Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

The freedom to voluntarily exchange goods and services with others without asking the state for permission. One doesn't "gain" such freedom. It's innate to volition. But it can be violated by anyone willing to employ coercion to achieve their ends.

But your aware that companies tend to create social and natural costs by doing business, right? So if we allow the current set of humans freedom to do what maximizes buisness, then we are ushering in a new wave of social and natural costs that will burden our planet's ecosystems even further.

Sure. Suss out what damage they're doing and bring charges against the perpetrators. Just don't employ collective guilt in the name of "class warfare".

How do we take these charges to trial without government (judicial system?)?

Why did you mention class warfare? Clearly you think everyone is treated equally, got your blinders on I see. Do you think the police exist to enforce laws? Then you misunderstand what laws are. The laws are not codes of genuine ethics, they are often methods of enforcing the will of the powerful.

 

[Bombur]

I can understand the concept of 'social cost'. But where I disagree is the notion that government is the proper tool for managing that cost. We build the kind of society we want communally, voluntarily, by our individual decisions informed by our individual values. Government should only step in when we cross a line, namely when we can't resolve disputes peacefully. Otherwise, in my view, the most organic, civilized, way to solve our problems and build the kind of society we want is through voluntary interactions, not authoritarian mandate.

Both social costs and social benefits are not recognized completely in market interactions. The cost or benefit is often spread out and markets are horrible at taking into account both these costs and benefits.

Public education, investments in infrastructure, the FDA, OSHA, EPA, banking regulations, Police, Fire, etc have all been ways the US has tried to recognize a social benefit or cost.

I honestly don't understand the view that the markets can recognize these social costs in an efficient manner.

Public education is why we have such ignorant and useless people.
Less than half of high school graduates are prepared for college, says maker of SAT - College Bound - Campus and College News from Boston and Cambridge - Boston.com

Only 43 percent of SAT takers in the class of 2013 graduated from high school academically prepared for the rigors of college-level course work, the College Board said in releasing scores Thursday.

If you want to compare the US to other countries, our public education, is horrid. We can debate that if you want.

Point being, I would much rather prefer a more privatized system. When companies are having to pay for education for their employees, because our publicly funded system sucks so bad.... there's something wrong.

Further, Banking Regulations have CAUSED social cost, rather than being a solution to social cost. I would also add that the EPA, OSHA, and the FDA, have drastically added social cost, not mitigated it.

None of these have reduced social costs, and all of them have drastically increased social costs.

Now as far as infrastructure, police, and fire. As I said prior... I get that. Do you realize how tiny and insignificant our taxes would be, if we only paid for those?

The Ohio budget, is $30 Billion dollars. All of those things right there, are only 8% of the Ohio Budget. Or $2.4 Billion dollars.

Of the Federal Budget, those things only add up to a mere $100 Billion, of a budget of $3.5 Trillion? (numbers may be off, that's 2010 budget I think)

Point is, we're talking about a tiny fraction of the budget. Only at the local level, do the things your talking about make up the majority of the budget.

You are literally asking me to compare a public system to a public system. My argument is not that our government is perfect or isn't in desperate need of improvement. The argument is whether or not government is the tool to use. Success in other countries just helps demonstrate my point.

Banking regulations that came about after the bank runs of the past have been extremely important. The government has at times failed to regulate properly though. That doesn't mean regulations are not needed. It means we can't under fund regulations and forget our past.

Not all regulations are good.

OSHA has helped reduce death rates and injury rates in a large number of industries. You are wrong there.

The EPA has helped reduce pollution and helped address significant problems we had in the past.

The FDA has been very important as well.

State and local budgets are dominated by Medicaid, Education, Safety(prisons), and infrastructure.

Medicaid, Medicare, SS, and defense are the major expenses. I would prefer UHC personally and we could cut from defense. My biggest problem is the way we fund the transfer payment in SS/Disability and unemployment insurance.

 

[dblack]

But your aware that companies tend to create social and natural costs by doing business, right? So if we allow the current set of humans freedom to do what maximizes buisness, then we are ushering in a new wave of social and natural costs that will burden our planet's ecosystems even further.

Sure. Suss out what damage they're doing and bring charges against the perpetrators. Just don't employ collective guilt in the name of "class warfare".

How do we take these charges to trial without government (judicial system?)?

Without government? What are you talking about? I'm not advocating anarchy.

