NationStates Jolt Archive

I consider most people who would call themselves "capitalist" to actually be more or less socialist in their economic views (This, I believe, is fairly common with Austrian economists such as myself). But then I got to wondering- would anyone consider me a Marxist in disguise, in turn? So, I decided to list my ideal economic policies, and see if anyone is more capitalistic than I.

Warning: For the more left-leaning readers, I would recommend sitting down before reading the list- don't want to suffer a heart attack or stroke while standing up, y'know.

Abolish the Federal Reserve and fiat money, replace it with gold standard.
Fractional reserve bankers should be held at the mercy of bank runs, with no assistance from the government.
Income, payroll, and property taxes are a nationalization of people, and should be banned. Sales taxes are allowed, if necessary.
Most environmental issues should be solved with arbitration between polluter and pollutee- this would entail the elimination of much environmental regulation.
In fact, just get rid of 90% of regulation. Use arbitration of property rights to solve any issues that pop up.
There should be no welfare state. A tax rebate of equal value for every adult should be used instead. Each child should get a tax rebate given to their parents or caretakers.
There should be no subsidies for industry.
There should be no tarriffs between free countries.
National and state governments should be constitutionally restricted to only be defense agencies against force and fraud.
No minimum wage or other government-enforced costs for employers.
No anti-trust legislation.
Government should leave business and unions to themselves to resolve issues, with no supporting either.
Abolish public education, and give every minor a per-capita voucher.
Government should own no means of production whatsoever.

I think those are enough examples. Now, am I capitalist enough (Or too much so)?

Austrian economists such as myself

heh

So you enjoy the rise of mega-corporations and the eventual crash of the economic infrastructure?

I voted for the first one because you're just using degrees of capitalism like a penis measuring contest.

I think I prefer the prosperity and stability granted by fiat money and insured fractional banking to the chaos of the early 19th century. We should be focusing on controlling the negatives and maximizing the positives of fiat money (i.e. through stable growth in the money supply) rather than reverting to the failed gold standard. It's a proven fact that people have become healthier, wealthier, more advanced, more educated and more employed than they were in the time of the gold standard and I don't think it's worth taking that risk.

I think I prefer the prosperity and stability granted by fiat money and insured fractional banking to the chaos of the early 19th century. We should be focusing on controlling the negatives and maximizing the positives of fiat money (i.e. through stable growth in the money supply) rather than reverting to the failed gold standard. It's a proven fact that people have become healthier, wealthier, more advanced, more educated and more employed than they were in the time of the gold standard and I don't think it's worth taking that risk.

Why did you come in all serious? *shakes fist in the epitome of ULTIMATE FURY*

Why did you come in all serious? *shakes fist in the epitome of ULTIMATE FURY*

BECAUSE I CAN...*shakes fist in the epitome of ULTIMATE BOREDOM*

Abolish the Federal Reserve and fiat money, replace it with gold standard.
Fractional reserve bankers should be held at the mercy of bank runs, with no assistance from the government.
Income, payroll, and property taxes are a nationalization of people, and should be banned. Sales taxes are allowed, if necessary.
Most environmental issues should be solved with arbitration between polluter and pollutee- this would entail the elimination of much environmental regulation.
In fact, just get rid of 90% of regulation. Use arbitration of property rights to solve any issues that pop up.
There should be no welfare state. A tax rebate of equal value for every adult should be used instead. Each child should get a tax rebate given to their parents or caretakers.
There should be no subsidies for industry.
There should be no tarriffs between free countries.
National and state governments should be constitutionally restricted to only be defense agencies against force and fraud.
No minimum wage or other government-enforced costs for employers.
No anti-trust legislation.
Government should leave business and unions to themselves to resolve issues, with no supporting either.
Abolish public education, and give every minor a per-capita voucher.
Government should own no means of production whatsoever.


The statements in bold are OK (although I would refrain from summarizing complex issues into a single sentence...lots of "yeah, in general, but..."-type thoughts while I was reading that). Of course, the basic epistemology of the Austrian School is an absurdity to begin with, but that's a different flamewar altogether. :D


heh


Basically.


...rather than reverting to the failed gold standard.


Yeah, the one and only purpose of money is to act as a convienient token for keeping track of trade. Whether notches in a piece of rock, or little slips of paper, it can fulfill this role just fine without actually being worth anything intrinsically (assuming that shiny rocks are intrinsically valuable, anyway...)

BECAUSE I CAN...*shakes fist in the epitome of ULTIMATE BOREDOM*

Them fightin' words.

So you enjoy the rise of mega-corporations and the eventual crash of the economic infrastructure?

Am I supposed to say yes?

Am I supposed to say yes?

Ah, so you're not a true capitalist.

Ah, so you're not a true capitalist.

Noooooooooo!!!

Yeah, the one and only purpose of money is to act as a convienient token for keeping track of trade. Whether notches in a piece of rock, or little slips of paper, it can fulfill this role just fine without actually being worth anything intrinsically (assuming that shiny rocks are intrinsically valuable, anyway...)

If we wanted to go for intrinsic value, we'd make our coins out of iron, aluminum or titanium...useful metals with real applications other than coinage. Either that, or we would revert to barter which is a lot less convienent than paying for goods with strips of paper backed by the government.

Honestly, gold has no real purpose or value other than in very small, even microscopic quantities for advanced manufacturing or for use in jewelry. I'd definitely rather have a computer, book or a car than a similar amount of gold.

Noooooooooo!!!

Are you being sarcastic? >_>

Extremism isn’t a good thing, really.

Another interesting thing is that gold is only valuable because people say it is valuable and we have faith in the fact that it is valued by others...which is exactly the same principle functioning behind the fractional reserve and government-backed fiat money.

Honestly, gold has no real purpose or value other than in very small, even microscopic quantities for advanced manufacturing or for use in jewelry.


Well, the most likely attribute cited to give gold value will be its relative rarity, which in turn helps prevent inflation, etc. However, pieces of specially stamped paper can be just as rare, and inflation in that case need not necessarily be the case. Its just a matter of hanging enough politicians.


I'd definitely rather have a computer, book or a car than a similar amount of gold.

Gold has plenty of useful industrial purposes. In the electronics inside that computer or car, for instance.



Gold performs critical functions in computers, communications equipment, spacecraft, jet aircraft engines, and a host of other products.
The resistance to oxidation of gold has led to its widespread use as thin layers electroplated on the surface of electrical connectors to ensure a good connection.
Gold is used in restorative dentistry especially in tooth restorations such as crowns and permanent bridges as its slight malleablity makes a superior molar mating surface to other teeth, unlike a harder ceramic crown. Use of gold crowns in more prominent teeth such as incisors is favored in some cultures and discouraged in others.
so on and so forth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Applications

Extremism isn’t a good thing, really.

Can you think of as many moderates famous in history as you can extremists?

Can you think of as many moderates famous in history as you can extremists?
No, but most people in history fail eventually. The ones I admire were moderates, especially by today's standards. MLK, Hamilton, Eisenhower, to name a few.

Well, the most likely attribute cited to give gold value will be its relative rarity, which in turn helps prevent inflation, etc. However, pieces of specially stamped paper can be just as rare, and inflation in that case need not necessarily be the case. Its just a matter of hanging enough politicians.

Set a target for steady growth of the money supply and eliminate cyclical fiscal and most cyclical monetary policy; fiat money works, but it's the government's responsibility to regulate the supply in order to keep its value constant.

Gold has plenty of useful industrial purposes. In the electronics inside that computer or car, for instance.

Even so, 75% of gold goes in to jewelry; the amount used in industrial application is only a very small portion of the amount consumed each year. If demand for jewelry plunges, so does demand for gold and the supply soars causing inflation

I'm sure this was a little bit further down your list, but how about: a voucher scheme, or perhaps low interest loans, to allow dogs to get an education and seek gainful employment keeping vision impaired people safe?

Just trying to help ;)

Can you think of as many moderates famous in history as you can extremists?

What does being "famous in history" have to do with anything? It certainly has no bearing on the morality, correctness, or truth of a given ideology.

Income, payroll, and property taxes are a nationalization of people, and should be banned. Sales taxes are allowed, if necessary.

There should be no welfare state. A tax rebate of equal value for every adult should be used instead. Each child should get a tax rebate given to their parents or caretakers.


Have I missed something here? You plan to abolish all taxes except sales taxes, and yet give everybody an equal tax rebate, yes? Why not just tax them less through a lower sales tax in the first place?

