CDZ What are you worth?
- Thread starter Boss
- Start date
So here's some friday night conjecture , why the twin towers? Now one would think, take down the statue of liberty, the very icon of American freedom. It would, in retrospect, have been far more demoralizing.
But no, it was the twins. Why? Because they represent the fiscal center of American corporatism who's tentacles relentless subjugation of the 3rd world pisses them off...
Guess being an oilocracy sharecropper ain't all it's cracked up to be
~S~
But no, it was the twins. Why? Because they represent the fiscal center of American corporatism who's tentacles relentless subjugation of the 3rd world pisses them off...
Guess being an oilocracy sharecropper ain't all it's cracked up to be
~S~
320 Years of History
Gold Member
And furthermore....you have some nerve talking about what I have not addressed. Way back at post 242 I tacitly bid you to address the downsides of so-called "free market capitalism": by what means you would mitigate their effects. You have not once done so. You haven't even indicated that you recognize they exist.
You ask me for a qualitative argument about what is bad about what you call "free market capitalism," yet you have yet to address the one thing I asked for prior to having done so, now you toss that back at me as though you haven't completely ignored my request, not for a judgement call type of exposition, but for simple and clear identification of the tactics you'd used to address the effects that are very clear and well understood by everyone who's ever studied economics, except apparently you, who seeming knows something nobody else on the whole planet does, and you won't share that information either.
You want know what the downsides of capitalism are? You want to know what is bad about free trade? Click on the link to exactly that which you'll find in post 242. I linked that content there for a reason and I made the reason very clear in that post.
...and if you don't like those, there are other discussions of it and you'll find several of them at the linked content of the OP and second post here: Free Trade vs. Protectionism.
The immediately preceding quote from post 242 is the second time I tacitly asked you address how, by what means, you'd mitigate the downsides of capitalism and those of free trade in that post. How dare you chidingly toss that "red" statement at me as though I've ignored your inquiry. I addressed it before you even presented it, and I did so using the content others have written because the question you asked is so damned basic to the understanding of free trade, capitalism, and economics that there's no need for me to write my own response.
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #306
But he is doing so by jumping around to things I've not defined or discussed. I've not mentioned global free trade.... it doesn't have a thing to do with our domestic free market capitalist system. Admittedly, I defined free market capitalism in very simple and easy to understand terms but they weren't ambiguous in any way.
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #307
It's because they don't exist. I've challenged you to present some examples and you can't.
No, I fully understand the downsides of unfettered capitalism. I've asked you for the downsides to true free market capitalism or more specifically, our free market capitalist system which works in conjunction with a constitution and enumerated government powers.
For some odd reason, you want to JUMP OVER to a debate on free trade and protectionism. I'm not arguing those ideas. We can have that argument if you like, we're not restricted in the thread to only talking about the free market capitalist system. But what we're not going to do is conflate global trade policies with free market capitalist principles.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
Well, yes. The thing that's annoyed me is that the man seems to want to have a legitimate discussion on the matter, but as I've tried to hone my understanding of his terms within the context of economic principles and terminology, something I understand very well and would have sometime back thought Boss did too, he's refused to contribute to making that happen so that the discussion can move beyond emptiness, platitudes and inane accusations. I don't even care what he does or doesn't understand about the economics of free trade, free markets, socialism, protectionism, capitalism, etc. I just want to be sure we are both addressing the same thing, and that vague/ambiguous term onto which he's latched, "free market capitalism," one that economists do not use outside of in papers where they define it in terms of well and widely understood terms, namely free trade, free markets, socialism, protectionism, and capitalism. After defining what "free market capitalism" means at the outset of their paper/book/essay, they'll use the term in that document from that point forward.
Now the manner in which Boss has described "free market capitalism" is pretty much what economists call "free trade," yet Boss has refrained from saying, "Yes, free market capitalism and free trade are synonymous and interchangeable," and having not said that, there must be some distinction, yet he's not told us what the hell the distinction is. Accordingly, he's the only person who has any f*cking idea of precisely what he's talking about, and in that situation, there's no conversation to be had.
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #309
You need to stop using this tactic of claiming to speak for all economists. First of all, the great economists often disagree. There is no set-in-stone viewpoint that all economists universally hold. I'm a big Milton Friedman guy. Pretty much, what he articulates is what I believe. I have read Locke, Hume and Rousseau. So whenever you attempt to 'high-brow' me with pretentious statements it just doesn't work. That might get you somewhere with lesser-educated people.
Global free trade is NOT synonymous with free market capitalism or a free market system. It's a completely different thing. First of all, other trade partners do not have free market capitalist systems like our own. They don't have constitutions protecting individual rights or free enterprise. Many of them are socialist nations with a completely different form of capitalism. Many of them exploit the resources of labor to provide lower prices than our system can compete with. Many of our "free trade" deals benefit corporatists who have purchased influence through collusion with government power. It's not that it's all bad, some "free trade" benefits free market capitalists by providing supply to meet demand or mitigate the cost of producing to meet demand.
Now, "free trade" within our own free market system might be synonymous, but that's not what we mean when we use the term "free trade", is it?
320 Years of History
Gold Member
Red:
I don't claim to do that. I merely bother to read what they say, and on the matter of free trade, I am merely stating what others who understand the topic really well also say.
- Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade
- Consensus among Economists -- Updated -- Read this and you'll see precisely what economists agree about, and you'll see it precisely quantified. What you'll find is that what I've said about what they agree on as goes free trade is wholly accurate.
- A Super-Majority of Economists Agree: Trade Barriers Should Go
- Milton Friedman on Free Trade
Milton Friedman vs. Trump
Blue:
Thank you. That's at least the question half answered. I understand now that by "free market capitalism" you don't mean "free trade" and you've thus identified what "free market capitalism" is not. Now, I'm going to continue reading your post to see if you do define clearly what it is.
That's all well and good. None of it tells me what "free market capitalism" is. Mike Collins, a Forbes contributor, wrote about "free market capitalism," and like you, he doesn't describe it precisely in any language that allows one to understand it as anything other than high degrees of free trade exercised within a capitalist system, without regard to what democratic model/system governs the whole "kit and kaboodle." Even so, he concludes his essay by, as I did, tacitly imploring for solution ideas that mitigate the downsides of free trade and capitalism. "If we are to avoid government solutions then it is time to think of new ways to govern and ways to share some of the prosperity with working people." So again, what are the solutions you propose we rely upon (implement) to mitigate the downsides of free trade and capitalism, which must certainly must exist in whatever be the thing that is what you've called "free market capitalism" (FTC) because two elements of FTC must be capitalism and free trade.
I haven't found anything else that identifies what "free market capitalism" specifically is, means, and you haven't explained it any economically precise way either, yet you want to talk about it. You've sort of danced around what it is, but the explicit depiction of what it has not come forth from you. You could even use someone else's definition if you agree with it. I don't care. I just want an economically clear definition of it.
Looking at what you have said:
What have you said about FTC in your efforts to describe it?
- You've said it's capitalism. Great. I know what that means and I identified precisely that meaning in post 296. The downsides and upsides of it are well understood. (See links at the end of post 242 to see what the pros and cons of capitalism are.) How will you mitigate them? Or, assuming it's the case, what aspects of FTC prevent them from manifesting themselves, bearing in mind that under the freest form of capitalism, it's only an "invisible hand" that manages literally everything -- what is supplied, what is demanded, how much is supplied and demanded, selling/buying prices, and quantities supplied and demanded?
- You've implied too that FTC should occur absent barriers to trade. That's great too, and I understand what that means. Yet, above, you seem to be arguing against free trade and the barriers to trade that do not exist when trade is free. Well, I'd hope you can see how on the one hand you are using the term FTC, and on the other you appear to oppose free trade. I mean really? WTF? One can't have that cake and eat it too, one may want to, I suppose everyone does, but one cannot.
- You've said it's capitalism practiced in an environment protected by a constitution (legal framework) like the U.S.' You've also self identified yourself as a strict constructionist and you've summarily discounted the idea of loose construction in Constitutional interpretation -- Post 149 and Post 152 -- yet that loose construction is the only way one arrives at the conclusion that the Constitution establishes and protects the central tenet of capitalism that calls for private ownership of the factors of production.
