NationStates Jolt Archive

A couple of posts have discussed different economic models and their possibilities lately, so I felt inspired to make a new one covering all the models. I hope to see a debate about why people prefer one over another, and possibly some rants about the negative aspects of them as well. No angry rants tho, please :)
Just to get this thing started, here's a list of some common ideas.

Liberal Socialism/Mixed Economy - The one the western world currently use.
Capitalism - The unregulated form of what we westerners currently use.
Planned Economy/Communism - The scary red model :p
Participatory Economy/Anarchist Model - Essentially a decentralised and competition based bastardisation of Planned Economy.

Which one do you prefer?
Why do you prefer it?
How would you like it implimented?

My opinion: I'm not a very idealistic person myself. I don't see how we can continue running our economies like we do. Most of the world - in the widest sense of the word - is suffering pretty badly because of it.
I think working towards implimenting a participatory economic model would be a good idea. Perhaps it won't work, but I can't see what we have to loose.

By slow implimentation, I mean slow. A time frame of maybe 50 years, should be good enough not to kill our industries... I think. I'm not entirely sure though.
The idea of community businesses appeals to me a lot. I think we're screwing the working class (and that's putting it mildly) right now. I also think our corporate laws etc. Is doing a lot of harm. Businesses with the power to buy governments is a really really bad idea. Why? Because a bottom line is all that matters to a corporation. The means are irrelevant. If driving a bulldzer through some shitty tribe in a forest means it's cheaper and faster to fell trees, then that's what a corporation will do. If it's cheaper to sponser a couple of politicians' ideas, in order for them to oppose environmental regulations, than it is to pollute less, then it will buy the politicians.
Personally I think it's a nightmare.

What do you guys think? - If you want to change the type of government, remember to specify why and to what. Cheers all :)

I'm rather fond of syndicalism. Decentralized communist economy where each industry operates independantly of one another run by their respective labor unions. If nothing else, the results of such an economy would be interesting.

Minimal-Regulation Capitalism: The market is free to do what it wants overall, but the government has a well-defined policy of control systems to keep companies from monopolizing or abusing consumers and workers. The body that oversees this will be nonpartisan and selected by referendum preferrably, or by majority Senate vote.

Minimal taxation, with the private sector running everything but the basic necessities of government.

Capitalism with minimal regulation. Basically, just restrictions on health code violations and such. Trust-busting laws as well.
Government role should be limited to defense, roads, and education.

I'm rather fond of syndicalism. Decentralized communist economy where each industry operates independantly of one another run by their respective labor unions. If nothing else, the results of such an economy would be interesting.
Yay for you :)
I wonder why more people interested in this? As far as I can see, it combines all the great things of both capitalism and planned economy. Competition, sefl ownership, decentralization and community run economy.

Minimal-Regulation Capitalism: The market is free to do what it wants overall, but the government has a well-defined policy of control systems to keep companies from monopolizing or abusing consumers and workers. The body that oversees this will be nonpartisan and selected by referendum preferrably, or by majority Senate vote.

Minimal taxation, with the private sector running everything but the basic necessities of government.

How would such a minimalistic government control business conduct? I mean, with privatised sanitation, water, power and who knows what, how would a government be able to oppose business demands?
Imagine for a moment that a sanitation company kick rates up so high that citizens almost can't pay. When the government tries to intervene, the company will say "Alright, but we can't help it. If we lower prices, sanitation deteriorate to the point of being non-functional". If the government has power to really do something - like forcing the company to comply - the company can just sell off bits of the sanitation to new companies of it's own creation. Then the government will have to fight, say 10, different companies instead of just one. And these ten companies can further say - and probably document - that it's impossible to have fair prices, because it's expensive for them to coordinate their services...

I don't see how such a system woulf be any fairer than the one we're currently using. I can imagine how it would be less effective, but I don't see how it would be less detrimental to us?

How would such a minimalistic government control business conduct? I mean, with privatised sanitation, water, power and who knows what, how would a government be able to oppose business demands?
Business demands are to satisfy their share holders and to supply the consumer with valuabe goodsm. If they do not satisfy the consumer adequately, then the consumer can use the services provided by another company. Competition keeps the businesses in check.
Imagine for a moment that a sanitation company kick rates up so high that citizens almost can't pay.
Unless there is only one sanitation company, this problem can be solved. The consumer, as said, can do business with another company who has more affordable prices.
When the government tries to intervene, the company will say "Alright, but we can't help it. If we lower prices, sanitation deteriorate to the point of being non-functional". If the government has power to really do something - like forcing the company to comply - the company can just sell off bits of the sanitation to new companies of it's own creation. Then the government will have to fight, say 10, different companies instead of just one. And these ten companies can further say - and probably document - that it's impossible to have fair prices, because it's expensive for them to coordinate their services...
The intervention by the government could have adverse affects on the amrket and has the possibility of raising prices for the consumer. If the company had to break into several, management cost could rise and this would be reflected by prices which would make the need to jack up prices, which is harmful.
I don't see how such a system woulf be any fairer than the one we're currently using. I can imagine how it would be less effective, but I don't see how it would be less detrimental to us?
Government regulation narrows the level of competition because it usually helps a select view and it puts high amounts of strain on the business by limiting its abilities. That in turn limites the amount of choices you and I have. That in my mind would be less effecrive.

...Unless there is only one sanitation company, this problem can be solved. The consumer, as said, can do business with another company who has more affordable prices...
So you recognise that there is a need for Government to monitor and influence business conduct afterall.
Because if you just look at a Cournot-Model you can easily see that businesses do much better by collusion than by competition.

What about pollution and other negative externalities in your system?

Business demands are to satisfy their share holders and to supply the consumer with valuabe goodsm. If they do not satisfy the consumer adequately, then the consumer can use the services provided by another company. Competition keeps the businesses in check.

Unless there is only one sanitation company, this problem can be solved. The consumer, as said, can do business with another company who has more affordable prices.

The intervention by the government could have adverse affects on the amrket and has the possibility of raising prices for the consumer. If the company had to break into several, management cost could rise and this would be reflected by prices which would make the need to jack up prices, which is harmful.

Government regulation narrows the level of competition because it usually helps a select view and it puts high amounts of strain on the business by limiting its abilities. That in turn limites the amount of choices you and I have. That in my mind would be less effecrive.