Why did you mention class warfare?.

Because usually vague appeals to "social costs" aren't actually about identifying wrongdoers and stopping them. It's usually a call to employ social engineering schemes that treat people as classes, rich vs poor, black vs white, labor vs management, etc...

 

[Andylusion]

One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.

That's a matter of opinion. I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice. I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.

What part of "justice" does this fall under?

"As West Virginians were learning Thursday of a devastating chemical spill in the Elk River that has rendered water undrinkable for 300,000 people, the US House of Representatives was busy gutting federal hazardous-waste cleanup law.

The House passed the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act that would ultimately eliminate requirements for the Environmental Protection Agency to review and update hazardous-waste disposal regulations in a timely manner, and make it more difficult for the government to compel companies that deal with toxic substances to carry proper insurance for cleanups, pushing the cost on to taxpayers."

The part where corporations privatize their coal-related profits while socializing their cleanup costs on the backs of taxpayers?

US House passed bill ravaging toxic-waste law - on same day as W. Virginia chemical spill ? RT USA

I'm a vegetarian. I have a membership to PETA, and I donated money to the Animal Legal Defense Fund. I travel the world, and have spoken to congress on behalf of animal rights.

Yesterday I went to Texas Roadhouse, and ate a massive steak.

Regardless of what others say, regardless of what I say, regardless of anything else I've done...... am I a vegetarian?

No. I'm not a vegetarian. Doesn't matter what others says, or even I say... I'm not a vegetarian, because I ate meat, and the very definition of Vegetarian excludes the action of eating meat.

Back to your post.....

Is this capitalism? If you privatize the profits, but socialize the cost... is that Capitalism?

Milton Friedman: "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. Profit encourages risk taking. Loss encourages prudence"

Is this Capitalism? No. It's not. You can bring up a thousand articles of government engaging in Socialism... and my response will be exactly the same every single time.

Yes georgephillip, Socialism is unjust, and doesn't work. Stop electing socialists that socialize the loss.

Gutting the EPA would not have done anything. Nor would having the EPA pass more regulations do anything.

So how does Free-Market Capitalism work?

Real simple. The company caused an economic loss, just like me hitting your car would cause a loss. The solution would be for me to pay for the repairs to your car. Similarly, the company should pay for the repairs to the damaged water supply. If the company can't afford it, then it closes, thus eliminating them from the economy. Other companies seeing what happens to the bankrupted and eliminated company, would voluntarily without regulations, pay for insurance, or pay for reasonable tighter safety standards.

Instead, because of you socialists, socializing the costs, and passing regulations, small companies will go out of business under the weight of regulations they can't afford. Big wealthy companies will become even wealthier, while at the same time drastically increasing cost to the consumer (supply goes down from less competition, demand stays the same, price goes up).

Meanwhile companies are less likely to make wiser choices, knowing all they have to do is follow regulations, and socialists in government will bail them out.

It's exactly what happened in Banking. Socialism has the same effect regardless of industry.

And by the way, the socialists in government play you people like a fiddle, and use you repeatedly.

I read about an EPA site, of an old factory. The clean up of the site was so clean, that a child who could climb the metal fence, and get on to the abandoned property, miles away from any residential area, could eat dirt... literally eat dirt for 10 days, before getting sick.

The politicians stirred up the public, and debate ensued until finally, additional millions of dollars were spent to the wealthy clean up company, who also happened to back the politicians, in order to make the dirt at the fenced off site clean enough that if a child scaled the fence, they could eat dirt for 41 days before getting sick. (an adult wouldn't be affected at all).

Score for the rich wealthy clean up company, the politicians, and the lawyers. Fail for the tax payers, whose children would never have been able to scale the fence, and honestly if your child is so brain damaged that he shovels dirt in his mouth for days on end, you likely have bigger problems than the toxicity of dirt at an abandoned factory site.

This is socialism at work. Government regulation, control, and dictation to the economy. This is how socialism works around the world, and throughout human history. Just read the stories coming of out Russia over the recent games.

 

[Andylusion]

It's even more important to understand what conditions must exist in order for X to be desirable. Hence, free markets only exist with perfect liberty which match supply and demand/the needs of the public. And we are way far off that track. We are no where near perfect liberty, and its dubious such a society can exist anyway.