Why? Because nowhere in the Constitution will one find anything more about capitalism than in the 10th Amendment, and in that amendment, capitalism is not expressly noted as it must be for a strict constructionist. Rather, it is indirectly protected. The Constitution requires that property may only be taken by the government after due process and with just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that "property" in this sense means both real and personal property, plus the rights to receive such for any legal reason. It follows by inference, but not by express assertion, that the right of a businessman to receive the profits of his endeavor, if the business is legal, are protected by the Constitution and that he and he alone has the right to sell, modify, or dispose of his enterprise.
Thus rather than being expressly enumerated, capitalism is indirectly addressed and a loose construction of the Constitution is only way to arrive inferentially/inductively at the conclusion that the Constitution protects capitalism. What it expressly protects is the right to property, not the right to exchange property and not necessarily the right to profit from property ownership, and the document certainly does not mandate that any and all property be held privately rather than governmentally. The Constitution also gives Congress the power to regulate international and interstate exchange (see also: Commerce Clause).
-- Capitalism, The United States Constitution and the Supreme Court
-- THE MARKET ECONOMY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
-- Freedom of Individual Enterprise The Economic Dimension Of Liberty Protected By The Constitution
Now I don't have a problem with loosely construing the Constitution so that it's protections include the right to profit privately from property use and ownership. I also don't have a problem with viewing the document as a basis for protecting the right of free exchange between parties. But you should for you are an avowed strict constructionist (see also: Theory of strict construction) whereas I am for some clauses/provisions of the document and am not regarding others. So here again, there's an element of vagueness/ambiguity in what you've been saying over the course of this discussion, and that uncertainty is part of what I'm trying to reconcile/eliminate by asking the questions I have and making the statements I have. - You've said that FTC is voluntary exchange between parties. Okay, but voluntary exchange between parties can occur in a host of environments. Voluntary exchange between parties is indeed precisely what goes on in the black market. It happens all the time within and across borders and in both the presence and absence of governmentally imposed barriers to trade. Frankly, I'm not aware of any government anywhere that forces parties to trade in any goods or services; thus, AFAIK, all trade is voluntary. Given that, I see the "voluntary" aspect of how you've described FTC as mostly valueless from the standpoint of understanding precisely what you mean by FTC.
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #311
Red:
I don't claim to do that. I merely bother to read what they say, and on the matter of free trade, I am merely stating what others who understand the topic really well also say.
- Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade
- Consensus among Economists -- Updated -- Read this and you'll see precisely what economists agree about, and you'll see it precisely quantified. What you'll find is that what I've said about what they agree on as goes free trade is wholly accurate.
- A Super-Majority of Economists Agree: Trade Barriers Should Go
- Milton Friedman on Free Trade
Milton Friedman vs. Trump
Blue:
Thank you. That's at least the question half answered. I understand now that by "free market capitalism" you don't mean "free trade" and you've thus identified what "free market capitalism" is not. Now, I'm going to continue reading your post to see if you do define clearly what it is.
That's all well and good. None of it tells me what "free market capitalism" is. Mike Collins, a Forbes contributor, wrote about "free market capitalism," and like you, he doesn't describe it precisely in any language that allows one to understand it as anything other than high degrees of free trade exercised within a capitalist system, without regard to what democratic model/system governs the whole "kit and kaboodle." Even so, he concludes his essay by, as I did, tacitly imploring for solution ideas that mitigate the downsides of free trade and capitalism. "If we are to avoid government solutions then it is time to think of new ways to govern and ways to share some of the prosperity with working people." So again, what are the solutions you propose we rely upon (implement) to mitigate the downsides of free trade and capitalism, which must certainly must exist in whatever be the thing that is what you've called "free market capitalism" (FTC) because two elements of FTC must be capitalism and free trade.
I haven't found anything else that identifies what "free market capitalism" specifically is, means, and you haven't explained it any economically precise way either, yet you want to talk about it. You've sort of danced around what it is, but the explicit depiction of what it has not come forth from you. You could even use someone else's definition if you agree with it. I don't care. I just want an economically clear definition of it.
Looking at what you have said:
What have you said about FTC in your efforts to describe it?
So, yes, I've been paying attention to what you've been writing. I've also been thinking about it and what are the implications of what you've written. Overall, I still don't know what FTC means and overall, the whole of your remarks seem incoherent, unintegrated, in short, poorly thought through. I'm asking for some clarity if you want to continue to discuss the thing, but minimally, you're going to need to explain FTC in some sort of meaningful and precise way and you're going to need to identify means for overcoming the downsides of capitalism and, if applicable, free trade/FTC. (Depending on how you define FTC -- I can't say for sure until I see that definition -- it may be necessary for you to identify comprehensively what its downsides are.)
- You've said it's capitalism. Great. I know what that means and I identified precisely that meaning in post 296. The downsides and upsides of it are well understood. (See links at the end of post 242 to see what the pros and cons of capitalism are.) How will you mitigate them? Or, assuming it's the case, what aspects of FTC prevent them from manifesting themselves, bearing in mind that under the freest form of capitalism, it's only an "invisible hand" that manages literally everything -- what is supplied, what is demanded, how much is supplied and demanded, selling/buying prices, and quantities supplied and demanded?
- You've implied too that FTC should occur absent barriers to trade. That's great too, and I understand what that means. Yet, above, you seem to be arguing against free trade and the barriers to trade that do not exist when trade is free. Well, I'd hope you can see how on the one hand you are using the term FTC, and on the other you appear to oppose free trade. I mean really? WTF? One can't have that cake and eat it too, one may want to, I suppose everyone does, but one cannot.
- You've said it's capitalism practiced in an environment protected by a constitution (legal framework) like the U.S.' You've also self identified yourself as a strict constructionist and you've summarily discounted the idea of loose construction in Constitutional interpretation -- Post 149 and Post 152 -- yet that loose construction is the only way one arrives at the conclusion that the Constitution establishes and protects the central tenet of capitalism that calls for private ownership of the factors of production.
Why? Because nowhere in the Constitution will one find anything more about capitalism than in the 10th Amendment, and in that amendment, capitalism is not expressly noted as it must be for a strict constructionist. Rather, it is indirectly protected. The Constitution requires that property may only be taken by the government after due process and with just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that "property" in this sense means both real and personal property, plus the rights to receive such for any legal reason. It follows by inference, but not by express assertion, that the right of a businessman to receive the profits of his endeavor, if the business is legal, are protected by the Constitution and that he and he alone has the right to sell, modify, or dispose of his enterprise.
Thus rather than being expressly enumerated, capitalism is indirectly addressed and a loose construction of the Constitution is only way to arrive inferentially/inductively at the conclusion that the Constitution protects capitalism. What it expressly protects is the right to property, not the right to exchange property and not necessarily the right to profit from property ownership, and the document certainly does not mandate that any and all property be held privately rather than governmentally. The Constitution also gives Congress the power to regulate international and interstate exchange (see also: Commerce Clause).
-- Capitalism, The United States Constitution and the Supreme Court
-- THE MARKET ECONOMY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
-- Freedom of Individual Enterprise The Economic Dimension Of Liberty Protected By The Constitution
Now I don't have a problem with loosely construing the Constitution so that it's protections include the right to profit privately from property use and ownership. I also don't have a problem with viewing the document as a basis for protecting the right of free exchange between parties. But you should for you are an avowed strict constructionist (see also: Theory of strict construction) whereas I am for some clauses/provisions of the document and am not regarding others. So here again, there's an element of vagueness/ambiguity in what you've been saying over the course of this discussion, and that uncertainty is part of what I'm trying to reconcile/eliminate by asking the questions I have and making the statements I have.- You've said that FTC is voluntary exchange between parties. Okay, but voluntary exchange between parties can occur in a host of environments. Voluntary exchange between parties is indeed precisely what goes on in the black market. It happens all the time within and across borders and in both the presence and absence of governmentally imposed barriers to trade. Frankly, I'm not aware of any government anywhere that forces parties to trade in any goods or services; thus, AFAIK, all trade is voluntary. Given that, I see the "voluntary" aspect of how you've described FTC as mostly valueless from the standpoint of understanding precisely what you mean by FTC.