I'm pretty sure you intended to, but you didn't actually answer. At least not very comprehesibly :p
We can see how businesses grow under current conditions. The ones you outline are very similar. I think it's pretty safe to assume that businesses would see the benefit in merging. They currently do it all the time, and your premise makes it just as desirable as it currently is. This is what I think is the real problem.
Taking my example from above and expanding on it a little, so you can follow my train of thoughts:

Fartwell, a sanitation business started by a couple of enterprising youths, manage to get some investors. They need the investors, because making & maintaining sanitation is insanely costly. Let's assume they get investors because they're really effective, and because they put a lot of the control of their business in the hands of their investors.
Fartwell then buys the sanitation of Daftburg. Not a large town, but a stable one, with a geology that makes it very cheap to build proper sanitation cheaply.
A few years later, Fartwell is running Daftburg's sanitation at an extremely competitive price. The investors feel it's time to expand. To do this, Fartwell have to increase prices a bit. Otherwise they can't affort to take over the competitors. They also attract a few more investors.
After having taken over the nearby competitors and developed a stable service, they're able to lower prices again... But they have no reason to.
Suddenly they're approached by another sanitation company. The investors of the companies get together and have a little chat. They agree that they can either compete and make less money, or they can merge and become strong enough to take over some more competition - and thus make more money. They go for the money.
This process repeats a number of times, untill there's only a couple of companies left in the world. There can't be an ultimate monopoly, because local governments have outlawed this. So let's say Fartwell and 2 others have split all the sanitation in the world roughly equally.

Now to my example above: If the consumers wish to buy another service, that service probably can't be competitive. Logistics and geography and shit. Run one small town in a vast enemy territory. It's not feasible that any competition is possible - almost regardless of pricehikes.

You seem to agree that nothing could & should stop Fartwell from splitting up in smaller bits, each controlling the sanitation of the city, at a vastly increased cost. Given a little time, the companies could even merger again and perhaps even increase the price still further... BEcause the public has all the memory of a rock. And since there's really no business restrictions - with the possibel execption of anti trust laws - there's really nothing preventing what I just described.
Indeed, if we look at the current state of things, it's the only logical development.

Is that really desirable? And as Leonstein asked: "What about pollution and other negative externalities in your system?"

An updated version of 19th century US government. What I mean by updated is the health regulations needed, Universal suffrage and that's about it. We've gone too far towards socialism in my opinion. And look at France, socialism isn't working very well for them.

An updated version of 19th century US government. What I mean by updated is the health regulations needed, Universal suffrage and that's about it. We've gone too far towards socialism in my opinion. And look at France, socialism isn't working very well for them.
Funny that. France is perhaps the least stable economy in the EU right now. They're also the 2nd least socialist economy, beaten only by England

-snip-
Have a read through some of the previous posts.
There are many reasons why France's economy is sluggish at the moment.
Oh, and "Socialism" could be defined many different ways.

Read them, I retract my statement aboput socialism. I've gotta do more research on the French government. But I stand with my 19th century US gov't. Then again, I'm a bit of a soulless bastard when it comes down to money. I'd let my workers die off without flinching. And as a worker, I'd be struggling to survive so wouldn't really spend any time complaining.

...Then again, I'm a bit of a soulless bastard when it comes down to money. I'd let my workers die off without flinching...
You say that like you're proud of it. You must be very young.

Oh, and you'd be out of business mighty quick.

I'm not proud or ashamed of it, that's just how I am. As for going out of business, with such a gov't, people are usually pretty desperate for a job.

As for going out of business, with such a gov't, people are usually pretty desperate for a job.
Actually, if you go down the road of proving that system's merits with economic theory, you would have a hard time finding new workers because everyone already had a job.
You're thinking of the demographic circumstances of the 19th century rather than of the economic system.

Actually, if you go down the road of proving that system's merits with economic theory, you would have a hard time finding new workers because everyone already had a job.
You're thinking of the demographic circumstances of the 19th century rather than of the economic system.
So very true. Even with a relatively poorly payed job, people can afford to travel vast distances to go to work - provided they don't just move.

Mmmh, I should really have thought this out more... But you're saying they can move vast distances,what tells you others will give them better working conditions than I do?

Mmmh, I should really have thought this out more... But you're saying they can move vast distances,what tells you others will give them better working conditions than I do?
It's really simple. If they do, you won't have workers and they'll take over your business. Connect the dots ;)

Mmmh, I should really have thought this out more... But you're saying they can move vast distances,what tells you others will give them better working conditions than I do?
Interestingly, if there are no unemployed people, then worker's would be in a monopoly position on their labour, and working conditions would have to improve. Otherwise, all your workers leave you and go to a place where there's better conditions. So that guy will prosper and you'll be poor.

All right, you got me, I'm obviously wrong. Information evidently travels a lot easier now so they'd find out and leave whatever business i'm running.

Interestingly, if there are no unemployed people, then worker's would be in a monopoly position on their labour, and working conditions would have to improve. Otherwise, all your workers leave you and go to a place where there's better conditions. So that guy will prosper and you'll be poor.
Which is, incidentially, what I've always thought is why our western nations don't do shit to eliminate unemployment.
If a zero unemployment nation's economy was stable, I'm pretty sure it would turn into a participatory economy sooner or later. The workers would have as much, or more, power than their employers, and they'd benefit from running the businesses themselves.
I suspect such a development would be as natural as monopolies is to capitalism right now.

All right, you got me, I'm obviously wrong...
You know, I really admire you for saying that. It is remarkable how few people can make that admission on these threads.
*hands you a cookie AND a beer*

If a zero unemployment nation's economy was stable, I'm pretty sure it would turn into a participatory economy sooner or later.
Possible, although there is a degree of natural unemployment that has nothing to do with the business cycle as such.
It is an interesting train of thought though...

Something that I find interesting to think about is how a business would do if it tried to sell using the concept of business with a conscience. I'd like to think that it would perform well, and I guess it's sort of my dream to one day implement something like that. Otherwise capitalism may go the way of the dinosaur...

Thanks for the Cookie, I appreciate anything sugary. What kind of beer though?

