NationStates Jolt Archive

The for runners in the economic debate is of course the U.S, currently the most powerful nation in the world. But as nations like China and India, not to account for the progress the EU should manage with the economic deficit the US is running, would the U.S accept other parts of the world become wealthier than them, more powerful in terms of economics as well as military if they gained that power with the use of capitalism? A simple question, hypothetical of course, what is your opinion?

Don't be silly. Capitalists hate competition, which is why they get the government to intervene on their behalf. I see the U.S. government doing the same on a global level.

What is true capitalism?

According to Chomsky, it would not.

What is true capitalism?

That would likely be following the ideas of Adam Smith.

I would LOVE to see that. It is the most efficient economic system in the world.

You mean laizze (Yes I know I spelt that wrong) faire capitalism? Which essentially amounts to anarchy...

Or do you mean the original idea of capitalism, one in which people can do whatever they want in their business, fire workers as they wish, and not have to worry about their workers working conditions?

Both are somewhat the same, but laizze-faire capitalism is essentially libertarian in nature as well, because (correct me if I'm wrong), laizze-faire capitalists believe that if there is government, it will screw up businesses, no matter what. There fore they believe that government must be eliminated so that businesses can run everything.

Original capitalists (Once again, correct me if I'm wrong) believe the government should be allowed to stay, and in some cases intervene on the behalf of the business men to put down worker strikes and the such.

Americans would NOT go for Laizze-Faire capitalism. That's simply too obvious. Original capitalism, maybe. There's too many working class people out there, though.

If it was one of the two, they'd go for original capitalism, though. But if they had a choice between original capitalism and democratic socialism, you know, with the large majority of working class and urban middle class citizens in the U.S., everbody would be running for democratic socialism.

So the answer to your question is: No.

The for runners in the economic debate is of course the U.S, currently the most powerful nation in the world. But as nations like China and India, not to account for the progress the EU should manage with the economic deficit the US is running, would the U.S accept other parts of the world become wealthier than them, more powerful in terms of economics as well as military if they gained that power with the use of capitalism? A simple question, hypothetical of course, what is your opinion?

The US would LOVE to accept true capitalism. If the rest of the planet had free trade, it would improve the US economy no end! Care to guess protected Chinese, Japanese and European markets are compared to America? :(

(BTW, per capita there are counties more powerful than the US such as Luxembourg or the UAE.)

The US would LOVE to accept true capitalism. If the rest of the planet had free trade, it would improve the US economy no end! Care to guess protected Chinese, Japanese and European markets are compared to America? :(

(BTW, per capita there are counties more powerful than the US such as Luxembourg or the UAE.)

Ummm... the US loves protection too. Think back to the "voluntary" quotas of the 1980s and the ever hated, bye economists, agricultural subsidies. George Bush pushed for a steel tarriff even though he's supposed to be for free trade.

George Bush pushed for a steel tarriff even though he's supposed to be for free trade.
And those tariff revenues go straight to the companies they protect too. The ambassador to Germany, a certain Mr. Timken, made his fortune that way...taking money from German steel producers and buying himself a political office with it.

It's US politics in action. :rolleyes:

Why should it. Shouldnt the US aspire to be like the nation that has the largest cash reserves in history? China

Why should it. Shouldnt the US aspire to be like the nation that has the largest cash reserves in history? China

At this rate it's going to aspire to be the biggest porker in history. :D

Well.. Since corporate interests are the only ones with any real political power in the US, actual capitalism seems only slightly more implausible than a sudden switch to anarcho-syndicalism.

Don't be silly. Capitalists hate competition, which is why they get the government to intervene on their behalf. I see the U.S. government doing the same on a global level.
You're right. Big businesses typically don't support a free market.

Which is why it's so imprecise to use "capitalism" and "free market" interchangeably". I think people would like big business a lot more if the government weren't such tools.

The for runners in the economic debate is of course the U.S, currently the most powerful nation in the world. But as nations like China and India, not to account for the progress the EU should manage with the economic deficit the US is running, would the U.S accept other parts of the world become wealthier than them, more powerful in terms of economics as well as military if they gained that power with the use of capitalism? A simple question, hypothetical of course, what is your opinion?