It's a proven fact that people have become healthier, wealthier, more advanced, more educated and more employed than they were in the time of the gold standard and I don't think it's worth taking that risk.

do you not think that by chance people may be healthier because of the changes in the medical fields, or more educated because of government programs opening schools up to everyone?

i can say that people are more healthier now then they were in the aztec civilization (and if my 8th grade history teacher/my memory serves me right they were a barter system)

do you not think that by chance people may be healthier because of the changes in the medical fields, or more educated because of government programs opening schools up to everyone?

i can say that people are more healthier now then they were in the aztec civilization (and if my 8th grade history teacher/my memory serves me right they were a barter system)

But economic prosperity was needed for those things to happen; rising wealth and the development of a socially mobile middle class cultivated the progressive movement that brought us comprehensive public education health care, social programs, and labor market reforms.

They go hand in hand; a society that isn't prosperous can't develop widespread literacy or rising living standards. Periods of hardship can motivate these changes (like the New Deal), but they ultimately hinge on the development of a wealthy middle class, social mobility and strong economy.

What does being "famous in history" have to do with anything? It certainly has no bearing on the morality, correctness, or truth of a given ideology.

Not necessarily, but they are the ones who have the greatest effect on the development of the human race.

Have I missed something here? You plan to abolish all taxes except sales taxes, and yet give everybody an equal tax rebate, yes? Why not just tax them less through a lower sales tax in the first place?

Sales taxes are regressive- because the poor consume more than they save or invest, they would be paying a higher rate effectively than those with greater means. I don't want poor people to suffer because of this.

Not necessarily, but they are the ones who have the greatest effect on the development of the human race.


If this is true, considering the current state of homo sapiens sapiens, the "famous" are easily the most dangerous of all. In which case, apathy isn't enough; they must be actively opposed, or at least have their agendas made as difficult as possible.

So again, the "famous" point is hardly working in favor of "extremism."

Who's more capitalistic than me? what's it worth to you for me to vote? http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/1370.gif

Why have even sales taxes? And of course the government should be able to own means of production, just not monopolistic ones. Let the government use its resources to generate its own income and do away with taxes altogether.

Treat the government like a business, rather than a charity.

No, but most people in history fail eventually. The ones I admire were moderates, especially by today's standards. MLK, Hamilton, Eisenhower, to name a few.

Martin Luther King was not a "moderate."

Who's more capitalistic than you? I pray to our Lord that such a being has not been visited upon us.

I suspect that if such a thing were to appear, it would be upon a pale horse...:p

Sales taxes are regressive- because the poor consume more than they save or invest, they would be paying a higher rate effectively than those with greater means. I don't want poor people to suffer because of this.Then why not abolish the sales taxes?

Sales taxes are regressive- because the poor consume more than they save or invest, they would be paying a higher rate effectively than those with greater means. I don't want poor people to suffer because of this.

Wuss. Why worry if the poor are suffering or not? Leave it to individual non-government charity to look after the problem if there is one, rather than bloating out the state needlessly.

Why have even sales taxes? And of course the government should be able to own means of production, just not monopolistic ones. Let the government use its resources to generate its own income and do away with taxes altogether.

Treat the government like a business, rather than a charity.

Hmmm, maybe. But I'm wondering how the government would be able to support defense, national security and protection against force and fraud. The only way I can think of is to charge everyone under the defense of those institutions, which would end up being a de facto tax.

Then why not abolish the sales taxes?

Gotta get the money some way. I find the sales tax to be the least objectionable of all taxes, since it can be made roughly analogous to paying for the defense from force and fraud necessary to build goods, much like the consumer pays the transportation and marketing of goods in their purchases.

Wuss. Why worry if the poor are suffering or not? Leave it to individual non-government charity to look after the problem if there is one, rather than bloating out the state needlessly.

Because it would be a problem caused by government (typical). It would be the state's responsibility to clean up after it's own mess.

I suspect that if such a thing were to appear, it would be upon a pale horse...:p

Well, I came in on a pale pony, so... :D

Wow. The OP is like Ultra-Capitalist in my opinion.

I like pudding.

Another stupid Randroid.

Because it would be a problem caused by government (typical). It would be the state's responsibility to clean up after it's own mess.

Huh? How do you reckon the state caused the poor? They are always with us, and existed long before the state did, no?

Gotta get the money some way. I find the sales tax to be the least objectionable of all taxes, since it can be made roughly analogous to paying for the defense from force and fraud necessary to build goods, much like the consumer pays the transportation and marketing of goods in their purchases.


But isn't there a similar defense from force and fraud on incomes? After all, our income is protected from these things by the government and it is our income that is necessary to justify production of goods and services.

Consumption drives economic growth, so why not collect the tax on incomes and abolish sales taxes so that people aren't penalized for consumption? It seems to make more sense to collect the government's taxes at the beginning rather than the end of the production cycle, since taxes on goods can be subverted much more easily than taxes on incomes.

I consider most people who would call themselves "capitalist" to actually be more or less socialist in their economic views (This, I believe, is fairly common with Austrian economists such as myself). But then I got to wondering- would anyone consider me a Marxist in disguise, in turn? So, I decided to list my ideal economic policies, and see if anyone is more capitalistic than I.

Warning: For the more left-leaning readers, I would recommend sitting down before reading the list- don't want to suffer a heart attack or stroke while standing up, y'know.

Abolish the Federal Reserve and fiat money, replace it with gold standard.
Fractional reserve bankers should be held at the mercy of bank runs, with no assistance from the government.
Income, payroll, and property taxes are a nationalization of people, and should be banned. Sales taxes are allowed, if necessary.
Most environmental issues should be solved with arbitration between polluter and pollutee- this would entail the elimination of much environmental regulation.
In fact, just get rid of 90% of regulation. Use arbitration of property rights to solve any issues that pop up.
There should be no welfare state. A tax rebate of equal value for every adult should be used instead. Each child should get a tax rebate given to their parents or caretakers.
There should be no subsidies for industry.
There should be no tarriffs between free countries.
National and state governments should be constitutionally restricted to only be defense agencies against force and fraud.
No minimum wage or other government-enforced costs for employers.
No anti-trust legislation.
Government should leave business and unions to themselves to resolve issues, with no supporting either.
Abolish public education, and give every minor a per-capita voucher.
Government should own no means of production whatsoever.

I think those are enough examples. Now, am I capitalist enough (Or too much so)?

Following the views of my nation, I'd say I'm more capitalistic than you are. Guns n Whiskey has no nationalization at all, even when it comes to defense. We don't give out rebates or have sales taxes either.

Hmmm, maybe. But I'm wondering how the government would be able to support defense, national security and protection against force and fraud. The only way I can think of is to charge everyone under the defense of those institutions, which would end up being a de facto tax.


Simple: it ain't the government's job to do so. If I desire protection from force I subscribe to a security firm, and if I desire protection from force I subscribe to a legal firm.

For such an self-avowed ultra-capitalist you seem to have a morbid fascination with keeping the bloatred corpse of the state's needless functions alive. Did old Bob Nozick die in vain?

Simple: it ain't the government's job to do so. If I desire protection from force I subscribe to a security firm, and if I desire protection from force I subscribe to a legal firm.

I don't know, I think I prefer the task of filling out form 1040-EZ once a year to having to live in a nationwide version of Bosnia...

Who's more capitalistic than you? I pray to our Lord that such a being has not been visited upon us.

I suspect that if such a thing were to appear, it would be upon a pale horse...:p

Ha:p

I don't know, I think I prefer the task of filling out form 1040-EZ once a year to having to live in a nationwide version of Bosnia...

Is Bosnia not a nation* anyhow? Surely Bosnia is the nationwide version of Bosnia.




* although not a nation-state.

Who's more capitalistic than you?

*points to self*

I pray to our Lord that such a being has not been visited upon us.

I suspect that if such a thing were to appear, it would be upon a pale horse...:p

Sadly, no.

Is Bosnia not a nation* anyhow? Surely Bosnia is the nationwide version of Bosnia.

* although not a nation-state.

There's Bosnia and Herzegovina (one country), but I think Bosnia is a region of that country and was the one with the heaviest fighting during the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990's.

You could use Chechnya for a more modern example.

There's Bosnia and Herzegovina (one country)...

Yup, thus my distinction between being a nation and being a nation-state.

...but I think Bosnia is a region of that country and was the one with the heaviest fighting during the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990's.

Quite possibly so, but the correlation between competing wannabee statist powers motivated by ideology and the marketplace of security firms is a shakey one at best.

Quite possibly so, but the correlation between competing wannabee statist powers and the marketplace of security firms is a shakey one at best.

