It’s not controvertial. Just idiotic. It’s like saying the automobile isn’t a viable form of transportation because your car was stolen.
Governments are good at providing services when uniformity of service provided is more important than quality or efficiency. And they don’t have to care how much it costs because they can always tax more or print more money to support their beurocracy.
And of course, to someone like you the idea that sometimes government has its place is simply unthinkable. The idea that there’s a middle ground between Communism and dog-eat-dog capitalism is taboo.
And businesses are restrained from doing so by that government you despise so much.
Better than Bush’s; he did everything he could to make sure it failed. He put incompetents in charge who hated the whole idea of FEMA, and drove out the competent, ethical and dedicated from government. If you put corrupt, incompetent people who hate a government agency in charge of it, of COURSE you’ll see failure.
Garbage.Without the government restraining them, those companies you love so much would be selling poison, murdering competitors and unhappy workers, and working their employees until they were crippled or dead. Because that’s what they did when they could get away with it. People would be illiterate and eating grass to stave off starvation because ***that’s what happened ***before those “big programs” you despise.
They are also better at some things in terms of quality and efficiency. Such as when inefficiency and low quality are more profitable.
Question, for both the factions in here most inclined to trash communism and the faction most inclined to trash capitalism (without really defending communism):
How many economic models have you seriously considered and rejected as an alternative to either of those two?
I’d say governments are best at providing disinterested services - they are capable of not caring whether or not the service is used. A private business doesn’t have that - it wants you to use its services and will look to create a need for them. A privatized FEMA would have a financial interest in there being more natural disasters; a privatized prison would have a financial interest there being more crime; a privatized military would have a financial interest in there being more wars. Things like this are better left to bureaucrats, who get paid the same regardless of whether they’re out handling a crisis or are sitting around the office eating donuts - they’re motivated to keep things quiet.
Well, there’s mercantilism - that was based on the theory that there’s essentially amount of economic value in the world and the point is to acquire the largest share of it. It was rejected because economics is not a zero-sum game.
There’s syndicalism but then your economic system is run by what are essentially special interests. Your economic system will stagnate into a system of guilds that are more concerned for self-protection than overall progress.
There’s socialism, which has the government controlling economics rather than just regulating it. It’s a viable system to some extent but overall capitalism works better. I once used a numeric metaphor to compare the two: capitalism runs from 1-10 and socialism runs from 4-7. When your economic system drops down to four or five, you should switch to socialism before you sink any lower. When your economic system gets up to six or seven, you should siwtch over to capitalism to raise it up higher. Then you’ve got a mixed system with an overall range of 4-10.
I already discussed the problems with anarchism and libertarianism in a post above. These systems assume incorrectly that individuals will always collectively benefit society through their own self-interest. I pointed out that not all individual benefits are also beneficial to society.
I’ve been reading about Gandhi lately but I can’t get behind his economic system. Pastoralism is a philosphical ideal that holds no appeal to me. Trying to establish it would just be another program requiring excessive government control. Same thing with economic systems based on Christianity or Islam. You might as well go with communism or nationalist integralism.
The only other economic model of which I am aware is Feudalism. Honestly I haven’t put too much thought into a return to it.
The voluntary amounts given to Madoff, and lost, have had no impact on the global economy.
Your Enron argument actually works against you. Enron was dominant in energy market trading. But even after they collapsed from a $70 Billion company to zero, those markets continued, pipelines were filled with gas, and lights were switched on every day all over the US. How could that be? Shouldn’t those markets have ‘seized up’ and affected us?
AIG and Lehman WERE different. They did affect you and me.
But how were they different? Why did the collapse of Enron and Bernie Madoff’s fund not affect you, but the collapse of AIG and Lehman did? (Actually, its debatable whether Lehman had that big of an effect…but let’s forget that for now). And then we must toss Fannie and Freddie in there, if you don’t mind.
How are those entities (AIG, Lehman, Fannie and Freddie) different than Madoff and Enron? How could the collapse of the former affect your wallet, and not the latter? Think hard. Think who else might be involved in the train of transactions that connects their balance sheets to your wallet.
