Is Free Market Capitalism the answer to all our economic woes?

[Pilate]

I would submit that it is not. When one looks at our economic history, the United States enjoyed its greatest period of growth, not because of unregulated free market capitalism. As Cambridge economist Professor Ha Joon Chang notes, America was the most protectionist country in the world from 1830 up until World War Two. In fact, as Chang outlines in his book 'Bad Samaritans' every industrialized economy on the planet grew astronomically by strictly regulating markets, government investment and the protectionism of key industries through nascent stages of development.

It might also be pointed out that, in modern times, every nation of the EU that adopted free market reforms under IMF 'structural adjustment' policies all failed miserably and poverty actually increased.

Now, don't misunderstand me. That is not to say that I am a supporter of communism, or socialism. Rather, that it seems that a blended version of capitalism, mixed with a healthy dose of governmental oversight is the most effective way to build a thriving economy. Now, for those who submit that they agree, then where do they suggest that the "line" should be drawn? What is "reasonable' government oversight?

I agree that oversight is needed as in our 100% for profit world, greed and materialism will undoubtedly take hold if not kept in check via certain methods. I can't think of any specific checks and oversights I'd pass and I'd advise dealing with firms and companies on an individual case by case basis. Perhaps firms that depend very very very heavily on government support or are found to be dangerous to public wellbeing or utterly corrupt should be nationalized at least partially.

I actually suggested that with Pharma, on another forum, and it was pointed out that such nationalization would end up being a diplomatic nightmare. How do you get necessary drugs - antibiotics, etc - to countries that we are not allied with. Iran, for instance. We, as a government, are not allowed to do business with them. Period. So, if we nationalized our pharmaceutical industry, how does Iran get its drugs? It wouldn't be long before the world found itself embroiled in the "Drug War"; a war not for land, or ideology, but for control of the pharmaceutical industry.

Who cares about Iran? Let them rot. Besides, if things were really dire we could just change our stance towards them and permit trade for pharmaceutical purposes.

 

[Tom Horn]

I'm not being a dick, but can you give me a post #? I seem to have missed the post you're referring to...

Page 2, #13

 

[dblack]

Hedonism does not make for healthy societies.

You equate freedom with hedonism?

Do you equate freedom with happiness?

As I said earlier, not necessarily.

And is being happy more concerning to you than various other concerns?

Also, not necessarily. The important thing here is that we all have different concerns, and we should be free to pursue them as we see fit, so long as we're not interfering with others' right to do likewise. The problem with putting government in charge of the 'other concerns' is that it forces all of us down one path.

 

[OnePercenter]

I would submit that it is not. When one looks at our economic history, the United States enjoyed its greatest period of growth, not because of unregulated free market capitalism. As Cambridge economist Professor Ha Joon Chang notes, America was the most protectionist country in the world from 1830 up until World War Two. In fact, as Chang outlines in his book 'Bad Samaritans' every industrialized economy on the planet grew astronomically by strictly regulating markets, government investment and the protectionism of key industries through nascent stages of development.

It might also be pointed out that, in modern times, every nation of the EU that adopted free market reforms under IMF 'structural adjustment' policies all failed miserably and poverty actually increased.

Now, don't misunderstand me. That is not to say that I am a supporter of communism, or socialism. Rather, that it seems that a blended version of capitalism, mixed with a healthy dose of governmental oversight is the most effective way to build a thriving economy. Now, for those who submit that they agree, then where do they suggest that the "line" should be drawn? What is "reasonable' government oversight?

Raising minimum wage is the best thing for our 'economic woes.' That would place more expendable monies into the hands of those that spend the most, and increase tax revenue.

 

[Pilate]

Hedonism does not make for healthy societies.

You equate freedom with hedonism?

Do you equate freedom with happiness?

As I said earlier, not necessarily.

And is being happy more concerning to you than various other concerns?

Also, not necessarily. The important thing here is that we all have different concerns, and we should be free to pursue them as we see fit, so long as we're not interfering with others' right to do likewise. The problem with putting government in charge of the 'other concerns' is that it forces all of us down one path.