Of course it can't. All you're really saying here is perfection can't be achieved. A perfect socialist state will never be achieved either. So what? My point is that if we can't agree on the ideal, we can't determine which way to proceed.

I didn't say it can't be achieved. I said it was dubious; to make the point we need to be aware that we don't live there. If we better educated people and spent more time considering the needs of society instead of wants of the affluent we might develop a better society that can achieve far more.

Instead, millions think we live in a capitalist system that will continue providing the world better and better life but the precise opposite is happening. People have been displaced and struggling all over the globe and capitalism is part of the problem. Too few people are getting needs met so they must turn to other violent sources or simply die.

So dblack, together we can set capitalism down from its peddle stool instead of making it our aim. Instead, we must first achieve those conditions. What are they? I suspect it would take more than a few policy changes to get us one iota closer to those conditions.

oh come on. You realize that a married couple, both working at Wendy's flipping burgers for minimum wage.... They make $30K a year. $30K a year, puts them in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

Do grasp the point? People in the lowest income levels of our society, have a better standard of living than 99% of the world.

And you think Capitalism hasn't worked for us? Compared to what?

Tell that to North Koreans risking being shot to get to South Korea. Tell that to Cubans willing to die to get to Florida. Tell that to the Chinese, that they were better of living in mud huts for $2 a week. Tell that to the over one million Venezuelans that have fled Venezuela.

Come on.... seriously? How can you even attempt to justify such a claim?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

George is talking about capitalism in practice. You're talking about capitalism in theory. George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.

In practice, Modern American capitalism has always had varying levels of state intervention, much of it begged for by some of the same corporations that fund Libertarian think tanks. Take the Patent system for instance, where the nanny state protects the research investments of corporations. Or consider how dependent global capitalism is upon military intervention, e.g., stabilizing the middle east in order to ensure reliable delivery of energy. Or what about the state supplied legal system, which protects property and financial transactions? Or the FDIC insurance which puts more money into the banking system, where it is turned into fuel on both the demand and supply side. And let's not even talk about industrial and commercial infrastructure or subsidies, which have been a part of American capitalism since nearly the beginning.

Marx predicted that the final phase of capitalism would be monopoly capitalism. This is where the most powerful market players purchase the political machinery of the state and use that political power to consolidate control over the domestic economy (forming a rentier class where once there was competition). Smith was also very worried about this outcome. You should actually study him. His contempt for monopolies is under-reported, not least because he sounds a little too much like Marx.

In the meantime, keep riding the unicorn.

Ironically, I would agree with you on most of that.

Of course I'm talking about the ideal of Capitalism, in what it actually refers to, over what Capitalism can and sometimes does end up.

Just like people who support Socialism, refer to the ideal of Socialism, and ignore that in practice Socialism always, every single time, ends up a tyranny.

Of course there is no perfect Capitalistic Utopia, and there certainly isn't a Socialist Workers Paradise.

That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse. And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.

China was the leading country on the face of the planet. They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell. Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world.

India move towards Socialism after independence, and declined. Now they are moving towards Capitalism and are succeeding.

Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America. They moved towards socialism, and now are the worst performing economy in all of Latin America.

Brazil has embraced Capitalism, and is now the leading economy in Latin America. And I could list hundreds of other examples. Cuba, Jamaica, East and West Berlin, North and South Korea, Hong Kong and China, the list of examples is endless.

The more people move towards the ideal of Capitalism, the better off they end up. The more they move towards Socialism, the worse off they are.

Does that mean we don't have pockets of socialism in a generally capitalistic country, like the USA? Of course not. We most certainly do. And all of those areas, are the areas we have problems. Do you see problems in the paper supply, or office supply areas? Nope. Very little regulations, controls, subsidies, on pencils and copier paper. How about Health Care, or Banking? Yes, and both have massive issues and problems.

And all Capitalism requires the enforcement of property rights, and stability. Has nothing to do with Oil, as much as it has to do with all business is hard to conduct when people are shooting each other, and bombs are going off. When rockets are flying over head, people generally don't go to the dealership to check out a new Volvo. Just saying.

And of course companies support intervention that supports their companies. Whether they fund libertarian think tanks, I don't give a crap. I'm against government intervention, no matter who funds what.

Just because a company wants regulations that benefit themselves, happens to fund some group somewhere, doesn't matter to me. Sometimes I think you people on the left say stuff like that, because if that company was funding your group, you would support them.... thus you assume us on the right, are the same. Sorry. Not true.

