Dispelling the Big Government Myth

[Tehon]

I didn't say otherwise.

I guess you should clarify because that's how it sounded.

Which argument needs to be clarified? You presented two.

Do you think they are the same? They are not.

They both acknowledge government intervention in the market and neither claims the market to be free.

 

[Boss]

Which argument needs to be clarified? You presented two.

Do you think they are the same? They are not.

They both acknowledge government intervention in the market and neither claims the market to be free.

I think both comments are convoluted and don't really make sense.

Only you know what you're trying to say.

I'm going to leave it for you to explain. I apologize if I misunderstood something.

 

[Tehon]

Which argument needs to be clarified? You presented two.

Do you think they are the same? They are not.

They both acknowledge government intervention in the market and neither claims the market to be free.

I think both comments are convoluted and don't really make sense.

Only you know what you're trying to say.

I'm going to leave it for you to explain. I apologize if I misunderstood something.

You're conflating two different arguments. Of course you find it convoluted.

I don't really care about the first, let me explain this one.

The government intervening in the market, dictating that we drive economical cars, is a political decision that doesn't in itself prevent the cars from being produced by the capitalist method of production.

The market is not synonymous with capitalism. The market is merely a means to distribute commodities. It is independent of the capitalist method of production.

The market is just as capable of distributing commodities produced by a socialist method of production.

 

[Boss]

The market is not synonymous with capitalism. The market is merely a means to distribute commodities. It is independent of the capitalist method of production.

The market is just as capable of distributing commodities produced by a socialist method of production.

A free market capitalist system uses a capitalist production system, not a socialist one. And I disagree that socialist systems are "just as capable" as a free market capitalist system.

I don't know if you've realized but there is a word I keep using. Free. As in freedom. In case you don't understand it, the word means you hold dominion over your choices. It means when I want breakfast in the morning, and I fancy some fruit and french toast, I can go to the free market and purchase these items and consume them, to my pleasure and satisfaction. Whereas, in a socialist system, I have a cup of rationed dry cereal provided by my master. And while, on paper, you may consider both to be equally capable of providing sustenance, I prefer the free market.

 

[regent]

The market is not synonymous with capitalism. The market is merely a means to distribute commodities. It is independent of the capitalist method of production.

The market is just as capable of distributing commodities produced by a socialist method of production.

A free market capitalist system uses a capitalist production system, not a socialist one. And I disagree that socialist systems are "just as capable" as a free market capitalist system.

I don't know if you've realized but there is a word I keep using. Free. As in freedom. In case you don't understand it, the word means you hold dominion over your choices. It means when I want breakfast in the morning, and I fancy some fruit and french toast, I can go to the free market and purchase these items and consume them, to my pleasure and satisfaction. Whereas, in a socialist system, I have a cup of rationed dry cereal provided by my master. And while, on paper, you may consider both to be equally capable of providing sustenance, I prefer the free market.

Has America ever had a free market?

 

[Tehon]

The market is not synonymous with capitalism. The market is merely a means to distribute commodities. It is independent of the capitalist method of production.

The market is just as capable of distributing commodities produced by a socialist method of production.

A free market capitalist system uses a capitalist production system, not a socialist one. And I disagree that socialist systems are "just as capable" as a free market capitalist system.

I don't know if you've realized but there is a word I keep using. Free. As in freedom. In case you don't understand it, the word means you hold dominion over your choices. It means when I want breakfast in the morning, and I fancy some fruit and french toast, I can go to the free market and purchase these items and consume them, to my pleasure and satisfaction. Whereas, in a socialist system, I have a cup of rationed dry cereal provided by my master. And while, on paper, you may consider both to be equally capable of providing sustenance, I prefer the free market.

A socialist mode of production is just as capable of producing fruit and french toast, delivered by the market. Farming co-ops are a prime example of such a method of production.

 

[Boss]

Has America ever had a free market?

When it comes to societal economic market systems, there is no such thing as absolute purity. We've always had a free market, it has never been pristine. Even the ideas of our founders veered from an absolute free market because certain elements of infrastructure are more effectively handled by the collective. Take the military, for example. A free market military would have all the wrong incentives. It may be more efficient but not as effective. So they set in place an enumerated list of government powers to handle certain elements which the free market wasn't suitable for.

The idea is to achieve as much of a free market as possible.