Unfortunately that "as long as" condition is virtually almost always violated eventually and repeatedly. There's nothing wrong with one path, just make sure it's the right one. There is no hope for a system in which uneducated masses are granted tremendous administrative power. Our current officials have all been elected.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not being a dick, but can you give me a post #? I seem to have missed the post you're referring to...

Page 2, #13

Thank, and:

Tell the Fortune 500 they have 180 days to return production to their shuttered US factories or face seizure of their inventories as contraband and crippling tariffs. Imagine the economic activity such a mandate would generate.....we'd be out of the woods in two years max.

That sounds brilliant, on paper. By what Constitutional authority would you suggest that the US could do this? I don't think you can claim "interstate commerce". If you can, by all means walk me through those legal gymnastics.

I think any legislation allowing the federal government to seize private property in that manner (I would remind you of the 4th Amendment), will last just long enough for all nine Supreme Court Justices to run their quill pens through it.

 

[Czernobog]

Hedonism does not make for healthy societies.

You equate freedom with hedonism?

Do you equate freedom with happiness?

As I said earlier, not necessarily.

And is being happy more concerning to you than various other concerns?

Also, not necessarily. The important thing here is that we all have different concerns, and we should be free to pursue them as we see fit, so long as we're not interfering with others' right to do likewise. The problem with putting government in charge of the 'other concerns' is that it forces all of us down one path.

The problem is that part I emphasised. There is a rather significant difference in how progressives, and conservatives define the term "other"...

 

[Tom Horn]

That sounds brilliant, on paper, By what Constitutional authority would you suggest that the US could do this? I don't think you can claim "interstate commerce". If you can, by all means walk me through those legal gymnastics.

I think any legislation allowing the federal government to seize private property in that manner (I would remind you of the 4th Amendment), will last just long enough for all nine Supreme Court Justices to run their quill pens through it.

Congress passes the law, Trump signs it.....the Fortune 500 begs Trump's USSC for relief and is met with silence. Remember, all they have is 6 months...they'd have no choice but to haul ass back here.

 

[Pilate]

Hedonism does not make for healthy societies.

You equate freedom with hedonism?

Do you equate freedom with happiness?

As I said earlier, not necessarily.

And is being happy more concerning to you than various other concerns?

Also, not necessarily. The important thing here is that we all have different concerns, and we should be free to pursue them as we see fit, so long as we're not interfering with others' right to do likewise. The problem with putting government in charge of the 'other concerns' is that it forces all of us down one path.

The problem is that part I emphasised. There is a rather significant difference in how progressives, and conservatives define the term "other"...

I can't imagine "not me" would be up for debate. Could it?

 

[dblack]

Hedonism does not make for healthy societies.

You equate freedom with hedonism?

Do you equate freedom with happiness?

As I said earlier, not necessarily.

And is being happy more concerning to you than various other concerns?

Also, not necessarily. The important thing here is that we all have different concerns, and we should be free to pursue them as we see fit, so long as we're not interfering with others' right to do likewise. The problem with putting government in charge of the 'other concerns' is that it forces all of us down one path.

Unfortunately that "as long as" condition is virtually almost always violated eventually and repeatedly. There's nothing wrong with one path, just make sure it's the right one.

How likely is it, do you suppose, that democratic government will always, or even usually, choose the right path?

There is no hope for a system in which uneducated masses are granted tremendous administrative power. Our current officials have all been elected.

Uh... 'tremendous administrative power'? I'm merely saying that most of the decisions we make in society don't require conformity. That, in fact, putting all our eggs in one basket and forcing conformity via law, is usually a bad idea.

 

[Czernobog]

I would submit that it is not. When one looks at our economic history, the United States enjoyed its greatest period of growth, not because of unregulated free market capitalism. As Cambridge economist Professor Ha Joon Chang notes, America was the most protectionist country in the world from 1830 up until World War Two. In fact, as Chang outlines in his book 'Bad Samaritans' every industrialized economy on the planet grew astronomically by strictly regulating markets, government investment and the protectionism of key industries through nascent stages of development.

It might also be pointed out that, in modern times, every nation of the EU that adopted free market reforms under IMF 'structural adjustment' policies all failed miserably and poverty actually increased.