Are you asking if the people of the US would accept changing it's mixed-market system to a free market system or if the US as a nation would accept a real free market world?

The vast majority of people in the US happily suckle at the teat of big government in one way or another, and would be unlikely to want to change that. The voters have discovered that "they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury", as the famous quote (of disputed authorship (http://www.geocities.com/nerolsnilloc/library/tytler.html)) goes, and they are unlikely to want to stop.

Don't be silly. Capitalists hate competition, which is why they get the government to intervene on their behalf.

You obviously have no idea what the word capitalist means.

You obviously have no idea what the word capitalist means.

And you obviously are living under a rock not to see what reality is like.

Capitalism, without some kind of control will eventually lead to monopoly which leads to ineffiency and less innovation.

And you obviously are living under a rock not to see what reality is like.

The people who hate competition are protectionists and mercantalists, not capitalists.

The for runners in the economic debate is of course the U.S,

:confused:

currently the most powerful nation in the world.

well as long as Russia still has more nukes you can hardly wave your penis around can you (then again can you have powerful countries in this day and age?)

But as nations like China and India, not to account for the progress the EU should manage with the economic deficit the US is running, would the U.S accept other parts of the world become wealthier than them, more powerful in terms of economics as well as military if they gained that power with the use of capitalism? A simple question, hypothetical of course, what is your opinion?

America never had too many problems dealing with western powers so I’d say no (though the interweb would be full of ‘what if WWIII’ nutcases)

As for the question in the thread title: I doubt it there is little drive for such a thing as well as little logic behind it

Capitalism, without some kind of control will eventually lead to monopoly which leads to ineffiency and less innovation.

Quite the opposite actually.

A free market system would prevent monopolies from forming – whenever a monopoly abuses its power there will be another firm to step in and provide a better service to capture market share.

Monopolies can only exist with government protection (with exceedingly rare cases where a monopoly can actually provide better goods for cheaper prices).

When a company begins to behave in a monopolistic manner (providing poor service at high prices) a competitor will come in to provide better products at cheaper prices and thus capture the profits in the market.

You're right. Big businesses typically don't support a free market.

Which is why it's so imprecise to use "capitalism" and "free market" interchangeably". I think people would like big business a lot more if the government weren't such tools.

You obviously have no idea what the word capitalist means.Llewdor explained what I meant rather well. One can be a capitalist without being in a capitalist system; a capitalist is simply one who has capital.

Quite the opposite actually.

A free market system would prevent monopolies from forming – whenever a monopoly abuses its power there will be another firm to step in and provide a better service to capture market share.

Monopolies can only exist with government protection (with exceedingly rare cases where a monopoly can actually provide better goods for cheaper prices).

When a company begins to behave in a monopolistic manner (providing poor service at high prices) a competitor will come in to provide better products at cheaper prices and thus capture the profits in the market.

Monopolies and their evil cousin - Cartels exist when a company has total domination of a market and/or there are entry barriers to the market - prohibitive cost/physical constraints.

See OPEC cut back on oil production. Watch in wonder as the magic free market forces mean other companies step in, up production to steal the market share and the prices remain about the same... Oh wait...

Laissez-faire capitalism would be great, but I don't see the U.S. moving in that direction.

The US would not accept or even be capable of achieving true (i.e. free-market) capitalism, as free-market capitalism is an idealist vision that cannot be achieved effectively so long as the people at the top wish to remain at the top, which will be always. (The same goes for socialism, by the way.)

Quite the opposite actually.

A free market system would prevent monopolies from forming – whenever a monopoly abuses its power there will be another firm to step in and provide a better service to capture market share.

Monopolies can only exist with government protection (with exceedingly rare cases where a monopoly can actually provide better goods for cheaper prices).

When a company begins to behave in a monopolistic manner (providing poor service at high prices) a competitor will come in to provide better products at cheaper prices and thus capture the profits in the market.
This is where theory meets reality.

The goal of any corporation is to gain market share and to kill the compitition. Sometimes no matter how good the competitors product it will just not make it if the monopolistic corportation is to strong. This is were the government stages a market intervention.