All right, you got me, I'm obviously wrong...
You know, I really admire you for saying that. It is remarkable how few people can make that admission on these threads.
*hands you a cookie AND a beer*
So very very true. Now stop admitting you can be wrong. You're making me look bad :p

Possible, although there is a degree of natural unemployment that has nothing to do with the business cycle as such.
It is an interesting train of thought though...
Of course. But to the best of my knowledge, there's at least a handfull of EU countries who could effectively end unemployment without hurting themselves too much.
I really don't know enough though... I wonder how I can change that...?

What kind of beer though?
Flensburger Pilsener.
http://www.flens.de/site/downloads/weizen_1024_x2.jpg

Business with Conscience
That depends entirely on the consumer. Either he/she will buy a product for a higher price or not.

I really don't know enough though... I wonder how I can change that...?
Go to University and study Economics. Be careful to look for an actual school/faculty of Economics, rather than a Business school that offers an Econ-major. Then learn stuff for 3 or 4 years, and voila...

Something that I find interesting to think about is how a business would do if it tried to sell using the concept of business with a conscience. I'd like to think that it would perform well, and I guess it's sort of my dream to one day implement something like that. Otherwise capitalism may go the way of the dinosaur...
I don't think the concept stands a chance.
I'm seeing an explosion is the sale of SUV's all over the western world, in the face of the complete exhaustion of fossile fuels. I hate to say it, but.. It doesn't look like it can work.
Some concepts, like The Bodyshop, does work. But as far as I know, this is mainly because the consumers believe their products are less harmful to themselves. Also, their products are inexpensive, and has been extensively branded as a "young hip & moral" thing. Their client base reflects this pretty conclusively. As it is, the appeal of such companies seems to be very limited (young intellectuals).

Go to University and study Economics. Be careful to look for an actual school/faculty of Economics, rather than a Business school that offers an Econ-major. Then learn stuff for 3 or 4 years, and voila...
Sorry, I don't understand the sentence "Then learn stuff for 3 or 4 years, and voila."

...And you can't make me :p

I think I'm just gonna scour the local library instead;)

-snip-
"Voila" is French and means something like "and there you have it" or "there you go" in this case.

Myself I propose threefolding as a longterm solution.
http://www.threefolding.org/
http://www.freewebs.com/tcfactory/threefold/start.htm
http://www.cadi.ph/index.htm

It is the only solution I can feel good about, which take into account the different layers and facets of society.

Myself I propose threefolding as a longterm solution.
Hmm.
"Economics really only begins to make sense if it is understood to mean: each human being stands for all of humanity."
That's weird. I don't get it.

A couple of posts have discussed different economic models and their possibilities lately, so I felt inspired to make a new one covering all the models. I hope to see a debate about why people prefer one over another, and possibly some rants about the negative aspects of them as well. No angry rants tho, please :)
Just to get this thing started, here's a list of some common ideas.

Liberal Socialism/Mixed Economy - The one the western world currently use.
Capitalism - The unregulated form of what we westerners currently use.
Planned Economy/Communism - The scary red model :p
Participatory Economy/Anarchist Model - Essentially a decentralised and competition based bastardisation of Planned Economy.

Which one do you prefer?
Why do you prefer it?
How would you like it implimented?

My opinion: I'm not a very idealistic person myself. I don't see how we can continue running our economies like we do. Most of the world - in the widest sense of the word - is suffering pretty badly because of it.
I think working towards implimenting a participatory economic model would be a good idea. Perhaps it won't work, but I can't see what we have to loose.

By slow implimentation, I mean slow. A time frame of maybe 50 years, should be good enough not to kill our industries... I think. I'm not entirely sure though.
The idea of community businesses appeals to me a lot. I think we're screwing the working class (and that's putting it mildly) right now. I also think our corporate laws etc. Is doing a lot of harm. Businesses with the power to buy governments is a really really bad idea. Why? Because a bottom line is all that matters to a corporation. The means are irrelevant. If driving a bulldzer through some shitty tribe in a forest means it's cheaper and faster to fell trees, then that's what a corporation will do. If it's cheaper to sponser a couple of politicians' ideas, in order for them to oppose environmental regulations, than it is to pollute less, then it will buy the politicians.
Personally I think it's a nightmare.

What do you guys think? - If you want to change the type of government, remember to specify why and to what. Cheers all :)
Socialism. People "should not" hurt others (murder, rape) and yet they do. The government must act to prevent suffering. People "should not" do drugs or be lazy. Once again, the government must act to prevent suffering.

Capitalism is not a means to prevent unemployment or poverty. America's "free" economy grows 5 times faster than France's socialist economy, yet it has double the poverty rate. Socialism is the most moral economic model. It's the slowest to grow without collapse, but it provides for the most amount of people. Any claims of "government dependency" are just ridiculous. Because if we had little or no social welfare as all countries have had, in the past, we would have an outrageous poverty rate. It was capitalism along with both World Wars which caused the depression and it was socialism which pulled us all out of it. It is no coincidence that since the great depression, all western countries substantially raised taxes and social programs, such as social security (or what Britain calls "national insurance").

Germany also is rather socialist, but they prefer to call it a "social market" economy, because it is rather mixed. And Germany exports more than any country in the world. That goes to show you: Even under socialism economies can still be strong.

Socialism. People "should not" hurt others (murder, rape) and yet they do. The government must act to prevent suffering. People "should not" do drugs or be lazy. Once again, the government must act to prevent suffering.

Capitalism is not a means to prevent unemployment or poverty. America's "free" economy grows 5 times faster than France's socialist economy, yet it has double the poverty rate. Socialism is the most moral economic model. It's the slowest to grow without collapse, but it provides for the most amount of people. Any claims of "government dependency" are just ridiculous. Because if we had little or no social welfare as all countries have had, in the past, we would have an outrageous poverty rate. It was capitalism along with both World Wars which caused the depression and it was socialism which pulled us all out of it. It is no coincidence that since the great depression, all western countries substantially raised taxes and social programs, such as social security (or what Britain calls "national insurance").

Germany also is rather socialist, but they prefer to call it a "social market" economy, because it is rather mixed. And Germany exports more than any country in the world. That goes to show you: Even under socialism economies can still be strong.


I guess I agree in general.