FDIC is exactly the kind of bank supporting system, that I'm against. Ironically FDR was against it. Even the big banks were against it at the time. But dumb as hell leftists in the 30s, demanded this program which screws themselves over, at the benefit of the banks.

It's ironic that you bring up the exact policies I'm against, to counter my point. That's a fail dude.

I'm even against Intellectual Property rights, because the idea of patenting a 'thought' is fruit cake nonsense.

What I am in favor of is enforcing property rights. Without the right to property, you might as well be slaves. Look at Haiti. That's what you end up with, without property rights.

Subsidies are a different matter. When I talk about Subsidies, I'm talking about government taxing one person, and taking the money from them, and giving it to another person. Money has to be removed from one individual, and given to another individual, for me to call that a "subsidy".

When a leftist refers to a "subsidy", they typically mean a tax deduction, and yet ironically, they never refer to the taking money from one, to give to another.

So when the tax payers pay their taxes, and government gives out money that money to rich companies, or farmers, to grow corn for Ethanol, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies. When Government gives out billions in grants, taxed from the public, given to a company to make Solar Panels, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.

But if you happen to give an oil company a tax deduction, for the depreciation of their drilling equipment, so they pay tax, but just a little less tax..... suddenly the left starts screaming about subsidies to evil oil! Bull crap. That's not a subsidy, anymore than deducting my Student loans from my taxes, so I saved $100 from my tax bill, means the American public is subsidizing me.

If a tax deduction is a subsidy, then the entire population of the whole country, is being subsidized. In which case, the word is meaningless, and the argument is self defeating.

Chomsky and Smith are/were moral philosophers concerned with the unequal distribution of wealth and political privilege; Milton Friedman was a corporate tool.

Chomsky and Smith define "free markets" as those exchanges free of undue rentier influence. In Smith's day those inflicting undue influence upon markets were largely hereditary elites like those responsible for creating the East India Corporation; in Chomsky's day, multi-national corporations and FIRE sector elites are those he warns against gaining undue market or political influence.

"Friedman, by comparison, wanted markets free of any democratic regulation which is exactly what he got in Chile on September 11, 1973

When Milton Friedman's economic policy advice to Chilean conservatives led to the overthrow of a democratically elected president in 1973, profits were privatized and the losses were socialized at expense of one person; one vote.

Which is another of those social costs that capitalism regularly inflicts on society that you have a hard time wrapping your propaganda-filled mind around.

Still whining about Allende? LOL!
Who is better off today, the people of Chile or the people of Cuba?

The people who are not subject to a US embargo, Idiot.

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They can trade with the other 200 countries in the world, but they're an economic basket case because they can't trade with 1?
Nothing to do with the socialist blood suckers draining them for the last 50 plus years? LOL! Idiot.

Do you have an Allende poster on your wall?

 

[Andylusion]

When do record corporate profits trickle down?

Do you have a phone? That's trickle down. Do you have a job? That's trickle down. Do you have a car? That's trickle down. Do you have a TV? Or Internet? Or food? Or a computer? Laptop?

Look around you right now. Everything that you own, is an example of trickle down.

Look around the country at all the jobs that exist. Every single one of them.... all of them, are an example of trickle down.

Everything that exists, is the result of trickle down.

 

[Andylusion]

It is just an excuse to justify tyranny over the public. You just call out that everything you happen to not like, is a social cost, and then impose your will over the public. If you look at any tyranny in human history, every single time they justified their actions, as being part of the greater good. It's not. It's a false argument, used for rationalization, and nothing more.

Social costs are not real then? Do you call them externalities or do they simply not exist?

It's rare to find someone who thinks externalities are a way of imposing tyranny. Certain results from "business as usual" are not just unpleasant but cost in productivity. Look at the cost of the Yangtze River in 1998 when it flooded. The cost of timber did not reflect the cost of deforestation and more important the agricultural loss due to flooding. Some say the productivity lost was twice the price of what the timber reflected--not to mention the social cost of 3,650 lives who died. Thus, nature is subsidizing our **** ups as well as other expendable humans, but this can only continue for so long as the Earth is finite and can only stand so many **** ups. What I'm saying is I hope you realize social costs are real, not something made up.