Now, don't misunderstand me. That is not to say that I am a supporter of communism, or socialism. Rather, that it seems that a blended version of capitalism, mixed with a healthy dose of governmental oversight is the most effective way to build a thriving economy. Now, for those who submit that they agree, then where do they suggest that the "line" should be drawn? What is "reasonable' government oversight?

I agree that oversight is needed as in our 100% for profit world, greed and materialism will undoubtedly take hold if not kept in check via certain methods. I can't think of any specific checks and oversights I'd pass and I'd advise dealing with firms and companies on an individual case by case basis. Perhaps firms that depend very very very heavily on government support or are found to be dangerous to public wellbeing or utterly corrupt should be nationalized at least partially.

I actually suggested that with Pharma, on another forum, and it was pointed out that such nationalization would end up being a diplomatic nightmare. How do you get necessary drugs - antibiotics, etc - to countries that we are not allied with. Iran, for instance. We, as a government, are not allowed to do business with them. Period. So, if we nationalized our pharmaceutical industry, how does Iran get its drugs? It wouldn't be long before the world found itself embroiled in the "Drug War"; a war not for land, or ideology, but for control of the pharmaceutical industry.

Who cares about Iran? Let them rot. Besides, if things were really dire we could just change our stance towards them and permit trade for pharmaceutical purposes.

I was using them as an example. Further, we kinda can't just "let Iran rot', in terms of medicinal needs. Because - and again, this is presuming the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry - as soon as we decide that Iran doesn't deserve basic. Medical. Provisions who long do you think it will be before every other nation in the world starts to worry about what happens when we decide we don't like them very much? Like I siad - "War of the Drugs", or "The Great Pharma Wars". Yeah...nationalizing pharma would be a diplomatic nightmare.

 

[Pilate]

Hedonism does not make for healthy societies.

You equate freedom with hedonism?

Do you equate freedom with happiness?

As I said earlier, not necessarily.

And is being happy more concerning to you than various other concerns?

Also, not necessarily. The important thing here is that we all have different concerns, and we should be free to pursue them as we see fit, so long as we're not interfering with others' right to do likewise. The problem with putting government in charge of the 'other concerns' is that it forces all of us down one path.

Unfortunately that "as long as" condition is virtually almost always violated eventually and repeatedly. There's nothing wrong with one path, just make sure it's the right one.

How likely is it, do you suppose, that democratic government will always, or even usually, choose the right path?

There is no hope for a system in which uneducated masses are granted tremendous administrative power. Our current officials have all been elected.

Uh... 'tremendous administrative power'? I'm merely saying that most of the decisions we make in society don't require conformity. That, in fact, putting all our eggs in one basket and forcing conformity via law, is usually a bad idea.

Well I'll contend that most decisions we make do impact society and therefore should require conformity. Laws only fail when the means of enforcing them are inadequate.

 

[Iceweasel]

I would submit that it is not. When one looks at our economic history, the United States enjoyed its greatest period of growth, not because of unregulated free market capitalism. As Cambridge economist Professor Ha Joon Chang notes, America was the most protectionist country in the world from 1830 up until World War Two. In fact, as Chang outlines in his book 'Bad Samaritans' every industrialized economy on the planet grew astronomically by strictly regulating markets, government investment and the protectionism of key industries through nascent stages of development.

It might also be pointed out that, in modern times, every nation of the EU that adopted free market reforms under IMF 'structural adjustment' policies all failed miserably and poverty actually increased.

Now, don't misunderstand me. That is not to say that I am a supporter of communism, or socialism. Rather, that it seems that a blended version of capitalism, mixed with a healthy dose of governmental oversight is the most effective way to build a thriving economy. Now, for those who submit that they agree, then where do they suggest that the "line" should be drawn? What is "reasonable' government oversight?

Raising minimum wage is the best thing for our 'economic woes.' That would place more expendable monies into the hands of those that spend the most, and increase tax revenue.

Depends on the market. Doing it blindly and stupidly across the board could put them out of work.