How I see Capitalism

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

My kind of Socialism

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are publicly owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

There is this constant conflict between public good and profitability. It is not profit in itself which is so bad but the way it is accumulated and redistributed.
It is the control of the accumulation and redistribution in which government systems differ so much. Capitalists would control it privately and socialists publicly.

I guess I agree in general.

How I see Capitalism

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

My kind of Socialism

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are publicly owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

There is this constant conflict between public good and profitability. It is not profit in itself which is so bad but the way it is accumulated and redistributed.
It is the control of the accumulation and redistribution in which government systems differ so much. Capitalists would control it privately and socialists publicly.
No country is absolutely Socialist or absolutely Capitalist. Even the military has never been privatized (making it an industry that's always been socialized). But rather, there are countries that are "more Socialist" and "more Capitalist." I advocate a government that's as Socialist as possible until it creates deflation.

I personally would like a anchored capitalist ecconomy. Granted this is aimed at a developing ecconomy.

1 Maximum not minimun wages (Malawian idea, baddly implimented), you raise your salary band by getting qualifications and moving up the ladder by hard work. Self employed pay themselves their profits - engenders entreprenureship

2 Regulated house market (limitide prices of houses and restiction on number of houses per house hold eg 1, and centalised state run mortage system, prohibit landlords), to prevent the housing market creating a false boom - see Britain and Australia.

3 Low taxation and small efficient state say max 15% personal tax and 20% company tax, plus tax incentives for small companies and prefered businesses, like food production and renewable energies, housing construction and enviromentally systainable businesses.

4 Manadtory private pensions!

5 Tax penalties for companies that provide "harmful services" eg McDonalds Bad, GM Motors good.

6 50% privatised education system 50% Public and slowly move towards 100% private.

7 Swiss style banking system

Socialism. People "should not" hurt others (murder, rape) and yet they do. The government must act to prevent suffering. People "should not" do drugs or be lazy. Once again, the government must act to prevent suffering.

Capitalism is not a means to prevent unemployment or poverty. America's "free" economy grows 5 times faster than France's socialist economy, yet it has double the poverty rate. Socialism is the most moral economic model. It's the slowest to grow without collapse, but it provides for the most amount of people. Any claims of "government dependency" are just ridiculous. Because if we had little or no social welfare as all countries have had, in the past, we would have an outrageous poverty rate. It was capitalism along with both World Wars which caused the depression and it was socialism which pulled us all out of it. It is no coincidence that since the great depression, all western countries substantially raised taxes and social programs, such as social security (or what Britain calls "national insurance").

Germany also is rather socialist, but they prefer to call it a "social market" economy, because it is rather mixed. And Germany exports more than any country in the world. That goes to show you: Even under socialism economies can still be strong.

I'm sorry to say it, but this is unfounded drivel.

1) Adults must be given the freedom to make their own decisions. If they feel inclined to take drugs, fine. The only person they're harming - if they take it to the extremes of harm - is themselves. Currently, by our policies on drugs, we are merely dragging innocent individuals into the fray. Remove prohibition and the violence will melt away (as it did with alcohol) and the only people hurt will be the responsible addicts. There is even a large breadth of evidence suggesting drug usage would decrease and the average age of the addict will increase.

2) I entirely disagree with your comparison between America and France. The US is not a good model of capitalism/libertarianism due to the tax rate and other regulatory circumstances eg. the school system. Let me tell you now that if you look at free v social economies, the free have much lower poverty rates. For a start, unemployment is around 10% in France!

3) The actual effect of providing welfare is entirely counterproductive to the genuinely decent aim. Firstly, it removes incentive to work hence high unemployment and therefore poverty. Secondly, it is dependent upon government - if cutbacks are neccessary, the poor feel the strain. Thirdly, the money is often attributed in ridiculously complex ways or provided in a less tangible and thus useful form. It is not moral to provide welfare; it is cruel in the long term.

4) You are wrong about the Depression. The depression was actually a mere contraction until Rosevelt got in, and it got worse. For more details, see Milton Friedman's 'Capitalism and Freedom'. I can assure you that the socialistic policies pursued actually worsened the crisis considerably - which, I hasten to add, was techincally caused by an abundance of regulation (a facet of socialism).

5) Um, the German economy is in a mess. Hence Schroder is going to be removed from office. Check any source you can - the facts remain.

I can understand the allure of socialism, but it really is a dreadful system for all - particularly those made dependent on the state. I hope this helps.

I'm just gonna reply to a couple of your points for now.
I'm sorry to say it, but this is unfounded drivel.

1) Adults must be given the freedom to make their own decisions. If they feel inclined to take drugs, fine. The only person they're harming - if they take it to the extremes of harm - is themselves. Currently, by our policies on drugs, we are merely dragging innocent individuals into the fray. Remove prohibition and the violence will melt away (as it did with alcohol) and the only people hurt will be the responsible addicts. There is even a large breadth of evidence suggesting drug usage would decrease and the average age of the addict will increase.

Of course. A pitty the US forced this odd policy on the world. Criminalising people who aren't criminals doesn't strike me as fair.

2) I entirely disagree with your comparison between America and France. The US is not a good model of capitalism/libertarianism due to the tax rate and other regulatory circumstances eg. the school system. Let me tell you now that if you look at free v social economies, the free have much lower poverty rates. For a start, unemployment is around 10% in France!

You can't really compare this. Unemployment in France is closely tied in with racial minorities and a couple of other specific French problems the US don't have.

3) The actual effect of providing welfare is entirely counterproductive to the genuinely decent aim. Firstly, it removes incentive to work hence high unemployment and therefore poverty. Secondly, it is dependent upon government - if cutbacks are neccessary, the poor feel the strain. Thirdly, the money is often attributed in ridiculously complex ways or provided in a less tangible and thus useful form. It is not moral to provide welfare; it is cruel in the long term.

I should like to see you prove this claim. It seems quite outrageous.

5) Um, the German economy is in a mess. Hence Schroder is going to be removed from office. Check any source you can - the facts remain.

Again, there's some very specific things at work here, that the US can't be compared to. Try making the comparison using Norway instead. Not only is theirs a more socialistic system, but they don't have issues comparable to, say.. The US absorbing South America into their country.
Cherry picking examples of economies under extreme pressure and comparing them to a very very stable one just won't do. It says nothing about socialism, although I suppose it may tell a bit about your personal inclinations.

