Full Version: The Free Market
A lot of people here have been making a claim that I really don't understand. They're saying that the relationship between government and the market is defined by one statement: "less is more." The less interference the government has on the market, the better it will perform. I've never really gotten a satisfactory answer as to why this is true, so I'll try here.
Why would limited government interference with the free market always hurt the economy?
Yes, we know that Communism in Russia failed. Please, try to prove your point without referencing the USSR. That's a complete off-topic; I'm talking about smaller-scale economic control, not command economy. Please, limit you posts to the topic. If you start talking about Communism in Russia, I'll report your post as off-topic. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to be able to articulate your point using the innumerable instances of economic control in Western liberal democracies.
Why would limited government interference with the free market always hurt the economy?
Yes, we know that Communism in Russia failed. Please, try to prove your point without referencing the USSR. That's a complete off-topic; I'm talking about smaller-scale economic control, not command economy. Please, limit you posts to the topic. If you start talking about Communism in Russia, I'll report your post as off-topic. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to be able to articulate your point using the innumerable instances of economic control in Western liberal democracies.
The perfect model for the market and the government’s role is a free competition among many different sized businesses leading to better products, cheaper goods etc The role of the government is to make sure that this economic state of affairs continues. The role of the government is to:
Make sure that the labour force are treated decently.
Make sure through regulation that no company becomes a Trust/monopoly.
Make sure through legislation and the courts that all businesses operate fairly eg no corporate espionage
Make sure that no individual through insider dealing for example destroys other peoples lives or has an unfair position.
No legislation leads to not a free market but a limited monopoly of the economy which destroys other competition. Too much legislation and government interference destroys the abilities for businesses to function and benefit the economy and society.
The key is to keep a balance.
Make sure that the labour force are treated decently.
Make sure through regulation that no company becomes a Trust/monopoly.
Make sure through legislation and the courts that all businesses operate fairly eg no corporate espionage
Make sure that no individual through insider dealing for example destroys other peoples lives or has an unfair position.
No legislation leads to not a free market but a limited monopoly of the economy which destroys other competition. Too much legislation and government interference destroys the abilities for businesses to function and benefit the economy and society.
The key is to keep a balance.
That's a good overview of governmental economics, but it doesn't really address the question.
QUOTE
Why would limited government interference with the free market always hurt the economy?
Your question is worded backwards from your argument, I believe. Don't you want to know why less government intervention will always HELP the economy?
No, my question was very clear. Why would limited government intevention, along the lines of taxes, safety regualtions, the Federal Reserve, etc. always hurt the economy?
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Jun 27 2003, 04:11 PM)
No, my question was very clear. Why would limited government intevention, along the lines of taxes, safety regualtions, the Federal Reserve, etc. always hurt the economy?
Perhaps it is poorly worded...
I take this to mean you are looking for a Communist to assert this...
In this context, how "limited" would you say our government intervention is currently?
If you are really asking why the amount of intervention in place at this time in the US is harmful, then please state that.
Otherwise, I don't know if anyone will defend your original question...
I think the answer is dependent on your definition of 'limited'. Yours is probably much different than mine, which would be different than another poster's. Then, there's the blanket 'always' at the end. Even limited poison doesn't always lead to death. I'm not equating all government regulation to poison (although, in some instances, it might be comparable), just trying to demonstrate that the question itself is both loaded and ambiguous.
In the post-communist era, there is a consensus that there are upper limits on government intervention in the economy - in other words, most people think that the government should not control every aspect of the economy.
But, there still seem to be people who believe that there are (or should be) no lower limits on governmental involvement - they think that the government should not control any aspect of the economy.
Rattlesnake, is it your contention that while the first position may be correct, the second position is as flawed as thinking that the government can and should have complete economic control?
If so, I agree with you.
If not, I'm as confused as other posters on why limited government interference would or would not always damage the economy.
But, there still seem to be people who believe that there are (or should be) no lower limits on governmental involvement - they think that the government should not control any aspect of the economy.
Rattlesnake, is it your contention that while the first position may be correct, the second position is as flawed as thinking that the government can and should have complete economic control?
If so, I agree with you.
If not, I'm as confused as other posters on why limited government interference would or would not always damage the economy.
I don't think anyone on this site ( well, maybe unabomber) will argue government should not have a limited role in the economy. they certainly should print money, control the money supply, regulate, or split up, monopolies, enter into trade treaties, prevent fraud, theft and abuse, recover, or limit, third party costs, provide roads.
