agency, and now how many more people find jobs from that avenue?
Sure, locally administered welfare programs for the temporarily jobless and poor and hungry, designed to help them receive training for the next and discourage dependency. Then, grow the pie, don't redistribute the pie. We talk about wealth creators because of the discouragement confiscatory taxation has on wealth creators. Stop expanding your business, stop hiring on more employers, stop (gasp) getting financing for new ventures, because you're only allowed to keep 50cents for every extra dollar you make whereas your increased workload still burdens you. Capitalism is unique for its unparalleled capacity to inspire people to make products people didn't even know they wanted before. Wealth redistribution as wealth creation is the ticket to stagnation, fueled by envy of the rich for their wealth and jealousy for the hard worker that made sacrifices to get ahead. You know all your point of view is base on chimera, an hypothetic system called "capitalism", "unique for its unparalleled capacity to inspire people" blablabla. Something that never existed and that cannot exist in the first place. That's why I rarely use the term capitalism, that's why I always feel bored when I hear or read anyone talking about "capitalism". Creative destruction is a really interesting topic. But why do you use this idea while defending the idea of free market ? The idea of creative destruction was used by schumpeter to explain why the economy goes out of a slump, it is a concept that was used in his theory of the evolution economic, and more exactly a way for him to explain recovery after slump in relation to the existence of economic cycle - an empirical constatation. The problem is that the idea of slump and economic cycle have never been fully explained by free marketist and it is, by itself, a proof that free market doesn't work. If the economy naturally tend to cycle with slump and recovery, and if the market is always optimal, does this mean that slump are optimal ? (and yes some economists defended this and it was wrong) Why should we not try to act and prevent the cycle from happening ? What's so important about creative destruction that we cannot do with economic policy ? Your answer to that will always be that the economic policy do more arm than good, but that is also not true empirically. Ho but yeah, reality doesn't matter right. Let the kids die of hunger so that the population regulate itself, and let the economy create and destroy because it is the most efficient way to maximise capital accumulation. By the way, in a "free" society the iphone would never have appeared, because there would be no incentive for such tool to appear : with no government, no private property, no money, no regulation, no pattern, etc. Hong Kong for an era, Singapore too. United States in its beginnings, becoming less and less true around the turn of the 20th century. Of course, France is largely in a post-capitalistic era. How's the unemployment working out for you? How about that 75% tax rate? Gerard Depardieu certainly liked it all the way to the airport. Socialism is in its heyday there. I see you've finally cured your society of its ills; congratulations! Try not to mortgage your Eiffel Tower when the new 3bil euro hike in taxes fails to keep pace with spending. It was talked about by John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, and a host of others more than 100 years ago. It isn't the cure for never experiencing a slump, it is the quickest way back out should an economy find itself in one. Demagogues like you leap from freedom of choice to the dying kids, and it's your right to give us laughs if you choose. Oh yeah, and do us a favor and look up the profit motive. Look up the ideas of Adam Smith on the system existing with such state structures as police force, divisions for public cleanliness of streets etc. Don't be so foolish as to mistake capitalism for anarchy. Don't be so foolish to assume societies just don't develop naturally alongside a division of labor before there were any governments. You're the demagogue it seems as Mill was never a free marketist, same for Smith. Do us a favor and read what you quote. Do you even know that Mill considered that the purchasing of wealth accumalation - your capitalism - was just a bad part of human history that was bound to end. That s why he is a choice author for leftist ecologists who seek "decroissance" - negative growth. And my free market brethren co-opted a term used by Marx in naming. Smith is essentially the father of capitalism--he spoke nothing but free trade, the primacy of the individual, and the invisible hand in a land dominated by mercantalism. These are huge building blocks for the system of economic organization. Mill's intro to On Liberty: "The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection." Hume's writings as well. Sounds a lot like freedom of the individual standing in stark contrast to the powers of the state, does it not? This make take some mental work, and respond whenever you please, but not every economist and philosopher has to write down every point detailing an entire economic system for them to be huge in its development. Just as you chose to not respond to every single point in my second paragraph, sometimes great thinkers detail on aspect or another. And as mentioned earlier, France is doing its best to prove capitalism's merits by departing from almost everything that made it great in the distant past and reaping the rewards! How many more of your most successful will have to renounce their citizenship before you reconsider letting individuals pursue their separate interests with low state intervention in their finances and lives? Hollande says he "didn't like" the rich back before announcing his millionaire's tax. Clearly foundational in your system to (well, should you support one ... sometimes