I can understand the allure of socialism, but it really is a dreadful system for all - particularly those made dependent on the state. I hope this helps.
Who exactly is made dependent on the state? Disabled people who can't work maybe? If that's what you mean, then why do you oppose this?

I'm pretty sure you intended to, but you didn't actually answer. At least not very comprehesibly :p
I'm not very eloquent. (but I try) :p


Now to my example above: If the consumers wish to buy another service, that service probably can't be competitive. Logistics and geography and shit. Run one small town in a vast enemy territory. It's not feasible that any competition is possible - almost regardless of pricehikes.
Though I understand your point, I assume you think this would bring in anti-trust laws and the like, this is an unlikely scenario. A corporation of that magnitude would be extremely difficult to manage and costly. Mergers can bring profit to a company, however if it grows to large it could become unstable. It's a matter of short term VS long term benefits.

Is that really desirable? And as Leonstein asked: "What about pollution and other negative externalities in your system?"
One solution to this is private property. If I were to damage your property then I could take you to court for the damages. Apply that on a larger scale, if a corporation were to damage the property of a community, then that community could take theat corporation to court. It would be in that businesses best interests to avoid doing that because the costs could be enormous.

You can't really compare this. Unemployment in France is closely tied in with racial minorities and a couple of other specific French problems the US don't have.

I should like to see you prove this claim. It seems quite outrageous.

Again, there's some very specific things at work here, that the US can't be compared to. Try making the comparison using Norway instead. Not only is theirs a more socialistic system, but they don't have issues comparable to, say.. The US absorbing South America into their country.
Cherry picking examples of economies under extreme pressure and comparing them to a very very stable one just won't do. It says nothing about socialism, although I suppose it may tell a bit about your personal inclinations.

Who exactly is made dependent on the state? Disabled people who can't work maybe? If that's what you mean, then why do you oppose this?

Well, at least we agree on the drugs issue! But on the other things, I'll do my best to reply:

- Unemployment in France has very little to do with racial minorities, as the country absorbs far less immigrants/capita head of population than the US - and tends to treat them better. The French socialist economy is the problem here. Take my nation, Britain. We have a much more free market economy and suffer the same problems (both in the Eurozone), but we all know which looks in better shape.

- On the welfare question, I'll give a much more detailed post after this. And yes, you're right on the disabled. Of course they should be given welfare, but able-bodied people make themselves dependent on the state in socialist countries. Take Germany, where the government is having to take drstic measures to force people off welfare.

- The whole point of using Germany as an example was to show that socialism is not beneficial to the economy. You seem to conjecture that Germany's economy being under extreme strain and being socialist in nature are two completely independent variables. The truth is that the social model is making the economy dire.

- Let's look at Norway, which in itself is hardly a fair comparison given it's recent discovery of massive reserves. Private consumption has consistently dropped. Inflation is high. It is one of the most expensive countries to live in in the world. Production is decreasing, and unemployment looks set to jump over 6%. Investment from abroad has decreased sharply, and the national debt is increasing. The one good thing I can find is an impressive balance of payments. Remember that the Norwegian economy is only in this lacklustre state because of oil: when that goes, the socialist chickens will come home to roost.

Right - welfare. I'll talk about income redistribution here, as I presume that's what you take issue with. If you do want to deviate more into subsidised housing etc., I'll come back to that.

POINTS AGAINT INCOME REDISTRIBUTION:

-- Equality of treatment is horribly damaged. One man may prefer to spend his days sunbathing, whilst another may choose to be an investment banker. Both are fine choices. It's up to you. But, in a capitalist society with payment according to product, it would not be fair to take from the banker to give to the sunbather. The ethics of it would be stinging.

--If you enter a lottery with vastly unequal prizes and you win a prize, you do not then form a co-operative of lottery winners and share out the prizes proportionally. This applies when taking jobs - or risks in business. There is a certain amount of risk in every venture involving money: to redistribute the product would therefore stunt entrepenurial ability.

--There is always the desire to avoid higher graduations of progressive tax and let the next generation foot the bill through higher income tax. This make the welfare tx model wholly unstable and immoral.

--Taking inheritance and redistributing it is again unfair. If inheritance is seized, then why does a man not merely spend all his money living a lifestyle of excess which will eventually cost the state to resolve? Surely it would be more productive to ensure his child obtains money. The message the state sends when redistributing like this is that the former option is preferable.

--Is it ever fair to use the coercive power of the state to force an individual who earns over the average to redistribute his wealth? If you found £10 on the floor with a bunch of friends, should they physically force you to share it? Of course not. So why ought the state to do the same? It is an impediment to freedom.

--An economy functions on voluntary exchanges whereby both parties benefit. If neither benefits due to redistributive practices. why exchange? The state can never feasibly force this exchange on a scale large enough to sustain a decent economy.

--Payment in accordance with product rather than in accordance with supposed 'need' is fundamentally fairer, and encourages economic growth.

--Income inequality provides independent foci of power to offset dangerous centralised power, provides 'patrons' to finance novel/unpopular ideas, and enables distribution to occur without the requirement for authoritarian action. It is therefore entirely credible that approximate income equality can be reached in a capitalist system.

--In capitalist countries, most income is from human services provided. In socialist countries, most income is from property (roughly half in some). It is therefore evident that socialism actually preserves a landed gentry and inhibits progress amongst the entrepenurial poor.

--Inequality actually happens to be less the more capitalist the country is: UK has less inequality (in terms of standard of living, which is the preferable measure) than France, the US had less comparative to communist Russia etc.

--Pres. Shrub himself acknowledges that economic progress is made far quicker in capitalist nations. With this progress comes the advent of technologies being made available to the poor which had previously been the monopoly of the rich. In this way, inequality is reduced faster and more successfully. (See 'Principles of Political Economy' for stats)

--Socialists struggle to differentiate between long-term and short-term inequality. Take two societies: one where incomes change all the time, and the other where incomes stay fixed. Which is the more unequal society? The first is a paragon of social mobility, the second a status society masquerading as socialism.

--Highly graduated taxes have not been proven to have any significant effect in the direction of narrowing income disparities. They also raise returns in non-pecuniary, high-risk enterprises and encourage tax evasion. These issues ensure the tax taqke is unstable and many poor miss out on their 'due' from the government, and promote economic instability.