 

[Pilate]

I would submit that it is not. When one looks at our economic history, the United States enjoyed its greatest period of growth, not because of unregulated free market capitalism. As Cambridge economist Professor Ha Joon Chang notes, America was the most protectionist country in the world from 1830 up until World War Two. In fact, as Chang outlines in his book 'Bad Samaritans' every industrialized economy on the planet grew astronomically by strictly regulating markets, government investment and the protectionism of key industries through nascent stages of development.

It might also be pointed out that, in modern times, every nation of the EU that adopted free market reforms under IMF 'structural adjustment' policies all failed miserably and poverty actually increased.

Now, don't misunderstand me. That is not to say that I am a supporter of communism, or socialism. Rather, that it seems that a blended version of capitalism, mixed with a healthy dose of governmental oversight is the most effective way to build a thriving economy. Now, for those who submit that they agree, then where do they suggest that the "line" should be drawn? What is "reasonable' government oversight?

I agree that oversight is needed as in our 100% for profit world, greed and materialism will undoubtedly take hold if not kept in check via certain methods. I can't think of any specific checks and oversights I'd pass and I'd advise dealing with firms and companies on an individual case by case basis. Perhaps firms that depend very very very heavily on government support or are found to be dangerous to public wellbeing or utterly corrupt should be nationalized at least partially.

I actually suggested that with Pharma, on another forum, and it was pointed out that such nationalization would end up being a diplomatic nightmare. How do you get necessary drugs - antibiotics, etc - to countries that we are not allied with. Iran, for instance. We, as a government, are not allowed to do business with them. Period. So, if we nationalized our pharmaceutical industry, how does Iran get its drugs? It wouldn't be long before the world found itself embroiled in the "Drug War"; a war not for land, or ideology, but for control of the pharmaceutical industry.

Who cares about Iran? Let them rot. Besides, if things were really dire we could just change our stance towards them and permit trade for pharmaceutical purposes.

I was using them as an example. Further, we kinda can't just "let Iran rot', in terms of medicinal needs. Because - and again, this is presuming the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry - as soon as we decide that Iran doesn't deserve basic. Medical. Provisions who long do you think it will be before every other nation in the world starts to worry about what happens when we decide we don't like them very much? Like I siad - "War of the Drugs", or "The Great Pharma Wars". Yeah...nationalizing pharma would be a diplomatic nightmare.

Well then, the rest of the world had best behave themselves. Besides, we have the military strength to crush anyone so they wouldn't be foolish enough to damage themselves further over something already damaging.

 

[Czernobog]

That sounds brilliant, on paper, By what Constitutional authority would you suggest that the US could do this? I don't think you can claim "interstate commerce". If you can, by all means walk me through those legal gymnastics.

I think any legislation allowing the federal government to seize private property in that manner (I would remind you of the 4th Amendment), will last just long enough for all nine Supreme Court Justices to run their quill pens through it.

Congress passes the law, Trump signs it.....the Fortune 500 begs Trump's USSC for relief and is met with silence. Remember, all they have is 6 months...they'd have no choice but to haul ass back here.

You forgot about a Branch. Congress Passes the law. Trump (Gods help us) signs it. All 500 of the Fortune 500 files immediate briefs with the Supreme Court, and asks for an injunction against implementation of the law. The Supreme Court then runs its collective quill pen through the law. It didn't last a week, let alone 6 months.

 

[dblack]

Well I'll contend that most decisions we make do impact society and therefore should require conformity. Laws only fail when the means of enforcing them are inadequate.

Well, that's the rallying cry for totalitarian government. I could never support that. "Monoculture" is a bad goal, both for society as a whole, and for individuals. Diversity serves us far better, and requires far less enforcement.

 

[Conservative65]

I would submit that it is not. When one looks at our economic history, the United States enjoyed its greatest period of growth, not because of unregulated free market capitalism. As Cambridge economist Professor Ha Joon Chang notes, America was the most protectionist country in the world from 1830 up until World War Two. In fact, as Chang outlines in his book 'Bad Samaritans' every industrialized economy on the planet grew astronomically by strictly regulating markets, government investment and the protectionism of key industries through nascent stages of development.

It might also be pointed out that, in modern times, every nation of the EU that adopted free market reforms under IMF 'structural adjustment' policies all failed miserably and poverty actually increased.