Basically government should carry out all the economic functions designated to it under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Let me quote Milton Friedman from Capitalism and Freedom:
The existance of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining "the rules of the game" and as an umpire to enforce the the rules decided on. What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. The characteristic feature of action through political channels is it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other hand, is that it permits wide diversity,. It is, in political terms, a system of proportional representation. Each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants and get it; he does not have to see what color the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit.......The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated-- a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political activity, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than an enforcement.
I think that is a pretty good argument for limited government.
Basically government should carry out all the economic functions designated to it under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Let me quote Milton Friedman from Capitalism and Freedom:
The existance of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining "the rules of the game" and as an umpire to enforce the the rules decided on. What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. The characteristic feature of action through political channels is it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other hand, is that it permits wide diversity,. It is, in political terms, a system of proportional representation. Each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants and get it; he does not have to see what color the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit.......The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated-- a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political activity, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than an enforcement.
I think that is a pretty good argument for limited government.
Julian got it. I'm saying that government intereferance doesn't necessarily hurt the economy.
Just look at America in its lezzies-faire days. We had 8, count 'em 8 depressions, and several more recessions. Now, in the 60 years since FDR passed the New Deal (or "the bane of the free market" according to conservatives) we have had 0 depressions. If high taxes and high government interference with the economy is always a bad thing, and low taxes and low government interferance with the economy is always a good thing, how do you explain this? Institutions like the Federal Reserve, a regulatory organization and a government-owned business that implements Keynesian policies, have brought us out of many a recession. An institution like this simply couldn't exist in a free market, because it doesn't turn a profit. Without socialism (gasp!) our economy just wouldn't be stable.
Conservatives like to concentrate on the "failures" of socialism in America. They point at the schools, they point at welfare, they even point at the CDC for some unexplicable reason. What about all the good things that government control has done? What about the GI Bill, which sent a generation of young men to college and created a huge pool of skilled labor? How about the government creating the "prototype" of the internet, ARPANET, without which we might not have the internet (at least on the current scale)? How about the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which provides all the economic statistics that Congress, the executive branch, the Federal Reserve, the stock and bond markets, private industry and the entire economy depend on to make their analysis (another business that couldn't exist in the free market)?
The last 60 years have been the most prosperous years ever for America, even with its socialist economic policy. The lezzies-faire years weren't exactly as great. So, please tell me, why is government interference bad?
Just look at America in its lezzies-faire days. We had 8, count 'em 8 depressions, and several more recessions. Now, in the 60 years since FDR passed the New Deal (or "the bane of the free market" according to conservatives) we have had 0 depressions. If high taxes and high government interference with the economy is always a bad thing, and low taxes and low government interferance with the economy is always a good thing, how do you explain this? Institutions like the Federal Reserve, a regulatory organization and a government-owned business that implements Keynesian policies, have brought us out of many a recession. An institution like this simply couldn't exist in a free market, because it doesn't turn a profit. Without socialism (gasp!) our economy just wouldn't be stable.
Conservatives like to concentrate on the "failures" of socialism in America. They point at the schools, they point at welfare, they even point at the CDC for some unexplicable reason. What about all the good things that government control has done? What about the GI Bill, which sent a generation of young men to college and created a huge pool of skilled labor? How about the government creating the "prototype" of the internet, ARPANET, without which we might not have the internet (at least on the current scale)? How about the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which provides all the economic statistics that Congress, the executive branch, the Federal Reserve, the stock and bond markets, private industry and the entire economy depend on to make their analysis (another business that couldn't exist in the free market)?
The last 60 years have been the most prosperous years ever for America, even with its socialist economic policy. The lezzies-faire years weren't exactly as great. So, please tell me, why is government interference bad?
Actually Rattlesnake, your wrong, the Federal Reserve is a private-owned corporation.
(see http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm)
of the directors were to be chosen, directly or indirectly, by the banks of the association."6
Thus the proposed Federal Reserve Bank was to be "controlled by Congress" and answerable to the government, but the majority of the directors were to be chosen, "directly or indirectly" by the banks of the association. In the final refinement of Warburg’s plan, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would be appointed by the President of the United States, but the real work of the Board would be controlled by a Federal Advisory Council, meeting with the Governors. The Council would be chosen by the directors of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, and would remain unknown to the public.