--These income taxes are not so much taxes on being wealthy as taxes on becoming wealthy. If you know earning £5,000 more in your job will actually only mean a real wage increase of £500 (post-tax), will you be so inclined to improve your standard of living?

--Much of the inequality in capitalist societies is derived from imperfections in the market structure, most of which are caused by over-weaning government regulation or control (monopolised or otherwise).

--Finally, the money is often attributed in unhelpful ways such as public housing etc. Cash sums make it far harder for the goverment to maintain your dependence until election time!

I had this theory one night (it's hot at the moment - I can't get to sleep), that capitalism will eventually become communism - due to economies of scale, there will be a trend towards monopoly in every industry (even those homogeneous goods which are now in perfect competition could be bought up by growing monopolies). In order to counter this monopoly power, buyers will form collectives with monopsonist power, before passing the goods on to consumers. Considering that in the anarcho-capitalist world, there would be no state, it only takes a slight shift of the Necker cube to see that this is not too dissimilar to a command economy, where the state is all.

Yes, I know it's far fetched.

-snip
I think that's a theory worth elaborating on, it certainly has my attention.

*snip*
*hands you a cookie* :p


Keep in mind that:
1. No one has a right to force another human to provide for his or her livelihood.
2. A monopoly is not invulnerbale. With poor management, they will collapse. The only problem is that they take a LOT longer to fall.

A monopoly is not invulnerbale. With poor management, they will collapse. The only problem is that they take a LOT longer to fall.
That's interesting. But also irrelevant.
Who gives a shit how good the management is when the dead-weight loss to society is in the billions of dollars?
It is in the nature of the monopoly that it is close to invulnerable, it's holding all the strings in its' hands. Only a completely new technology that basically makes the monopoly's service/good redundant can end it. And even that wouldn't happen often because someone would have to make that investment in an industry that is already controlled by a monopoly.

On the drugs topic, I'd like to point out that certain drugs, like cocaine and heroin, should obviously remain banned. Someone using a hard drug like that is not rational and will ruin their life in pursuit of it. Allow cocaine legally and watch millions of families collapse and millions of people who don't care about anything other than securing more crack. If you think drug users only hurt themselves, you are very wrong.....

If we were to tax some profits (after expenses, expansion, etc.) from businesses and redistribute the wealth (and there would be a lot of it) , we could pull millions out of poverty and actually boost the economy. Suddenly, millions of people would have the money to buy things, which means more things will be bought. Instead of funneling all the profits back up to investors, the money goes back into the people and the economy via consumer spending. Now, investors will probably be unhappy seeing less returns, but on the other hand, the economy would always be moving, and probably be a good deal safer, not to mention more comfortable for the majority. I don't believe this money should be given out to people who don't work unless they are actively seeking a job. Since the amount of business being done will increase, I expect more jobs will be created to deal with increased customer traffic etc.

That's interesting. But also irrelevant.
Who gives a shit how good the management is when the dead-weight loss to society is in the billions of dollars?
It is in the nature of the monopoly that it is close to invulnerable, it's holding all the strings in its' hands. Only a completely new technology that basically makes the monopoly's service/good redundant can end it. And even that wouldn't happen often because someone would have to make that investment in an industry that is already controlled by a monopoly.
It doesn't require an entirely new technology, as much as it requires any innovative product and good marketing(although marketing and price wars can easily tip the balance in favor of the monopoly). My point is, I support legislation AGAINST monopolies, but I find it ridiculous that some people think a company will become God the moment they corner the market.

It doesn't require an entirely new technology, as much as it requires any innovative product and good marketing(although marketing and price wars can easily tip the balance in favor of the monopoly). My point is, I support legislation AGAINST monopolies, but I find it ridiculous that some people think a company will become God the moment they corner the market.
That is the understatement of the decade.
I have spent many hours studying Market Structures, Game Theory and so on, and I have yet to see a viable way how a new competitor with a realistic cost structure could enter a monopolised market without government help.

That is the understatement of the decade.
I have spent many hours studying Market Structures, Game Theory and so on, and I have yet to see a viable way how a new competitor with a realistic cost structure could enter a monopolised market without government help.
Ha, I'm sure I'll be putting many hours into that myself when I get my Masters in Econ. :p
There isn't much of a hope. In a perfect world, though, everyone would have knowledge about a wide variety of fields and would enter into an entirely different market. Which would drag business away from the monopoly over time.

Right - welfare. I'll talk about income redistribution here, as I presume that's what you take issue with. If you do want to deviate more into subsidised housing etc., I'll come back to that.

Sure thing, I have a feeling this may turn into a long debate. Remember, while I largely defend the socialist approach to capitalism, I don't think there's anything very great about it. I agree it doesn't work, but a pure capitalist society would be hell in my opinion. Socialistic capitalism is a dysfunctional compromise (at best), and I have no idea why we're so fond of it in the western world.

POINTS AGAINT INCOME REDISTRIBUTION:

-- Equality of treatment is horribly damaged. One man may prefer to spend his days sunbathing, whilst another may choose to be an investment banker. Both are fine choices. It's up to you. But, in a capitalist society with payment according to product, it would not be fair to take from the banker to give to the sunbather. The ethics of it would be stinging.

In theory, you're right. In practice, this is nonsense. Why would a society support someone who's unwilling to work?
If we instead talk about someone who spends half the summer on the beach, writing job applications - when he's not doing interveiws - I think it's entirely fair the guy doesn't die from hunger. Also, just because he's guaranteed enough money to live, it doesn't mean he'll get anything resembling minimum wage (assuming there's a minimum wage).

--If you enter a lottery with vastly unequal prizes and you win a prize, you do not then form a co-operative of lottery winners and share out the prizes proportionally. This applies when taking jobs - or risks in business. There is a certain amount of risk in every venture involving money: to redistribute the product would therefore stunt entrepenurial ability.

If you enter a community on say, a deserted island, you'll probably be eaten if you call dips on the only coconut trees on the island. Either that, you'll harm the rest of your rag-tag band immensely. I'd eat you.
It's really easy to think up scenarios where one thing is prefrable over the others...