Now, don't misunderstand me. That is not to say that I am a supporter of communism, or socialism. Rather, that it seems that a blended version of capitalism, mixed with a healthy dose of governmental oversight is the most effective way to build a thriving economy. Now, for those who submit that they agree, then where do they suggest that the "line" should be drawn? What is "reasonable' government oversight?

Interesting how you call support of social welfare programs "government oversight". It's not the government's place to oversee you. It's your place to oversee you and do for yourself what you should be doing for yourself.

 

[Tom Horn]

You forgot about a Branch. Congress Passes the law. Trump (Gods help us) signs it. All 500 of the Fortune 500 files immediate briefs with the Supreme Court, and asks for an injunction against implementation of the law. The Supreme Court then runs its collective quill pen through the law. It didn't last a week, let alone 6 months.

Read it again...you're trying to do too much in this thread....."TRUMP'S USSC"...remember, he could have up to FOUR justices to replace.

 

[Czernobog]

I would submit that it is not. When one looks at our economic history, the United States enjoyed its greatest period of growth, not because of unregulated free market capitalism. As Cambridge economist Professor Ha Joon Chang notes, America was the most protectionist country in the world from 1830 up until World War Two. In fact, as Chang outlines in his book 'Bad Samaritans' every industrialized economy on the planet grew astronomically by strictly regulating markets, government investment and the protectionism of key industries through nascent stages of development.

It might also be pointed out that, in modern times, every nation of the EU that adopted free market reforms under IMF 'structural adjustment' policies all failed miserably and poverty actually increased.

Now, don't misunderstand me. That is not to say that I am a supporter of communism, or socialism. Rather, that it seems that a blended version of capitalism, mixed with a healthy dose of governmental oversight is the most effective way to build a thriving economy. Now, for those who submit that they agree, then where do they suggest that the "line" should be drawn? What is "reasonable' government oversight?

I agree that oversight is needed as in our 100% for profit world, greed and materialism will undoubtedly take hold if not kept in check via certain methods. I can't think of any specific checks and oversights I'd pass and I'd advise dealing with firms and companies on an individual case by case basis. Perhaps firms that depend very very very heavily on government support or are found to be dangerous to public wellbeing or utterly corrupt should be nationalized at least partially.

I actually suggested that with Pharma, on another forum, and it was pointed out that such nationalization would end up being a diplomatic nightmare. How do you get necessary drugs - antibiotics, etc - to countries that we are not allied with. Iran, for instance. We, as a government, are not allowed to do business with them. Period. So, if we nationalized our pharmaceutical industry, how does Iran get its drugs? It wouldn't be long before the world found itself embroiled in the "Drug War"; a war not for land, or ideology, but for control of the pharmaceutical industry.

Who cares about Iran? Let them rot. Besides, if things were really dire we could just change our stance towards them and permit trade for pharmaceutical purposes.

I was using them as an example. Further, we kinda can't just "let Iran rot', in terms of medicinal needs. Because - and again, this is presuming the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry - as soon as we decide that Iran doesn't deserve basic. Medical. Provisions who long do you think it will be before every other nation in the world starts to worry about what happens when we decide we don't like them very much? Like I siad - "War of the Drugs", or "The Great Pharma Wars". Yeah...nationalizing pharma would be a diplomatic nightmare.

Well then, the rest of the world had best behave themselves. Besides, we have the military strength to crush anyone so they wouldn't be foolish enough to damage themselves further over something already damaging.

Individually? Maybe. Collectively? Everyone? Not so sure. And if you think otherwise, I certainly hope you are never one of those who bitches when anyone ever suggests that we can afford to trim some fat from the defense budget. After all, you just suggested that we have a military that is large enough, and well enough equipped that we can, single-handedly, take on the entire world.

 

[Pilate]

Well I'll contend that most decisions we make do impact society and therefore should require conformity. Laws only fail when the means of enforcing them are inadequate.

Well, that's the rallying cry for totalitarian government. I could never support that. Monoculture is a bad goal, both for society as a whole, and for individuals. Diversity serves us far better, and requires far less "enforcement".

I'm shamelessly opposed to democracy. So yes, I am advocating for a more centralized state. Amazing! Your constitution allows me to undermine the system it establishes!