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.
Your first post was simply in agreement with a post that said we don't have a free market, we have a corporatist one.
What I was saying is that a free market will naturally be exploited as no restrictions exist to prevent this, thus something like corporatism is an inevitable offshoot of free market capitalism. If we want to say this means we are not a free market anymore, that's fine, but the question in the OP is if free market capitalism is the source of this problem, and I'm saying it is.
For clarity, I think that a certain level of regulation is necessary to ensure something like the formation of a corporatist plutocracy cannot happen and that human rights are not being violated.
I'd sum it up as free market + state always ends in corruption of a true free market. The state will never be content leaving people to trade freely with no interference, even if they're supposed to.
You cannot blame you economic problems on a concept that has never been tried for any longer than it has taken to be eliminated by colluding businessmen frequently backed up by a corrupt government.
I'd sum it up as free market + state always ends in corruption of a true free market. The state will never be content leaving people to trade freely with no interference, even if they're supposed to.
Well, I think humans just naturally form communities and states. We're a tribal people; it's in our DNA. So I don't think it's practical to take the state out completely, so as a result, I think a free market, or any system, runs the risk of becoming corrupt. However, if we stay true to our democratic values, public oversight will theoretically keep the government from acting out of line.
Propulser - I completely disagree with your proposal because it would allow some of your Provinces to reinstate rules that degrade human rights and dignity as well as allow industries to also degrade and damage natural resources for their own private profit. I would not be surprised if at least one of these Provinces reinstated race or economic based chattel slavery at worst or poor farms at least.
I prefer much more centralized control of our country because, as an example, without the central control the, to use your term, provinces down wind or down river would suffer the losses due to pollution without receiving any of the profits created by lower cost production.
Would your New Republic's constitution even have a Bill of Rights?
Only a very foolish person, or member of the ruling class, would favor a more-Centralized government over a less-Centralized one. Why don't you read up on the Founding and the brilliance of the Founder,s and get on the proper side of this issue. The more Centralized (and hence remote) a government is, the less-responsive, and more abusive it becomes.
As far as your "concerns" go I can't begin to imagine where such thoughts originate, but I don't think you need concern yourself with such "boogey-man" and utterly far-fetched issues. It is, after all, 2016.
Well, I think humans just naturally form communities and states. We're a tribal people; it's in our DNA. So I don't think it's practical to take the state out completely, so as a result, I think a free market, or any system, runs the risk of becoming corrupt. However, if we stay true to our democratic values, public oversight will theoretically keep the government from acting out of line.
I don't want to derail the thread, but my quick answer is that we can have communities, organize, etc. without it being a state/government. Another way to look at it would be a society where nobody is chosen as a ruler, or given special "rights" or exemptions from things that regular citizens aren't allowed to do...like taking money by force (taxes) or imposing arbitrary rules on others who haven't harmed anyone (you can defend yourself against aggressors but you shouldn't be the aggressor, which the state almost always is).
But that discussion over whether a voluntary, free, stateless society can exist is for another time. Just wanted to point out that without a state/ruling class/whatever you want to call it, you could have a free market. With one I don't think you can prevent the elites from interfering.
Your first post was simply in agreement with a post that said we don't have a free market, we have a corporatist one.
And I noted because of that, all we can do is discuss theory. That is my point. Theory is best left to the classrooms.
Quote:
What I was saying is that a free market will naturally be exploited as no restrictions exist to prevent this, thus something like corporatism is an inevitable offshoot of free market capitalism. If we want to say this means we are not a free market anymore, that's fine, but the question in the OP is if free market capitalism is the source of this problem, and I'm saying it is.
There are restrictions. Free will.
Quote:
For clarity, I think that a certain level of regulation is necessary to ensure something like the formation of a corporatist plutocracy cannot happen and that human rights are not being violated.
Capitalism doesn't state that there should be absolutely no regulations. It states they should be as unobtrusive as possible.
The USA is plagued by slow growth and if it weren't for the retirement of the Baby Boom Generation our job growth rate is grossly inadequate because it lags behind our population growth.
You are in a post-Industrialized Society. Prove that GDP for a 4th Level Economy should grow at the same rate as a 1st or 2nd Level Economy.
1961-1970 4.22% (Expansion of 3rd Level Economy/Transition to 4th Level Economy)
1971-1980 3.21%
1981-1990 3.27%
1991-2000 3.41% (Expansion of 4th Level Economy with no Transition to 5th Level Economy)
2001-2010. 1.68%
Average 2.89%
The transition into a 5th Level Economy would create jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
Although our nations net wealth is growing it is many in the form or virtual financial wealth largely due to the fact or accident of history made the US dollar the international reserve currency that underwrites about 60% of all business activities globally and dollar denominated financial obligations exceed 600 Trillion dollars. The number of dollars in non-American hands exceeds that in American hands!
Which is why the US will ultimately overthrow Assad of Syria, then attack Iran, then push its hegemony on Central Asia until it controls at least 3 of the 5 Central Asian States, and then push its hegemony into the eastern Russian republics (in the same way the US is operating in Syria).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
In looking at the current Presidential campaign much is being said about erecting tarrif walls, and other abandonments of the free market that it begs the question ,has the free market become inadequate for managing the American economy and have we outgrown a economic system first formulated in the 18th Century?
The Free Market exists; has existed since time immemorial; it is always in play, even when suppressed by other Economics Systems; and will always exist.
It is the standard by which all other Markets are judged.
It's simply a matter of Degrees of Freedom: a Free Market has 100 Degrees of Freedom and a Soviet/East Bloc style Command Market has ZERO Degrees of Freedom.
Free Markets do not "manage the economy," Consumers do, except when government and other forces interfere.
Right, well the point of capitalism is to create aggregate wealth, not to create jobs.
No, the point of Capitalism is that anyone and everyone is free to acquire Capital.
Note that the acquisition of Capital --- the famed Pursuit of Happiness --- is purely voluntary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Most capitalist thinkers (and/or economists) assume that creating wealth will thus create jobs, but this seems to be a rather faith-based view.
No, investment creates jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
The "Free Market" is a theory -- it does not exist. The United States economy is not a "Free Market." No country is. Arguably, no country could be.
The Free Market exists; has existed since time immemorial; it is always in play, even when suppressed by other Economics Systems; and will always exist.
The fact that Black Markets exist is proof of Free Markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Slavery was not capitalistic at all. This is a lie commonly spread. Capitalism systematically makes slavery impossible.
Labor is Capital, so you'd be quite wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
Ok...? Even so, every capitalist endeavor is for profit.
So is every Socialist and Communist endeavor, or do you think that T-64s and MiG-21s fell out of the sky and landed in East Bloc States?
the Free Market exists; has existed since time immemorial; it is always in play, even when suppressed by other Economics Systems; and will always exist.
The fact that Black Markets exist is proof of Free Markets.
the black market is not a 'free market'. it is a market under duress of government prosecution, and goods carry an artificially high price as a result. That's why illegal drugs, for example, have such high profit margins for producers.
Of course they are, Comrade! ~Plays Soviet Anthem~
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.