 

[Boss]

A socialist mode of production is just as capable of producing fruit and french toast, delivered by the market. Farming co-ops are a prime example of such a method of production.

No they're not and history proves it.

 

[Tehon]

A socialist mode of production is just as capable of producing fruit and french toast, delivered by the market. Farming co-ops are a prime example of such a method of production.

No they're not and history proves it.

You can get your fruit from Sunkist Growers, Incorporated - Wikipedia
And your butter, eggs and milk from Organic Valley - Wikipedia

We're living history.

 

[Boss]

A socialist mode of production is just as capable of producing fruit and french toast, delivered by the market. Farming co-ops are a prime example of such a method of production.

No they're not and history proves it.

You can get your fruit from Sunkist Growers, Incorporated - Wikipedia
And your butter, eggs and milk from Organic Valley - Wikipedia

We're living history.

Uhm... yeah.... we live in a FREE MARKET SOCIETY! Dumbass!

 

[Tehon]

A socialist mode of production is just as capable of producing fruit and french toast, delivered by the market. Farming co-ops are a prime example of such a method of production.

No they're not and history proves it.

You can get your fruit from Sunkist Growers, Incorporated - Wikipedia
And your butter, eggs and milk from Organic Valley - Wikipedia

We're living history.

Uhm... yeah.... we live in a FREE MARKET SOCIETY! Dumbass!

Yes, we are a liberal country. We have the freedom to associate and organize freely. And regardless of how we organize our businesses we can sell the commodities we produce in the market. The market does not define the method of production. Capitalist or socialist, makes no difference, the market still serves the same function.

 

[Boss]

Yes, we are a liberal country. We have the freedom to associate and organize freely. And regardless of how we organize our businesses we can sell the commodities we produce in the market. The market does not define the method of production. Capitalist or socialist, makes no difference, the market still serves the same function.

No, we have a free market system. Businesses compete for market share in a free market with free enterprise. This is contrary to how socialist systems work. In a socialist system, the government owns the means of production and there is no business competition or free enterprise. You're somehow trying to equate a specific type of production system with an overall economic system and in a free enterprise system there are any number of production systems competing together for market share. Sometimes "cooperatives" have an advantage and do well, sometimes they don't... it depends on the market and product or service, supply and demand.

 

[dblack]

This is a dynamic that Libertarians are all too familiar with.

 

[dblack]

Capitalist or socialist, makes no difference, the market still serves the same function.

Ok... that's my WTF of the day. Care to expound?

 

[dblack]

Okay, you could say that zoning laws played a role in widespread prostitution in Las Vegas. But prostitution in Vegas didn't happen because of the lack of proper zoning laws. We repealed Glass-Steagall and then applied new legislation which superseded the free market. So it wasn't really the deregulation as much as it what happened in the wake of it. I mean. we could argue all day about the various factors involved with the "Meltdown" but suffice it to say, the entire debacle was the result of government interference in normal free market trade. It was never the free market that was the problem.

Again, there is a GREAT distinction between capitalism and free market capitalism or a free market capitalist system. Crony capitalism (corporatism) is a huge problem and it's corrupt and destructive to it's core. That's NOT free market capitalism but many people confuse it as such. It all just gets lumped in together. Hell, Communist Russia used capitalism... it wasn't a free market system.

I believe trying to achieve some arbitrary and subjective "equilibrium" between government regulation and free market capitalism is a futile effort wrought with potential disaster. Free market doesn't need government manipulation. The laws of supply and demand ensure a natural equilibrium. To the extent government regulation plays any useful role, it should be to ensure and promote a fair free market. All too often, special interests and lobbyists exploit the powers of government to leverage an advantage over the free market and that's when we see problems.

We'll disagree on the Meltdown. Greenspan & Co. (and others) aggressively refused to exercise their authority to regulate derivatives - he even admitted he couldn't understand CMO's - and those very same derivatives (led by CMO's, CDO's and CDS's) overloaded, completely distorted and wrecked the system regardless of the various machinations of the two silly political parties. The laws of supply and demand brought us down, because the supply of derivatives was infected.

A "free" market needs efficient and effective regulation to avoid those very distortions, and Greenspan's notion of a free market regulating itself were proven dramatically wrong. It didn't. Our economic system became, and in some ways remains, fraudulent in many core areas. We apply and enforce rules of conduct across our society to avoid fraud, anarchy and damage. There is no good reason - outside of politics - to exempt our financial system from that approach.
.