I don't know, I could imagine security firms fighting each other in the streets during a nasty merger battle or Wal-Mart sending in its troops when a community resists its new store...

I don't know, I could imagine security firms fighting each other in the streets during a nasty merger battle or Wal-Mart sending in its troops when a community resists its new store...

And I could imagine that a gorgeous woman will come up to me where I'm sitting and offer herself to me. Being able to imagine something is hardly good evidence of it being likely to happen.

And I could imagine that a gorgeous woman will come up to me where I'm sitting and offer herself to me. Being able to imagine something is hardly good evidence of it being likely to happen.

Or, you could look at Somalia.

I don't know, I could imagine security firms fighting each other in the streets during a nasty merger battle or Wal-Mart sending in its troops when a community resists its new store...

Possibly, but is such a set-up likely to be better or worse than state-run armies? I can't really envisage the equivalent of WWII being fought by rent-a-cops. If nothing else there is a strong incentive for security firms to either create treaties governing how they will respond to each other should they come into conflict or to abstract and formalise the conflict - they may well end up fighting each other in the streets, but likely they will only be paintballing each other.

Or, you could look at Somalia.

Competing wannabe statist powers again, rather than security firms. A better counter-argument could probably be better based on the use of force during the American labour disputes of the 20's.

Possibly, but is such a set-up likely to be better or worse than state-run armies. I can't really envisage the equivalent of WWII being fought by rent-a-cops. If nothing else there is a strong incentive for security firms to either create treaties governing how they will respond to each other should they come into conflict or to abstract and formalise the conflict.

It wouldn't be WWII but rather constant, small scale fighting that would severely inhibit trade; it would be impossible to build the interregional infrastructure necessary to trade on a global scale if you had to worry about corporate militias from rival companies sabotaging every mile of it or even clients destroying portions of it to hobble other users of the same thing,

Infrastructure would be unsustainable on anything but the most local scale. That's why there are no highways in Somalia...

I consider most people who would call themselves "capitalist" to actually be more or less socialist in their economic views (This, I believe, is fairly common with Austrian economists such as myself). But then I got to wondering- would anyone consider me a Marxist in disguise, in turn? So, I decided to list my ideal economic policies, and see if anyone is more capitalistic than I.

Warning: For the more left-leaning readers, I would recommend sitting down before reading the list- don't want to suffer a heart attack or stroke while standing up, y'know.

Abolish the Federal Reserve and fiat money, replace it with gold standard.
Fractional reserve bankers should be held at the mercy of bank runs, with no assistance from the government.
Income, payroll, and property taxes are a nationalization of people, and should be banned. Sales taxes are allowed, if necessary.
Most environmental issues should be solved with arbitration between polluter and pollutee- this would entail the elimination of much environmental regulation.
In fact, just get rid of 90% of regulation. Use arbitration of property rights to solve any issues that pop up.
There should be no welfare state. A tax rebate of equal value for every adult should be used instead. Each child should get a tax rebate given to their parents or caretakers.
There should be no subsidies for industry.
There should be no tarriffs between free countries.
National and state governments should be constitutionally restricted to only be defense agencies against force and fraud.
No minimum wage or other government-enforced costs for employers.
No anti-trust legislation.
Government should leave business and unions to themselves to resolve issues, with no supporting either.
Abolish public education, and give every minor a per-capita voucher.
Government should own no means of production whatsoever.

I think those are enough examples. Now, am I capitalist enough (Or too much so)?

I love you!

Maybe that was a bit excentric. What I mean is that I agree with you wholeheartedly, with the exception of the anti-trust thing. Also, I think that tariffs are up to that particular nation, and are definately protected by soveriegnty (which I believe exists based on the nation's ability to protect it, so a nation with a weak military puttin' tariffs on the products of a powerful nation is asking to be raped). Still, I really strongly agree on everything else.

*hugs and awards cookie*

Competing wannabe statist powers again, rather than security firms. A better counter-argument could probably be better based on the use of force during the American labour disputes of the 20's.

Somalia has no government and no regulation of business; private militias representing different factions fight over the territory but there is no control at all, even within the "capital" of Mogadishu.

Or, you could look at Somalia.

I'll do that sometime. But I seriously doubt it will afford me a good image of what a developed nation with a very different culture like the US or England would look like after de-regulation. Granted, there are certain similar social dynamics, but the starting points are rather different, so I'm reluctant to suggest that the end results will be the same.

I'll do that sometime. But I seriously doubt it will afford me a good image of what a developed nation with a very different culture like the US or England would look like after de-regulation. Granted, there are certain similar social dynamics, but the starting points are rather different, so I'm reluctant to suggest that the end results will be the same.

Developed nations were developed thanks to strong central governments, professional armies, and secure international trade and national currencies; no economy has developed without these things, and it seems rather fallacious to assume no one would take advantage of an anarchic situation to their own advantage; unscrupulous businesses manage to rip off customers even within our fairly regulated environment so it would be even worse in a totally deregulated one.

That's why there are no highways in Somalia...

...apart from the 22,100 miles of highways in Somalia.

Somalia has no government and no regulation of business; private militias representing different factions fight over the territory but there is no control at all, even within the "capital" of Mogadishu.

And the problem here is what, exactly? Is this not the unfettered realisation of the true capitalist dream?

...apart from the 22,100 miles of highways in Somalia.

Sorry, no secure or well-maintained highways. You can drive them, but you get the pleasure of being stopped by armed men and forced to pay extortionary "tolls" to keep driving along with all the potholes and damage to the roads from years of anarchy.

22,100 miles of highway is nothing in a country the size of Texas. Texas has over 300,000 miles of highway and all of it is secure and well-maintained.

And the problem here is what, exactly? Is this not the unfettered realisation of the true capitalist dream?

Well, if by that you mean militias slaughtering towns of people and devastating the countryside, an utter lack of national infrastructure, massive poverty and unemployment along with one of the smallest per-capita GDPs in the world, you're correct.

Needless to say, that's not the "capitalist dream" I would ever want.

Developed nations were developed thanks to strong central governments, professional armies, and secure international trade and national currencies; no economy has developed without these things, and it seems rather fallacious to assume no one would take advantage of an anarchic situation to their own advantage; unscrupulous businesses manage to rip off customers even within our fairly regulated environment so it would be even worse in a totally deregulated one.

I also seems fallacious to assume that the people who do take advantage of it will be of such a number and character that they will form crazed militias, destroy infrastructure, and generally fuck the country over.

I also seems fallacious to assume that the people who do take advantage of it will be of such a number and character that they will form crazed militias, destroy infrastructure, and generally fuck the country over.

It snowballs; most of these collapses were the result of gradual declines in control that eventually consumed the entire country. As abuses become more and more common and people learn to take advantage of the system better and better, it's easy to see how it can descend in to chaos fairly rapidly.

I consider most people who would call themselves "capitalist" to actually be more or less socialist in their economic views (This, I believe, is fairly common with Austrian economists such as myself). But then I got to wondering- would anyone consider me a Marxist in disguise, in turn? So, I decided to list my ideal economic policies, and see if anyone is more capitalistic than I.

Warning: For the more left-leaning readers, I would recommend sitting down before reading the list- don't want to suffer a heart attack or stroke while standing up, y'know.

Abolish the Federal Reserve and fiat money, replace it with gold standard.
Fractional reserve bankers should be held at the mercy of bank runs, with no assistance from the government.
Income, payroll, and property taxes are a nationalization of people, and should be banned. Sales taxes are allowed, if necessary.
Most environmental issues should be solved with arbitration between polluter and pollutee- this would entail the elimination of much environmental regulation.
In fact, just get rid of 90% of regulation. Use arbitration of property rights to solve any issues that pop up.
There should be no welfare state. A tax rebate of equal value for every adult should be used instead. Each child should get a tax rebate given to their parents or caretakers.
There should be no subsidies for industry.
There should be no tarriffs between free countries.
National and state governments should be constitutionally restricted to only be defense agencies against force and fraud.
No minimum wage or other government-enforced costs for employers.
No anti-trust legislation.
Government should leave business and unions to themselves to resolve issues, with no supporting either.
Abolish public education, and give every minor a per-capita voucher.
Government should own no means of production whatsoever.

I think those are enough examples. Now, am I capitalist enough (Or too much so)?

I only disagree in principle with establishing a gold standard. There should be no standard, give money no value except the utility it provides. Then it will be used instead of traded.

I also would like to see the legal entities known as corporations eliminated.