"A market that tells the ecological truth will incorporate the value
of ecosystem services. For example, if we buy furniture from a forest
products corporation that engages in clearcutting, we pay the
costs of logging and converting the logs into furniture, but not the
costs of the flooding downstream. If we restructure the tax system
and raise taxes on clearcutting timber so that its price reflects the
cost to society of the resultant flooding, this method of harvesting
timber likely would be eliminated."
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/ecoch11.pdf

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is very little evidence that clear cutting trees results in floods. Now there is a little.... but very little. Trees do not absorb water quickly enough to have any real impact on flooding.

Further, cutting trees, gives sunlight to the ground level, which allows massive growth of under brush and such, that have just as much water retaining power as trees do, and in some cases more.

So you people have to 'make up' that cutting a tree down causes flooding, thus is a "social cost", as a justification for passing more socialism, more controls, more mandates, more dictation on society.

 

[gnarlylove]

When do record corporate profits trickle down?

Do you have a phone? That's trickle down. Do you have a job? That's trickle down. Do you have a car? That's trickle down. Do you have a TV? Or Internet? Or food? Or a computer? Laptop?

Look around you right now. Everything that you own, is an example of trickle down.

Look around the country at all the jobs that exist. Every single one of them.... all of them, are an example of trickle down.

Everything that exists, is the result of trickle down.

Go rains mana down from Heaven. Thank the Rich for the Life that I have.

The Rich will save humanity by sending or trickling down products through the ranks. How inane. Completely divorced from understanding what life is like for 3/4 of the planet.

 

[gnarlylove]

Do grasp the point? People in the lowest income levels of our society, have a better standard of living than 99% of the world.

And you think Capitalism hasn't worked for us? Compared to what?

Tell that to North Koreans risking being shot to get to South Korea. Tell that to Cubans willing to die to get to Florida. Tell that to the Chinese, that they were better of living in mud huts for $2 a week. Tell that to the over one million Venezuelans that have fled Venezuela.

Come on.... seriously? How can you even attempt to justify such a claim?

Ok first put down your intravenous capitalism. I have admitted plenty of times capitalism has brought increased standard of living for America and the world. Your completely inane statistic about Wendys workers being in the top 1%. You have little idea that those numbers don't correspond to shit since a Wendy's worker is in insurmountable debts. You lie through your teeth when you say socialism implies worse circumstances. You're love affair for capitalism borderline mental. These are ideas that aren't even happening in reality (we don't live in a free market) taken to religious heights and then crammed repetitively down your throat and in turn mine.

There is no perfect system and the more we indulge in narcissism like you advocate capitalism for, the less likely we will understand the planet is finite and begin generating solutions to the global travesties occurring each day. You are completely unaware of any real scientific information about deforestation aiding in increased probability of floods so you think this means there is insufficient evidence. There's plenty of it out there, you just have to actually care to read about it, which I know you don't. Very few people believe what you do about natural capital/social costs not existing. It's a very extreme view that is based in ignoring information. I understand if that's your methodology, but I shant respect it.

 

[Andylusion]

That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse. And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.

Let's see if you are right...

Take a look at this study which totally contradicts your statement:

"Each country is ranked on 89 variables sorted into eight subsections: economy, entrepreneurship, governance, education, health, safety, personal freedom and social capital."

'“To use economic measurements alone to gauge the success of a nation would be equivalent to assessing the entire condition of a man simply by looking at his bank balance,” writes Peter Mandelson, former U.K. economic minister.'

"...joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are its Scandinavian sisters Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with equally small and civilized Switzerland and the Netherlands also in the club....

So what gives? What do these prosperous European nations have in common that can somehow explain their prosperity? Being an electoral democracy is almost a given–of the top 25 most prosperous countries, only Singapore and Hong Kong aren’t.

Being small helps too. ...
What else? They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth."
From The World's Happiest Countries - Forbes

You are utterly wrong Androw. Socialism helps make more people better off. Capitalism helps a few people to become extremely well off on the backs of the rest.

No no no no.... please.

Greece was the most generous Socialist based system. Norway is no where near being socialist. Not even close.

None of those countries is even remotely socialist. You are crazy. Sweden is more capitalist friendly than the US today.
Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Switzerland, Denmark, and Canada, are all higher on the Economic Freedom index, than the US is.

This is yet another example of what I see all the time. In order to justify this insanity that Socialism works, you have to look at extremely free-market Capitalist based countries, call them "borderline Socialist", in order to fabricate the justification that socialism can work.