Well, I'm not an expert on banking and finance, I just know what I've read. The Meltdown all began with the repeal of the major parts of Glass-Steagall. In the wake of that, government backed sub-prime loans that the free market would have never made. So this is sort of like having a sick patient on the operating table with 15 surgeons doing all sorts of different procedures at the same time.. the patient dies... then everyone says the sick patient died due to natural causes.

There are numerous reasons behind the meltdown but they all center around government meddling in the affairs of the free market system to some degree. It was not a failure of the free market system itself.

The government didn't have anything to do with the ratings agencies giving (selling, actually) AAA ratings to crap CMO's, which were sold as AAA's (treasury-level safety) to investors and funds and groups and banks and municipalities and larger governments. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that AIG was selling credit default swaps to layer after layer after layer of buyers without needing even $1 in reserves to cover those swaps. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that Merrill and other banks were buying swaps on the very securities they selling. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that the banks were cramming CMO's and even more hideous CDO's with all kinds of garbage credit, including paper that had nothing to do with mortgages.

And that's the thing. Had the government been regulating all of the above, the Meltdown would not have happened. The loans that were initially backed by the government would have had to stay with their initial issuer, and credit standards would have remained MUCH higher. And there wouldn't have half a trillion in credit default swaps betting against the US economy.
.

Uhm... YES... the government had a hand in ALL of it! They backed billions in loans that should've never been made. They repealed Glass-Steagall and passed Fannie, Freddy, National Affordable Housing Act and American Dream Downpayment Act, while manipulating interest rates through the Fed. All of this MEDDLING in free market systems contributed to what transpired and to ignore that is just plain dishonest or dumb, one or the other.

Okay, this is where I usually just give up. I live this stuff every day. You're entitled to your opinion.
.

If you "live this stuff every day", perhaps you can share some of your insight....

What I've seen is a cynical game of government doing everything in its power to undermine the free market, and the using the 'failures' of the free market as proof that it doesn't work. Isn't that a little like Republicans doing everything they can to undermine ACA, and then using its failure as proof that it doesn't work?

 

[whitehall]

It ain't a myth, it's a cliche. Nobody on the right or the left wants "big government" to dictate what they say or do. The hypocrite left (with support from the criminal conspiracy in the MSM) claims that republicans are anti-government when lefties smash windows and torch cars to show their anger over the Constitutional transfer of political power. A freaking nut case supporter of the runner up in the democrat primary race decided that he would murder an entire baseball team because he was angry about republican "big government". So it seems that the cliche of "republicans being anti-big government" ain't quite as serious as the left's interpretation of "big government" but thanks to the criminal conspiracy in the MSM the republicans are saddled with the myth.

 

[dblack]

The Main Thing™, is that we need to centralize control over all life's necessities under an authoritarian government. Then everyone will be happy forever.

 

[regent]

The Main Thing™, is that we need to centralize control over all life's necessities under an authoritarian government. Then everyone will be happy forever.

Maybe not happy forever but happier at times when we pursue happiness.

 

[Tehon]

Yes, we are a liberal country. We have the freedom to associate and organize freely. And regardless of how we organize our businesses we can sell the commodities we produce in the market. The market does not define the method of production. Capitalist or socialist, makes no difference, the market still serves the same function.

No, we have a free market system. Businesses compete for market share in a free market with free enterprise. This is contrary to how socialist systems work. In a socialist system, the government owns the means of production and there is no business competition or free enterprise. You're somehow trying to equate a specific type of production system with an overall economic system and in a free enterprise system there are any number of production systems competing together for market share. Sometimes "cooperatives" have an advantage and do well, sometimes they don't... it depends on the market and product or service, supply and demand.

The production system is the defining quality of an economic system. You agree that different production systems distribute commodities in the same market. So the market is common, which is what I have been saying from the start. The market is a common means of distributing commodities which means that the defining characteristic of an economic system is the means of production.

You can define socialism as government ownership of the means of production but it is not the only definition and certainly not the preferred definition. I choose to define it along Marxist principles, which is that the workers own the means of production and the state tends to wither away.

 

[dblack]

The Main Thing™, is that we need to centralize control over all life's necessities under an authoritarian government. Then everyone will be happy forever.

Maybe not happy forever but happier at times when we pursue happiness.

Praise be government. Happiness is ours by virtue of the fatherland!