Society isn't a gamble. It's not something you can stay out of very easily, and it can do things to you, even though you try to take no part in it. The reason we have societies (as far as I'm concerned), is to help eachother have a safer & better life. It's quite the opposite scenario of a lottery.
Also, it's hardly ethical to discriminate against people who can't help their situation, like retarded people for example.

--There is always the desire to avoid higher graduations of progressive tax and let the next generation foot the bill through higher income tax. This make the welfare tx model wholly unstable and immoral.

The solution here isn't to give in to people who feel they can take a free ride on the backs of other people's work. That is highly immoral. Taking your sentiment to the extreme, all poor and rich people should be refused to take part in society, which is hardly fair and not at all desirable.

--Taking inheritance and redistributing it is again unfair. If inheritance is seized, then why does a man not merely spend all his money living a lifestyle of excess which will eventually cost the state to resolve? Surely it would be more productive to ensure his child obtains money. The message the state sends when redistributing like this is that the former option is preferable.

If he spends his money while he's alive, he increases demand for consumer goods (etc.). This means increased production for others, thus others benefits from his actions. He also pays taxes on the goods he buys. In an economy where a certain procentage of all earned money is expected to go into the tax system, someone with enough money to leave them to his relatives, is effectively not pulling his weight. Thus he's cheating all the rest of the people (who made his money for him). What's fair & the message it sends, depends a great deal on how closely you examine it.

--Is it ever fair to use the coercive power of the state to force an individual who earns over the average to redistribute his wealth? If you found £10 on the floor with a bunch of friends, should they physically force you to share it? Of course not. So why ought the state to do the same? It is an impediment to freedom.

If I found £10 somewhere, and I was with a group of people who were without means, it's entirely fair to expect I share the money. Anything else, and I'm asking to get my head kicked in for being an antisocial arse.

--An economy functions on voluntary exchanges whereby both parties benefit. If neither benefits due to redistributive practices. why exchange? The state can never feasibly force this exchange on a scale large enough to sustain a decent economy.

You're right. Provided that exchange is there. On a large scale, a few antisocial individuals will always find ways to benefit from the work of others. Thus it's no longer an exchange, but slavery.

--Payment in accordance with product rather than in accordance with supposed 'need' is fundamentally fairer, and encourages economic growth.

Unfortunately, some people will always try to benefit at the expense of others. Between equals, you're right. In a society of vastly different people, you're dead wrong. You're always right about the economic growth, though.

--Income inequality provides independent foci of power to offset dangerous centralised power, provides 'patrons' to finance novel/unpopular ideas, and enables distribution to occur without the requirement for authoritarian action. It is therefore entirely credible that approximate income equality can be reached in a capitalist system.

What you're promoting is a different system of government. You want an elitist rulership (oligarchy). In a free society, where people work both for their own benefit, and for the benefit of others, unresstricted capitalism is the enemy. Why? Because it concentrates power on the hands of very few people, at the expense of the many.
Income inequality increases production - obviously - but if the inequality becomes too great, it results in slavery. The US during the great depression is a great example of it (btw, similar circumstances is what spawned the current socialist economies in europe. Popular demand is what spawned socialism, because capitalism failed).

--In capitalist countries, most income is from human services provided. In socialist countries, most income is from property (roughly half in some). It is therefore evident that socialism actually preserves a landed gentry and inhibits progress amongst the entrepenurial poor.

Yes and no. It's about balance mate. A pure form of either economic model will end up killing the people who're supposed to benefit from it. A pure form of capitalism will also become somewhat static. Fewer people will control the wealth, but at least some people will be able to fight their way to the top. Still, when the top is 1-5% of the population, it's a shitty deal no matter how you look at it.

--Inequality actually happens to be less the more capitalist the country is: UK has less inequality (in terms of standard of living, which is the preferable measure) than France, the US had less comparative to communist Russia etc.

Leave Russia out of it. It's not relevant to compare it. I'm fairly sure the income spread is lesser in France than in the UK. I may be wrong though. Still, if you look at somewhere like Denmark, Sweden or Norway, inequality is much lower. By the way, those are all capitalist societies.
Again, a system of pure capitalism will quickly lead to a few large corporations, where people - who'll have no rights at all - will be used as slaves. Chances are such a system will even go so far as to prevent the free movement of the workforce. Arguably, a highly mobile workforce would be undesirable for the people on the top, as it could lead to social improvement when companies try to compete with eachother.

--Pres. Shrub himself acknowledges that economic progress is made far quicker in capitalist nations. With this progress comes the advent of technologies being made available to the poor which had previously been the monopoly of the rich. In this way, inequality is reduced faster and more successfully. (See 'Principles of Political Economy' for stats)

There's no denying the obvious ;)
However, in a pure capitalist system, there's not a lot of incentive for the people on top to spread technology to the people on the bottom. It might increase their ability to make money, but it may also make it possible for some of the GU to compete with the elite.

--Socialists struggle to differentiate between long-term and short-term inequality. Take two societies: one where incomes change all the time, and the other where incomes stay fixed. Which is the more unequal society? The first is a paragon of social mobility, the second a status society masquerading as socialism.

I actually agree. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a proponent of a socialist economy or socialist capitalism. I'm fed up with it, and that's the understatement of the year. The problem, as I see it, is that pure capitalism - while fair on a very short timescale - leads to a sociaty like feudal Britain or France.

--Highly graduated taxes have not been proven to have any significant effect in the direction of narrowing income disparities. They also raise returns in non-pecuniary, high-risk enterprises and encourage tax evasion. These issues ensure the tax taqke is unstable and many poor miss out on their 'due' from the government, and promote economic instability.

That's all very true, sadly. I propose we scrap the system entirely :p

--These income taxes are not so much taxes on being wealthy as taxes on becoming wealthy. If you know earning £5,000 more in your job will actually only mean a real wage increase of £500 (post-tax), will you be so inclined to improve your standard of living?

I have a feeling your example is as thought as the rest of them... But I have a mate who was in that situation (ok it was more like £4000). not suprisingly, he figured his time was spend better with his family.
This is extremely bad for any society, no doubt about it. It's really REALLY pissing me off. Especially because it's the working-/lower middle- Class who has to put up with shit like this, and since we're the majority, it stands to reason that we would have the biggest impact on society, in terms of social advances.