Grrrr.... I am not arguing Protectionism vs. Free Trade!!!! Why do you continue to try and draw me into a debate I'm not having? I don't agree with Trump's protectionist trade policies. I also don't agree with globalist trade policies that benefit the corporatists over small business. This debate on free market capitalism has nothing to do with global trade policy... that's a completely different argument with totally different nuances we've not discussed.
Free market capitalism is NOT "Free trade + Capitalism" as you've tried to define it. Capitalism can take many forms other than "free market" style. Some of them are quite exploitative and detrimental to the human condition. The term "Free Trade" is understood as trade agreements between various nations... that's not within the system as Mike Collins describes... does China have our system of free enterprise and constitutional protection of rights?
I don't understand how I've posted the definition of free market capitalism several times and you are claiming it is vague and unclear. Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties based on laws of supply and demand with competition creating a price equilibrium and with minimal government interference.
My argument is that there is nothing "evil" about it, there is no need for excessive government intervention in it, the principles are fair to everyone and everyone benefits and it has been wildly successful at lifting people from poverty and creating millionaires and billionaires. Arguments about trade policies and protectionism versus free trade are different arguments.
Boss, Free Trade IS Globalism , they are not stand alone or isolated, nor can they be.
There is also the inherent issue and subsequent stats of quintile mobility that would follow any economic model.
In the opinion of many economists ,correlation constitutes causation
In the opinion of corporatists ,their political toadies, and billionaires making good on it , it does not
~S~
There is also the inherent issue and subsequent stats of quintile mobility that would follow any economic model.
In the opinion of many economists ,correlation constitutes causation
In the opinion of corporatists ,their political toadies, and billionaires making good on it , it does not
~S~
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #313
Free trade and globalism are stand alone, they can be because they are. I don't know what your second sentence means... or your third and fourth, for that matter.
If "quintile mobility" means people move out of the economic quintile they are born in, then I agree... happens all the time. That's what negates Socialist arguments about wealth disparity. People, more often than not, don't belong to the same quintile their entire life... unless they live in an oppressive totalitarian socialist state without free market capitalism and free enterprise.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
Red:
I don't claim to do that. I merely bother to read what they say, and on the matter of free trade, I am merely stating what others who understand the topic really well also say.
- Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade
- Consensus among Economists -- Updated -- Read this and you'll see precisely what economists agree about, and you'll see it precisely quantified. What you'll find is that what I've said about what they agree on as goes free trade is wholly accurate.
- A Super-Majority of Economists Agree: Trade Barriers Should Go
- Milton Friedman on Free Trade
Milton Friedman vs. Trump
Blue:
Thank you. That's at least the question half answered. I understand now that by "free market capitalism" you don't mean "free trade" and you've thus identified what "free market capitalism" is not. Now, I'm going to continue reading your post to see if you do define clearly what it is.
That's all well and good. None of it tells me what "free market capitalism" is. Mike Collins, a Forbes contributor, wrote about "free market capitalism," and like you, he doesn't describe it precisely in any language that allows one to understand it as anything other than high degrees of free trade exercised within a capitalist system, without regard to what democratic model/system governs the whole "kit and kaboodle." Even so, he concludes his essay by, as I did, tacitly imploring for solution ideas that mitigate the downsides of free trade and capitalism. "If we are to avoid government solutions then it is time to think of new ways to govern and ways to share some of the prosperity with working people." So again, what are the solutions you propose we rely upon (implement) to mitigate the downsides of free trade and capitalism, which must certainly must exist in whatever be the thing that is what you've called "free market capitalism" (FTC) because two elements of FTC must be capitalism and free trade.
I haven't found anything else that identifies what "free market capitalism" specifically is, means, and you haven't explained it any economically precise way either, yet you want to talk about it. You've sort of danced around what it is, but the explicit depiction of what it has not come forth from you. You could even use someone else's definition if you agree with it. I don't care. I just want an economically clear definition of it.
Looking at what you have said:
What have you said about FTC in your efforts to describe it?
So, yes, I've been paying attention to what you've been writing. I've also been thinking about it and what are the implications of what you've written. Overall, I still don't know what FTC means and overall, the whole of your remarks seem incoherent, unintegrated, in short, poorly thought through. I'm asking for some clarity if you want to continue to discuss the thing, but minimally, you're going to need to explain FTC in some sort of meaningful and precise way and you're going to need to identify means for overcoming the downsides of capitalism and, if applicable, free trade/FTC. (Depending on how you define FTC -- I can't say for sure until I see that definition -- it may be necessary for you to identify comprehensively what its downsides are.)
- You've said it's capitalism. Great. I know what that means and I identified precisely that meaning in post 296. The downsides and upsides of it are well understood. (See links at the end of post 242 to see what the pros and cons of capitalism are.) How will you mitigate them? Or, assuming it's the case, what aspects of FTC prevent them from manifesting themselves, bearing in mind that under the freest form of capitalism, it's only an "invisible hand" that manages literally everything -- what is supplied, what is demanded, how much is supplied and demanded, selling/buying prices, and quantities supplied and demanded?
- You've implied too that FTC should occur absent barriers to trade. That's great too, and I understand what that means. Yet, above, you seem to be arguing against free trade and the barriers to trade that do not exist when trade is free. Well, I'd hope you can see how on the one hand you are using the term FTC, and on the other you appear to oppose free trade. I mean really? WTF? One can't have that cake and eat it too, one may want to, I suppose everyone does, but one cannot.
- You've said it's capitalism practiced in an environment protected by a constitution (legal framework) like the U.S.' You've also self identified yourself as a strict constructionist and you've summarily discounted the idea of loose construction in Constitutional interpretation -- Post 149 and Post 152 -- yet that loose construction is the only way one arrives at the conclusion that the Constitution establishes and protects the central tenet of capitalism that calls for private ownership of the factors of production.
Why? Because nowhere in the Constitution will one find anything more about capitalism than in the 10th Amendment, and in that amendment, capitalism is not expressly noted as it must be for a strict constructionist. Rather, it is indirectly protected. The Constitution requires that property may only be taken by the government after due process and with just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that "property" in this sense means both real and personal property, plus the rights to receive such for any legal reason. It follows by inference, but not by express assertion, that the right of a businessman to receive the profits of his endeavor, if the business is legal, are protected by the Constitution and that he and he alone has the right to sell, modify, or dispose of his enterprise.
Thus rather than being expressly enumerated, capitalism is indirectly addressed and a loose construction of the Constitution is only way to arrive inferentially/inductively at the conclusion that the Constitution protects capitalism. What it expressly protects is the right to property, not the right to exchange property and not necessarily the right to profit from property ownership, and the document certainly does not mandate that any and all property be held privately rather than governmentally. The Constitution also gives Congress the power to regulate international and interstate exchange (see also: Commerce Clause).
-- Capitalism, The United States Constitution and the Supreme Court
-- THE MARKET ECONOMY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
-- Freedom of Individual Enterprise The Economic Dimension Of Liberty Protected By The Constitution
Now I don't have a problem with loosely construing the Constitution so that it's protections include the right to profit privately from property use and ownership. I also don't have a problem with viewing the document as a basis for protecting the right of free exchange between parties. But you should for you are an avowed strict constructionist (see also: Theory of strict construction) whereas I am for some clauses/provisions of the document and am not regarding others. So here again, there's an element of vagueness/ambiguity in what you've been saying over the course of this discussion, and that uncertainty is part of what I'm trying to reconcile/eliminate by asking the questions I have and making the statements I have.- You've said that FTC is voluntary exchange between parties. Okay, but voluntary exchange between parties can occur in a host of environments. Voluntary exchange between parties is indeed precisely what goes on in the black market. It happens all the time within and across borders and in both the presence and absence of governmentally imposed barriers to trade. Frankly, I'm not aware of any government anywhere that forces parties to trade in any goods or services; thus, AFAIK, all trade is voluntary. Given that, I see the "voluntary" aspect of how you've described FTC as mostly valueless from the standpoint of understanding precisely what you mean by FTC.
Grrrr.... I am not arguing Protectionism vs. Free Trade!!!! Why do you continue to try and draw me into a debate I'm not having? I don't agree with Trump's protectionist trade policies. I also don't agree with globalist trade policies that benefit the corporatists over small business. This debate on free market capitalism has nothing to do with global trade policy... that's a completely different argument with totally different nuances we've not discussed.
