Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is you see what you see or what you want to see, but failed to see what you NOT see and what you did not want to see.
10+ years ago, China was practicing almost FREE market within regid political system and India was/is practicing State guided political/economical system. One can see the huge different between these two countries.
That is not a "free market". Perhaps you could say "almost". Those were "enterprise zones" where China used its political monopoly to create competition much like the NHL is a monopoly authority to create the rules and playing field for hockey competition. A free market cannot be said to exist with a monopoly on authority. If people decided to drive their RVs to the dessert and create a makeshift market then it my be thought of as having little authority, a free market.
But then this is swamped by the productive capabilities of the monopolized areas of natural wealth. That is to say a free water market in the Nevada desert would be a laughing stock to the "Great Lakes Bottled Water Company LTD". In which case the US could try to make an "enterprise zone" by breaking up the company until they compete. A free market would entail a collapse of the US authority such that water vendors would be so numerous that water rights would be "worthless"...That is to say only the labor of bottling and transporting the water would pay in a very labor intensive industry.
However by almost, as in China, one can see how easily the political class can appropriate the wealth others have created. The difference is in a free market the lambs do not grow wool only to be later sheared.
For someone with Knowledgeiskey as your screen name, you really haven't thought through your argument very well. For while you do indeed take into account minimal government influence, you omit an enormous factor in the development of wealth.
For a free market to exist, there has to be a fundamental respect for property rights. That means a strong legal foundation that exists independent of the whims of despots and oligarchs.
This is why, for example, about an eighth of the Chinese GDP gets moved overseas yearly in the form of foreign investments rather than get reinvested in the domestic economy. Because there is no faith that the government today will not simply take away property tomorrow, there is no long-term investment. Capital gets moved from places where assets are simply confiscated by fiat, or is simply stashed in the form of jewels or precious metals--for who in their right mind would trust a capricious state? As one recent example last year, the EU simply up and decided to confiscate 15% of all holdings in Cypriot banks. This resulted in a mass panic with people moving their money out of Cyprus and the EU in general.
In fact, if you look at countries that went through spectacular and largely permanent economic growth, you'll see countries such as the United States and England, Japan and Singapore. Places where there are strong legal structures in place to ensure that money isn't simply confiscated because the regime needs it. China, for example, has gone through spectacular economic growth over the past twenty years, but it likely that it won't last. The demographics and the corrupt totalitarian state almost guarantee it. And, even now, all those oil kingdoms of the Middle East are seeing their economic futures in peril. Why? Because they squandered their economic wealth by buying off the masses rather than ensuring the rule of law and developing a strong and diverse economy.
So if you look at the third world, the thing that is immediately apparent is the lack of long-term legal stability. Despots come and go, whipsawing the entrepreneurial class back and forth. This makes it incredibly hard to build anything or save anything at all. As one other example, Venezuela used to be the most prosperous country in central America until Chavez came to power. Now there is electricity rationing and a host of other economic ills. On the other hand, Chile was struggling for decades, but became a powerhouse economy as the country decided to follow the principles of Milton Friedman. And, of course, we have Argentina. Once one of the richest countries in the world, it has been an economic punchline for decades since the Peronistas came along.
Many things in the above are either untrue or misleading. China's growth "likely won't last"? I mean, I think it will slow down, but due to extreme pollution and ecology issues and demographics. The totalitarianism is problematic, but the "respect for property rights" aspect is just an attempt to throw one's political viewpoint into the equation. The rest of your post confirms it.
For example, your anti-Socialism bias is inherent. Venezuela "used to be the most prosperous country until Chavez" you say? Yet, under Chavez, they grew much faster. From 1986-1999, Venezuela averaged 1.4% inflation-adjusted GDP growth. Under Chavez, they averaged 3.2% GDP growth, and 4.3% growth from 2003 (when the state took over the oil company) onward. Moreover, inflation actually decreased significantly from the period before Chavez took power. Inflation averaged approximately 35% per annum during the 1986-1999 period and rose steadily to near 50% by the time Chavez took office. Under Chavez, inflation averaged around 20% though it has risen after his death the overall average under his policies is significantly lower than under the same length of time preceding his "reign". That's not even taking into account that extreme poverty was more than cut in half or that relative inequality fell, or that life expectancy and infant mortality rates both improved.