In actuality, I think government needs to be repeatedly destroyed. A self-annihilating government is the only way we can keep ourselves free.

It snowballs; most of these collapses were the result of gradual declines in control that eventually consumed the entire country. As abuses become more and more common and people learn to take advantage of the system better and better, it's easy to see how it can descend in to chaos fairly rapidly.

Not that rapidly, especially not in a well-established state with a culture of apathy. Nations with old and well-developed social institutions and cultures tend to have a lot of momentum.

If the social insitutions were suddenly gone one day due to a military strike by another nations or a coup from within, I would agree with you that it's likely to descend into destructive anarchy pretty quickly. I find that considerably less likely in the case of the gradual de-regulation of a developed state, however.

Not that rapidly, especially not in a well-established state with a culture of apathy. Nations with old and well-developed social institutions and cultures tend to have a lot of momentum.

If the social insitutions were suddenly gone one day due to a military strike by another nations or a coup from within, I would agree with you that it's likely to descend into destructive anarchy pretty quickly. I find that considerably less likely in the case of the gradual de-regulation of a developed state, however.

But gradual deregulation would take a long time in order to mitigate the negative effects that might arise; it has taken at least a decade for the electricity and telecom markets to successfully deregulate, and that hasn't been without major crises that threatened the entire process.

Practically, it makes sense to retain some regulation in order to prevent problems and to soothe populist anger; if there was a serious market failure, you'd see the deregulation reforms eliminated almost overnight. It's better to balance the two than to try and achieve total control or total freedom.

But isn't there a similar defense from force and fraud on incomes? After all, our income is protected from these things by the government and it is our income that is necessary to justify production of goods and services.

Consumption drives economic growth, so why not collect the tax on incomes and abolish sales taxes so that people aren't penalized for consumption? It seems to make more sense to collect the government's taxes at the beginning rather than the end of the production cycle, since taxes on goods can be subverted much more easily than taxes on incomes.Yes, I agree with this, and am stating so to give the OP another chance to respond.

Abolish the Federal Reserve and fiat money, replace it with gold standard.
Fractional reserve bankers should be held at the mercy of bank runs, with no assistance from the government.
Income, payroll, and property taxes are a nationalization of people, and should be banned. Sales taxes are allowed, if necessary.
Most environmental issues should be solved with arbitration between polluter and pollutee- this would entail the elimination of much environmental regulation.
In fact, just get rid of 90% of regulation. Use arbitration of property rights to solve any issues that pop up.
There should be no welfare state. A tax rebate of equal value for every adult should be used instead. Each child should get a tax rebate given to their parents or caretakers.
There should be no subsidies for industry.
There should be no tarriffs between free countries.
National and state governments should be constitutionally restricted to only be defense agencies against force and fraud.
No minimum wage or other government-enforced costs for employers.
No anti-trust legislation.
Government should leave business and unions to themselves to resolve issues, with no supporting either.
Abolish public education, and give every minor a per-capita voucher.
Government should own no means of production whatsoever.


The gold standard is ludicrous. Gold is a commodity and only holds its current value because having gold in a safe makes some people feel secure (its no better than a security blanket). It has no special intrinsic value that makes it a good currency. Fiat currency is a far better means of exchange (provided the entity creating that currency does not try to manipulate it too much).

I have no problem with federally insured banks as those banks pay an insurance fee – no different than any other insurance company, it just happens to be the government. Same reason why I don’t have a problem with unemployment – you pay for that insurance. I do strongly believe that both should be entirely voluntary though.

Taxes are a tricky issue – the fewer the better. Sales taxes have their own problems as well. Once you pare down government you do not need nearly as much income, so taxes could be drastically slashed. The government has massive holdings of land, so why not simply collect rents from land? Lumber companies could pay a fee to log certain areas of land (with appropriate environmental restrictions of course – I’m not saying clear cut all wilderness).

Most regulations could be eliminated – take personal responsibility for your own actions. Fraud should be prosecuted, but you should not need a warning label to not iron your clothes when worn (or you deserve to be burnt).

Free trade is good – no subsidies, no tariffs, as little market distortions as possible.
Most of the functions of government should be pared back to what was dictated in the constitution (by a traditional interpretation – not the ‘provide for the general welfare’ means socialism garbage).

Eewwwwwwww, an Austrian economist! Get him away. We shall have no Rockwell, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, DiLorenzo, Bohm-Bawerk, Kirzner, or Herman-Hoppe here.

Austrian and Chicargo economics are faaar too addictive!

http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/


http://www.mises.org/articles.aspx?action=title

Abolish the Federal Reserve and fiat money, replace it with gold standard.
Fractional reserve bankers should be held at the mercy of bank runs, with no assistance from the government.
Income, payroll, and property taxes are a nationalization of people, and should be banned. Sales taxes are allowed, if necessary.
Most environmental issues should be solved with arbitration between polluter and pollutee- this would entail the elimination of much environmental regulation.
In fact, just get rid of 90% of regulation. Use arbitration of property rights to solve any issues that pop up.
There should be no welfare state. A tax rebate of equal value for every adult should be used instead. Each child should get a tax rebate given to their parents or caretakers.
There should be no subsidies for industry.
There should be no tarriffs between free countries.
National and state governments should be constitutionally restricted to only be defense agencies against force and fraud.
No minimum wage or other government-enforced costs for employers.
No anti-trust legislation.
Government should leave business and unions to themselves to resolve issues, with no supporting either.
Abolish public education, and give every minor a per-capita voucher.
Government should own no means of production whatsoever.

This is the part when I abandon the sinking ship, and run like hell from anything the could be coneivably effected by the ensuing economic implosion, and go join an aboriginal tribe in South America.

This is the part when I abandon the sinking ship, and run like hell from anything the could be coneivably effected by the ensuing economic implosion, and go join an aboriginal tribe in South America.

You won't be welcomed by the indigenous peoples here if you go around calling them aboriginals. South America is not Australia.

I am an extreme capitalist, yet I do not agree with the OP entirely. If monopolies are not broken down using anti-trust laws the free market is in danger of self-annihilation. That is assuming monopolies are not the result of State intervention; I'd need to study the topic at greater length before I can ascertain something like this.

Other than this we are more or less in agreement. I think the free-market should be encouraged to cover as much ground as possible. At its absolute most a government should be limited to some minor regulation (including environmental concerns), providing the most basic of public goods in order to create a safety net and providing defence, law and order. Again, this is if and only if the free-market cannot do so adequately.

I differ from the Austrian School in that I do not see their epistemology as perfect - it needs revision. So maybe I am closer to the Chicago School or even Ordo-liberalism. At any rate, Hans Hermann-Hoppe is one of my biggest inspirations, and I am a borderline anarchocapitalist. Hence I am torn between minarchism and anarchocapitalism. Either way, I am a pure capitalist. I am also all for secessionism.

I am an extreme capitalist, yet I do not agree with the OP entirely. If monopolies are not broken down using anti-trust laws the free market is in danger of self-annihilation. That is assuming monopolies are not the result of State intervention; I'd need to study the topic at greater length before I can ascertain something like this.

There are some industries that are natural monopolies; it wouldn't matter if there was a state or not because they would be a monopoly due to the nature of the industry itself. Unfortunately, these industries are also ones that are vital to the functioning of all the others; roads, electricity generation and transmission, and water services all fall in to this category.

There are some industries that are natural monopolies; it wouldn't matter if there was a state or not because they would be a monopoly due to the nature of the industry itself. Unfortunately, these industries are also ones that are vital to the functioning of all the others; roads, electricity generation and transmission, and water services all fall in to this category.
That is the conclusion I have come to as well so far. The problem is this transcends the system - it would be a problem in a managed economy, in a lightly regulated one (minarchist) or even an unfettered one (anarchocapitalism). My bias for minarchism is due to the fact that I think it's the one that can best deal with the problem.

That is the conclusion I have come to as well so far. The problem is this transcends the system - it would be a problem in a managed economy, in a lightly regulated one (minarchist) or even an unfettered one (anarchocapitalism). My bias for minarchism is due to the fact that I think it's the one that can best deal with the problem.

I personally feel the US government's current position is fairly adequate; we need some small reforms and scaling back of some federal regulation, but the US government currently has a pretty effective "touch and go" policy that balances consumers and businesses.

Really, the main area that needs to be reformed is the business tax code; it is unnecessarily complex and costs our businesses a lot more than any government regulations.

I personally feel the US government's current position is fairly adequate; we need some small reforms and scaling back of some federal regulation, but the US government currently has a pretty effective "touch and go" policy that balances consumers and businesses.