H.L. Mencken once said that “for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”. Libertarians have applied this principle. No matter how complex the situation is, they always say the solution is less government. Reducing the government will solve all economic problems, stop all ideological strife, fix the environment, help the poor, heal the sick, and make your teeth whiter.
Except it is the issue, because Bernie Madoff isn’t the only indictment handed down over billions in fraud. It was endemic to the system. These guys were just at the top of the ponzi. Near the bottom of the Ponzi you had Florida secretaries pumping and dumping homes. As you said yourself the inflation of value is endemic to the system, and the bubble bust is a part of that cycle.
I started the thread remember?
IdahoMauleMan There are plenty of laws in place certainly, but that doesn’t mean people don’t get away with it, and it doesn’t mean that it didn’t go all the way from top to bottom. Dismissing Bernie Madoff is making one big old fat fallacy, it is mistaking what is unique about Madoff. Madoff’s crimes were by no means unique. What was unique was his targets and how much money he was able to do it with. We as an entire culture were culpable in Ponzi Nation. The very idea that real estate always increases in value caused millions of people to knowingly participate in a Ponzi scheme.
I love H.L. Mencken. Thanks for the quote.
I’ll have to dig up the reference for the exact quote you mention, but IIRC he was actually lampooning the portion of the citizenry who ran into the arms of government to solve their problems. Sort of like ‘Prices for healthcare are too high…so let’s pass a law that imposes price caps’. That’s the sort of clear, simple and wrong solution he was usually referring to in his writing.
So if my memory is true (and there are certainly no guarantees of that), that would be another case of where your examples are actually working against your argument.
Reducing the government will solve the problems you mention if
And
Much like other arguments on this Board posited by statists, your tone suggests the default state of being is the government as it is today, and if I want more of my freedom and my money, I need to ‘prove’ that such increased freedom will create a better world. Otherwise, tough luck IdahoMauleMan.
If I want to make my teeth whiter, why would I willingly disempower myself and hand over my teeth-whitening decision to a government Teeth Whitening Body, and give them my money, and then subject myself to whatever decision they hand down from on high? Why wouldn’t I want those resources, and that decision-making power for myself?
I know that sounds ridiculous, but that’s exactly what we’ve done with the public schools, Medicare, the FDA, the SEC, the CPSC, the Dept of Energy and a billion other governmental bodies to ‘solve’ the problems you describe above. They accomplish practically nothing, and usually make the problem worse than what it would have been otherwise. And they suck up 100’s of billions of dollars of yours and my money.
As for your other laundry list
The government is absolutely the root cause of about 98% of all ‘economic problems’, including the current unpleasantness. The exceptions around the edges usually involve externalities, which aren’t really anybody’s fault, but could use some machinery of government to solve.
I don’t know what ideaological strife means. But if it means foreign relations and a common defense against an enemy, than that is absolutely a function of government.
Costs imposed on the environment are definitely externalities, as discussed in (1) above, and should be handled through the machinery of government.
Helping the poor. It depends what you mean by ‘help’, and your definition of ‘poor’. Again, if defined correctly, I would stipulate that is a function of government. The private sector usually picks up most of the slack in this case, anyway. Most of the government programs to ‘help the poor’ are larded with inefficiencies, special interest lobbyists, and conflicting incentives that actually trap the poor into a state of semi-permanent dependency. That’s dependency on you and me, by the way…since we pay the bills.
Healing the sick. If it is a function of resources that the poor do not have, than that is a function of government to provide via wealth transfer. But advances in medicine come about largely through profit-seeking enterprises. And the government’s foray into ‘healing the sick’ has already spawned multi-trillion dollar liabilities with no solution in sight.
Making teeth whiter. Probably best left to the private sector, as described above.
So talk to us about how a communist system would prevent a Bernie Madoff. I mean other everyone will be so poor they wouldn’t have money to invest in anything.