Free market capitalism is NOT "Free trade + Capitalism" as you've tried to define it. Capitalism can take many forms other than "free market" style. Some of them are quite exploitative and detrimental to the human condition. The term "Free Trade" is understood as trade agreements between various nations... that's not within the system as Mike Collins describes... does China have our system of free enterprise and constitutional protection of rights?
I don't understand how I've posted the definition of free market capitalism several times and you are claiming it is vague and unclear. Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties based on laws of supply and demand with competition creating a price equilibrium and with minimal government interference.
My argument is that there is nothing "evil" about it, there is no need for excessive government intervention in it, the principles are fair to everyone and everyone benefits and it has been wildly successful at lifting people from poverty and creating millionaires and billionaires. Arguments about trade policies and protectionism versus free trade are different arguments.
Purple:
First of all, TY for the definition and for repeating it.
"Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties based on laws of supply and demand with competition creating a price equilibrium and with minimal government interference."
OMFG!!! Boss, "free market capitalism," as you've defined it, is nothing more than "commerce," specifically commerce practiced under laissez faire.
Other folks might simply call it "exchange." Others might call it "business" or "the conduct of business." Still others, myself included, might call it "laissez faire" or "laissez faire capitalism." (click on the link, something you seem to have refrained from doing throughout this discussion) And what did you have to say to me when, in an attempt to introduce some clarity/precision into the discussion, I first mentioned laissez faire? (click the link and play the video you encounter there)
Furthermore, you in that post, which is post 262, asked me what are the downsides of free market trade, which I take to be your own synonym for "free market capitalism," which is just laissez faire capitalism, yet I had already in post 242 directly answered that question. Hell, I'd anticipated that question, which is part of why I provided the two links I did at the end of post 242.
To top it all off, I opened and closed post 242 by stating that I thought that in large measure you didn't know what you were talking about. I later referred to the incoherence that confounds your discussion/presentation of your ideas about "free market capitalism," aka laissez faire. Now it's clear I was correct. But that I could tell that isn't especially important. What is important is that this discussion has nowhere to go unless you have some heretofore unidentified (by economists and policymakers) solutions to offer to mitigate the downsides of capitalism. I knew that was and remains the only place for this discussion to go because I was pretty sure that what you were talking about is laissez faire. Now we see for sure that it is.
Well the ills of capitalism are so well understood and well discussed that the question "what are the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism/laissez faire/free market capitalism?", is a typical question on high school economics quizzes covering a small section of one of the first chapters, if not the first chapter, of pretty much any macro-/microeconomics textbook.
- Pros and Cons of Laissez Faire | APECSEC.org
- Pros and cons of capitalism | Economics Help
- EFFECTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
FWIW, there are several "principles of economics" textbooks available for free on the Internet. You seem to like economics, or at least you care about it. I strongly suggest you read one of them or enroll in the principles of macroeconomics class at your local community college. (audit it or take it for credit, it won't matter) Hell, you could even just buy the text and attend the lectures at a large local four-year university; the professor won't notice you at all in a 100+ person lecture hall and will have no idea whether you've actually enrolled at the institution and paid to be there. (I'd suggest a school, but you have your location listed as "Bumfuck" and I don't know where that is nor can I find it on a map.)
Below are some of the remarks you made using the term "free market capitalism." Read through them and time and time again, you'll see that, given your definition above (purple text in the quote), your term can be swapped with "commerce" or "business" or "exchange" or even "laissez faire capitalism" without altering the denotative nor connotative meaning of the remark.
I bid you read the content at the links above because it's clear to me that while you've become aware of some of the concepts of supply and demand, you seem not to understand them at the most basic level, all the while having picked up somewhere modestly more "involved" aspects of them. It's as though you "get" "C, D, and E," but "A and B," the foundational ideas for "C, D, and E," aren't there, for were they, this discussion about what "free trade capitalism" would never have occurred because you'd have recognized that it is nothing but capitalism/laissez faire, just said so and advanced the conversation to addressing/discussing ways to overcome the ills of capitalism. At least I'm going to hope that the reason you didn't simply state -- and state it when I first raised that term into the discussion -- that what you meant by "free market capitalism" is nothing more than what it is, laissez faire (or just plain old capitalism), is because you just didn't know that's all it is.
NOTE:
To understand this post and the points I'm making in it, as with many of my posts, you need to click on the links and read/peruse the relevant content there. My comments summarize and/or draw conclusions and inferences based on the content at the links. The links are provided so that folks who don't fully understand the "stuff" that underpins my remarks will have access to it so they can comprehend my remarks.
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #315
Well, no it's not. Before we can go any further, we have to clarify this because it's important. Commerce can be mandatory or coercive, as in the case of Obamacare. Commerce can be controlled completely by a totalitarian state where they decide what you can buy or sell and for how much. That is not free market capitalism.
We established earlier that laissez faire capitalism doesn't exist in the US because free market capitalism is conducted in conjunction with a constitution and enumeration of powers to government which prevent it from being laissez faire. This is what distinguishes a "free market system."
I hate that you wrote such a long and pointless dissertation that I will not address because it is based on a false premise. I also hate that you feel the need to "educate" me when I already have a degree in business from an accredited university. The links you are pointing me to, I could have probably written. I'm a pretty smart cookie when it comes to business and I stand behind everything I've said about free market capitalism.
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #316
320 Years, I had a chance to watch one of the videos from your links above on laissez faire trade policy with Milton Friedman, Don Rumsfeld and others. It was a bit misleading because they weren't really discussing laissez fair capitalism as much as free trade policy. Friedman consistently stuck to the very points I have been articulating this entire thread. I didn't see anywhere that he had a negative word to say about free market capitalism or free enterprise. He is a staunch and outspoken advocate, just as I am.
Now, to take this a step further, since you seem to be stuck on this concept of laissez faire (which doesn't actually exist in a free market system like our own), I decided to tackle what your website pointed to as "CONS" of laissez faire.... just for the sake of argument:
List of Cons of Laissez Faire
1. People Lack Knowledge
Ambition, talent, self motivation, all of these factors are helpful, but they are no substitute for knowledge. Completing tasks properly and being able to make the correct decisions is a job that is typically best left to the government.
Translation: You're too stupid to make the correct decisions and it's best to leave that to government.
2. Everyone Is Not Self Motivated
There is a reason why most countries rely on democratic forms of government: most people lack reliable self motivation. Unless they are pointed in a certain direction, they do not always know which way to go. Having a stable government body helps to ease worried minds and keeps people on the right track.
Translation: You're too stupid to know which way to go or stay on the right track... you need government to make those choices for you.
3. Minimal Cohesiveness
When a leader does not have direct involvement with the decisions that are made, this can lead to a severe lack of cohesiveness. When the people are the ones who are responsible for making decisions, it is incredibly difficult to come to a consensus. Everyone has their own thoughts and ideas, which leads to an inability to come together and do what is best for the majority.
Translation: You're too indecisive to leave things up to you, and without government, you'll never do the right thing or what's best for the country.
I'm sorry, but the list of "CONS" are the typical pablum we get from Marxist Socialists who seek to destroy Capitalism as we know it. These are not truly "CONS" but rather, opinions. Biased opinions based on no facts and the worldview that people are just too stupid to self-govern. I simply reject this nonsense! We threw off the shackles of government tyranny 245 years ago and we became the wealthiest and most prosperous superpower the world has ever seen. Free enterprise and our free market system is the greatest system for prosperity man has ever developed.
Now, to take this a step further, since you seem to be stuck on this concept of laissez faire (which doesn't actually exist in a free market system like our own), I decided to tackle what your website pointed to as "CONS" of laissez faire.... just for the sake of argument:
List of Cons of Laissez Faire
1. People Lack Knowledge
Ambition, talent, self motivation, all of these factors are helpful, but they are no substitute for knowledge. Completing tasks properly and being able to make the correct decisions is a job that is typically best left to the government.
Translation: You're too stupid to make the correct decisions and it's best to leave that to government.