No sorry. Not even close.

[ame=http://youtu.be/vG51uCrYxVM]Sweden's March Towards Capitalism: Economist Andreas Bergh on the "Capitalist Welfare State" - YouTube[/ame]

Economist Andreas Bergh:

"Sweden is moving in the market economic direction, but that does not mean the US should be moving in the socialist direction.

It is not the case that people are taxed at high levels, and then those taxes are used to give to someone else. Actually 85% of the taxes paid, are returned back to you as an individual.

The amount that is transferred to the poorest, is very small in Sweden"

If that's the version of "socialism" you support, then I can go for that too. Give back to the rich, their money. Give back to the middle class, their money. And give back to me, my money.

 

[gnarlylove]

If that's the version of "socialism" you support, then I can go for that too. Give back to the rich, their money. Give back to the middle class, their money. And give back to me, my money.

I didn't say that they were socialist ideals embodied perfectly. The fact they also have some capitalist aspirations is beside the point because these countries rely on redistribution of wealth, universal health care, free university education etc. Ya know? Things that bring a higher quality of life to their citizens. I was merely quoting the article on Forbes which said also said those top "socialist states" (Forbes' words, not mine) were also robust traders with few limits on the flow of capital. But they treat their citizens with much more equality. They are nothing like America which is a bastion for your ideology and the extreme gap between 1% and bottom 20%. These socialist nations treat citizens, not as profit generators, but as people with basic needs that can be fulfilled by guaranteeing the rights of basic services. And that this in turn produces happier more productive workforce. So naturally they aspire to become competitive on the global market.

Look, your little rule of thumb about "socialism=worse off; capitalism=glory be from on high" is flat out mistaken. All the countries in the top have socialist policy and/or universal welfare programs to ensure citizens are capable of making themselves useful to society. America, while it spends billions on welfare, does a horrible job at offering opportunities to make our citizens useful so they remain hovering in poverty unable to be productive and innovative. You need to reconsider your understanding of socialism. Your ideology forces you to slam socialism when in reality it has manifested itself in autonomous states that have chosen to accept a variety of socialist polities.

Neither socialism nor capitalism are perfect, but the evidence is clear: socialism works better for humans, American capitalism works better for psychopaths.

 

[Londoner]

But wouldn't you agree it's important to know what we desire? If we can't find some consensus on the ideal, how can we ever move the reality toward it?

Yes.

Ideals guide action, and they can be great analytical tools, helping us measure current problems in light of what we want the world to look like.

But I'm afraid of fundamentalists on either side. I'd love it if we could use the most defensible elements of both sides. For instance, in the 70's, when marginal rates were north of 70% on the top earners, I thought there was room for tax reform, especially because our corporations faced new threats from a re-industrialized Germany and Japan, as well as the rising power of China and India. But I didn't want tax reform to come at the expense of Labor, nor did I want to see us cannibalize all the policies and programs that targeted middle class purchasing power, which, when removed, left too many families vulnerable to credit (debt) as a means of survival. Skipping around, I was shocked at the deficits Reagan created with his increase in Defense Spending, but I also appreciated what the influx of government workers did for say, San Diego and Orange counties. (Sorting out my opinions on this stuff is above my pay grade.) In nearly every case I see nuances and complications that don't begin to scratch at the surface of how complicated this is.

Leaning right, several decades ago I thought there was room for sensible deregulation in some industries, but I didn't want to remove the state's regulatory power altogether and thus enable companies like Enron to commit fraud. I wanted to see a middle ground . . . but, alas, by the time Rush came on the air, my desire for a functional middle was drowned out by carnival barkers who were strategically agitated to clog the debate with scare stories about Communism and Socialism. Where someone like you might be inclined toward market fundamentalism, I'm for the "all of the above" approach, taking things case by case, never taking any solutions off the table. Milton Friedman should help us scan our policy decisions for unintended consequences, while Marx should help us avoid state supported monopolies.

In terms of government involvement, I'm for sensible anti-trust enforcement (which I think the Right dismantled to our detriment). For instance, I think mistakes were made in the 80s, a period marked by steroidal mega-mergers and leveraged buyouts. Rather than competing, companies bought each other, which resulted in "too big to fail" behemoths that had monopoly power across too many industries. Moreover, when a company is so big that it's failure can cause widespread damage to the economy, it has the kind of "bailout insurance" that creates toxic incentives (which arguably happened in 2008 with companies like AIG).

