Capitalism and Nationalism

Discussion in 'Economy' started by 5stringJeff, Jun 10, 2005.

  1. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Referred from here.

    I will restate my thesis for mrsx's comments:

    1. Free market capitalism may be a hallmark of classical Liberalism, but today's liberals do not favor free market capitalism.

    2. Nationalizing an industry is not free-market capitalism. It's the exact opposite.


    Now, what say you, mrsx?
     
  2. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    What exactly is a free market? One where people make their decisions based on advertising, based on information from sports stars and famous people telling them which toothpaste to use, often deviod of any truly accurate study results comparing performance to competing products, and with the goal of doing exactly the opposite of what a free market is supposed to do? Businesses don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year to just simply distribute accurate product information to their prospective consumers. The whole goal of advertising is to sell a product, no matter the quality. Do we really have a free market at all?

    Is it going against the free market to allow the Pentagon to buy paper clips for all of its employees instead of allowing them each to chose their preferred brand? Even if it is more profitable for the Pentagon and its employees to buy these in bulk and subtract from paychecks than to have everyone go out and buy their own? This analogy also fits for a National Healthcare system too. If a country can maximize profit by Nationalizing something, is that still against free market capitalism?
     
  3. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    A market completely unfettered by forcible compliance with government regulation and/or taxation.

    Who's to decides how the public gets their information? Surely not the government. Only the most obtuse individual relies upon consumer satisfaction based upon some jingle in the adverts or the opinion of some grossly overpaid spokesperson. I'd rather let Caveat Emptor decide our market than the nannyism of government suffocation.

    No, we have a litigious market, which restricts the promises and claims of producers to conform to that which a jury of average citizens considers unworthy of a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Checks and balances of such 'snake oil' marketers have been established since the formation of the first corporations in late 17th Century Britannia.

    Is it against the free market that some parent buys Generic Frosted Flakes instead of Captain Crunch for their kiddies? No, because the parents are in charge of spending, not the kiddies. And in this example, the government, not the employees of the government, are in charge of the spending.

    (It doesn't mean I approve of large government spending either)

    Yes, a nationalized healthcare systems is against free market capitalism.

    We're not a nation of kiddies, who expect Father to tax us and then dole out our medical treatement according to some greater good for humanity decided upon politicians. I own my body, and my property. I have a god-given right to ensure my health is not dictated by the mandates of the government policy of the day. If I am stripped of my earnings to ensure the well-being of less capable individuals, it should be at my own behest. A national health care system strips me of that right to support my health based upon my own value to society. Eventually, our U.S. national health care system would come to resemble that in Canada and Europe... ineffectual, bankrupt institutions deviod of innovation and absolutely assured to reduce the chances of survival for both myself and my offspring, as well as anyone else's well being with which this whole program was supposed to benefit (per the promises of Democratic Politicians) :teeth:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    yes.
    YES.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    The following demonstrates how a more or less captialistic society works. Before I get to that, let me say to anyone in FL or the Gulf, I hope you come through this season in much better shape than last year.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/national/11florida.html?th&emc=th


     
  6. mrsx
    Online

    mrsx Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I came to this thread via a link posted by gop_Jeff because I thought it would be a discussion of the cocaleros. Sorry.
     
  7. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    Maybe if you address the first post..
    Or can you NOT defend socialism?

    I'm thinking "sorry" is an understatement.
     
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Yeah. I think it meant "pathetic".
     
  9. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21

    Most people do rely on advertising decide what to buy. Companies don't spend exorbitant amounts of money on something only a couple people listen to. They don't buy a superbowl ad for $2.3 million because people won't listen to the jingle or celebrity.

    But most advertisements are deviod of any sort of fact, and the rest report in house studies. A McDonals does a taste test and finds people prefer the Big Mac. Hardees does one and finds people prefer the Whopper. Big suprise.

    The Pentagon doesn't have to be in charge of providing office supplies to its workers. In some public institutions, like schools, workers (students) aren't provided office supplies. The workers have the right to decide whether they will each buy their own office supplies or have their employer do it for them at a lesser cost.

    It goes against Objectivist Capitalistic philosophy for a consumer to do something not in his best interest. It is in his best interest to band together with other consumers so he can effectively increase purchasing power, buy in bulk, and reduce his costs. If we took a "vote" for national healthcare, which means having it pass as legislation, then it was enacted by the people and decided by the people. Australia has a very effective national healthcare system.
     
  10. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    There is certainly a formula for determining the cost of advertising a commercial during the Superbowl. It's a rational, cost-driven formula for maximizing ones' brand. I don't have a problem with it, seeing how the producers of the Super Bowl are themselves at risk of loss by not sufficiently marketing their 30 second spots to the mass market which exists during this widely watched event. I don't know who you would blame in this situation. The people who watch football?

    Caveat Emptor. Personally, I like to see an occasional reminder of the temptations which await me down the street at the local fast food joint.

    At the expense of our tax dollars, no doubt. Actually, if they really wanted a particular brand of stapler, I say they pony it up themselves.

    Perhaps, then again such an act would reduce the incentive for producers to differentiate their products, and instead put the power of purchasing in the hands of a very few who rule these consumer product groups.

    Such a vote would LOSE in America today.

    And Canada and Europe have very substandard sytems... what does that prove?
     

Share This Page