2. Everyone Is Not Self Motivated
There is a reason why most countries rely on democratic forms of government: most people lack reliable self motivation. Unless they are pointed in a certain direction, they do not always know which way to go. Having a stable government body helps to ease worried minds and keeps people on the right track.
Translation: You're too stupid to know which way to go or stay on the right track... you need government to make those choices for you.
3. Minimal Cohesiveness
When a leader does not have direct involvement with the decisions that are made, this can lead to a severe lack of cohesiveness. When the people are the ones who are responsible for making decisions, it is incredibly difficult to come to a consensus. Everyone has their own thoughts and ideas, which leads to an inability to come together and do what is best for the majority.
Translation: You're too indecisive to leave things up to you, and without government, you'll never do the right thing or what's best for the country.
I'm sorry, but the list of "CONS" are the typical pablum we get from Marxist Socialists who seek to destroy Capitalism as we know it. These are not truly "CONS" but rather, opinions. Biased opinions based on no facts and the worldview that people are just too stupid to self-govern. I simply reject this nonsense! We threw off the shackles of government tyranny 245 years ago and we became the wealthiest and most prosperous superpower the world has ever seen. Free enterprise and our free market system is the greatest system for prosperity man has ever developed.
NCC1701
Gold Member
- Jul 3, 2016
- 1,696
- 184
- 130
Red:
I don't claim to do that. I merely bother to read what they say, and on the matter of free trade, I am merely stating what others who understand the topic really well also say.
- Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade
- Consensus among Economists -- Updated -- Read this and you'll see precisely what economists agree about, and you'll see it precisely quantified. What you'll find is that what I've said about what they agree on as goes free trade is wholly accurate.
- A Super-Majority of Economists Agree: Trade Barriers Should Go
- Milton Friedman on Free Trade
Milton Friedman vs. Trump
Blue:
Thank you. That's at least the question half answered. I understand now that by "free market capitalism" you don't mean "free trade" and you've thus identified what "free market capitalism" is not. Now, I'm going to continue reading your post to see if you do define clearly what it is.
That's all well and good. None of it tells me what "free market capitalism" is. Mike Collins, a Forbes contributor, wrote about "free market capitalism," and like you, he doesn't describe it precisely in any language that allows one to understand it as anything other than high degrees of free trade exercised within a capitalist system, without regard to what democratic model/system governs the whole "kit and kaboodle." Even so, he concludes his essay by, as I did, tacitly imploring for solution ideas that mitigate the downsides of free trade and capitalism. "If we are to avoid government solutions then it is time to think of new ways to govern and ways to share some of the prosperity with working people." So again, what are the solutions you propose we rely upon (implement) to mitigate the downsides of free trade and capitalism, which must certainly must exist in whatever be the thing that is what you've called "free market capitalism" (FTC) because two elements of FTC must be capitalism and free trade.
I haven't found anything else that identifies what "free market capitalism" specifically is, means, and you haven't explained it any economically precise way either, yet you want to talk about it. You've sort of danced around what it is, but the explicit depiction of what it has not come forth from you. You could even use someone else's definition if you agree with it. I don't care. I just want an economically clear definition of it.
Looking at what you have said:
What have you said about FTC in your efforts to describe it?
So, yes, I've been paying attention to what you've been writing. I've also been thinking about it and what are the implications of what you've written. Overall, I still don't know what FTC means and overall, the whole of your remarks seem incoherent, unintegrated, in short, poorly thought through. I'm asking for some clarity if you want to continue to discuss the thing, but minimally, you're going to need to explain FTC in some sort of meaningful and precise way and you're going to need to identify means for overcoming the downsides of capitalism and, if applicable, free trade/FTC. (Depending on how you define FTC -- I can't say for sure until I see that definition -- it may be necessary for you to identify comprehensively what its downsides are.)
- You've said it's capitalism. Great. I know what that means and I identified precisely that meaning in post 296. The downsides and upsides of it are well understood. (See links at the end of post 242 to see what the pros and cons of capitalism are.) How will you mitigate them? Or, assuming it's the case, what aspects of FTC prevent them from manifesting themselves, bearing in mind that under the freest form of capitalism, it's only an "invisible hand" that manages literally everything -- what is supplied, what is demanded, how much is supplied and demanded, selling/buying prices, and quantities supplied and demanded?
- You've implied too that FTC should occur absent barriers to trade. That's great too, and I understand what that means. Yet, above, you seem to be arguing against free trade and the barriers to trade that do not exist when trade is free. Well, I'd hope you can see how on the one hand you are using the term FTC, and on the other you appear to oppose free trade. I mean really? WTF? One can't have that cake and eat it too, one may want to, I suppose everyone does, but one cannot.
- You've said it's capitalism practiced in an environment protected by a constitution (legal framework) like the U.S.' You've also self identified yourself as a strict constructionist and you've summarily discounted the idea of loose construction in Constitutional interpretation -- Post 149 and Post 152 -- yet that loose construction is the only way one arrives at the conclusion that the Constitution establishes and protects the central tenet of capitalism that calls for private ownership of the factors of production.
Why? Because nowhere in the Constitution will one find anything more about capitalism than in the 10th Amendment, and in that amendment, capitalism is not expressly noted as it must be for a strict constructionist. Rather, it is indirectly protected. The Constitution requires that property may only be taken by the government after due process and with just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that "property" in this sense means both real and personal property, plus the rights to receive such for any legal reason. It follows by inference, but not by express assertion, that the right of a businessman to receive the profits of his endeavor, if the business is legal, are protected by the Constitution and that he and he alone has the right to sell, modify, or dispose of his enterprise.
Thus rather than being expressly enumerated, capitalism is indirectly addressed and a loose construction of the Constitution is only way to arrive inferentially/inductively at the conclusion that the Constitution protects capitalism. What it expressly protects is the right to property, not the right to exchange property and not necessarily the right to profit from property ownership, and the document certainly does not mandate that any and all property be held privately rather than governmentally. The Constitution also gives Congress the power to regulate international and interstate exchange (see also: Commerce Clause).
-- Capitalism, The United States Constitution and the Supreme Court
-- THE MARKET ECONOMY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
-- Freedom of Individual Enterprise The Economic Dimension Of Liberty Protected By The Constitution
Now I don't have a problem with loosely construing the Constitution so that it's protections include the right to profit privately from property use and ownership. I also don't have a problem with viewing the document as a basis for protecting the right of free exchange between parties. But you should for you are an avowed strict constructionist (see also: Theory of strict construction) whereas I am for some clauses/provisions of the document and am not regarding others. So here again, there's an element of vagueness/ambiguity in what you've been saying over the course of this discussion, and that uncertainty is part of what I'm trying to reconcile/eliminate by asking the questions I have and making the statements I have.- You've said that FTC is voluntary exchange between parties. Okay, but voluntary exchange between parties can occur in a host of environments. Voluntary exchange between parties is indeed precisely what goes on in the black market. It happens all the time within and across borders and in both the presence and absence of governmentally imposed barriers to trade. Frankly, I'm not aware of any government anywhere that forces parties to trade in any goods or services; thus, AFAIK, all trade is voluntary. Given that, I see the "voluntary" aspect of how you've described FTC as mostly valueless from the standpoint of understanding precisely what you mean by FTC.
Grrrr.... I am not arguing Protectionism vs. Free Trade!!!! Why do you continue to try and draw me into a debate I'm not having? I don't agree with Trump's protectionist trade policies. I also don't agree with globalist trade policies that benefit the corporatists over small business. This debate on free market capitalism has nothing to do with global trade policy... that's a completely different argument with totally different nuances we've not discussed.
Free market capitalism is NOT "Free trade + Capitalism" as you've tried to define it. Capitalism can take many forms other than "free market" style. Some of them are quite exploitative and detrimental to the human condition. The term "Free Trade" is understood as trade agreements between various nations... that's not within the system as Mike Collins describes... does China have our system of free enterprise and constitutional protection of rights?
I don't understand how I've posted the definition of free market capitalism several times and you are claiming it is vague and unclear. Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties based on laws of supply and demand with competition creating a price equilibrium and with minimal government interference.