The next consideration was to conceal the fact that the proposed "Federal Reserve System" would be dominated by the masters of the New York money market. The Congressmen from the South and the West could not survive if they voted for a Wall Street plan. Farmers and small businessmen in those areas had suffered most from the money panics. There had been great popular resentment against the Eastern bankers, which during the nineteenth century became a political movement known as "populism". The private papers of Nicholas Biddle, not released until more than a century after his death, show that quite early on the Eastern bankers were fully aware of the widespread public opposition to them.
Paul Warburg advanced at Jekyll Island the primary deception which would prevent the citizens from recognizing that his plan set up a central bank. This was the regional reserve system. He proposed a system of four (later twelve) branch reserve banks located in different sections of the country. Few people outside the banking world would realize that the existing concentration of the nation’s money and credit structure in New York made the proposal of a regional reserve system a delusion.
Another proposal advanced by Paul Warburg at Jekyll Island was the manner of selection of administrators for the proposed regional reserve system. Senator Nelson Aldrich had insisted that the officials should be appointive, not elected, and that Congress should have no role in their selection. His Capitol Hill experience had taught him that congressional opinion would often be inimical to the Wall Street interests, as Congressmen from the West and South might wish to demonstrate to their constituents that they were protecting them against the Eastern bankers.
Warburg responded that the administrators of the proposed central banks should be subject to executive approval by the President. This patent removal of the system from Congressional control meant that the
__________________________
6 Nathaniel Wright Stephenson, Nelson W. Aldrich, A Leader in American Politics, Scribners, N.Y. 1930, Chap. XXIV "Jekyll Island" p. 379
6
Federal Reserve proposal was unconstitutional from its inception, because the Federal Reserve System was to be a bank of issue. Article 1, Sec. 8, Par. 5 of the Constitution expressly charges Congress with "the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.". Warburg’s plan would deprive Congress of its sovereignty, and the systems of checks and balances of power set up by Thomas Jefferson in the Constitution would now be destroyed. Administrators of the proposed system would control the nation’s money and credit, and would themselves be approved by the executive department of the government. The judicial department (the Supreme Court, etc.) was already virtually controlled by the executive department through presidential appointment to the bench.
(see http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm)
of the directors were to be chosen, directly or indirectly, by the banks of the association."6
Thus the proposed Federal Reserve Bank was to be "controlled by Congress" and answerable to the government, but the majority of the directors were to be chosen, "directly or indirectly" by the banks of the association. In the final refinement of Warburg’s plan, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would be appointed by the President of the United States, but the real work of the Board would be controlled by a Federal Advisory Council, meeting with the Governors. The Council would be chosen by the directors of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, and would remain unknown to the public.
The next consideration was to conceal the fact that the proposed "Federal Reserve System" would be dominated by the masters of the New York money market. The Congressmen from the South and the West could not survive if they voted for a Wall Street plan. Farmers and small businessmen in those areas had suffered most from the money panics. There had been great popular resentment against the Eastern bankers, which during the nineteenth century became a political movement known as "populism". The private papers of Nicholas Biddle, not released until more than a century after his death, show that quite early on the Eastern bankers were fully aware of the widespread public opposition to them.
Paul Warburg advanced at Jekyll Island the primary deception which would prevent the citizens from recognizing that his plan set up a central bank. This was the regional reserve system. He proposed a system of four (later twelve) branch reserve banks located in different sections of the country. Few people outside the banking world would realize that the existing concentration of the nation’s money and credit structure in New York made the proposal of a regional reserve system a delusion.
Another proposal advanced by Paul Warburg at Jekyll Island was the manner of selection of administrators for the proposed regional reserve system. Senator Nelson Aldrich had insisted that the officials should be appointive, not elected, and that Congress should have no role in their selection. His Capitol Hill experience had taught him that congressional opinion would often be inimical to the Wall Street interests, as Congressmen from the West and South might wish to demonstrate to their constituents that they were protecting them against the Eastern bankers.
Warburg responded that the administrators of the proposed central banks should be subject to executive approval by the President. This patent removal of the system from Congressional control meant that the
__________________________
6 Nathaniel Wright Stephenson, Nelson W. Aldrich, A Leader in American Politics, Scribners, N.Y. 1930, Chap. XXIV "Jekyll Island" p. 379
6
Federal Reserve proposal was unconstitutional from its inception, because the Federal Reserve System was to be a bank of issue. Article 1, Sec. 8, Par. 5 of the Constitution expressly charges Congress with "the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.". Warburg’s plan would deprive Congress of its sovereignty, and the systems of checks and balances of power set up by Thomas Jefferson in the Constitution would now be destroyed. Administrators of the proposed system would control the nation’s money and credit, and would themselves be approved by the executive department of the government. The judicial department (the Supreme Court, etc.) was already virtually controlled by the executive department through presidential appointment to the bench.
