Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 6:18 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why does it have to be government vs market?
#1
Why does it have to be government vs market?
I absolutely hate that people support American crony capitalism and pretend that economic conservatism is actually promoting individual economic autonomy, and not just lining the pockets of corporations and the super wealthy while inhibiting social mobility. Do economic consrvatives (so, this includes Republicans as well as libertarians) actually know what a free market looks like? As it stands, it would be impossible to achieve in the United States. If the government decided to entirely deregulate almost everything tomorrow, you would doubtlessly be looking at a corporatocracy (some may argue we already are one, but I'd disagree.)  Despite being a "leftist," I actually do believe in the power of a TRULY free market. And I think it could be achieved with a bigger government. I've been studying in detail the political philosophy of social democracy and the Nordic model. The idea is that, after the government expands entitlements substantially to its citizens (universal healthcare, free or very low cost education, and a comprehensive welfare state), the individual is now truly empowered and has the means to be successful that are nearly entirely absent from American capitalism. Only then can the government begin to slowly deregulate the market and let business be done nearly unrestricted.

This idea makes a lot of sense to me and my favorite thing about it is that it completely tears down the bullshit Reaganist idea that the government and the market need to constantly be at odds with one another, rather than working together to benefit each other and the individual.

Thoughts? I could be mistaken and idealistic about how well this works, but the Nordic countries have been doing very well economically and they consistently rank among happiest countries in the world. Any citizens of those states here?
[Image: nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWT...dc2a24480e]
Reply
#2
RE: Why does it have to be government vs market?
Deregulation is always a bad idea. An unfettered market is an unprincipled market is a killing market.

And humanity has not arrived at a better solution yet than a strong government with big clunking fists.

Edit: A free market is a bit like Churchill's description of democracy in reverse, it is the best system apart from all the others. The reason for that being is that it only works well under conditions with many small players in genuine competition with no big fish in the market, yet the conditions it creates lead to only two ends monopoly or oligopoly where the one, or small few, dominating players control the market and use the lack of constraints to dominate the market. Microsoft having a 90%+ market share is a feature of free market capitalism, not a bug.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli

Home
Reply
#3
RE: Why does it have to be government vs market?
Quote:

I absolutely hate that people support American crony capitalism and pretend that economic conservatism is actually promoting individual economic autonomy

I call them dumbasses.
Reply
#4
RE: Why does it have to be government vs market?
(December 27, 2017 at 10:03 pm)Wololo Wrote: Deregulation is always a bad idea. 

Even as a Marxist, I have to disagree with this. What about regulations that don't really do anything to benefit the public? What about regulations that were put in place to favor large corporations (who paid for them through lobbying efforts)?

Perhaps you didn't mean it so generally, or perhaps you meant "deregulation for its own sake" is always a bad idea...

Jus' sayin'....
Reply
#5
RE: Why does it have to be government vs market?
I do not usually do politics( it is to imoral for my) but i like the thread.
You say that the problem is that the government helps the whealthy and the powerful to remain that way, but I can't agree with you here because many have came to power with nothing to start with. But lets say it is true , how would it be if it weren't that way? I think the problem isn't the whealty and the governments but the people , you see , not everyone can be whealty but everyone wants to be the big fish , that is the problem , people are missguided. All our lifes we are told to have big dreams of whealt , and for what? A couple of millions to me , a couple to you and you have lots of people living in poverty.
In my country we have free and universal health care but the standar is so low that you have a big chance to catch a virus when in a hospital. We have low cost education , you know what is the result of that ? Nobody wants to work anymore, everybody wants to be a boss and they clim on their high horse and criticize every working class citizen and do not realize the importance of the working class. And I have amd example on how the lowest standard job is making your life better , the garbege man.
Now lets see how his job improves our life , once a week the garbege man comes and takes your garbage , now if it weren't for him you would have to take your own garbage to the garbage dump , now lets say that this process takes you an hour. A year has 365 days , wich means 52.15 weeks , in 30 years you have 1564.5 weeks , wich means 1564.5 hours that you had to spend to take your garbage .If you transform the hours into days you have 2.15 months free to use how you see fit because of the garbageman but what a low standard job it is.

For me the problem isn't politics , it s us , if we change , politics change.
Edit: In the world there are available $80 trilion divide it by 7 bilion and you get 11428.57 dolars per person. The system is flawed and there isn't much we can do to fix it.
Reply
#6
RE: Why does it have to be government vs market?
(December 27, 2017 at 8:23 pm)Aegon Wrote: I absolutely hate that people support American crony capitalism and pretend that economic conservatism is actually promoting individual economic autonomy, and not just lining the pockets of corporations and the super wealthy while inhibiting social mobility. Do economic consrvatives (so, this includes Republicans as well as libertarians) actually know what a free market looks like? As it stands, it would be impossible to achieve in the United States. If the government decided to entirely deregulate almost everything tomorrow, you would doubtlessly be looking at a corporatocracy (some may argue we already are one, but I'd disagree.)  Despite being a "leftist," I actually do believe in the power of a TRULY free market. And I think it could be achieved with a bigger government. I've been studying in detail the political philosophy of social democracy and the Nordic model. The idea is that, after the government expands entitlements substantially to its citizens (universal healthcare, free or very low cost education, and a comprehensive welfare state), the individual is now truly empowered and has the means to be successful that are nearly entirely absent from American capitalism. Only then can the government begin to slowly deregulate the market and let business be done nearly unrestricted.

This idea makes a lot of sense to me and my favorite thing about it is that it completely tears down the bullshit Reaganist idea that the government and the market need to constantly be at odds with one another, rather than working together to benefit each other and the individual.