My argument is that there is nothing "evil" about it, there is no need for excessive government intervention in it, the principles are fair to everyone and everyone benefits and it has been wildly successful at lifting people from poverty and creating millionaires and billionaires. Arguments about trade policies and protectionism versus free trade are different arguments.
Purple:
First of all, TY for the definition and for repeating it.
"Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties based on laws of supply and demand with competition creating a price equilibrium and with minimal government interference."
OMFG!!! Boss, "free market capitalism," as you've defined it, is nothing more than "commerce," specifically commerce practiced under laissez faire.
Other folks might simply call it "exchange." Others might call it "business" or "the conduct of business." Still others, myself included, might call it "laissez faire" or "laissez faire capitalism." (click on the link, something you seem to have refrained from doing throughout this discussion) And what did you have to say to me when, in an attempt to introduce some clarity/precision into the discussion, I first mentioned laissez faire? (click the link and play the video you encounter there)
Furthermore, you in that post, which is post 262, asked me what are the downsides of free market trade, which I take to be your own synonym for "free market capitalism," which is just laissez faire capitalism, yet I had already in post 242 directly answered that question. Hell, I'd anticipated that question, which is part of why I provided the two links I did at the end of post 242.
To top it all off, I opened and closed post 242 by stating that I thought that in large measure you didn't know what you were talking about. I later referred to the incoherence that confounds your discussion/presentation of your ideas about "free market capitalism," aka laissez faire. Now it's clear I was correct. But that I could tell that isn't especially important. What is important is that this discussion has nowhere to go unless you have some heretofore unidentified (by economists and policymakers) solutions to offer to mitigate the downsides of capitalism. I knew that was and remains the only place for this discussion to go because I was pretty sure that what you were talking about is laissez faire. Now we see for sure that it is.
Well the ills of capitalism are so well understood and well discussed that the question "what are the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism/laissez faire/free market capitalism?", is a typical question on high school economics quizzes covering a small section of one of the first chapters, if not the first chapter, of pretty much any macro-/microeconomics textbook.
- Pros and Cons of Laissez Faire | APECSEC.org
- Pros and cons of capitalism | Economics Help
- EFFECTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
FWIW, there are several "principles of economics" textbooks available for free on the Internet. You seem to like economics, or at least you care about it. I strongly suggest you read one of them or enroll in the principles of macroeconomics class at your local community college. (audit it or take it for credit, it won't matter) Hell, you could even just buy the text and attend the lectures at a large local four-year university; the professor won't notice you at all in a 100+ person lecture hall and will have no idea whether you've actually enrolled at the institution and paid to be there. (I'd suggest a school, but you have your location listed as "Bumfuck" and I don't know where that is nor can I find it on a map.)
Below are some of the remarks you made using the term "free market capitalism." Read through them and time and time again, you'll see that, given your definition above (purple text in the quote), your term can be swapped with "commerce" or "business" or "exchange" or even "laissez faire capitalism" without altering the denotative nor connotative meaning of the remark.
In closing, I implore you once again to click on the links that go to content explaining the pros and cons of capitalism; if you do so, you'll see that the the ills you describe are right there among them. Also, I bid you read the following:
I bid you read the content at the links above because it's clear to me that while you've become aware of some of the concepts of supply and demand, you seem not to understand them at the most basic level, all the while having picked up somewhere modestly more "involved" aspects of them. It's as though you "get" "C, D, and E," but "A and B," the foundational ideas for "C, D, and E," aren't there, for were they, this discussion about what "free trade capitalism" would never have occurred because you'd have recognized that it is nothing but capitalism/laissez faire, just said so and advanced the conversation to addressing/discussing ways to overcome the ills of capitalism. At least I'm going to hope that the reason you didn't simply state -- and state it when I first raised that term into the discussion -- that what you meant by "free market capitalism" is nothing more than what it is, laissez faire (or just plain old capitalism), is because you just didn't know that's all it is.
NOTE:
To understand this post and the points I'm making in it, as with many of my posts, you need to click on the links and read/peruse the relevant content there. My comments summarize and/or draw conclusions and inferences based on the content at the links. The links are provided so that folks who don't fully understand the "stuff" that underpins my remarks will have access to it so they can comprehend my remarks.
you have some good thoughts, nice links etc.
I am not going to take on all of this, just for now I would like to point out that economics is not a science, it only has the veneer of science. At its heart economics is psychology with money. We could tackle that as a topic all its own, maybe later. You like to be precise, as do I, so I am going to focus down on just one point that illustrates just how bad economics really is as a discipline.
Supply demand equilibrium does not exist, never has existed. That fantasy is used time again and taught as gospel. The fact is markets are NEVER in equilibrium, NEVER. I am a trader and I have never seen any market reach equilibrium in over 20 years. I have followed corn, silver, gold, oil, stocks, bonds, currency cross rates, cattle, and even pork bellies. If you think about it, you are asking millions of people to all simultaneously agree on price, with a vanishing bid-ask spread.
The lesson is that econ is full of fallacy and religion, were it not then all these geniuses like Yellen would never have let 2008 happen in the first place, let alone be surprised it happened.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
Red:
I don't claim to do that. I merely bother to read what they say, and on the matter of free trade, I am merely stating what others who understand the topic really well also say.
- Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade
- Consensus among Economists -- Updated -- Read this and you'll see precisely what economists agree about, and you'll see it precisely quantified. What you'll find is that what I've said about what they agree on as goes free trade is wholly accurate.
- A Super-Majority of Economists Agree: Trade Barriers Should Go
- Milton Friedman on Free Trade
Milton Friedman vs. Trump
Blue:
Thank you. That's at least the question half answered. I understand now that by "free market capitalism" you don't mean "free trade" and you've thus identified what "free market capitalism" is not. Now, I'm going to continue reading your post to see if you do define clearly what it is.
That's all well and good. None of it tells me what "free market capitalism" is. Mike Collins, a Forbes contributor, wrote about "free market capitalism," and like you, he doesn't describe it precisely in any language that allows one to understand it as anything other than high degrees of free trade exercised within a capitalist system, without regard to what democratic model/system governs the whole "kit and kaboodle." Even so, he concludes his essay by, as I did, tacitly imploring for solution ideas that mitigate the downsides of free trade and capitalism. "If we are to avoid government solutions then it is time to think of new ways to govern and ways to share some of the prosperity with working people." So again, what are the solutions you propose we rely upon (implement) to mitigate the downsides of free trade and capitalism, which must certainly must exist in whatever be the thing that is what you've called "free market capitalism" (FTC) because two elements of FTC must be capitalism and free trade.
I haven't found anything else that identifies what "free market capitalism" specifically is, means, and you haven't explained it any economically precise way either, yet you want to talk about it. You've sort of danced around what it is, but the explicit depiction of what it has not come forth from you. You could even use someone else's definition if you agree with it. I don't care. I just want an economically clear definition of it.
Looking at what you have said:
What have you said about FTC in your efforts to describe it?
So, yes, I've been paying attention to what you've been writing. I've also been thinking about it and what are the implications of what you've written. Overall, I still don't know what FTC means and overall, the whole of your remarks seem incoherent, unintegrated, in short, poorly thought through. I'm asking for some clarity if you want to continue to discuss the thing, but minimally, you're going to need to explain FTC in some sort of meaningful and precise way and you're going to need to identify means for overcoming the downsides of capitalism and, if applicable, free trade/FTC. (Depending on how you define FTC -- I can't say for sure until I see that definition -- it may be necessary for you to identify comprehensively what its downsides are.)
- You've said it's capitalism. Great. I know what that means and I identified precisely that meaning in post 296. The downsides and upsides of it are well understood. (See links at the end of post 242 to see what the pros and cons of capitalism are.) How will you mitigate them? Or, assuming it's the case, what aspects of FTC prevent them from manifesting themselves, bearing in mind that under the freest form of capitalism, it's only an "invisible hand" that manages literally everything -- what is supplied, what is demanded, how much is supplied and demanded, selling/buying prices, and quantities supplied and demanded?
- You've implied too that FTC should occur absent barriers to trade. That's great too, and I understand what that means. Yet, above, you seem to be arguing against free trade and the barriers to trade that do not exist when trade is free. Well, I'd hope you can see how on the one hand you are using the term FTC, and on the other you appear to oppose free trade. I mean really? WTF? One can't have that cake and eat it too, one may want to, I suppose everyone does, but one cannot.