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Jun 27 2003, 11:34 PM)
The last 60 years have been the most prosperous years ever for America, even with its socialist economic policy. The lezzies-faire years weren't exactly as great. So, please tell me, why is government interference bad?
That is due to the snowball effect of increased technology and accumulation of capital. I also don't think a society that discriminated strongly against women and minorities was a libertarian one.The chief cause of the Great Depression was the federal reserve shrinking the money supply in the face of a recession.
Thomas, you're just flat out wrong. The Fed is not a privately-owned corporation.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faq.htm
(Emphasis added)
I don't knwo what fool has been putting these ideas in your head, but I suggest you get rid of them. The Fed is most certainly a government business. It has to deal with government oversight, it has to operate within government bounds, and it pays its profits to the Treasury. Yes, it does perform some free-market activity, and its board members are not appointed by the goverment, but it is most obviously part of the government. The US government created the Fed, and they control the Fed. That's just the way it is.
And hugo, I'm sure you can come up with a little more than 3 sentances to respond to my entire post.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faq.htm
QUOTE
The Federal Reserve System, also known as the Fed, is the central bank of the United States. It was created by the Congress with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The Federal Reserve System is composed of a central, governmental agency--the Board of Governors--in Washington, D.C., and twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation.
(Emphasis added)
QUOTE
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
QUOTE
After it pays its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury. About 95 percent of the Reserve Banks' net earnings have been paid into the Treasury since the Federal Reserve System began operations in 1914.
QUOTE
The Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government.
I don't knwo what fool has been putting these ideas in your head, but I suggest you get rid of them. The Fed is most certainly a government business. It has to deal with government oversight, it has to operate within government bounds, and it pays its profits to the Treasury. Yes, it does perform some free-market activity, and its board members are not appointed by the goverment, but it is most obviously part of the government. The US government created the Fed, and they control the Fed. That's just the way it is.
And hugo, I'm sure you can come up with a little more than 3 sentances to respond to my entire post.
You'll find that the stock is owned by private banks.
"1) Chase-Manhattan (controlled by the Rockefellers) - 6,389,445 shares - 32.3%
2) Citbank - 4,051,851 shares - 20.5%"
Secondly the New York Federal Reserve Bank controls the rest because those two private banks, which own 53% of the stock of the New York Fed, OWNS through stock the other regional banks and thus the regional federal reserves.
Even President Wilson, who helped push through the act, regretted it afterwards:
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated [in the Federal Reserve System]. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world-no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men. (Quoted in "National Economy and the Banking System," Senate Documents Co. 3, No. 23, Seventy-sixth Congress, First session, 1939.)"
As for government bonds:
" The Federal Reserve scheme provides not only that all U.S. currency shall be printed as Federal Reserve notes, but that if the government wants to use these notes it must give the Federal Reserve IOUs in the form of government bonds on which interest will be paid until the bonds have been redeemed.
The question immediately arises, "Well, what did the banks loan to the government in exchange for these bonds?" The answer is, "Nothing, absolutely nothing." The banks paid for the printing of their Federal Reserve notes and gave them to us, but they are not redeemable in gold, silver, or anything else of value. They are just paper, backed by virtually nothing. The question next arises, "Then why are they able to charge us interest when all they are doing is printing our own currency?"
The answer is that in 1913 the Congress gave the Federal Reserve the legal "right" to print our money, and that right is "as good as gold." Therefore, if we want to use the Fed's money, we have to borrow it and give them federal IOUs for the amount obtained. And, of course, each IOU (government bond) is something on which interest must be paid.
This whole arrangement is so totally irrational that the former chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee, Congressman Wright Patman (D-Texas), asked Marriner S. Eccles, the Utahn who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1934 to 1948, the following:
"Mr. Eccles, how did you get the money to buy these two billion dollars of government bonds?"
Mr. Eccles: We created it.
Mr. Patman: Out of what?
Mr. Eccles: Out of the right to create credit money."
As for Congressional insight, I doubt that Congressmen would want to question [I]too closely what they up to, considering the financial and thus political clout of these men who control through stock the Fed.
