The end of capitalism? - Page 10 - Political Fever

GeneCosta · #91 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSDavis

Yeah, it's perverse what government intervention can do to labor competition.

Government intervention on behalf of capitalists = capitalism.

A free market should have NO intellectual property, NO fractional reserve banking, NO limited liability, NO land commoditization, and NO corporate personhood. Austrian and Chicago schoolers don't want a free market. They want capitalism without any concessions to the working class. Vulgar libertarians like Von Mises, Rothbard, and Friedman were all too quick to defend corporations and lament against the poor.

Capitalism fails every time because it relies on a class of individuals who acquire wealth from others' labor using the corporate model. To back up this claim, they use the state.

RSDavis · #92 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

[font="Arial"] Government intervention on behalf of capitalists = capitalism.

No, that equals mercantilism.

GeneCosta · #93 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 01:42 PM

You wouldn't know the difference whenever the subject of "gold standard" is brought up.

Mercantilism, like welfarism, is a form of capitalism. Honestly I don't feel like debating over semantics when this issue has already been settled. Capitalism has been defended as the system which emerged four-five hundred years ago when the bourgeoisie overtook feudal relations using force. Capitalism is defined as "private ownership and corporate ownership." What you're arguing in favor of is (in part) classical liberalism.

Mercantilism doesn't mean what you're making it out to be, though. It was a specific set of ideas concerning colonies. Even Adam Smith and John Mills believed in intervention on some issues. Outside of banana republics, modern-day capitalism isn't concerned with colonies.

I do have to question what you're envisioning as a free market, though - because I think it's legitimate for workers to seize their owners' property if the owner isn't contributing his labor. Labor is the only human quantity to wealth.

RSDavis · #94 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

You wouldn't know the difference whenever the subject of "gold standard" is brought up.

Mercantilism, like welfarism, is a form of capitalism. Honestly I don't feel like debating over semantics when this issue has already been settled. Capitalism has been defended as the system which emerged four-five hundred years ago when the bourgeoisie overtook feudal relations using force. What you're arguing in favor of is (in part) classical liberalism.

Mercantilism doesn't mean what you're making it out to be, though. It was a specific set of ideas concerning colonies. Outside of banana republics, modern-day capitalism isn't concerned with colonies.

Whatever, man. Call it what you want, it ain't capitalism.

Technocratic_Utilitarian · #95 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 02:13 PM

Mercantilism is an economic system wherein a central plank of domestic and foreign policy is positive exchange. The health of a nation is predicated on the net gain in trade. A nation regulates international trade to create a positive trade balance where there are greater exports. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the idea was to maintain Gold in the Empire while taking it from others. It can also consist of heavy government intervention to give certain businesses international advantages (a form of monopoly granting and subsidization, such as was the case of the East Indian Company).

Mercantalism tends to work with colonies to generate the positive economic balance in the nation by sucking resources from outliers, bringing it to the Mother Country, and then shipping finished goods elsewhere throughout the Empire or outside of the Empire. It attempts to create a form of autarky.

It typically is characteristic of significant interference in the economy at the trade component. England's Navigation Laws are a good example of trade manipulation of Mercantilism.

Mercantilism is compatible with a capitalist market economy, as one certainly did exist. It is not, however, a laissez-faire capitalist system.

Mercantalism is also not necessarily the same as a generic intervention to benefit capitalists. That's something slightly different.

Technocratic_Utilitarian · #96 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

This was the important sentence: "The numbers show that high average incomes, a low unemployment rate, extensive economic freedom, and relatively open labor markets tend to boost happiness levels, while generous welfare handouts, lower levels of inequality, and bigger government have little or no positive effect."

In the sources I provided, I never said bigger government always has a positive effect. The problem is in the Libertarian assumption, which statistics do not show always true, the happiest nations must be those with the smallest government, least regulation (freest markets), and highest wages, and fastest growth. They always mention "growth" as the be-all of what's good. This just isn't true given the high volume of happier people in countries more heavily socialized and have "smaller growth" than in the United States.

Huge welfare states might not necessarily make them happy (never argued it did). But welfare services to an extent can help if you do not have consistent, quality, affordable access to private analogous services. Which is why people want public services in many countries. France, as I agreed with you, has swung too far in one direction and has created factors that limit happiness (large unemployment, etc).

Quote:

Even according to the study I posted, Denmark and Sweden score VERY high on the happiness scale. They have robust welfare states, but also non-interventionist foreign policy and extremely free trade, which helps to balance it.

If Sweden scores very high, then that evil big government can't really be all that bad and it doesn't necessarily follow that the best, happiest states are those with the freest internal markets, highest wages, and fastest growth.

RSDavis · #97 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

If Sweden scores very high, than that evil big government can't really be all that bad. They are quite happy with it, even though they might also be happy without it. I doubt they would be as happy without several key public services, though. The key is finding the right balance of public and private services. This can vary depending on the quality or probability of access to private services.

I wasn't disagreeing. I was actually backing you up a bit - there is a certain threshold of freedom an economy must meet and after that, happiness varies.

Of course, I don't think that is necessarily a good way to determine public policy - give em just enough freedom so they don't complain... ;)

- R

Technocratic_Utilitarian · #98 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSDavis

I wasn't disagreeing. I was actually backing you up a bit - there is a certain threshold of freedom an economy must meet and after that, happiness varies.

Of course, I don't think that is necessarily a good way to determine public policy - give em just enough freedom so they don't complain... ;)

- R

Definitely. I wouldn't want to live in Cuba, or something. But I am happy with a form of welfare. I like the idea that, if something grossly unfortunate happens, I won't be allowed to starve to death.

I think it requires some form of balancing of economic liberties and social welfarism. I wouldn't want the horrible consequences France has, but I think they are doing something especially wrong compared to some of the other countries.

Although I find it ironic how they do very well on their nuclear policy. I wish we did that here.

They also tend to screw up their immigration policies and create large, assimilated mobs.

GeneCosta · #99 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

France, as I agreed with you, has swung too far in one direction and has created factors that limit happiness (large unemployment, etc)

France's limited growth is due to where its taxation is levied, not social policies. Right-libertarians like to ignore that little token of thought. Land value taxes, for example, improve production.

And let's remember the French are very satisfied with the quality of their services - as they should be. Their health coverage plan is a multi-pronged approach, and it has astronomical success.

The solution to absurd amounts of wealth is not taxing labor (capitalists don't work for most of their wealth anyway). It's cutting down corporations.

Quote:

Whatever, man. Call it what you want, it ain't capitalism.

Yeah! Let's just blow off 500 years of history because Von Mises and Ayn "Forests don't exist" Rand said so!

RSDavis · #**100** (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

Yeah! Let's just blow off 500 years of history because Von Mises and Ayn "Forests don't exist" Rand said so!

I think TU covered it pretty well.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password