--Much of the inequality in capitalist societies is derived from imperfections in the market structure, most of which are caused by over-weaning government regulation or control (monopolised or otherwise).

No doubt about it. But such imperfections is a natural part of capitalism. It's in the best interest of the wealthy, and when the wealthy have near-unlimited power over society, that's how it's gonna be. The majority of subsidising schemes & corporate law has been pushed through by capitalists. Not socialists.

--Finally, the money is often attributed in unhelpful ways such as public housing etc. Cash sums make it far harder for the goverment to maintain your dependence until election time!

Either you just contradicted yourself, or my brain stopped working...?
Anyway... Our current way of doing things is inane. It would be more relevant to regulate the market instead of undermining it with public housing projects. Currently it really doesn't help anyone, it just plays havoc with price development.
I know a Scandinavian working class family. The father makes around £130 a day. The value of their house have increased by approx £170 each day this year.
If he takes the rest of the year off and live off a loan, then sells the house at the end of the year, his family will have made more money (after paying back the loan) than he could possibly earn himself.
That's what happens on an unregulated market with public housing projects, building stops and privatisation of public housing projects. Bollox.

Keep in mind that:
1. No one has a right to force another human to provide for his or her livelihood.
2. A monopoly is not invulnerbale. With poor management, they will collapse. The only problem is that they take a LOT longer to fall.

Others have addressed your point about monopoly, so I'll go for the first. I passionately believe that you have the right not to work. But that is a responsible choice that you make, knowing the options available. Other should not provide for someone's lifestyle. That is not 'forcing' somebody into work.

I'm not going to spend my time addressing the points you raise in response to my veritable diatribe on welfare, except to say that I think preety much all are wrong. I just don't have the time or will to plough through them. Sorry! :)

Mine! Small mom and pop stores; Regulations; Price control; Fair trade (if not possible, trade embargo); Trade surpluss; No job outsorcing; Anti-globolization; Pro-isolationism; Fair and livible wage; Anti-corporatism; All goods that are possible should be made inside our borders; Pro-Union (however, with a just and benevolent government, there would be no need for them); Abolish the Stock Market; Abolish yearly tax returns; Abolish subsidies; Guaranteed pensions (paid by the employer); Free health care for all (paid by the government); Guaranteed Social Security; Fair taxation (enough to pay for these guarantees and for the nations needed repairs and improvements); Guarenteed help to those truely proven to be handicaped; Christian morals and values in the nation.

These are the most important for achieving a Utopia of Utopias. Now that sounds perfect to me! Good day!

-snip-
Hehe, fair enough. I doubt it could live with the contradictions though...

No contradictions here, you simply do not understand my economic system.

Gift economy and the necessarily enlightened society to go with it.

I like Basic Keynesianisim. The government taxes as doesnt spend as much ina boom. It them props up employment etc. With spend ing the money it got in the Boom years.

On the drugs topic, I'd like to point out that certain drugs, like cocaine and heroin, should obviously remain banned. Someone using a hard drug like that is not rational and will ruin their life in pursuit of it. Allow cocaine legally and watch millions of families collapse and millions of people who don't care about anything other than securing more crack. If you think drug users only hurt themselves, you are very wrong.....


I respectfully disagree. Cocaine and heroin should not "obviously remain banned". If all soft drugs are to be legalised, this will simply lead the thrill seeker to harder drugs. It also pays the drug cartels to have drugs illegal as they retain a monopoly over the market. If you continued prohibiting these harder drugs, you would actually see more of them being sold, albeit illegally.

It may not seem rational to you and I to take hard drugs, or any drugs for that matter. But the paternalistic argument that is is "not rational" is not for you and I to decide. The trouble with taking this 'common sense' standpoint is the slippery slope effect it inevitably has - where do you stop? For a start, many will be able to cope with taking these drugs without addiction. Secondly, by banning these drugs - you actually subject the drug user to unclean samples which have impurities mixed in. In order to be kinder to the user, it might be best to legalise them after all.

Naturally, there are families involved - but by legalising these drugs, the drugs become safer and lives in the future are saved due to the 'forbidden fruit' effect being gone. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that drug addiction would go up if drugs were legalised. In Canada, marijuana was legalised and it's usage has gone DOWN. In Holland, all soft drugs are legalised and their usage has gone DOWN and the average age of the addict is increasing - they're not getting any new recruits.

Thrill seekers are different from people with a habit. If people are going to be addicted to something, its much better they be addicted to something relatively harmless in the short-term. Alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana are all habitual drugs that don't dominate a person's life except for rare cases. Hard drugs are different; when someone takes hard drugs, the chances are high for them to become problem cases, especially in an environment where they can easily acquire their drugs.

Hard drugs like cocaine and heroin cause major chemical changes in the brain, have serious short-term health effects, and can easily be OD'd on. The rate of blood communicated diseases might spike from needle sharing. The amount of money spent in healthcare and treatment centers, in a system not prepared for the influx of junkies, will be staggering. We'll have lots more crackbabies. The loss of productivity from people screwed up by the side-effects will be great too (going out on a limb here, we could see some problems develop in high-stress occupations such as pilots, who already have a higher rate of addiction than normal).

As for it protecting the users, I fail to see how making something that is inherently extremely dangerous slightly safer will be worth it in this case. Its like being shot with a poisoned arrow vs. being shot with a normal arrow; it will suck regardless.

It doesn't matter that the 'forbidden fruit' feeling will be gone, and it may not be; cigarettes are legal but kids try them and form habits all the time. Unless you are suggesting we legalize all drugs for kids too....

We should, in any case, go after drug lords much more vigorously, to the point of threatening partial sanctions on countries that harbor them. Drug lords should be viewed in the same frame as terrorist leaders, warlords, or dictators. Really, the illegal drugs they spread, and the cultural decay that surrounds them are a form of terrorism that we don't seem to recognize because it doesn't jump out with big events people can rally after.

I believe the government has a duty to protect its citizens quality of life; from all rational standpoints, junkies are not benefitting from a higher standard of living. If you can't see how these things would harm society in general, well....

Question: Why risk it? Can we guarantee that the benefits will outweigh the costs? Can we guarantee a move like this, unprecedented in history, will result in a better situation? If we try it, and it doesn't work out, will we have any way to reverse the damage done?