"1) Chase-Manhattan (controlled by the Rockefellers) - 6,389,445 shares - 32.3%
2) Citbank - 4,051,851 shares - 20.5%"
Secondly the New York Federal Reserve Bank controls the rest because those two private banks, which own 53% of the stock of the New York Fed, OWNS through stock the other regional banks and thus the regional federal reserves.
Even President Wilson, who helped push through the act, regretted it afterwards:
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated [in the Federal Reserve System]. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world-no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men. (Quoted in "National Economy and the Banking System," Senate Documents Co. 3, No. 23, Seventy-sixth Congress, First session, 1939.)"
As for government bonds:
" The Federal Reserve scheme provides not only that all U.S. currency shall be printed as Federal Reserve notes, but that if the government wants to use these notes it must give the Federal Reserve IOUs in the form of government bonds on which interest will be paid until the bonds have been redeemed.
The question immediately arises, "Well, what did the banks loan to the government in exchange for these bonds?" The answer is, "Nothing, absolutely nothing." The banks paid for the printing of their Federal Reserve notes and gave them to us, but they are not redeemable in gold, silver, or anything else of value. They are just paper, backed by virtually nothing. The question next arises, "Then why are they able to charge us interest when all they are doing is printing our own currency?"
The answer is that in 1913 the Congress gave the Federal Reserve the legal "right" to print our money, and that right is "as good as gold." Therefore, if we want to use the Fed's money, we have to borrow it and give them federal IOUs for the amount obtained. And, of course, each IOU (government bond) is something on which interest must be paid.
This whole arrangement is so totally irrational that the former chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee, Congressman Wright Patman (D-Texas), asked Marriner S. Eccles, the Utahn who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1934 to 1948, the following:
"Mr. Eccles, how did you get the money to buy these two billion dollars of government bonds?"
Mr. Eccles: We created it.
Mr. Patman: Out of what?
Mr. Eccles: Out of the right to create credit money."
As for Congressional insight, I doubt that Congressmen would want to question [I]too closely what they up to, considering the financial and thus political clout of these men who control through stock the Fed.
Thomas, you're wrong. I got that off the Federal Reserve Website FAQ. Let me post it again so that it's absolutly clear to you.
(Emphasis added)
QUOTE
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
(Emphasis added)
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Jun 28 2003, 10:35 PM)
And hugo, I'm sure you can come up with a little more than 3 sentances to respond to my entire post.
You obvious confuse excess verbiage with good debate. I have no problems with the parts of your post concerning the Federal Reserve. It is quite ridiculous, considering the onslaught of technology and accumulation of capital, to compare 1950 America with 2000 America.
Let me repeat, capitalism maximizes freedom and productivity. Socialism substututes coerciion for voluntary exchange. The great economic advances of the post WWII era have been accomplished despite the yoke of government placed on the American worker and businessman. Medical advances have been achieved despite the yoke of the FDA placed on pharmaceutical companies. Yes we have made great economic progress despite the taxation of productivity and the subsidation of sloth.
There were neccesary stages in the Industrial Revolution. Attempts to skip a stage, through government intervention, would lead to increased misery. There are sound economic reasons why Mexico and India do not immediately set a minimum wage of $10 an hour and why we don't set a minimum wage of $50 an hour. It is the free market that establishes a standard of living. It is the free market that creates an excess of goods that parasites can, through the means of pandering politicians looking for power, steal and redistribute among themselves.
Socialism teaches that private property rights are to be spit upon: Why do you think the theft of copyrighted material through downloading is widely accepted? Of, course we need government to protect us from them evil corporations right? They have too much power, right? No corporation has ever forced me to work for them or buy their product. There our thousands of corporations, none that have much control of my life. Socialism has subjected billions to intense suffering. Thankfully our country has enough of a free market left that the suffering created by socialism here, higher crime, higher taxes, increased poverty and homelessness, loneliness, etc. are mild compared to more radical socialist states.
Sorry, if I did not fully participate in your Federal Reserve sidetrack, earlier.
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Jun 27 2003, 01:51 PM)
Why would limited government interference with the free market always hurt the economy?
Yes, we know that Communism in Russia failed. Please, try to prove your point without referencing the USSR. That's a complete off-topic; I'm talking about smaller-scale economic control, not command economy. Please, limit you posts to the topic. If you start talking about Communism in Russia, I'll report your post as off-topic. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to be able to articulate your point using the innumerable instances of economic control in Western liberal democracies.