Second, there is much debate about the role of Friedman's policies in influencing the junta. Amartya Sen has often pointed out that during the monetarist stage of the junta's economic policy (roughly 1975-1982), real economic growth was barely above zero, and lagged behind South America. It was during a period of consolidation in the 1980s that it began to grow. The idea that neoliberal economic reforms led to democracy and the overthrow of Pinochet (who was mainly opposed by philosophical leftists left over from Allende's administration) is also hard to prove.
Finally, Argentina? Seriously? You say its "Peronistas", but their descent into debt and stagflation came under the military dictatorship of the 70s and 80s, and that was from a hard-right monetarist who sought to break the unions. Growth during the post-Peron period - until the dictatorship - was solid and much less unstable than it has been in intervening decades. That said, Argentina is a high debt nation but their GDP PPP is still nearly $20k per capita. Hardly a basket case overall, even in context of previous economic standing.
That is not a "free market". Perhaps you could say "almost". Those were "enterprise zones" where China used its political monopoly to create competition much like the NHL is a monopoly authority to create the rules and playing field for hockey competition. A free market cannot be said to exist with a monopoly on authority. If people decided to drive their RVs to the dessert and create a makeshift market then it my be thought of as having little authority, a free market.
But then this is swamped by the productive capabilities of the monopolized areas of natural wealth. That is to say a free water market in the Nevada desert would be a laughing stock to the "Great Lakes Bottled Water Company LTD". In which case the US could try to make an "enterprise zone" by breaking up the company until they compete. A free market would entail a collapse of the US authority such that water vendors would be so numerous that water rights would be "worthless"...That is to say only the labor of bottling and transporting the water would pay in a very labor intensive industry.
However by almost, as in China, one can see how easily the political class can appropriate the wealth others have created. The difference is in a free market the lambs do not grow wool only to be later sheared.
Gonvernments exist to regulate and control which means there will never exist free market under gonvernements. "Almost" is next best thing one can get as far as free market.
Property rights are created by governments, they are not some eternal fact. The idea that property is a natural right (or even a logically self-consistent proposition) has been torn to logical pieces many times, from Proudhon onward. It's a construct. If one believes in it, fine. If one desires a government which protects it, fine. But claiming it is some inherent harm/no harm principle is wrong.
Second, the power of a dollar over the power of a private official, in reality, may be far greater. You see, in a democratic government, a person is a vote. In the private economy a dollar is a vote. I'd much, much, much rather be subject to the democratic power of a government I have an equal say in than the unaccountable actions of a wealthy person with control over resources necessary for surviving and thriving. In the "democracy of dollars" the vast majority of Americans have a tiny share of the votes and a small percent of Americans have the majority of votes.
Socialism is compatible with democracy. Capitalism is not.
This post is incorrect. Property rights are not derived from government. Governments are created by men, and rights are built-in to protect the individual from the tyranny of the government. Rights precede all governments. Governments strip individuals of rights to the extent that we allow it. And unfortunately, we do allow it a lot nowadays.
Rights are derived from our requirements for successful life as a rational animal. They come as a natural result of conceptualizing our basic nature. Rights are created by man in recognition that the essential characteristic of freedom is vital to a life form whose mode of survival is primarily intellectual, rather than physical.
Collectivists hate that, because they prefer to posit or we are born into slavery and duty and automatic subservience to others based on their random needs. But the most cursory examination of what a human being is, and what it needs to live, and especially what it needs to live socially, reveals that freedom must be the central ideal. Once you express that politically, you establish a government that is not allowed to violate individual rights. Once you express that economically, you establish Capitalism, which is the only economic system that has freedom as its raison d'etre.
Gonvernments exist to regulate and control which means there will never exist free market under gonvernements. "Almost" is next best thing one can get as far as free market.
We have allowed this to become the truth, however the fault is not with government, but with citizens who are not good enough to demand to live as free people. The problem is the People, not the government. In other words, we are our own worst enemy.
This post is incorrect. Property rights are not derived from government. Governments are created by men, and rights are built-in to protect the individual from the tyranny of the government. Rights precede all governments. Governments strip individuals of rights to the extent that we allow it. And unfortunately, we do allow it a lot nowadays.