The power that Reaganomics gave to corporations translated into unprecedented amounts of concentrated capital, the sort which allowed big business to fund elections, lobby politicians and gather more media assets, giving them too much centralized control over policies and opinions. As they captured the power of the State, they ingeniously funded a think tank and media revolution that convinced people that business was actually the victim of the state, effectively preventing citizens from seeing the truth about who owned their government. [Power is at its most effective when it produces an ideology that penetrates the deepest layers of common sense. The current ideology binds the poor Tea Party'er to the billionaire in much the same way that Christianity bound the serf to the landlord during the feudal period.]

Regardless, we emerged from the 80s with massive corporate behemoths that had the leverage to influence governments around the world (talk about central planning). I thought it was tragic to see these behemoths preach about free markets in the front of the house while, in the back of the house, getting their Washington servants to divide the domestic economy into no-compete zones where everything from Health Care to Cable/Internet providers was insulated from market competition (-this is partly why health care costs were rising at 5x inflation). I sort of feel like the Supply Side Movement used Free Market rhetoric to infiltrate our political and regulatory organs - and then, once fully in control, they did what Marx predicted and Smith feared: they setup quasi-monopoly control over most industries; they stopped competing and, in too many instances, lost the incentive to innovate, choosing instead to raise rents on enslaved consumers. Money that could have been reinvested into R&D or productive capacity was increasingly channeled to image management and political manipulation. (We can debate advertising and how much of the space-time continuum is over branded on another day)

In terms of government's role in the economy, I liked Carter's anti-trust suit against AT&T. And I like that Reagan didn't prevent the justice department from breaking up the Bell System so that that baby Bells had to compete. As a consumer, I want telecom to drive over the bones of the living and the dead to give me a better price and better service, which is why the consumer in me will take a competitive market where one exists (though the citizen in me doesn't want polluted rivers or the neoliberal policies that have often accompanied the sometimes violent imposition of markets, Chile being one of the most famous). But the point is: I see a role for government - at the very least - in facilitating competition (to avoid monopolies). I also think that people are terribly ignorant about our history. There has always been a powerful relationship between the State and Private sectors, much of it to the benefit of profit makers. That is, I think the amount of money, technology and infrastructure government gives to the owners of capital is dangerously under-reported, the effect of which is to leave 1/2 the population in the dark about where profit comes from. For instance, the satellite system that so many of our industries depend upon came out of the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program, but nobody who watches FOX knows that, which means they are more likely to clog public debate with misinformation, a fact that causes paralysis, which paralysis merely preserves the status quo and those who benefit from it.

Ultimately, I see the value of markets, but I also think government has a role to play in regulating those markets. Tragically, I don't think we, as a nation, have enough sound information to effectively debate what the goals should be on matters of government and markets. There are too many myopic partisans walking around with rage-filled opinions and next to zero data. Indeed, their rage is strategically stoked by the most irresponsible pundit class in world history. They want you to throw up your hands and say "it's always something with government." This cynicism means that you won't ask government to do anything. No Hoover Dams. No interstate systems. No great public universities. No stimulus. No work programs. No satellite system. No internet. No energy grids. No water plants. Nothing. This means more for the special interests who currently own government. (In my comedic ending to this thread I envision a picture of Ronald Reagan standing in front of the Hoover Dam or the Moon Landing and saying "Nothing to see here")

 

[Londoner]

This is an interesting explanation about the larger problems that our economy faced as we entered the 2000s

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA]Capitalism Hits the Fan Film Screening and Q&A with Professor Richard Wolff | The New School - YouTube[/ame]

 

[gnarlylove]

Londoner, I like your reasoned rebuke of affairs as it pertains to markets. Especially the explanations of events in the 80s. A professor of mine made sure to reiterate Reagan's deficits of defense spending such as aircrafts would be paid on the backs of my generation.

Ideals only take us so far, and it's no different with free market fundamentalism.
Free markets carry a false persona of betterment.

Market fundamentalism dblack strives for is not wise, I argue. And I think it's because we disagree that people should not be allowed to generate wealth beyond comprehension. No one needs or can use a billion or dollars in a sensible way. Period. Whether spending it or investing it in assets or what have you it's just precarious. It transports a person from everyday life to an elite status that corrupts, see this link for a detailed explanation. It encourages unending arms race to the top and unfortunately it's allowing them to control governments and convince the public to blame the poor. It insulates them from criticism.