Yes, we know that Communism in Russia failed. Please, try to prove your point without referencing the USSR. That's a complete off-topic; I'm talking about smaller-scale economic control, not command economy. Please, limit you posts to the topic. If you start talking about Communism in Russia, I'll report your post as off-topic. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to be able to articulate your point using the innumerable instances of economic control in Western liberal democracies.
Hey Rattlesnake, no USSR comments yet, but it seems we're going way off in a direction I'm not sure you wanted this thread to go.
I haven't received any reports from you but I was wondering if this discussion of the ownership of the Fed is on topic?
I’ll ignore Rattlesnakes provocations about the Fed, and remain on-topic, as Jamie rightly points out.
I refuse to accept your proposition that limited intervention by the government hurts the economy. In your reply to Julian, you seem to advocate Keynesian economic ideas, in Britain central socialist planning failed and led to greater taxes, greater public spending on unproductive elements of the economy. As well as complicated and overbearing union and labour laws which handicapped businesses. The neo-liberal model appears to have succeeding in the West –shown in the fact that most developed nations and more-or-less followed the Anglo-Saxon model, although I have doubts that it works so well in developing nations.
I refuse to accept your proposition that limited intervention by the government hurts the economy. In your reply to Julian, you seem to advocate Keynesian economic ideas, in Britain central socialist planning failed and led to greater taxes, greater public spending on unproductive elements of the economy. As well as complicated and overbearing union and labour laws which handicapped businesses. The neo-liberal model appears to have succeeding in the West –shown in the fact that most developed nations and more-or-less followed the Anglo-Saxon model, although I have doubts that it works so well in developing nations.
@hugo
Maybe, but maybe not. I wasn't talking about economic success, I was talking about economic stability. I can understand how so much technology would help the economy grow, but has it really changed how stable it would be? Under lassies-faire policies in America, as I mentioned before, we had 8 depressions. The Great Depression was caused by a lack of regulation of banks. Now, under what we can all agree is the greatest level of economic control in America history, our economy has been quite stable, due to various reasons, but especially the Federal Reserve's Keynesian economic policies.
This is just rhetoric and spin. You provide nothing, not even examples, much less links, to back this up.
Does Capitalism always increase freedom? Of course not, what about monopolies, what about price-fixing, what about child labor and unfair treatment of workers? Does Capitalism always increase productivity? Of course not, because if wealth flows in only one direction (from the poor to the rich) then the poor have no reason to work harder, because the upper classes become an aristocracy (or more correctly, a plutocracy). It's not this black and white hugo. As I've said before, economics is a very complicated field.
As for socialism being "coercion," that's only in the case of a totalitarian dictatorship. In a liberal democracy, you have the choice to vote or not to vote for socialist policies. You say "well I didn't vote for those laws, why should I be subject to them?" Well the reason is this: because its the law. People don't just get to exempt themselves from the law because they don't agree with it. Is a murderer justified because he doesn't believe that what he did was a crime? Of course not. Government exist to protect the common good, to make sure everyone enjoys equal protection. If you don't like it, go to Libertaria.
Oh please
. That's such conjecture. Do you honestly think that if we abolished taxes people would stop downloading music? People download because they don't want pay for products (everyone loves a free lunch) and it doesn't feel like real stealing. You're not taking anything away from its rightful owner. No one will not be able to use or sell that MP3 because you downloaded it. It's not because of socialism, that's just silly. Otherwise, why wouldn't shoplifting and larceny be acceptable too?
Do you really honestly think that the power lies with the consumer? You really think that the corporations give us the best deal possible? Well, here's a whole list of ways they aren't. The theory of perfect Capitalism would only work in a perfect world, where all the people knew which product was best. However, corporations can pass off shoddy products like light bulbs and answering machines as "cutting edge" because if they created ones that lasted forever (which they can,) they wouldn't be able to make a profit. Believe it or not, corporations have power.
Care to back this up, without using extreme socialism (i.e. USSR, China, North Korea) as an example? Or do you prefer to just "guesstimate" your way through every post you make?
@Thomas
Care to provide a link? I don't remember that particular story about England's economy, but I do remember this one:
QUOTE
It is quite ridiculous, considering the onslaught of technology and accumulation of capital, to compare 1950 America with 2000 America.
Maybe, but maybe not. I wasn't talking about economic success, I was talking about economic stability. I can understand how so much technology would help the economy grow, but has it really changed how stable it would be? Under lassies-faire policies in America, as I mentioned before, we had 8 depressions. The Great Depression was caused by a lack of regulation of banks. Now, under what we can all agree is the greatest level of economic control in America history, our economy has been quite stable, due to various reasons, but especially the Federal Reserve's Keynesian economic policies.