Rights are derived from our requirements for successful life as a rational animal. They come as a natural result of conceptualizing our basic nature. Rights are created by man in recognition that the essential characteristic of freedom is vital to a life form whose mode of survival is primarily intellectual, rather than physical.
Collectivists hate that, because they prefer to posit or we are born into slavery and duty and automatic subservience to others based on their random needs. But the most cursory examination of what a human being is, and what it needs to live, and especially what it needs to live socially, reveals that freedom must be the central ideal. Once you express that politically, you establish a government that is not allowed to violate individual rights. Once you express that economically, you establish Capitalism, which is the only economic system that has freedom as its raison d'etre.
??? If property rights are not derived from government, why does government determine which property rights people are allowed to have?
We have allowed this to become the truth, however the fault is not with government, but with citizens who are not good enough to demand to live as free people. The problem is the People, not the government. In other words, we are our own worst enemy.
The problem is class warfare; the middle class is the worst enemy of the poor.
Gonvernments exist to regulate and control which means there will never exist free market under gonvernements. "Almost" is next best thing one can get as far as free market.
So should sport stadiums be allowed to control all the food vendors as their right to a free market or should food vendors have this "right"?
What's an almost free market in this case? Is it two movie theaters competing to have their local private popcorn monopoly?
Ya know I just love undefined abstractions thrown around in this forum.
??? If property rights are not derived from government, why does government determine which property rights people are allowed to have?
Rights are derived from philosophical analysis, and are constructed using observation of existence and our nature within existence, utilizing reason and its tools (observation, induction, deduction, modification).
Government is simply a structure arrived at in one of two ways: By agreement: to live according to the principles arrived at through rational philosophy in a free society. Or capitulation: to gangs and physical compulsion in the case of dictatorships, theocracies, mixed economies, etc. In fact, government is simply an engineering function. It is applied science.
Reason comes first, philosophy follows, morality follows (all embracing and utilizing Reason), and government can almost be considered an afterthought in the hierarchy of importance in arriving at a system in which we can live together without abusing each other.
We get the government we deserve and design. It can be based on corruption and evil (collectivism), or on elevation and idealism (freedom). We choose. Government then carries out what we agree to after we agree to it (freedom), or have it forced upon us (collectivism).
[quote=Marc Paolella;35574178]This post is incorrect. Property rights are not derived from government. Governments are created by men, and rights are built-in to protect the individual from the tyranny of the government. Rights precede all governments. Governments strip individuals of rights to the extent that we allow it. And unfortunately, we do allow it a lot nowadays.
[quote]
And who is going to make that happen? Should we individual resist da guberment or are you suggesting we act collectively against it?
Quote:
Rights are derived from our requirements for successful life as a rational animal. They come as a natural result of conceptualizing our basic nature. Rights are created by man in recognition that the essential characteristic of freedom is vital to a life form whose mode of survival is primarily intellectual, rather than physical.
And yet people are irrational.
Quote:
Collectivists hate that, because they prefer to posit or we are born into slavery and duty and automatic subservience to others based on their random needs. But the most cursory examination of what a human being is, and what it needs to live, and especially what it needs to live socially, reveals that freedom must be the central ideal. Once you express that politically, you establish a government that is not allowed to violate individual rights. Once you express that economically, you establish Capitalism, which is the only economic system that has freedom as its raison d'etre.
Actually I am a collectivist by the grim recognition of reality, though as much as I loath that fact. To deny that much of what we do is collectivist, let alone coercive, is to deny one has cancer. And one with cancer who denies it dies of it anyway.
And da guberment enforced monopoly we call private land does nothing other than allow a person to remove and prosecute another for "trespass". This is "freedom"? No its also coercion.
Now of course I do believe in natural law , in that I believe in an invasion of privacy such that there is a private "right" , however this applies to the person and to their daily function. When it comes to vast holding and absentee ownership , then clearly its the force of the state, as in I did not just instinctively feel I wronged you when I opened one''s bedroom door. Why don't we sell plots in the sea as well and call it freedom to pay the tolls to the owner who is so free to charge an access fee?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