How does a communist economy even work anyhow? Does everyone live in college dormatory style housing based on average sq ft determined by Ministry of Housing? Are you assigned you job by Ministry of Labor and everyone gets paid the same regardless of what or how much they produce? Instead of a million entrepreneurs toiling in a million garages, is all innovation produced by Ministry of New Development? I’m curious how the anti-capitalism folks think life would actually be like in a communist economy.
a) If you cannot BUY the cooperation or participation of another person (because it’s an economic system in which there is no verb “to buy”; there is no money, there is no market, there is no exchange medium, the closest equiv might be barter), you become very dependent on other people’s attitudes towards you, and upon your reputation. Reputation, in particular, is the new currency.
b) In a well-wired world, one’s reputation need not be local. You could, in fact, find it difficult-to-impossible to obtain a fresh start. (Not saying that’s good, just keep it in mind). Even if you did, the fresh start would be neutral, like neither being in debt nor having any assets to speak of. NOT as nice a place to be as having a solidly GOOD reputation, being a known economic player who has done good by others.
c) Reciprocity in this kind of environment may be technically general (“You seem like a good person based on you track record. I will do something for you, I know you’ll do something good for someone, if not necessarily me”) but will usually be mixed with some specific reciprocity elements (“…and you’ll remember that I did, and your word is likely to mean a lot so it is good for me that you can vouch for me that I was there when you asked”) + (“…and I will think of you when I need to call on someone and you’re appropriate for what I need”).
d) In attenuated form, obviously mixed with ordinary market capitalism, but present there nonetheless, you can find this dynamic in working order on eBay. The anthropological name for this kind of economy is “general reciprocity”.
e) It does not REQUIRE anarchy in order to exist (witness eBay) but if one were to posit a hypothetical anarchy it is hard to imagine any other economic structure. General Recip is anarchy-compatible. Capitalism is not.
So you don’t know what the facts are but you’re sure they support your position.
Well, I’m out. Logic and evidence is useless against faith.
AHunter3, I’m not sure what direction you’re going here. Were you presenting all those points in response to one thing I wrote or as a general commnetary on all of them?
I was responding not only to you but also to Sage Rat, the two of you being the only folks so far who have replied to my inquiry about whether thread participants have considered any economic models other than communism and capitalism.
I’m pointing in the direction of general reciprocity as an alternative to those; it’s the model I think has the most promise, and I do not care for either communism or capitalism.
The assessments that marxist theory makes of capitalism are pretty much dead-on accurate. But communism has no viable solution to those problems.
The indictments that have been made in this thread (including my own) against communism are pretty much also dead-on.
Both models have serious problems. (Communism’s problems being several quantum leaps more serious, but so what?). The most attractive part of the whole penumbra of communism is its accurate indictment of capitalism. (And subsequent, more modern editions thereof). Obviously we need a better model.
I think we have a pretty close approximation of general reciprocity. I have you something you want; you give me something I want that you have for it. But let’s face it, an economic system in which every transaction is a one-for-one barter is going to break down pretty quickly. Let’s say I want to buy a watermelon; do I really want to load up my car with every item I own that I figure is worth a watermelon and think some watermelon farmer might want? So we use money as a means of ease the trade system. Money’s just a commodity that’s fungible, durable, and popular.
That’s SPECIFIC reciprocity. That’s not the same as general reciprocity as an economic model.
Specific reciprocity is barter. General is not.
In my case, it’s because thinking in terms of “systems” is part of the problem. Communism was largely a disaster because it was an attempt to impose a system for ideological reasons regardless of how well it worked. A fair amount of the problems America has are due to an attempt to impose a system, the Free Market, for ideological reasons on everything regardless of how well it works. The same attitude, a different system; the attempt to structure the economy and society according to ideological purity and not practicality. I’m more interested in what works; capitalism here, socialism there, it doesn’t matter.
Okay. So you’re talking generalized reciprocity - the idea that everyone contributes towards the common good of society and then benefits as individuals because they live in that society. So contributing voluntarily is actually beneficial to the people who contribute. Yes?
I see it working in some situations but I can’t see it working as a general economic system. A lot of products require too much effort to be produced for nothing as indirect as the general uplifting of society. Most people are going to step back and let somebody else do the work and still receive the same social benefits.
And on the opposite end of the problem, not all benefits are social. Some products are consumed by one person - where’s the social benefit to anyone else?