Really, the main area that needs to be reformed is the business tax code; it is unnecessarily complex and costs our businesses a lot more than any government regulations.
Aye, this may well be what the USA needs. I myself am far more laissez-faire than that even; however, so long as the USA does not meddle in the business of European states, I am not concerned by which approach it adopts.

Aye, this may well be what the USA needs. I myself am far more laissez-faire than that even; however, so long as the USA does not meddle in the business of European states, I am not concerned by which approach it adopts.

It will if European companies have US divisions of their companies; the same is true of US companies abroad with European regulators. I tend to see US government policy as a benchmark for worldwide financial regulations because more corporations invest here than US corporations invest abroad, and our decisions can affect worldwide policy.

I am! Fucking reds.

I am! Fucking reds.

Well, you do charge money for your buds.

It will if European companies have US divisions of their companies; the same is true of US companies abroad with European regulators. I tend to see US government policy as a benchmark for worldwide financial regulations because more corporations invest here than US corporations invest abroad, and our decisions can affect worldwide policy.
True. This would more strictly be a matter between the US and these corporations though, rather than the US and European governments. That said, given that the US already adopts liberal enough policies I don't see any reason for serious conflicts to arise. Not to the extent anyway of discouraging European corporations from investing there.

My internet craps out for a few days, and my thread expands like a balloon. Wow.

There's about thirty-billion different things said, so I'll have to choose some general ones. First of all, sales taxes.

But isn't there a similar defense from force and fraud on incomes? After all, our income is protected from these things by the government and it is our income that is necessary to justify production of goods and services.

Consumption drives economic growth, so why not collect the tax on incomes and abolish sales taxes so that people aren't penalized for consumption? It seems to make more sense to collect the government's taxes at the beginning rather than the end of the production cycle, since taxes on goods can be subverted much more easily than taxes on incomes.

I believe that the protection from force and fraud is a service. When I got my paycheck for minimum wage, no company automatically takes a chunk of my money and runs off with it. But the government got pocket my hard-earned dollars right off the bat. Why should they get this privilege? Consumption is the biggest factor in the economy, and thus the broadest base, so we can levy a relatively lower tax in that sector, as opposed to having various smaller bases with higher taxation. Also, I believe that a sales tax is the least deleterious tax on capital formation (It's deleterious to saving, and not helpful, because it will tax future consumption the same as present consumption. Saving is forestalling consumption for the future. Ergo, people will act approximately the same. But at least people will have the money available to put in the bank or capital markets to make capital goods).

I also disagree with taxes on income because some income taxation will become imbedded in the production of goods (corporate and other business taxes, for example). This will be eventually born on the consumer, since the companies will just pass along the costs to them. Plus, a sales tax will be on the receipt, so everyone will know how much is going to the government. Also, I disagree about it being easier to cheat on sales tax than income tax- a man can fudge his income taxes and never tell anyone, not even his wife. But if you fudge the sales tax, it involves at least two parties, the buyer and seller, and, most likely, even more people than that.

I've noticed a lot of anarcho-capitalists have tossed in their two cents. I love you guys, and I've considered "conversion" to anarcho-capitalism a great deal, but I just don't think that an anarcho-capitalistic system would remain without a state. Libertarians will move to those security institutions with libertarian ideals, while Baptists will move to those institutions with Baptist ideals, Islamists to Islamist institutions, etc. Since we live in a physical world, it would make the most sense to have these companies occupying a specific geographic area. Not to mention that these companies will have appeals courts, which will bind them to a higher judgement- much like a state. There will come a point when payment will not be asked, but rather people will pay it automatically because there is not much of a choice otherwise available. In other words, the voluntary actions and relations of people will eventually create a state. Hopefully that state will know its place and not overstep its boundaries, but who knows.

It wouldn't be so much a market failure that a state would pop up, it would just be a natural progression of human action, I believe.

A few people have mentioned anti-trust. I think anti-trust laws have been an utter cluster-you-know-what, as we can see from ICC granting monopoly status to transportation and retarding economic growth thereby, effectively creating government monopolies. Small business, start-ups, and entrepeneurship are the only true regulators of the market outside of force and fraud, since, in their own self-interest, they will compete with established players to take away market share. But if you stifle the entrepeneurship, you have the equivalent of having stagnant water with no fresh water rushing in. The best role for government is just to step out of the way and make sure that there is no force or fraud being initiated.

Next, gold. No, I am not an objectivist- too nihilistic for my tastes. But I love gold because it is something that cannot be created by government, it is a true store of value, great for capital formation and savings, and everyone can accept it, thus making international trade all the easier. Personally, I think everyone should be able to start up their own banks and mint money- I'd have coins with me, Mises, Locke, and other people I like on them. :D

I've noticed a lot of anarcho-capitalists have tossed in their two cents.

At least one of us arguing for the anarcho-capitalist line are doing so out of mockery of the idea. I far from support the ideas of Nozick.

*snip*
It seems you are more or less a minarchist. I think we are going to get on famously. :) Welcome to the forums if I haven't already said so.

You aren't an extreme capitalist. You are in fact an extreme economic libertarian. "Surely they're the same thing!" I hear people cry. Not exactly.

The difference is that capitalism, as seen all across the world, needs government. It requires government to not only protect property rights, enforce contractual obligations and ensure order, but also to manage the economy through interest rates, provide regulation for stock markets and so on. To put it another way, they should not interfere in particular economic transactions, but they may need to actively set conditions that allow economies to prosper.

People who think that capitalism necessarily means the removal of government from all aspects of life tend to be people who know more about capitalism in theory rather than the practical workings of modern economic systems.

I have divided up your policies into those that I think are capitalist, and those that I think are econmically libertarian, but not necessarily capitalist. Let me know what you think.


Capitalist:

Most environmental issues should be solved with arbitration between polluter and pollutee- this would entail the elimination of much environmental regulation.
Removing environmental regulations is capitalist. But in this case your solution is just fairy-land stuff. Arbitration only works because there is legal teeth available if the issue goes to court instead. For legal teeth to be available you need environmental regulations and laws in the first place.

There should be no welfare state. A tax rebate of equal value for every adult should be used instead. Each child should get a tax rebate given to their parents or caretakers.
Probably capitalist, but in realistic terms it is likely to result in massive poverty and possibly starvation returning to the West, as existed before welfare. Welfare is too high, but removing it entirely is pretty dumb.

There should be no subsidies for industry.
There should be no tarriffs between free countries.
No minimum wage or other government-enforced costs for employers.
No arguments from me here.

Government should leave business and unions to themselves to resolve issues, with no supporting either.
I'd just about allow this as being capitalist, but unions are a form of monopoly, and their powers should be restricted.

Government should own no means of production whatsoever.
Again, I'll allow this, but if you take a broad meaning of "production" (e.g. police "produce" safety) then it would be uncapitalist, because capitalism requires government.

Abolish public education, and give every minor a per-capita voucher.
Yeah, this is pretty capitalist.[/i]



Non-capitalist

Abolish the Federal Reserve and fiat money, replace it with gold standard.
(I am assuming you use "fiat" in the sense of free-floating?) Abolishing free-floating currencies is actively unlibertarian. There should be a free exchange of money, as there should be a free exchange of everything else.

Fractional reserve bankers should be held at the mercy of bank runs, with no assistance from the government.
This is libertarian, but not capitalist. Fractional Reserve banking is brilliant for economies and a well-established part of the capitalist system. Pulling the rug from under it is economically harmful and dogmatic.

Income, payroll, and property taxes are a nationalization of people, and should be banned. Sales taxes are allowed, if necessary.
This is just an ideological position regarding personal liberty. Sales tax impedes commerce at the expense of, say, saving. If tax is applied on income, and only on income, then the burden is equal on every aspect of your money use, and so none is given an artificial advantage. Your choice will be the natural one, and that would be capitalist.

In fact, just get rid of 90% of regulation. Use arbitration of property rights to solve any issues that pop up.
Regulations should be applied only when necessary, and should be applied when necessary, taking into account all the economic factors. This is a "meritocratic" approach to regulation that is consistent with capitalism, and following it would see a reduction in regulation. However, a '90%' approach clearly does not consider the regulations on their merits, and is therefore dogmatic and therefore non-capitalist.

National and state governments should be constitutionally restricted to only be defense agencies against force and fraud.
Constitutional restrictions are just another form of regulation. The freest sort of constitution is a democracy that allows the government full power. Not a lot of people have noticed this, but it's pretty obvious. Why should people be restricted in what they choose their government to do? Restrictions are bad. Also note that the UK has no constitutional checks on Parliament's power at all, but has not needed them.