all critics do is criticize and I shouldn't assume). That's it exactly ! Stupid people can't understand complexity. Read two sentence of Mill, think he understands it all. Read Smith's wealth of nation, who cares about moral sentiments and whatnot ? And please, don't talk about France, it spunds wrong everytime. I guess that's my question to you if you have or stand for any kind of system. When you don't stare down your nose at people with an intellectual air, what do you advocate? In my naivete, I thought a well-read man would understand some complex connections, but I was wrong. You yourself dismiss arguments out of hand because it's easy, as evidenced in your last two posts. Since you mentioned it, I ask you, have you even read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations since you respond to none of the points I made from it? I argued against wealth redistribution and for increasing the pie available, and you responded by saying capitalism has never existed and all its merits are just blablabla. Do you advocate any kind of system at all? Do you rest your pen after calling my system "letting kids die of hunger" and that the iphone would never have appeared in a free society? I'm sorry but go back in time and take a good look. You start by saying creative destruction is how the economy solve problems. I respond to you that creative destruction is a theory that tries to explains why there are economic cycle - why there are recovery after slump. The simple existence of slump is a proof of non optimality of the market. The existence of slump is a problem and justify economic policy in a sense - unless the policy have no positive impact on the slump, something that is not proven empirically - again history prove that. And economic policy is always wealth redistribution. You respond to that by quoting smith and mill, XVIII th century author. Not to mention they are nothing but anachronism in this case, they where not blindly in love for the market - but yes I guess it is too hard for you to understands complexity. This will make the third time I've asked, but in amongst all this criticism of, you know, individualism and freedom and free markets, I am still wondering what you would like to propose as an alternative. I mean, prattling on and on about blind belief in market solutions might be all the rage where you come from, but do you have something to stick aside it and profit by the comparison? I tried to point to France's current governance, but, in your words, "it spunds wrong everytime." I'll hear you out even if you've discovered an omniscient deity on earth willing to reward individuals on their merits and not the value of their assets and labor in a market system. An omniscient deity is not required. A better system than free markets, all the time, is to leave those industries free that produce satisfactory results, but to interfere where they do not. In my view it is unacceptable that some people are unable to get medical treatment when they are sick or injured, such a market state is not satisfactory. A system where enormous amounts of waste occur due to lack of incentive is also unacceptable, so in health care a right balance between market mechanisms and government sponsorship must be found.
And thus I take issue with you. Who sits in judgment of what are satisfactory results? Appoint a board? Vote in Lord Crushinator with the scepter? I mean, even in your own statements, you say some people are unable to get medical treatment. In fact, they do get medical treatment here, it's just costs that we're discussing. They're perfectly able. Forever government proponents will claim to do better and do worse, just as you believe the danger is free market proponents doing worse and a government idea would be better.
It's still a muddled affair. I see no reason a king sitting in judgement of adequate results will not contrive the reasoning for a government outcome citing whatever he wishes to say is wrong. I see a lot of misguided government takeover in the past citing inadequate results--and promptly establishes a government monopoly based on privilege. See steel tariffs, davis bacon act, interstate commerce commission on railroads, ICC on trucking as well.
|
On January 06 2014 08:37 KwarK wrote:
People still try to do that. Some cult leader tried to make a perfect society for Americans in South America before he gave up and had them mass suicide. You could probably rent out a decent sized chunk of Africa, or for that matter just all move to Somalia and make your own little fiefdom. It's not like they have border controls there.
The nature of the resource allocation problems associated with government vs free market have changed dramatically since the advent of computing and modelling societies needs. The tools with which to run a planned economy have improved by an inconceivable degree.
Edit: Imagine if Ender's Game was more like Sim City and less like Starcraft and it turned out that instead of defeating the aliens in real life they just fixed society. If they released a game based on real world problems that mimicked human responses to things accurately and then just implemented whatever the highest scoring solution was.
I think we're a long way off from being able to plan an entire economy well. We're not even that good at forecasting GDP or how many socks a particular store will sell yet.
|
Show nested quote +I said nothing in the kind. Invent your own conversation partner if you want to argue something unsaid. I used creative destruction to elaborate on why Kwark's wealth redistribution falls flat. Jobs are constantly changing and a government does not have access to what the next job market or product will be. It can only forcibly take and move, and beyond the impoverished, it is a destructive process that hurts incentive. Again, find yourself somebody else to talk about creative destruction and economic cycles.