- You've said it's capitalism practiced in an environment protected by a constitution (legal framework) like the U.S.' You've also self identified yourself as a strict constructionist and you've summarily discounted the idea of loose construction in Constitutional interpretation -- Post 149 and Post 152 -- yet that loose construction is the only way one arrives at the conclusion that the Constitution establishes and protects the central tenet of capitalism that calls for private ownership of the factors of production.
Why? Because nowhere in the Constitution will one find anything more about capitalism than in the 10th Amendment, and in that amendment, capitalism is not expressly noted as it must be for a strict constructionist. Rather, it is indirectly protected. The Constitution requires that property may only be taken by the government after due process and with just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that "property" in this sense means both real and personal property, plus the rights to receive such for any legal reason. It follows by inference, but not by express assertion, that the right of a businessman to receive the profits of his endeavor, if the business is legal, are protected by the Constitution and that he and he alone has the right to sell, modify, or dispose of his enterprise.
Thus rather than being expressly enumerated, capitalism is indirectly addressed and a loose construction of the Constitution is only way to arrive inferentially/inductively at the conclusion that the Constitution protects capitalism. What it expressly protects is the right to property, not the right to exchange property and not necessarily the right to profit from property ownership, and the document certainly does not mandate that any and all property be held privately rather than governmentally. The Constitution also gives Congress the power to regulate international and interstate exchange (see also: Commerce Clause).
-- Capitalism, The United States Constitution and the Supreme Court
-- THE MARKET ECONOMY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
-- Freedom of Individual Enterprise The Economic Dimension Of Liberty Protected By The Constitution
Now I don't have a problem with loosely construing the Constitution so that it's protections include the right to profit privately from property use and ownership. I also don't have a problem with viewing the document as a basis for protecting the right of free exchange between parties. But you should for you are an avowed strict constructionist (see also: Theory of strict construction) whereas I am for some clauses/provisions of the document and am not regarding others. So here again, there's an element of vagueness/ambiguity in what you've been saying over the course of this discussion, and that uncertainty is part of what I'm trying to reconcile/eliminate by asking the questions I have and making the statements I have.- You've said that FTC is voluntary exchange between parties. Okay, but voluntary exchange between parties can occur in a host of environments. Voluntary exchange between parties is indeed precisely what goes on in the black market. It happens all the time within and across borders and in both the presence and absence of governmentally imposed barriers to trade. Frankly, I'm not aware of any government anywhere that forces parties to trade in any goods or services; thus, AFAIK, all trade is voluntary. Given that, I see the "voluntary" aspect of how you've described FTC as mostly valueless from the standpoint of understanding precisely what you mean by FTC.
Grrrr.... I am not arguing Protectionism vs. Free Trade!!!! Why do you continue to try and draw me into a debate I'm not having? I don't agree with Trump's protectionist trade policies. I also don't agree with globalist trade policies that benefit the corporatists over small business. This debate on free market capitalism has nothing to do with global trade policy... that's a completely different argument with totally different nuances we've not discussed.
Free market capitalism is NOT "Free trade + Capitalism" as you've tried to define it. Capitalism can take many forms other than "free market" style. Some of them are quite exploitative and detrimental to the human condition. The term "Free Trade" is understood as trade agreements between various nations... that's not within the system as Mike Collins describes... does China have our system of free enterprise and constitutional protection of rights?
I don't understand how I've posted the definition of free market capitalism several times and you are claiming it is vague and unclear. Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties based on laws of supply and demand with competition creating a price equilibrium and with minimal government interference.
My argument is that there is nothing "evil" about it, there is no need for excessive government intervention in it, the principles are fair to everyone and everyone benefits and it has been wildly successful at lifting people from poverty and creating millionaires and billionaires. Arguments about trade policies and protectionism versus free trade are different arguments.
Purple:
First of all, TY for the definition and for repeating it.
"Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties based on laws of supply and demand with competition creating a price equilibrium and with minimal government interference."
OMFG!!! Boss, "free market capitalism," as you've defined it, is nothing more than "commerce," specifically commerce practiced under laissez faire.
Other folks might simply call it "exchange." Others might call it "business" or "the conduct of business." Still others, myself included, might call it "laissez faire" or "laissez faire capitalism." (click on the link, something you seem to have refrained from doing throughout this discussion) And what did you have to say to me when, in an attempt to introduce some clarity/precision into the discussion, I first mentioned laissez faire? (click the link and play the video you encounter there)
Furthermore, you in that post, which is post 262, asked me what are the downsides of free market trade, which I take to be your own synonym for "free market capitalism," which is just laissez faire capitalism, yet I had already in post 242 directly answered that question. Hell, I'd anticipated that question, which is part of why I provided the two links I did at the end of post 242.
To top it all off, I opened and closed post 242 by stating that I thought that in large measure you didn't know what you were talking about. I later referred to the incoherence that confounds your discussion/presentation of your ideas about "free market capitalism," aka laissez faire. Now it's clear I was correct. But that I could tell that isn't especially important. What is important is that this discussion has nowhere to go unless you have some heretofore unidentified (by economists and policymakers) solutions to offer to mitigate the downsides of capitalism. I knew that was and remains the only place for this discussion to go because I was pretty sure that what you were talking about is laissez faire. Now we see for sure that it is.
Well the ills of capitalism are so well understood and well discussed that the question "what are the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism/laissez faire/free market capitalism?", is a typical question on high school economics quizzes covering a small section of one of the first chapters, if not the first chapter, of pretty much any macro-/microeconomics textbook.
- Pros and Cons of Laissez Faire | APECSEC.org
- Pros and cons of capitalism | Economics Help
- EFFECTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
FWIW, there are several "principles of economics" textbooks available for free on the Internet. You seem to like economics, or at least you care about it. I strongly suggest you read one of them or enroll in the principles of macroeconomics class at your local community college. (audit it or take it for credit, it won't matter) Hell, you could even just buy the text and attend the lectures at a large local four-year university; the professor won't notice you at all in a 100+ person lecture hall and will have no idea whether you've actually enrolled at the institution and paid to be there. (I'd suggest a school, but you have your location listed as "Bumfuck" and I don't know where that is nor can I find it on a map.)
Below are some of the remarks you made using the term "free market capitalism." Read through them and time and time again, you'll see that, given your definition above (purple text in the quote), your term can be swapped with "commerce" or "business" or "exchange" or even "laissez faire capitalism" without altering the denotative nor connotative meaning of the remark.
In closing, I implore you once again to click on the links that go to content explaining the pros and cons of capitalism; if you do so, you'll see that the the ills you describe are right there among them. Also, I bid you read the following:
I bid you read the content at the links above because it's clear to me that while you've become aware of some of the concepts of supply and demand, you seem not to understand them at the most basic level, all the while having picked up somewhere modestly more "involved" aspects of them. It's as though you "get" "C, D, and E," but "A and B," the foundational ideas for "C, D, and E," aren't there, for were they, this discussion about what "free trade capitalism" would never have occurred because you'd have recognized that it is nothing but capitalism/laissez faire, just said so and advanced the conversation to addressing/discussing ways to overcome the ills of capitalism. At least I'm going to hope that the reason you didn't simply state -- and state it when I first raised that term into the discussion -- that what you meant by "free market capitalism" is nothing more than what it is, laissez faire (or just plain old capitalism), is because you just didn't know that's all it is.
NOTE:
To understand this post and the points I'm making in it, as with many of my posts, you need to click on the links and read/peruse the relevant content there. My comments summarize and/or draw conclusions and inferences based on the content at the links. The links are provided so that folks who don't fully understand the "stuff" that underpins my remarks will have access to it so they can comprehend my remarks.
you have some good thoughts, nice links etc.
I am not going to take on all of this, just for now I would like to point out that economics is not a science, it only has the veneer of science. At its heart economics is psychology with money. We could tackle that as a topic all its own, maybe later. You like to be precise, as do I, so I am going to focus down on just one point that illustrates just how bad economics really is as a discipline.