No anti-trust legislation.
Monopolies are by nature anti-competitive. Capitalism is dependent on competition to function properly. In the real world, as opposed to in theory books, entering a market is difficult and be blocked by a monoploy, which, in the long run, puts the customer at a disadvantage. Capitalism is all about the customer, not the business. Read Adam Smith about this.

It seems you are more or less a minarchist. I think we are going to get on famously. :) Welcome to the forums if I haven't already said so.

I am indeed a minarchist, and rather proud of it. Thank you very much, friend. :D

The difference is that capitalism, as seen all across the world, needs government. It requires government to not only protect property rights, enforce contractual obligations and ensure order, but also to manage the economy through interest rates, provide regulation for stock markets and so on. To put it another way, they should not interfere in particular economic transactions, but they may need to actively set conditions that allow economies to prosper.

Why does the government have to regulate interest rates? All they end up being is price floors and ceilings for future money. How can price controls for all other goods be dismissed, but for another good they can be accepted, nay, deemed mandatory? What regulations for the stock market are necessary other than prohibitions on fraud? If fraud is discovered, those who commit the fraud will be held accountable to those whom they betray. There is no need to bog down the company with costly regulations that keep small businesses unable to enter the marketplace due to high entry costs.

People who think that capitalism necessarily means the removal of government from all aspects of life tend to be people who know more about capitalism in theory rather than the practical workings of modern economic systems.

You seem to be speaking of anarchists. I am not an anarchist, and I do not promote the removal of government from ALL aspects of life- there should be a state to stop force and fraud, which is a fairly integral part of people's lives.

I have divided up your policies into those that I think are capitalist, and those that I think are econmically libertarian, but not necessarily capitalist. Let me know what you think.

Sure thing.

Capitalist:

Most environmental issues should be solved with arbitration between polluter and pollutee- this would entail the elimination of much environmental regulation.
Removing environmental regulations is capitalist. But in this case your solution is just fairy-land stuff. Arbitration only works because there is legal teeth available if the issue goes to court instead. For legal teeth to be available you need environmental regulations and laws in the first place.

In the early days of the industrial revolution, in the US, people sued coal companies for emissions, and won. These victories encouraged coal companies to develop cleaner technology to reduce their costs. This was, unfortunately, later reversed by a business-friendly congress, but nevertheless it was an example of arbitration working between polluter and pollutee without environmental regulation.

Pollution is, basically, a form of trespassing, and violates people's property rights, at the very least. No one has the right to trespass, obviously, and it is effectively a form of force. If we have a court system to arbitrate in cases of force and fraud, we could come to agreements between polluter and pollutee, just like in the other example, wherein minimal government interference, if any, will be necessary, where firms will be encouraged to pollute less, and where the common people will have a say over what happens to their atmosphere, water, etc.

There should be no welfare state. A tax rebate of equal value for every adult should be used instead. Each child should get a tax rebate given to their parents or caretakers.
Probably capitalist, but in realistic terms it is likely to result in massive poverty and possibly starvation returning to the West, as existed before welfare. Welfare is too high, but removing it entirely is pretty dumb.

The rebate (basically a negative tax) is better than the welfare state, because it does not involve government officials deciding where to spend money, but just giving money to everyone to use as they see fit.

There should be no subsidies for industry.
There should be no tarriffs between free countries.
No minimum wage or other government-enforced costs for employers.
No arguments from me here.

Good. :D

Government should leave business and unions to themselves to resolve issues, with no supporting either.
I'd just about allow this as being capitalist, but unions are a form of monopoly, and their powers should be restricted.

If people are allowed to associate with unions as they wish, whether to hire, fire, join or leave, then they are not a monopoly. If unions exist in the marketplace without any coercion, but rather through purely voluntary actions and relations of people, it obviously means that those people believe they are benefitting from these relationships. I would not interfere with this.

Government should own no means of production whatsoever.
Again, I'll allow this, but if you take a broad meaning of "production" (e.g. police "produce" safety) then it would be uncapitalist, because capitalism requires government.

Again, I'm not an anarchist. I simply want to avoid nationalization by government.

Abolish public education, and give every minor a per-capita voucher.
Yeah, this is pretty capitalist.[/i]

Agreed. :D



Non-capitalist

Abolish the Federal Reserve and fiat money, replace it with gold standard.
(I am assuming you use "fiat" in the sense of free-floating?) Abolishing free-floating currencies is actively unlibertarian. There should be a free exchange of money, as there should be a free exchange of everything else.

No, you misunderstand what I mean by fiat. I mean money that is simply made legal tender by the government, and which is not backed up by anything.

Fractional reserve bankers should be held at the mercy of bank runs, with no assistance from the government.
This is libertarian, but not capitalist. Fractional Reserve banking is brilliant for economies and a well-established part of the capitalist system. Pulling the rug from under it is economically harmful and dogmatic.

If you consider consumption beyond one's means, massive debt, rampant inflation, devaluation of money, deceptively low interest rates and the defrauding of savers brilliant, then yes, the Fed and fractional reserve banking are brilliant indeed.

Income, payroll, and property taxes are a nationalization of people, and should be banned. Sales taxes are allowed, if necessary.
This is just an ideological position regarding personal liberty. Sales tax impedes commerce at the expense of, say, saving. If tax is applied on income, and only on income, then the burden is equal on every aspect of your money use, and so none is given an artificial advantage. Your choice will be the natural one, and that would be capitalist.

But people's consumption schedules are relatively constant, as shown by statistical data. Therefore, a tax on income will eliminate savings most heavily, as people will try to maintain their consumption at the expense of saving. Saving is forestalling present consumption for future consumption. As a sales tax does not discriminate between present and future consumption, it would be the most neutral of taxes on people's time preferences- the rate at which people prefer present goods to future goods.

In fact, just get rid of 90% of regulation. Use arbitration of property rights to solve any issues that pop up.
Regulations should be applied only when necessary, and should be applied when necessary, taking into account all the economic factors. This is a "meritocratic" approach to regulation that is consistent with capitalism, and following it would see a reduction in regulation. However, a '90%' approach clearly does not consider the regulations on their merits, and is therefore dogmatic and therefore non-capitalist.

I really don't see the need for most regulations, if we have a common law society that can punish those who commit acts of force and fraud. Regulation will just make everything more expensive for the honest, effectively acting as a sort of collective punishment. There is really no need to complicate matters.

National and state governments should be constitutionally restricted to only be defense agencies against force and fraud.
Constitutional restrictions are just another form of regulation. The freest sort of constitution is a democracy that allows the government full power. Not a lot of people have noticed this, but it's pretty obvious. Why should people be restricted in what they choose their government to do? Restrictions are bad. Also note that the UK has no constitutional checks on Parliament's power at all, but has not needed them.

Quite honestly, I'm not a democrat (small d). To quote the great F. A. Hayek, "Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom." Constitutional restrictions may be regulations, but they are not a regulation of the free, uncoerced actions of people. Rather, it is a restriction of the use of the monopoly of force, so that it is not used to coerce the people. The people should never have power over each other, but only power over their own domain.

No anti-trust legislation.
Monopolies are by nature anti-competitive. Capitalism is dependent on competition to function properly. In the real world, as opposed to in theory books, entering a market is difficult and be blocked by a monoploy, which, in the long run, puts the customer at a disadvantage. Capitalism is all about the customer, not the business. Read Adam Smith about this.

Anti-trust regulation really hasn't improved the welfare of the consumer- take the ICC, for example, regulating where and how various transportation companies are allowed to operate. If we exclude force and fraud as things that would prevent a new company to enter the market (which was what Smith was referencing), the government is really the only thing that can prevent new business from entering, what with their use of subsidy and regulation. Otherwise, the monopoly establishment is always threatened by the entry of new businesses- the "monopolistic" American railroads in all reality had among the lowest fares in the world, after all.

I believe that the protection from force and fraud is a service. When I got my paycheck for minimum wage, no company automatically takes a chunk of my money and runs off with it. But the government got pocket my hard-earned dollars right off the bat. Why should they get this privilege? Consumption is the biggest factor in the economy, and thus the broadest base, so we can levy a relatively lower tax in that sector, as opposed to having various smaller bases with higher taxation. Also, I believe that a sales tax is the least deleterious tax on capital formation (It's deleterious to saving, and not helpful, because it will tax future consumption the same as present consumption. Saving is forestalling consumption for the future. Ergo, people will act approximately the same. But at least people will have the money available to put in the bank or capital markets to make capital goods).