Thoughts? I could be mistaken and idealistic about how well this works, but the Nordic countries have been doing very well economically and they consistently rank among happiest countries in the world. Any citizens of those states here?

I'd argue that they mythology of economic conservatism has supplanted Christian mythology as the dominant cultural force in the US and (too many) other places in the western world. We have more than 4 decades of evidence... it doesn't work, except for the upper quintile.

On a side note, it seems to me that free market evangelists are vehemently opposed to government intervention in the market only to the point where their pet industry isn't negatively affected. As soon as the market kicks the shit out of their bottom line, they will elbow their way to the front of the queue to receive government handouts.

But don't you dare increase the corporate tax rate in the meantime, you fucking democracy hatin' commies!
Sporadic poster
Reply
#7
RE: Why does it have to be government vs market?
[Image: capitalism-isnt-working-2.jpg]
Reply
#8
RE: Why does it have to be government vs market?
Here's the problem with guvmint:




They will never ever, left to their own devices, ever ever come up with something even 1/2 as tasty as that.

And it don't matter how big guvmint gets, it will forever be beyond their ability to come with that !!


IOWs, Your vorlon is jonesing bad for some Chinese !
 The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it. 




Reply
#9
RE: Why does it have to be government vs market?
(December 28, 2017 at 11:37 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Here's the problem with guvmint:




They will never ever, left to their own devices, ever ever come up with something even 1/2 as tasty as that.

And it don't matter how big guvmint gets, it will forever be beyond their ability to come with that !!


IOWs, Your vorlon is jonesing bad for some Chinese !



YUM! (Except for the shrimp. I hate shrimp.)



But I don't think the OP was endorsing a centrally planned economy in which all grocery stores are drab, government-run commissaries and all restaurants serve gruel. 

(December 27, 2017 at 8:23 pm)Aegon Wrote: The idea is that, after the government expands entitlements substantially to its citizens (universal healthcare, free or very low cost education, and a comprehensive welfare state), the individual is now truly empowered and has the means to be successful that are nearly entirely absent from American capitalism. Only then can the government begin to slowly deregulate the market and let business be done nearly unrestricted.

The idea is that, through support from a foundation of entitlements, individuals are free to develop themselves. I rather like the idea. I think that by focusing on the happiness of all individual citizens, a society will find that people innately want to be productive. As it stands now, a great portion of the population has little chance to develop themselves, and they find themselves in dead end jobs, working to make plastic trinkets for corporations when they could be of greater benefit to society.

A system described by the OP allows people the necessary free time and resources to tap into their own creative/productive potential. And while McDonalds or Wendy's might not fair as well under such a system, a rarified chef might be afforded the opportunity to develop her culinary talents. If w'ere lucky, she might even open a restaurant down the street.  Hungry

In America we have a system of safety nets which protect the most impoverished of us from starvation. In debates concerning welfare, our officials often say things like "We're funding deadbeats etc." But what I think we should do is expand entitlements to encompass around half of the working population. What I view as central to any economy of this kind is a robust system of education. It's easy to point out how something like this could drain the public coffers, but one should keep in mind that this economy would put more money into the hands of common citizens. What do people do with money? They spend it! And a ton of money-spending consumers has been shown to stimulate an economy more than a few billionaires with tax breaks ever could.
Reply
#10
RE: Why does it have to be government vs market?
(December 27, 2017 at 10:51 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(December 27, 2017 at 10:03 pm)Wololo Wrote: Deregulation is always a bad idea. 

Even as a Marxist, I have to disagree with this. What about regulations that don't really do anything to benefit the public? What about regulations that were put in place to favor large corporations (who paid for them through lobbying efforts)?

Perhaps you didn't mean it so generally, or perhaps you meant "deregulation for its own sake" is always a bad idea...

Jus' sayin'....

Deregulation in the political and economic senses is not about pruning bad regulations which stifle innovation or productivity with no good end. It is about the wholesale destruction of regulation simply because it exists. When you hear a politician or business person talking about getting rid of useless red tape they're talking about getting rid of the rules which force banks to capitalise properly, construction companies to ensure their sites are safe, landlords to venure their rental properties aren't death traps in a fire emergency and so on.

Look at economic history and you'll find that regulation is rarely, if ever, a barrier to economic performance. That's because when you deregulate you incentivise bad actions and uneconomic actovities.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli

Home
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Founding fathers view of government Won2blv 38 2287 March 21, 2021 at 11:48 am
Last Post: Angrboda
  The greatest FU to the government this 4th of July Foxaèr 10 1217 June 15, 2020 at 8:35 am
Last Post: Little lunch
  Why does comb over Mussolini think he's king with unlimited powers? GODZILLA 9 730 November 29, 2018 at 4:54 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  A Good Time For A Government Shutdown TwoKnives99 18 2295 November 19, 2018 at 12:25 am
Last Post: tackattack
  Why does Politics bring out the worst in so many people? GODZILLA 21 1911 October 10, 2018 at 9:09 am
Last Post: Draconic Aiur
  Government workers that promote AA Bahana 16 2226 April 7, 2018 at 10:53 pm
Last Post: Ravenshire
  Government By A Fragile Ego Minimalist 11 2937 August 23, 2017 at 6:36 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  Meanwhile, in Romania - half a million march against the government pocaracas 14 2672 February 25, 2017 at 2:08 pm
Last Post: Zenith
  It Turns Out That Trump DOES Have A Sense Of Humour! BrianSoddingBoru4 5 1491 January 20, 2017 at 7:52 pm
Last Post: chimp3
  Sessions: Secularists Unfit For Government Secular Elf 9 1368 January 19, 2017 at 1:18 am
Last Post: vorlon13



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)