A historical example would be Standard Oil which bought out or killed its competitors until it owned and controlled approximately 90% of all oil production in the U.S. The U.S. government eventually intervened and broke it up into thirty-four independent companies many are still around today(exxon, chevron, shell, BP)

I am not advocating strict regulations, just sensible regulations too keep the free-market running. smoothly.

Ummm... the US loves protection too. Think back to the "voluntary" quotas of the 1980s and the ever hated, bye economists, agricultural subsidies. George Bush pushed for a steel tarriff even though he's supposed to be for free trade.

Yeah, I'm not saying the US is perfect, but on balance, our markets are a heck of a lot more open than any others. Any idea how hard it is to try to sell US goods in Japan?
Or (more specifically) American wine in Europe? The EU subsidizes the industry to the tune of 1.8 BILLION USD, which lowers Euro wine prices nicely.
At the same time, a 1 litre bottle of (say, Californian Merlot) has a duty of $19.90 USD per hectolitre. (read: $0.20 per bottle). :eek:
http://www.winevision.org/globalexporting/europe.html

Some of those were reactive quotas/subsidies btw: the best example being the one on Canadian soft lumber and the one slapped on Airbus (which was certainly proved justified!).

The steel tarriff was temporary and was not all-inclusive: Canadian, Mexican, Argentine, Thai and a few other imported steels were excepted (my old man worked in steel so I know a little about this).
MOSTLY this was done because too many US steel firms had gone belly up of late and the rust belt was a key GOP voting bloc. It was not only badly done, but was pretty much ineffective -- and another example of a GOP screw-up. :(

Possessing relatively open markets is different from loving zero trade barriers.

Your examples of Canadian soft lumber and Airbus are somewhat flawed. The US subsidized the American lumber for decades by letting the lumber companies log nationally own forests and Boeing, Airbus' competitor, gets a lot of pork at federal, state, and local levels too.

I doubt that the USA would accept true capitalism with the current ideological status of the American populace. If I were to gain the power that I wanted, and implemented no taxes, gold standard, an end to government regulation to be replaced by judicial law based on property rights, and on and on and on, I'd probably get shot by the frenzied mob that the statists would whip up with misinformation in order to continue their rent-seeking ways.

I doubt that the USA would accept true capitalism with the current ideological status of the American populace. If I were to gain the power that I wanted, and implemented no taxes, gold standard, an end to government regulation to be replaced by judicial law based on property rights, and on and on and on, I'd probably get shot by the frenzied mob that the statists would whip up with misinformation in order to continue their rent-seeking ways.

So you want to start a coup and are worried that if you were successful that another coup would be staged against you?

The goal of any corporation is to gain market share and to kill the compitition.

While this might seem to be the case, this is actually false. It would be more correct to say that most corporations aim to occupy market niches.

However, even this is a tactic, not a goal. The "formal" goal of corporations is to make money for its shareholders. (This does not require gaining market share, and might even require losing market share in order to boost profits.) But the personal goals of members of a corporation may be somewhat different from this "formal" goal. For example, a personal goal could be self-actualization and the satisfaction of a job done well.

This is where theory meets reality.

The goal of any corporation is to gain market share and to kill the compitition. Sometimes no matter how good the competitors product it will just not make it if the monopolistic corportation is to strong. This is were the government stages a market intervention.

A historical example would be Standard Oil which bought out or killed its competitors until it owned and controlled approximately 90% of all oil production in the U.S. The U.S. government eventually intervened and broke it up into thirty-four independent companies many are still around today(exxon, chevron, shell, BP)

I am not advocating strict regulations, just sensible regulations too keep the free-market running. smoothly.


Shell was never a part of Standard Oil, they were a seperate company that bought a company which was formed during the breakup of Standard Oil.

That would likely be following the ideas of Adam Smith.

I would LOVE to see that. It is the most efficient economic system in the world.

Just thought about that: :)

Manfred's eyes scan along the bookshelf. "But the market itself is an abstract machine! A lousy one, too. I'm mostly free of it – but how long is it going to continue oppressing people?"

"Maybe not as long as you fear." Gianni sits down next to the renderer, which is currently extruding the inference mill of the analytical engine. "The marginal value of money decreases, after all: The more you have, the less it means to you.

Charles Stross - Accelerando (www.accelerando.org)