Well, I don't know; we have to remember that defense from force and fraud occurs at all levels of the production cycle. You would not be hired or recieving a paycheck from the company if that company's goods and services were not protected from criminal actions; they would not be able to produce goods and services if their raw materials were not protected from crime, and those people would not be able to produce raw materials if their means of production were not protected. Of course, production of raw materials requires manufactured goods, which require human labor, which require resources and consumption of goods, which proceeds to ad infinitum because of the circular flow of resources in the economy.

It's technically impossible to pinpoint the beginning and end of the circular flow of production factors in a capitalist economy, so that defense from fraud and other crimes has to be built in to all of the factors in order for the system to function. The money you are paid has the same protection from fraud built in to it as the final goods sold to consumers do, so it would make sense to pay tax on income in order to cover the share of that defense that goes to your income. The same is true of taxes levied on raw materials, property, business revenue, capital gains, dividends, interest payments and all other sources of capital in the economy.

However, it's important to note that in the event that the government was drastically scaled back to minarchist levels that all tax burdens would be extremely reduced. Income tax, along with all other taxes, would be low to the point of having almost no effect at any level.

Why does the government have to regulate interest rates? All they end up being is price floors and ceilings for future money. How can price controls for all other goods be dismissed, but for another good they can be accepted, nay, deemed mandatory? What regulations for the stock market are necessary other than prohibitions on fraud? If fraud is discovered, those who commit the fraud will be held accountable to those whom they betray. There is no need to bog down the company with costly regulations that keep small businesses unable to enter the marketplace due to high entry costs.

On interest rates - we need them because we have not reached a point where economies will self-stabilise without interest rate controls. Businesses and people will eventually do things in their own interests, but they don't think collectively in the long term. It may happen in the future.

Stock market regulations - Companies listed on the AIM (The UK junior exchange) recently lobbied to be regulated more heavily. This presumably surprises you. But in fact the disclosure requirements, while being an extra expense for the company, more than make up for it by increasing investor confidence. Stock markets depend entirely on trust and confidence, and the regulations help it. This is real-world capitalism, rather than theoretical capitalism.

The rebate (basically a negative tax) is better than the welfare state, because it does not involve government officials deciding where to spend money, but just giving money to everyone to use as they see fit.

Sorry, I think I totally forgot what you had actually written between reading it and writing my reply. My bad.

If people are allowed to associate with unions as they wish, whether to hire, fire, join or leave, then they are not a monopoly. If unions exist in the marketplace without any coercion, but rather through purely voluntary actions and relations of people, it obviously means that those people believe they are benefitting from these relationships. I would not interfere with this.

This depends pretty well on how you see monopolies, if you agree with me that unions, or some of them, are a form of monopoly (i.e. they can use the fact that they control all the labour of that type to get a better deal than they would in a competitive environment).

No, you misunderstand what I mean by fiat. I mean money that is simply made legal tender by the government, and which is not backed up by anything.

Ah, OK. It is often used either way, and I just guessed by the context.

It does not matter at all if a currency is not backed by gold. That became irrlevant long before the gold standard was abandoned. The dollar will not fail. Nor will the Euro. Nor will the pound. If it does in our lifetimes I will hunt you down and personally give you £1,000 myself. ;)

It's way better to reap the advantages of the free exchange of money.

If you consider consumption beyond one's means, massive debt, rampant inflation, devaluation of money, deceptively low interest rates and the defrauding of savers brilliant, then yes, the Fed and fractional reserve banking are brilliant indeed.

Wow. What country do you live in?:p

But people's consumption schedules are relatively constant, as shown by statistical data. Therefore, a tax on income will eliminate savings most heavily, as people will try to maintain their consumption at the expense of saving. Saving is forestalling present consumption for future consumption. As a sales tax does not discriminate between present and future consumption, it would be the most neutral of taxes on people's time preferences- the rate at which people prefer present goods to future goods.

But a tax on sales will just mean that people have to spend more of their income on goods, and so will save less in any case.

I also suspect that consumption schedules, while being constant in the face of changes in the short term, would adapt.

I really don't see the need for most regulations, if we have a common law society that can punish those who commit acts of force and fraud. Regulation will just make everything more expensive for the honest, effectively acting as a sort of collective punishment. There is really no need to complicate matters.

That depends entirely on the regulation. It may be that we should cut out 90%. But that would be coincidence.

Quite honestly, I'm not a democrat (small d). To quote the great F. A. Hayek, "Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom." Constitutional restrictions may be regulations, but they are not a regulation of the free, uncoerced actions of people. Rather, it is a restriction of the use of the monopoly of force, so that it is not used to coerce the people. The people should never have power over each other, but only power over their own domain.

The country is their own domain, in my view. But this is a debate for another day.

Anti-trust regulation really hasn't improved the welfare of the consumer- take the ICC, for example, regulating where and how various transportation companies are allowed to operate. If we exclude force and fraud as things that would prevent a new company to enter the market (which was what Smith was referencing), the government is really the only thing that can prevent new business from entering, what with their use of subsidy and regulation. Otherwise, the monopoly establishment is always threatened by the entry of new businesses- the "monopolistic" American railroads in all reality had among the lowest fares in the world, after all.

Smith was referencing simple cartels and trade agreements, I believe. And rightly so.

The threat of new companies entering the market will not make companies keep prices low to the point where the customer doesn't lose out by comparison. If it did, there would be no advantage in the monopoly situation for the company. But they all want to dominate the market, don't they? In reality there are all sorts of tricks that companies can use to exploit a monopolised market while keeping the competition away. That is what the laws should address. I'm not saying they always do it well, but that is ideally what they should do.

Well, I don't know; we have to remember that defense from force and fraud occurs at all levels of the production cycle. You would not be hired or recieving a paycheck from the company if that company's goods and services were not protected from criminal actions; they would not be able to produce goods and services if their raw materials were not protected from crime, and those people would not be able to produce raw materials if their means of production were not protected. Of course, production of raw materials requires manufactured goods, which require human labor, which require resources and consumption of goods, which proceeds to ad infinitum because of the circular flow of resources in the economy.

It's technically impossible to pinpoint the beginning and end of the circular flow of production factors in a capitalist economy, so that defense from fraud and other crimes has to be built in to all of the factors in order for the system to function. The money you are paid has the same protection from fraud built in to it as the final goods sold to consumers do, so it would make sense to pay tax on income in order to cover the share of that defense that goes to your income. The same is true of taxes levied on raw materials, property, business revenue, capital gains, dividends, interest payments and all other sources of capital in the economy.

True, but all of those resources eventually come down to consumption. If we put taxation at any point before that, it will just result in imbedded costs that will be borne by the consumer, and the consumer alone. The sales tax also offers more choice in how much and when someone pays taxes, in that it is not automatically taken from you but only as you buy goods and services. Whereas, for income and payroll tax, the government decides how much it wants and then lets you have what it deems to allow you to have.

However, it's important to note that in the event that the government was drastically scaled back to minarchist levels that all tax burdens would be extremely reduced. Income tax, along with all other taxes, would be low to the point of having almost no effect at any level.

Aye, indeed. If we had lower taxes overall to that degree, it would probably have a bigger effect than what tax we choose.

On interest rates - we need them because we have not reached a point where economies will self-stabilise without interest rate controls. Businesses and people will eventually do things in their own interests, but they don't think collectively in the long term. It may happen in the future.

But interest rates are a price on future money. If a steel mill is not selling enough steel, they can A.) Lower prices, B.) Produce less, or C.) Both. Lowering the interest rate would effectively be C, because more people wish to buy (take out loans) and there are fewer sellers (savers and lenders). The banks and capital markets will always try to match up the supply and demand of future money, just like any other industry would try to match the supply and demand of their respective markets.

Stock market regulations - Companies listed on the AIM (The UK junior exchange) recently lobbied to be regulated more heavily. This presumably surprises you. But in fact the disclosure requirements, while being an extra expense for the company, more than make up for it by increasing investor confidence. Stock markets depend entirely on trust and confidence, and the regulations help it. This is real-world capitalism, rather than theoretical capitalism.

It doesn't really surprise me- I can see why they ask for it, since a seal of approval would be desirable. But why do the stock companies need the government to make themselves more honest so that people will buy? It's like me saying I need someone else to make me hungry so I'll eat. Can't they disclose their accounting techniques to the public themselves, and show their techniques and the proof that supports that they are not, in fact, committing fraud?