QUOTE
Let me repeat, capitalism maximizes freedom and productivity. Socialism substututes coerciion for voluntary exchange. The great economic advances of the post WWII era have been accomplished despite the yoke of government placed on the American worker and businessman. Medical advances have been achieved despite the yoke of the FDA placed on pharmaceutical companies. Yes we have made great economic progress despite the taxation of productivity and the subsidation of sloth.
This is just rhetoric and spin. You provide nothing, not even examples, much less links, to back this up.
Does Capitalism always increase freedom? Of course not, what about monopolies, what about price-fixing, what about child labor and unfair treatment of workers? Does Capitalism always increase productivity? Of course not, because if wealth flows in only one direction (from the poor to the rich) then the poor have no reason to work harder, because the upper classes become an aristocracy (or more correctly, a plutocracy). It's not this black and white hugo. As I've said before, economics is a very complicated field.
As for socialism being "coercion," that's only in the case of a totalitarian dictatorship. In a liberal democracy, you have the choice to vote or not to vote for socialist policies. You say "well I didn't vote for those laws, why should I be subject to them?" Well the reason is this: because its the law. People don't just get to exempt themselves from the law because they don't agree with it. Is a murderer justified because he doesn't believe that what he did was a crime? Of course not. Government exist to protect the common good, to make sure everyone enjoys equal protection. If you don't like it, go to Libertaria.
QUOTE
Socialism teaches that private property rights are to be spit upon: Why do you think the theft of copyrighted material through downloading is widely accepted?
Oh please
. That's such conjecture. Do you honestly think that if we abolished taxes people would stop downloading music? People download because they don't want pay for products (everyone loves a free lunch) and it doesn't feel like real stealing. You're not taking anything away from its rightful owner. No one will not be able to use or sell that MP3 because you downloaded it. It's not because of socialism, that's just silly. Otherwise, why wouldn't shoplifting and larceny be acceptable too?QUOTE
Of, course we need government to protect us from them evil corporations right? They have too much power, right? No corporation has ever forced me to work for them or buy their product. There our thousands of corporations, none that have much control of my life.
Do you really honestly think that the power lies with the consumer? You really think that the corporations give us the best deal possible? Well, here's a whole list of ways they aren't. The theory of perfect Capitalism would only work in a perfect world, where all the people knew which product was best. However, corporations can pass off shoddy products like light bulbs and answering machines as "cutting edge" because if they created ones that lasted forever (which they can,) they wouldn't be able to make a profit. Believe it or not, corporations have power.
QUOTE
Socialism has subjected billions to intense suffering.
Care to back this up, without using extreme socialism (i.e. USSR, China, North Korea) as an example? Or do you prefer to just "guesstimate" your way through every post you make?
@Thomas
QUOTE
[Y]ou seem to advocate Keynesian economic ideas, in Britain central socialist planning failed and led to greater taxes, greater public spending on unproductive elements of the economy.
Care to provide a link? I don't remember that particular story about England's economy, but I do remember this one:
QUOTE
The abuse of natural monopolies is what happened to Great Britain after Margaret Thatcher sought to privatize public utilities. The experience was a disaster. The British government first privatized telecommunications, then gas, then electricity and then water with little thought about how these monopolies would act on the free market. By 1987, public outcry over the skyrocketing rates and dropping quality of British Telecom forced the Thatcher government to reluctantly impose regulations. The same thing happened to Gas. But what was truly disastrous was the way Britain privatized electricity; it allowed a ludicrous arrangement where power providers could compete with each other. Even though there were adequate power sources in Britain, the industry rushed to build more power generators to compete with each other, to the point that there was 70 percent overproduction by 1995. What's worse, this competition nearly killed Britain's coal industry. Coal generators are expensive to build but cheap to run; gas generators are the opposite. Gas is also much quicker to install. As the power companies rushed to build new power generators, they chose gas over coal. By 1992, the British government closed half its coal mines and laid off 70 percent of its miners.
It is pretty easy to read through Rattlesnake's hogwash. First he tries to center the debate over a philosophy no one on this board will defend, that anarchy is the best form of government. Then he tries to exclude the sufferings of the populations of China, the USSR, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, do I need to name more, when discussing the evils of socialism, quite humorous.
Let us see, under socialism we got billions of people subjected to dire misery. under capitalism we got some people who get shoddy products, as though shoddy products is not a more frequent occurrence under socialism. The free market and civil lawsuits take care of shoddy products.