Supply demand equilibrium does not exist, never has existed. That fantasy is used time again and taught as gospel. The fact is markets are NEVER in equilibrium, NEVER. I am a trader and I have never seen any market reach equilibrium in over 20 years. I have followed corn, silver, gold, oil, stocks, bonds, currency cross rates, cattle, and even pork bellies. If you think about it, you are asking millions of people to all simultaneously agree on price, with a vanishing bid-ask spread.
The lesson is that econ is full of fallacy and religion, were it not then all these geniuses like Yellen would never have let 2008 happen in the first place, let alone be surprised it happened.
Green:
I beg to differ. So does Robert Schiller. Nobody thinks economics is a natural science as is physics or chemistry, or even math, which strictly is a language, namely the language used to describe as precisely as we are able the structure and/or behavior of things and humans. That said, attacking, discrediting, or questioning the findings/theories/models (science sense of the word) of rigorous economic inquiry and analysis on the basis of whether the discipline is or isn't a science is ridiculous and logically fallacious. Attacking a given finding (or set thereof) on the basis of it's not withstanding critical analysis, on the other hand is valid and sound.
Now that isn't to say you, I, or others cannot think whatever the hell we want to think about a given economic theory or prediction; we each can do that at will and with abandon. What matters, however, is whether what we each think is the result of rigorous critical analysis, not anecdotal analysis for example, that shows an economic theory, finding, or model to be invalid. Which one legitimately invalidates -- a whole theory, a specific finding that is part of a theory, or a specific model used to apply the theory in a predictive sense -- determines just how far one can "go" in saying there is something amiss. If I use "such and such" an economic model, say, to predict the demand for "tiddlywinks," your rigorous analysis may show that the model I used included or omitted a relevant factor, or that I included an irrelevant factor. Your doing that will legitimately invalidate my results, but it's not going to alter the validity of the theory I attempted to model. In other words, you will have shown that I misapplied/misinterpreted the theory, not that the theory I was modeling is flawed.
Pink:
You're remarks about equilibrium price imply (by your choice of verb tense) that equilibrium price is something that exists as a static sum. It is not. So what is the equilibrium price? In short, it's just the selling price of a good/service at any given point in time.
- It is the sum a buyer pays and a seller accepts in any given exchange.
- It is the sum paid when a buyer and seller agree to an exchange of a defined quantity of resources at an agreed upon price.
- When a store has a shirt offered at $50 and buyers buy it for $50, that is is the equilibrium price. What does it mean when a buyer agrees to buy multiple shirts instead of only one shirt for $50? It means the demand curve for that buyer and the supply curve for the seller each have shifted, the demand curve having shifted "up" and the supply curve having shifted "down/left." (See Graphs 6 and 8 below) That corresponds to demand shifting from curve D2 to D1 and the supply curve shifting from S2 to S1. (Sorry, but I'm not going to build my own graphs that have the correct line identifiers and movement arrows on them.)
Graphs 5 and 7 can be used to understand what happens when the quantity supplied/demanded is held constant and the selling price is what changes. When do we observe this happening? When the price of a good/service increases and a consumer (or consumers in general) buy just as much of it.
Do not confuse a shift in supply or demand with a change in the quantity supplied/demanded (see also: What Factor Causes a Change in Quantity Supplied?). (Shifts in one or the other curve vs. movements along a given curve.) The latter is what happens when the quantity a seller is willing to supply changes because the selling price has changed. The first graph below illustrates a change in the quantity supplied, the second illustrates, again in isolation, a change in the quantity demanded.
When do we observe this behavior -- a change in the quantity supplied -- on the part of a seller? To answer that question, consider what circumstance would lead a supplier to offer to sell two units a the same price it was formerly willing to sell just one. Alternatively, consider when a supplier would sell one unit at the price for which it used to sell two. What makes that happen? A shift in demand, not a change in the quantity demanded.
When do we observe buyers buying a higher quantity? Here again, consider when you would buy more of a good due to a change in the price. What makes that happen? A shift is supply, not a change in the quantity supplied.
The same thing is what's going on with movements along the demand curve. The second graph above illustrates a change in the quantity demanded.
What're the key take-aways about the distinctions?- That more quantity is supplied/demanded at every price along a curve when there is a shift in supply/demand. One can see this by drawing horizontal lines across the graphs. (Don't get confused. Even though the graph "looks" like price is a function of quantity, it is not. One can Google to find out why economists "flip" the axes.)
- Movements along a given curve are what happens when "the other" curve shifts. It's nifty to discuss them, but they aren't what happens very often, yet they happen more than "very rarely."
- That more quantity is supplied/demanded at every price along a curve when there is a shift in supply/demand. One can see this by drawing horizontal lines across the graphs. (Don't get confused. Even though the graph "looks" like price is a function of quantity, it is not. One can Google to find out why economists "flip" the axes.)
- The graphs above and how to interpret them don't change merely because we move from discussing one buyer and seller to discussing a market as a whole. You surely have seen this as a trader. What is/was the equilibrium price of, say, pork bellies last hour, yesterday, this morning, etc.? It is whatever they were selling at at that point in time. Is the equilibrium price constant for pork bellies? For a brief moment in time, yes, but not for any defined span of time.
What does that tell us about the graphs we see? It tells us that they reflect the market at a single point in time and that if we are of a mind to look at the graph (equilibrium price) of a given market, seller or buyer, whichever it be we seek to analyze, we need to aggregate the graphs over a period to arrive at a summary depiction that will have what amounts to an average equilibrium price for that period of time.
I'm not really sure what motivated your making the "pink" remarks.
- Perhaps what you are trying to communicate is the idea of determining what is the demand curve and supply curve for a given pair of buyer and seller or for the market as a whole?
- Perhaps you're remarking on the fluidity of equilibrium prices and conflating the fact that selling prices change "constantly?"
- Perhaps you are alluding to a common misperception about economics, the mistaken idea that it's charts and graphs, as we see them in texts, predict specific behavior of specific individuals in specific situations at specific points in time rather than explaining how people in general behave in response to scarcity, choice and imperfect information?
- Perhaps you're reflecting on the element of uncertainty given by the fact that that we cannot and do not define or know the supply and demand curves for every buyer and seller in every situation?
- Maybe some combination of the the things above? Maybe some mix of them and/or other things? Maybe something altogether different?
Note:
Do not confuse the various types of demand. In general economics parlance "demand" is synonymous with "buy," except in explicitly identified instances, one such being when the context is not effective/actual supply and effective/actual demand situations but rather implied demand/supply situations. One example of that sort of situation is when, say, a State Highway Administration solicits economic guidance about what will be the demand for a new road so they know how many lanes to make it, what and where entrances to it and exits from it should be built, and from "where to where" to build it. That is an example of derived demand.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
Red:
What are you talking about? What makes O-care coercive? Is anyone forced to participate in Obamacare? No.
Does O-care define/mandate the premiums individuals pay for insurance? No. Just no. The price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand.
Is there a price to pay for not having health insurance? There is, but one is nonetheless free to not be a party to an Obamacare-type of exchange. Is that tariff-free exchange? No; the penalty one pays for not having insurance is essentially, economically, a tariff. Not having health insurance, for example, makes the cost of obtaining healthcare higher than it otherwise would be.
Is there a (higher) price to pay for "everyone" being health-insured? There is, but that cost is a reflection of the fact that when "everyone" is health-insured and premiums are group-based rather than individually derived, sellers of the coverage have increased the price of coverage in response to the higher total sums they must pay to providers because under O-care insurers must cover folks who are less healthy than they would have covered prior to O-care. (One can argue over whether those less healthy folks should or should not be covered, or whether they belong in the same group as more healthy individuals, but that's not in the scope of this level of discussion, is it?)
Blue:
We agree that pure laissez faire doesn't exist. We seem not to have agreed on the cause. As far as I can tell, it does not exist because of the execution of authority granted by the Constitution, that authority having been and being used to mitigate the downsides of laissez faire.
IIRC, your primary objection is that you think the barriers the government has implemented to boost the equity in our limited freedom system (as opposed to the 100% freedom of unbridled capitalism) is that the government defines the prices at which goods/services can be exchanged. (quantity sold/demanded is a function of price) Aside from the case of "natural monopoly" goods/services, and the labor price floor, I'm not aware of anything for which that is true. Are you?
Similar threads