Sorry, I think I totally forgot what you had actually written between reading it and writing my reply. My bad.

No harm, no foul. :D

This depends pretty well on how you see monopolies, if you agree with me that unions, or some of them, are a form of monopoly (i.e. they can use the fact that they control all the labour of that type to get a better deal than they would in a competitive environment).

Yes, some of them are monopolies, because the state gives them the special privileges to be so (i.e. forcing people to join, pay dues, have them be hired, etc.) But if they are not supported by the government, people are free to leave the union and work for a lower wage so that they can have a job where they would otherwise not have one.

Ah, OK. It is often used either way, and I just guessed by the context.

It does not matter at all if a currency is not backed by gold. That became irrlevant long before the gold standard was abandoned. The dollar will not fail. Nor will the Euro. Nor will the pound. If it does in our lifetimes I will hunt you down and personally give you £1,000 myself. ;)

It's way better to reap the advantages of the free exchange of money.

The reason I dislike an unbacked currency is because it is too easy to print more of it at a whim. While I would agree with you that our central bankers will never repeat the mistakes of the Weimar Republic, which destroyed the currency of Germany, they can still create inflationary booms and busts through inflationary monetary policy. With gold, however, they are bound to a certain commodity, and if they embark on inflationary policy, the gold will flow to other countries with higher interest rates and lower prices, thus lowering M1 and forcing banks to stop fractional reserve policy. Plus, gold is a better store of value, since it is more difficult to produce than fiat money. This is a great boon to capital formation and savings, which are the engine of rising living standard.

Wow. What country do you live in?:p

The USA. We have people dissaving like crazy, massive debt in both the public and private sector, a dollar that is worth 5 cents of the 1914 dollar, numerous occasions of painful inflation from WWII onward, and the negative effects of unsustainably low interest rates on both business and consumers. I wish I was kidding, but I'm not.

But a tax on sales will just mean that people have to spend more of their income on goods, and so will save less in any case.

I also suspect that consumption schedules, while being constant in the face of changes in the short term, would adapt.[/quote]

I never said that sales taxes were helpful to savings- only the least deleterious of all taxes. A good deal of consumer costs are a result of taxes along the structure of production that are borne onto the consumer, and if the sales tax was low enough and there was no more income tax, this would end up making goods less costly than with no sales tax. People would still have to pay extra to consume, which would come out of what they would otherwise save, but at least there would not be quite the drain on saving.

That depends entirely on the regulation. It may be that we should cut out 90%. But that would be coincidence.

I suppose. 90% was just me saying "All this regulation annoys me."

The country is their own domain, in my view. But this is a debate for another day.

If you so wish... :D

Smith was referencing simple cartels and trade agreements, I believe. And rightly so.

The threat of new companies entering the market will not make companies keep prices low to the point where the customer doesn't lose out by comparison. If it did, there would be no advantage in the monopoly situation for the company. But they all want to dominate the market, don't they? In reality there are all sorts of tricks that companies can use to exploit a monopolised market while keeping the competition away. That is what the laws should address. I'm not saying they always do it well, but that is ideally what they should do.

How do we determine if the customer is "losing out"? They are still willing to go through the transaction without any coercion. The prices may not be as low as we would like, but they will still not exceed a certain predatory height. Take the American railroads, for example. They would drop prices to drive out weaker, smaller railroads, but when these railroads disappeared they would keep the same low prices. Why? Because they were afraid of new entry. Thus, the US had some of the lowest fares in the industrial world of the time.

The railroad companies probably wouldn't have been able to drive out the smaller railroads in the first place had they not been able to secure generous hand-outs from the government in the first place. They would not have been able to take the financial beating of artificially low rates that they were able to with government assistance to make sure they would continue functioning. In reality, it was not a market failure but rather a government failure. I would agree with you that some legislation would be needed to prevent force and fraud, but I do not think an abusive monopoly would be able to form without force and fraud and without government help.

True, but all of those resources eventually come down to consumption. If we put taxation at any point before that, it will just result in imbedded costs that will be borne by the consumer, and the consumer alone. The sales tax also offers more choice in how much and when someone pays taxes, in that it is not automatically taken from you but only as you buy goods and services. Whereas, for income and payroll tax, the government decides how much it wants and then lets you have what it deems to allow you to have.

But aren't embedded costs the same in principle as the income tax? In order for the government to be revenue neutral in such a system, the taxes levied on products would have to be the same aggregate amount as the revenue from income taxes. As a result, they would have to pay the same net share of their income as tax regardless of the point at which it was collected; in fact, it might be more if you take in to account that most people get a refund on some of their witheld income, something that wouldn't happen with a sales tax. (I'm assuming the revenue would be smaller than it currently is to account for reductions in the size of government)

Also, the lack of an income tax removes the benefit of deductions; you can't have a deduction on a sales tax, so people would be forced to pay a greater share of their income as taxes. You would effectively be paying more tax and you wouldn't be able to adjust your taxes to take account of things like IRA contributions; as a result, you'd have to consume less to account for it and that would downshift the overall level of consumer spending in the economy.

Lastly, sales taxes can create black markets for the goods, especially if taxes make up a significant portion of the good; even in our current system, there are already black markets for untaxed cigarettes, alcohol, and other goods penalized by "sin taxes" and the sumggling of these goods is a major attraction for elements of organized crime. If the entire cost of government was applied at the consumption level, you would undoubtedly see this spread to more goods and services; currently, it's not a problem because sales taxes are low or nonexistent in most areas.

But aren't embedded costs the same in principle as the income tax? In order for the government to be revenue neutral in such a system, the taxes levied on products would have to be the same aggregate amount as the revenue from income taxes. As a result, they would have to pay the same net share of their income as tax regardless of the point at which it was collected; in fact, it might be more if you take in to account that most people get a refund on some of their witheld income, something that wouldn't happen with a sales tax. (I'm assuming the revenue would be smaller than it currently is to account for reductions in the size of government)

People can't keep track of the embedded costs easily- in fact, they might support taxes on "the rich", like dividends taxes etc., but end up having to foot the bill themselves. But if we have a tax on the final goods, they will be able to look on their receipt and see how much they paid, down to the last penny. I support a sales tax over an income tax because people can at least have all of their money and deposit money which they will later consume, which goes to the capital goods industries, as opposed to an income tax which takes their money and does not allow them to save as much in the first place. Additionally, the price of goods can be kept relatively constant with a sales tax replacing the embedded costs of income taxes (a sales tax of about 23% would cover the income tax revenue, and is about the same as the estimated embedded costs of our purchases), which would allow people to consume about the same AND be able to save more. If there were no tax they would be able to consume or save as they wish, but this sales tax is the least deleterious.

Also, the lack of an income tax removes the benefit of deductions; you can't have a deduction on a sales tax, so people would be forced to pay a greater share of their income as taxes. You would effectively be paying more tax and you wouldn't be able to adjust your taxes to take account of things like IRA contributions; as a result, you'd have to consume less to account for it and that would downshift the overall level of consumer spending in the economy.

I do not think that deductions are a boon to us. The vast majority of Americans do not itemize in their income tax, so it is not much of a help. Additionally, the income tax is open field for various lobbying groups to try and gain special privileges which the rest of us cannot, and so ends up helping the powerful the most. A rebate for a sales tax would be a more fair deduction, as it would remove the sales tax on goods necessary to live. If the sales tax is about the same as embedded costs, consumption will not shift down, and saving will be able to go up. This is better for us all.

Lastly, sales taxes can create black markets for the goods, especially if taxes make up a significant portion of the good; even in our current system, there are already black markets for untaxed cigarettes, alcohol, and other goods penalized by "sin taxes" and the sumggling of these goods is a major attraction for elements of organized crime. If the entire cost of government was applied at the consumption level, you would undoubtedly see this spread to more goods and services; currently, it's not a problem because sales taxes are low or nonexistent in most areas.

About 90% of goods are supplied by 20% of retailers, or so. While there would certainly be an increase in the black market, it would most likely not be of an enormous amount unless the sales tax was inordinately large, at which point there would likely be a taxpayer revolt because of the extreme visibility of the tax. The market share of these retailers would most likely remain about constant. Also, just so you know, I don't support excise and sin taxes either, and think they do not really help anyone at all. Excise and sin taxes just open up the floodgates for lobbying and distortion by government, not to mention the black market you mentioned.

Edit: Not to mention that it is far easier to cheat on income taxes than sales taxes. You can cheat on your income tax all by yourself, but to cheat on sales taxes involves at least two people, if not more.