I suppose everybody is blind to you. You will not analyze the argument for its merits. Since you refuse this analysis, you can only group philosophers into "blindly in love with the market" and "not capitalist." Sorry if the proponents of individual liberty don't fit in your neatly arranged capitalist stereotypes. I'm with Mills, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." Hands off, man. Taking my money for the purposes of benevolence for my own good, as is the case of mandated standards of insurance in Obamacare, is not a legitimate exercise of state power.
This will make the third time I've asked, but in amongst all this criticism of, you know, individualism and freedom and free markets, I am still wondering what you would like to propose as an alternative. I mean, prattling on and on about blind belief in market solutions might be all the rage where you come from, but do you have something to stick aside it and profit by the comparison? I tried to point to France's current governance, but, in your words, "it spunds wrong everytime." I'll hear you out even if you've discovered an omniscient deity on earth willing to reward individuals on their merits and not the value of their assets and labor in a market system. Here is the problem obviously. You don't even understand what you say... When you talk about creative destruction you talk about cycle, don't you understands it ? If you need to destroy to reallocate ressources, then it means there is a moment when you destroy (the slump) and a moment where you reallocate (the recovery). It goes against the idea of market equilibrium, the basis of all free marketist economic (because if the market is in an equilibrium, it is both stable and efficient). I'll quote you to make sure : Show nested quote +Rather, the free economy engages in creative destruction, opening up new jobs as others are destroyed, outsourced, or automated. Manufacturing jobs in place of tasks done by hand. New industries never even heard of before. The "free" economy engage in creative destruction : it means the "free" economy has economic cycle and get out of slumps through the process of creative destruction. I was actually analyzing "the argument for its merits" but you sadly didn't understands it. The existence of economic cycle is a justification for wealth redistribution : why should we not try to flatten the cycle ? Why should we not try to permit people to acquire enough knowledge and education so that they can move from jobs to jobs faster, why should we not help people who suffer from the slump ? For what reason should we actually let the market run free while it is destroying jobs and corporations ? On what ground can you say that the government will always have a negative impact on the economy if the economy, by itself, needs destruction to move on ? Show nested quote +I agree with the principal of creative destruction, the same free force destroying industries as creating new ones, in its allocation of scarce resources. That ebb and flow is certainly there. That is a very narrow cycle present in a much more complex overall economic cycle. I won't list them all here, ask Jonny or others, but there's the credit cycle, the interaction of government's lever-pulling for interest and monetary supply, international markets supply and demand, just to name a few. Flattening the cycle is simplistic if you only analyze resource allocation in the context of creative destruction ... it does not occur in the vacuum and every other cycling effect is in there to a larger or smaller degree. I don't believe in merit by the way, nor in free market. You can believe in whatever you want, jesus christ, merit, free market or even your own intelligence, but please don't try to force me into discussion your god with you.
Finally, this is the third time you've asked your question and I will try not to give you a stupid answer. How about a mixed regime where we use the benefit of a "free market economy" (expression that doesn't mean a thing, but you only use vague expressiong, like capitalism, free , market, freedom, that's your modus operandi, I use the idea of free market economy here in the strict sense to refer to a situation where prices appears through the confrontation of offer and demand by opposition to a system where price are determined by a central government) but still control its problem by reallocating ressources in specific key topics - healthcare, unemployment, inequalities, etc.
I'll not even try to question the idea of changing our property right (most notably, there are discussion about the idea of changing the "usus and abusus" part) - the property right of the environment and the property right of the means of production - to change our society for the better. I don't want to start a meaningless discussion.
And again you don't know shit about France, so please...
First off, I thank you for presenting an alternative, your preferable alternative. You want a price system based on supply and demand (or negotiation between purchaser and seller, if you like it that way) ... but not a price system when it comes to healthcare, unemployment, inequalities. Namely, if somebody other than the purchaser and seller comes in, it is them setting/influencing prices on healthcare. We're already down the rabbit hole with inequalities ... how much is too unequal ... how much will the rich pass their tax burden into their selling prices to redistribute to the poor .. but I'll give it a rest since I did get an answer on my third try.