Do you see hope moving forward or will we continue to spiral downward from, as you noted, all the polemic that has devoured American politics?

 

[dblack]

Londoner, I like your reasoned rebuke of affairs as it pertains to markets. Especially the explanations of events in the 80s. A professor of mine made sure to reiterate Reagan's deficits of defense spending such as aircrafts would be paid on the backs of my generation.

Ideals only take us so far, and it's no different with free market fundamentalism.
Free markets carry a false persona of betterment.

Market fundamentalism dblack strives for is not wise, I argue. And I think it's because we disagree that people should not be allowed to generate wealth beyond comprehension. No one needs or can use a billion or dollars in a sensible way. Period. Whether spending it or investing it in assets or what have you it's just precarious. It transports a person from everyday life to an elite status that corrupts, see this link for a detailed explanation. It encourages unending arms race to the top and unfortunately it's allowing them to control governments and convince the public to blame the poor. It insulates them from criticism.

Do you see hope moving forward or will we continue to spiral downward from, as you noted, all the polemic that has devoured American politics?

I don't argue for 'market fundamentalism'. I argue for freedom, and reject state coercion as a tool for forcing your will on others.

 

[gnarlylove]

You have proffered free market solutions at every turn. Am I right? If not then I have a hard time differentiating between when you are arguing ideals and when you are arguing for legitimate policy in the real world.

Watching Londoner's video, just the intro of Richard Wolff, he notes how our financial crisis was not merely financial and that we only got out of the last Great Depression due to a major change in society. I think similarly, we are going to have to take measures to change society in order to climb out of this ever widening gap of have-nots and the 2%. With attitudes divided about the poor and the amounts of vitriol in the daily lives of people (.e.g road rage is increasing in leaps and bounds in America) we need to realize the exorbitance of the wealthy is our problem, not the poor who have so much to contribute but are offered little to know development, adequate education and sufficient opportunity to demonstrate their great utility.

Would you agree or do you think the solution is free markets?

 

[dblack]

You have proffered free market solutions at every turn. Am I right? If not then I have a hard time differentiating between when you are arguing ideals and when you are arguing for legitimate policy in the real world.

Nope. The free market doesn't 'solve' much of anything.

Watching Londoner's video, just the intro of Richard Wolff, he notes how our financial crisis was not merely financial and that we only got out of the last Great Depression due to a major change in society. I think similarly, we are going to have to take measures to change society in order to climb out of this ever widening gap of have-nots and the 2%. With attitudes divided about the poor and the amounts of vitriol in the daily lives of people (.e.g road rage is increasing in leaps and bounds in America) we need to realize the exorbitance of the wealthy is our problem, not the poor who have so much to contribute but are offered little to know development, adequate education and sufficient opportunity to demonstrate their great utility.

Would you agree or do you think the solution is free markets?

"The solution" is something we can work on together, voluntarily, as a free society. My only real theme here is the rejection authoritarian initiatives to coerce people toward some pre-ordained goal. I'm not interested in grand plans to 'change society'. We'll change as we will, or we won't.

To put it another way, I want to live in a peaceful, cooperative community. To achieve that, we have to behave peacefully and cooperate. We can't do that by reaching for the billy club to solve every problem we face.

 

[gnarlylove]

My mistake then, I have heard you advocate for free markets as essential for freedom and misapplied it. You admit we need government to prosecute businesses that are harming us by unsafe disposal etc. but also advocate the lack of coercion, which means the lack of government. How does this play out? Does it mean smaller government but still enough to regulate bad business practices?

 

[dblack]

My mistake then, I have heard you advocate for free markets as essential for freedom and misapplied it. You admit we need government to prosecute businesses that are harming us by unsafe disposal etc. but also advocate the lack of coercion, which means the lack of government. How does this play out? Does it mean smaller government but still enough to regulate bad business practices?

It depends on what you mean by "regulate bad business practices". If you're talking about prosecuting fraud, theft, breach of contract, pollution, etc.. , I'd agree with your statement. If you're talking about the myriad ways government tries to "manage" our economic decisions, overriding individual judgment with state mandates - then I'd not agree.