|
Twirling
Barred Spiral


Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
Economic stance
#5523975 - 04/17/06 09:50 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm rather flexible with how I think things should be done with the economy. It seems pretty obvious to me that there needs to be a blend of control over the market, as well as uninvolvement (or support) on the part of the government to allow businesses to grow. A market which is utterly and completely free from any sort of regulation would be destructive when considering monopolies, labor rights, insider trading, environmental damage, and so forth. And of course, a market which is filled with government red tape can, potentially, force businesses to spend money on adhering to government regulations which could have been invested.
Economic ideology, at least a dogmatic one, seems to be a weird thing simply because the economy changes so rapidly as to require a more analytic approach, rather than ideological one. Not to mention that when actually passing economic legislation, it's more important evaluate how the bill/budget itself is written, I.E. avoiding wasteful spending & so forth.
Probably the biggest problem, perhaps even more than outsourcing, is the extent to which both the Republican & Democrat parties use economic ideology to justify very crooked deals. Democrats tend to tie up more money in government spending to each person's individual state/district as a way of pleasing the voters in those states/districts (and there is always the potential for that spending to be in corrupt contracts). The Republican party is also often guilty of using government spending to fund intentionally over-priced contracts (such as through the military-industrial complex, and rebuilding efforts), but tend to also use the idea of relaxing government regulations to please their industrial constituents (such as the relaxing of environmental regulations). Of course, these generalizations, and it goes both ways.
I guess I consider myself rather pragmatic when it comes to the economy. I only wish campaign finance reform was a bigger issue, as I think it would have a huge impact.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on economics?
-------------------- The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.
|
Vvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Twirling]
#5523993 - 04/17/06 09:54 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Twirling]
#5524245 - 04/17/06 10:49 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anyway, what are your thoughts on economics?
Laissez-faire Capitalist. The government should have no control over economic matters. Not even the authority to collect taxes or to print currency.
Phred
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Twirling]
#5524473 - 04/17/06 11:34 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I support the Georgist position of having a high land value tax as the primary source of government revenue. For the time being, I support a moderate welfare state, though I think some social services would be rendered obsolete by a Georgist economic system. I'm generally anti-protectionist and pro-free market, but not as dogmatically so as many libertarians. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe public health care might be a good idea afterall. In any case, I generally favor pragmatism over idealism.
--------------------
|
Twirling
Barred Spiral


Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Silversoul]
#5525215 - 04/17/06 02:12 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bi0 said: http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm
Quote:
Paradigm said: I support the Georgist position of having a high land value tax as the primary source of government revenue.
These are both interesting ideas, and I'm going to have to read more about them when I get the chance. The overview leaves more questions than it does answers, but that's the nature of economic structures.
Quote:
Phred said: Laissez-faire Capitalist. The government should have no control over economic matters. Not even the authority to collect taxes or to print currency.
How would the market be protected from things such as monopolies, insider trading, and labor standards? And where would the currency come from if the government didn't print it? (Just a note, given the nature of our last discussion, I want to make it clear that these are questions just to help my understanding of the theory. I'm playing Devil's advocate here, not trying to "stump" you.)
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Silversoul]
#5525527 - 04/17/06 03:36 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: I support a moderate welfare state
I'm beginning to wonder if maybe public health care might be a good idea afterall.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Twirling]
#5525535 - 04/17/06 03:38 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Twirling writes:
Quote:
How would the market be protected from things such as monopolies...
Coercive monopolies cannot arise in the first place (or at most last longer than the life of a patent) absent government action. Non-coercive monopolies harm no one. The whole "monopolies are inevitable under Capitalism" canard has been discredited thoroughly over and over again. Yes, in a small town there will very likely be just one pharmacy, one laundry, one grocery store, etc. Do you consider that an example of a "monopoly"? If so, then I will admit Capitalism allows that to occur.
Quote:
... insider trading...
I fail to see the problem with insider trading.
Quote:
... and labor standards?
Be more specific, please. Are you talking about laws against children under a certain age working in factories? Hazardous working environments?
Quote:
And where would the currency come from if the government didn't print it?
People managed for millennia without government-printed currency. Not only did they manage, they did better than with government-printed fiat currency, because specie (gold and silver bullion and coins, for example) cannot be hyper-inflated the way paper currency can be.
Phred
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Phred]
#5525553 - 04/17/06 03:43 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Coercive monopolies cannot arise in the first place (or at most last longer than the life of a patent) absent government action. Non-coercive monopolies harm no one. The whole "monopolies are inevitable under Capitalism" canard has been discredited thoroughly over and over again. Yes, in a small town there will very likely be just one pharmacy, one laundry, one grocery store, etc. Do you consider that an example of a "monopoly"? If so, then I will admit Capitalism allows that to occur.
What about Standard Oil?
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
What about Standard Oil? Standard Oil was never a monopoly, much less a coercive monopoly.
Phred
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Phred]
#5525566 - 04/17/06 03:48 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Why was it broken up then?
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
You're asking ME why government does stupid things?
Far from being a "monopoly," Standard Oil's share of petroleum refining was approximately 64% at the time of trial. Moreover, there were at least 147 other domestic oil-refining competitors in the market ? and some of these were large, vertically integrated firms such as Texaco, Gulf Oil, and Sun. Kerosene outputs had expanded enormously (contrary to usual monopolistic conduct); and prices for kerosene had fallen from more than $2 per gallon in the early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time of the trial. So much for the myth of the Standard Oil "monopoly." The truth of the matter is it never needed to be broken up at all.
Phred
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Phred]
#5525667 - 04/17/06 04:23 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: You're asking ME why government does stupid things?
Yes I was you evil capitalist you.
|
Twirling
Barred Spiral


Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Phred]
#5525871 - 04/17/06 05:08 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Coercive monopolies cannot arise in the first place (or at most last longer than the life of a patent) absent government action.
I'm not sure I understand why that would be. Wouldn't a company, when large enough & with enough power in the market, be able to beat competitors who don't have enough capital to compete?
Quote:
Phred said: Non-coercive monopolies harm no one. The whole "monopolies are inevitable under Capitalism" canard has been discredited thoroughly over and over again. Yes, in a small town there will very likely be just one pharmacy, one laundry, one grocery store, etc. Do you consider that an example of a "monopoly"? If so, then I will admit Capitalism allows that to occur.
Well a small town would be an example of supply vs. demand. Small towns which have only one source of a limited type of service (like the ones you mentioned) don't have enough demand to support too many options. I guess the only problem I would see with that is if price gouging occurs; I.E. nobody is going to take time to invest in a town with 500 people, so who ever happens to be there can set the price to absurd amounts. Is there a solution to that?
Quote:
I fail to see the problem with insider trading.
Really? Doesn't it seem to artifically inflate/deflate the market, thus leading to potentially unrealistic values on stocks? Or, in worst case scenarios, allow people to control the market through unethical business pratices (such as Enron, hiding losses to boast their market value, or telling investors that the stock's value is worth more than it's, knowingly, going to be)?
Quote:
Are you talking about laws against children under a certain age working in factories? Hazardous working environments?
Well, all of the above, but also sub-living wages, manipulation of retirement benefits, or is this seen by Laissez-faire Capitalists as the responsibility of the labor unions/what have you?
Quote:
People managed for millennia without government-printed currency. Not only did they manage, they did better than with government-printed fiat currency, because specie (gold and silver bullion and coins, for example) cannot be hyper-inflated the way paper currency can be.
How would you view paper currency backed by silver/gold? Would that qualify? Or would it require money to be transfered through actual physical values of metals/whathaveyou?
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Twirling]
#5526256 - 04/17/06 06:38 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Ban tobacco, high fat foods and ration sweets and alcohol. Require people to get a certain amount of exercise every week. This way people will be more healthy so they can live and work longer and be healthier in old age.
|
Twirling
Barred Spiral


Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Luddite]
#5526274 - 04/17/06 06:42 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Ban tobacco? That would start World War III!
|
downforpot
Stranger

Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Luddite]
#5526775 - 04/17/06 08:22 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Luddite said: Ban tobacco, high fat foods and ration sweets and alcohol. Require people to get a certain amount of exercise every week. This way people will be more healthy so they can live and work longer and be healthier in old age.
Yay, work longer and live meaningless lives, yay.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/4th25 "And I don't care if he was handcuffed Then shot in his head All I know is dead bodies Can't fuck with me again"
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
RandalFlagg said:
Coming from her, I'll take that as a compliment.
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Twirling]
#5529335 - 04/18/06 12:38 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Twirling writes:
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand why that would be. Wouldn't a company, when large enough & with enough power in the market, be able to beat competitors who don't have enough capital to compete?
Could some established companies beat some newcomer companies? Sure. Could they beat all of them? Nope. And that's the whole beef people have with monopolies -- that there would be but a single provider for a good or service. Does the fact MacDonald's had an enormous head start on Wendy's mean you can't eat at Wendy's? Nope. Or the fact Coca Cola had a head start on Pepsi mean you can't buy a Pepsi? Nope.
You will note the existence of Wendy's and Pepsi was not due to government busting up MacDonald's or Coca Cola.
Quote:
Well a small town would be an example of supply vs. demand. Small towns which have only one source of a limited type of service (like the ones you mentioned) don't have enough demand to support too many options. I guess the only problem I would see with that is if price gouging occurs; I.E. nobody is going to take time to invest in a town with 500 people, so who ever happens to be there can set the price to absurd amounts. Is there a solution to that?
Sure. If the existing grocery store sets its prices too high, someone in the town will realize he can undercut the existing grocery, and get into the grocery business himself.
Quote:
Really? Doesn't insider trading seem to artifically inflate/deflate the market, thus leading to potentially unrealistic values on stocks?
Nope. All insider trading really boils down to is people with knowledge others don't yet possess trading stock they might otherwise not have traded. Once the knowledge is released to the public at large, the value of that particular stock (which might temporarily have been higher or lower than otherwise) corrects to normal market levels. Did a few people make more money than they otherwise would have? Sure. So what? Besides, the few temporary and relatively minor fluctuations in share prices of a single stock due to insider trading pale in comparison to the massive and much longer-lasting swings on the stocks of entire business sectors induced by government changing the rules of the game midstream -- something which occurs constantly.
Quote:
Or, in worst case scenarios, allow people to control the market through unethical business pratices (such as Enron, hiding losses to boast their market value, or telling investors that the stock's value is worth more than it's, knowingly, going to be)?
There is a difference between insider trading and fraud. Prosecuting those who commit fraud is clearly the business of government -- we're talking Capitalism here, not Anarchy.
Quote:
Well, all of the above, but also sub-living wages...
Do you believe two people with exactly the same experience and skill set, performing exactly the same work for the same company, should be paid differently? Because that is directly relevant to the issue of "living wages".
Quote:
... manipulation of retirement benefits...
I have no idea what you mean by that. Please clarify.
Quote:
How would you view paper currency backed by silver/gold?
I would have no problem with that. That's exactly what bank notes were. The thing is, when private banks issued bank notes, they WERE backed up with real specie. Such is not the case with the fiat currency governments produce. If a government were to some day amass huge reserves of gold and silver and platinum, then issue their own "government notes" redeemable on demand for specie, I see no reason why people would not accept such notes as legitimate currency. But I also see no reason why government would bother to involve itself in that when the identical service was already being performed by dozens of provate financial institutions. It would be a wasteful duplication of effort -- an unneeded redundancy.
Phred
--------------------
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Phred]
#5551825 - 04/24/06 05:49 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
Quote:
Anyway, what are your thoughts on economics?
Laissez-faire Capitalist. The government should have no control over economic matters. Not even the authority to collect taxes or to print currency.
Phred,
I've been meaning to ask you... You said you got on the laissez-faire thing a long long time ago. Is there an interesting story that goes along with that? A specific ugly incident with a liberal Canadian? Or just a very good book on capitalism (like whatever you turned Trendal onto)?
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: Gijith]
#5552200 - 04/24/06 07:29 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gijith said: Or just a very good book on capitalism (like whatever you turned Trendal onto)?
What really got me turned on to it was a documentary series called "Free To Choose" by Milton Friedman.
Before I saw his docu I was of the mind that, in order to properly consider oneself a "member of society" one must be willing to give things to the society, or "greater good", such as taxes. Taxes would help the members of society who require help - thus helping all of the society. A rather socialist lean, no doubt.
Friedman's explanations in the docu were perfect! I still think that some good can come from taxation and social support programs...but Friedman convinced me that the better solution is to provide total economic freedom - and through that good things will come. A society can exist as a society of individuals, but only if those individuals have the freedom to choose.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: trendal]
#5552210 - 04/24/06 07:32 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Here's some links to the torrents for the Free to Choose program, if anyone wants them:
Classic 1980 10-part series: (I haven't seen this one) http://www.mininova.org/tor/88989
Updated 5-part 1990 series: (the one I watched - was great) http://www.mininova.org/tor/146786
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: trendal]
#5552358 - 04/24/06 08:08 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
How do you feel about your own country's heavy socialist leanings?
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
|
I think they do a lot of good for the country, and probably contribute to Canada's high standard of living, low crime rate, and the health of our society.
While I agree with Friedman that total economic freedom is always a good thing...I'm not so sure that such a state is feasible in the real world. Certainly not in the world today. Too many governments, even the "capitalist" ones, interfere with their economy. True Capitalism is probably as much of a pipe-dream as any other "pure" economic/political system.
Though it's never bad to dream, and there's always hope.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
|
Also, Canada doesn't have a heavy socialist lean at all....it's much more of a slight lean.
Countries with a heavy socialist lean would be countries like Norway and Sweeden. Canada doesn't hold a candle to them, when it comes to socialism.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: trendal]
#5552511 - 04/24/06 08:37 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said: Countries with a heavy socialist lean would be countries like Norway and Sweeden. Canada doesn't hold a candle to them, when it comes to socialism.
On a 1-10 scale (1 being pure capitalism and 10 being pure socialism), I surmise that the following applies:
U.S. = 3 Canada = 5 Sweden/Norway = 8
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
|
Yeah I'll agree with that scale.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
downforpot
Stranger

Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
|
Re: Economic stance [Re: trendal]
#5553455 - 04/24/06 11:52 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm am totaly against too much government control like communism but if you think the other extreme is better, you are just like a commie. Keep it moderate.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/4th25 "And I don't care if he was handcuffed Then shot in his head All I know is dead bodies Can't fuck with me again"
|
|