Child labor, a fact of life in agricultural societies. As industrialization takes hold and productivity increases, so the labor of the child is no longer needed to sustain the family. child labor goes away on it's own.
The Great Depression: The Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to drop by a third between 1929 and 1933. The proper macroeconomic action to take in a recession is to increase the money supply to stimulate the economy. Anyone who claims it was the unregulated banks who caused the Depression has less knowledge of economics than my dog.
Capitalism ain't perfect, neither is democracy. Guess what folks, as long as man is involved life ain't going to be perfect. As long as man forms governments groups will form to attempt to steal the product of one man's labor and give it to another. It is a great evil, and it is called socialism.
If we are debating if a government that fulfills none of the duties given to the Federal government in Article I Section 8 is better than a government that limits itself to those roles, than I have to say I greatly favor the latter. Yes, it is nice to have a common currency,roads and canals, free trade among the states, and a few other federal interventions in the economy.
What socialists always get confused is cause and effect, socialism is the result of an affluent society, not the cause of an affluent society.
Socialism is coercion, socialism is, in many cases, outright theft. The fact that a mob of 51% steals the product of your labor does not change this fact. Of course anyone who can defend the theft of copyrighted material can easily defend socialism. Yes, if you can spit on the rights of private property socialism may be for you.
Let us see, under socialism we got billions of people subjected to dire misery. under capitalism we got some people who get shoddy products, as though shoddy products is not a more frequent occurrence under socialism. The free market and civil lawsuits take care of shoddy products.
Child labor, a fact of life in agricultural societies. As industrialization takes hold and productivity increases, so the labor of the child is no longer needed to sustain the family. child labor goes away on it's own.
The Great Depression: The Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to drop by a third between 1929 and 1933. The proper macroeconomic action to take in a recession is to increase the money supply to stimulate the economy. Anyone who claims it was the unregulated banks who caused the Depression has less knowledge of economics than my dog.
Capitalism ain't perfect, neither is democracy. Guess what folks, as long as man is involved life ain't going to be perfect. As long as man forms governments groups will form to attempt to steal the product of one man's labor and give it to another. It is a great evil, and it is called socialism.
If we are debating if a government that fulfills none of the duties given to the Federal government in Article I Section 8 is better than a government that limits itself to those roles, than I have to say I greatly favor the latter. Yes, it is nice to have a common currency,roads and canals, free trade among the states, and a few other federal interventions in the economy.
What socialists always get confused is cause and effect, socialism is the result of an affluent society, not the cause of an affluent society.
Socialism is coercion, socialism is, in many cases, outright theft. The fact that a mob of 51% steals the product of your labor does not change this fact. Of course anyone who can defend the theft of copyrighted material can easily defend socialism. Yes, if you can spit on the rights of private property socialism may be for you.
This is just degenerating into another socialism vs capitalism debate. Forget this, I'm gone.
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Jun 30 2003, 04:01 PM)
This is just degenerating into another socialism vs capitalism debate. Forget this, I'm gone.
Instead of crying wolf, why don't you report the posts as being off topic as you had originally intended?
QUOTE(hugo @ Jun 30 2003, 12:58 AM)
under socialism we got billions of people subjected to dire misery. under capitalism we got some people who get shoddy products
We also get the Ford Pinto, Love Canal, Bhopal, Exxon Valdez...
Not to say that socialism has a sterling safety environmental record, but these are more than minor annoyances, requiring more than "throw it away, buy something different" solutions.
QUOTE
The free market and civil lawsuits take care of shoddy products.
Are not the courts also part of the government? Are you seriously saying that using the courts as a cure is preferable to a judicious dose of prevention?
QUOTE
As industrialization takes hold and productivity increases, so the labor of the child is no longer needed to sustain the family. child labor goes away on it's own.
Tell that to the third-world children working in industrial sweatshops because their families need the money.
QUOTE
The Great Depression: The Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to drop by a third between 1929 and 1933. The proper macroeconomic action to take in a recession is to increase the money supply to stimulate the economy. Anyone who claims it was the unregulated banks who caused the Depression has less knowledge of economics than my dog.
1929 to 1933 would be after the crash. What about before? What caused the crash in the first place? Maybe your dog can answer that one for you.
Because I don't really care about the topic anymore. Hugo can throw whatever temper tantrums about how evil socialism is if he wants. Besides, it's not like anyone even got the original question in the first place.
Fine. Closed.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.