I mean, I take it your inequality cure is different from Hollande's, or maybe to phrase it closer to your repetitions, "Hollande doesn't know shit about France, so please..." I'm trying to quell my political curiosity if a 75% tax on those earning €1,000,000 is compatible with your semi-market system if you had the reigns in france (aka a tax of this kind in an economic system similar to today's). The extent of measures you would take to fix inequality is of interest. Thank you for the discussion.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AkvbN9P.jpg)
Ready for Hillary PAC, headed by 4-star General Wes Clark. Claims grassroots, who knows if it was inspired by connected people readying her campaign.
She's Coming.
Tidbits:
|
On January 06 2014 10:12 Danglars wrote:Ready for Hillary PAC, headed by 4-star General Wes Clark. Claims grassroots, who knows if it was inspired by connected people readying her campaign. She's Coming. Tidbits:
It's a free market, bro.
|
On January 06 2014 10:12 Danglars wrote:Ready for Hillary PAC, headed by 4-star General Wes Clark. Claims grassroots, who knows if it was inspired by connected people readying her campaign. She's Coming. Tidbits:
On January 06 2014 10:16 Jormundr wrote:
It's a free market, bro.
If she makes that her slogan and we send out some loser like Christie, I might even vote for Hillary.
I mean, what's she gonna do, Hillarycare? =P
|
On January 06 2014 08:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 19:40 Crushinator wrote:On January 05 2014 11:02 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 10:12 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 10:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:50 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 09:23 WhiteDog wrote:On January 05 2014 09:20 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2014 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
You know all your point of view is base on chimera, an hypothetic system called "capitalism", "unique for its unparalleled capacity to inspire people" blablabla. Something that never existed and that cannot exist in the first place. That's why I rarely use the term capitalism, that's why I always feel bored when I hear or read anyone talking about "capitalism".
Creative destruction is a really interesting topic. But why do you use this idea while defending the idea of free market ? The idea of creative destruction was used by schumpeter to explain why the economy goes out of a slump, it is a concept that was used in his theory of the evolution economic, and more exactly a way for him to explain recovery after slump in relation to the existence of economic cycle - an empirical constatation.
The problem is that the idea of slump and economic cycle have never been fully explained by free marketist and it is, by itself, a proof that free market doesn't work. If the economy naturally tend to cycle with slump and recovery, and if the market is always optimal, does this mean that slump are optimal ? (and yes some economists defended this and it was wrong) Why should we not try to act and prevent the cycle from happening ? What's so important about creative destruction that we cannot do with economic policy ? Your answer to that will always be that the economic policy do more arm than good, but that is also not true empirically.
Ho but yeah, reality doesn't matter right. Let the kids die of hunger so that the population regulate itself, and let the economy create and destroy because it is the most efficient way to maximise capital accumulation.
By the way, in a "free" society the iphone would never have appeared, because there would be no incentive for such tool to appear : with no government, no private property, no money, no regulation, no pattern, etc. Hong Kong for an era, Singapore too. United States in its beginnings, becoming less and less true around the turn of the 20th century. Of course, France is largely in a post-capitalistic era. How's the unemployment working out for you? How about that 75% tax rate? Gerard Depardieu certainly liked it all the way to the airport. Socialism is in its heyday there. I see you've finally cured your society of its ills; congratulations! Try not to mortgage your Eiffel Tower when the new 3bil euro hike in taxes fails to keep pace with spending. It was talked about by John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, and a host of others more than 100 years ago. It isn't the cure for never experiencing a slump, it is the quickest way back out should an economy find itself in one. Demagogues like you leap from freedom of choice to the dying kids, and it's your right to give us laughs if you choose. Oh yeah, and do us a favor and look up the profit motive. Look up the ideas of Adam Smith on the system existing with such state structures as police force, divisions for public cleanliness of streets etc. Don't be so foolish as to mistake capitalism for anarchy. Don't be so foolish to assume societies just don't develop naturally alongside a division of labor before there were any governments. You're the demagogue it seems as Mill was never a free marketist, same for Smith. Do us a favor and read what you quote. Do you even know that Mill considered that the purchasing of wealth accumalation - your capitalism - was just a bad part of human history that was bound to end. That s why he is a choice author for leftist ecologists who seek "decroissance" - negative growth. And my free market brethren co-opted a term used by Marx in naming. Smith is essentially the father of capitalism--he spoke nothing but free trade, the primacy of the individual, and the invisible hand in a land dominated by mercantalism. These are huge building blocks for the system of economic organization. Mill's intro to On Liberty: "The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection." Hume's writings as well. Sounds a lot like freedom of the individual standing in stark contrast to the powers of the state, does it not? This make take some mental work, and respond whenever you please, but not every economist and philosopher has to write down every point detailing an entire economic system for them to be huge in its development. Just as you chose to not respond to every single point in my second paragraph, sometimes great thinkers detail on aspect or another. And as mentioned earlier, France is doing its best to prove capitalism's merits by departing from almost everything that made it great in the distant past and reaping the rewards! How many more of your most successful will have to renounce their citizenship before you reconsider letting individuals pursue their separate interests with low state intervention in their finances and lives? Hollande says he "didn't like" the rich back before announcing his millionaire's tax. Clearly foundational in your system to (well, should you support one ... sometimes all critics do is criticize and I shouldn't assume). That's it exactly ! Stupid people can't understand complexity. Read two sentence of Mill, think he understands it all. Read Smith's wealth of nation, who cares about moral sentiments and whatnot ? And please, don't talk about France, it spunds wrong everytime. I guess that's my question to you if you have or stand for any kind of system. When you don't stare down your nose at people with an intellectual air, what do you advocate? In my naivete, I thought a well-read man would understand some complex connections, but I was wrong. You yourself dismiss arguments out of hand because it's easy, as evidenced in your last two posts. Since you mentioned it, I ask you, have you even read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations since you respond to none of the points I made from it? I argued against wealth redistribution and for increasing the pie available, and you responded by saying capitalism has never existed and all its merits are just blablabla. Do you advocate any kind of system at all? Do you rest your pen after calling my system "letting kids die of hunger" and that the iphone would never have appeared in a free society? I'm sorry but go back in time and take a good look. You start by saying creative destruction is how the economy solve problems. I respond to you that creative destruction is a theory that tries to explains why there are economic cycle - why there are recovery after slump. The simple existence of slump is a proof of non optimality of the market. The existence of slump is a problem and justify economic policy in a sense - unless the policy have no positive impact on the slump, something that is not proven empirically - again history prove that. And economic policy is always wealth redistribution. You respond to that by quoting smith and mill, XVIII th century author. Not to mention they are nothing but anachronism in this case, they where not blindly in love for the market - but yes I guess it is too hard for you to understands complexity. This will make the third time I've asked, but in amongst all this criticism of, you know, individualism and freedom and free markets, I am still wondering what you would like to propose as an alternative. I mean, prattling on and on about blind belief in market solutions might be all the rage where you come from, but do you have something to stick aside it and profit by the comparison? I tried to point to France's current governance, but, in your words, "it spunds wrong everytime." I'll hear you out even if you've discovered an omniscient deity on earth willing to reward individuals on their merits and not the value of their assets and labor in a market system. An omniscient deity is not required. A better system than free markets, all the time, is to leave those industries free that produce satisfactory results, but to interfere where they do not. In my view it is unacceptable that some people are unable to get medical treatment when they are sick or injured, such a market state is not satisfactory. A system where enormous amounts of waste occur due to lack of incentive is also unacceptable, so in health care a right balance between market mechanisms and government sponsorship must be found. And thus I take issue with you. Who sits in judgment of what are satisfactory results? Appoint a board? Vote in Lord Crushinator with the scepter? I mean, even in your own statements, you say some people are unable to get medical treatment. In fact, they do get medical treatment here, it's just costs that we're discussing. They're perfectly able. Forever government proponents will claim to do better and do worse, just as you believe the danger is free market proponents doing worse and a government idea would be better. It's still a muddled affair. I see no reason a king sitting in judgement of adequate results will not contrive the reasoning for a government outcome citing whatever he wishes to say is wrong. I see a lot of misguided government takeover in the past citing inadequate results--and promptly establishes a government monopoly based on privilege. See steel tariffs, davis bacon act, interstate commerce commission on railroads, ICC on trucking as well.
They only get it if it's immediate/life-threatening. Long-term necessary healthcare isn't given to those who can't afford it.
Furthermore, you keep mentioning examples of monopolies going wrong here, but what about the healthcare industry itself? Numerous countries have better healthcare systems than we do with more government involvement, and those are real-world examples of working healthcare systems. Just look at Canada, The U.K,, the Low Countries, Germany, or Scandinavia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
