pull down to refresh
241 sats \ 35 replies \ @Undisciplined 10h \ on: "Free market capitalism" in America. Are we happy with the results? econ
Yeah, there are a bunch of state enforced barriers to entry that restrict competition, as well as various special legal and financial protections.
It's not even close to a free market. America isn't even in the 90th percentile of economic freedom (https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/report), and most of the countries ahead of it aren't widely thought of as free market bastions.
I can't tell you how many times my socialist/communist friends have said to me, "well, we tried capitalism. Look what happened."
They're like aliens from another planet. We can't find common ground linguistically.
I think if an agreed definition of capitalism is set, you can often have a constructive conversation.
reply
My oldest son has been talking to me asking how to talk to people that have very different views on things. I told him, most people aren't interested in challenging their assumptions. They just parrot what they have heard. It is rare that most people have ever really talked to someone they disagree with from the perspective of learning why they disagree.
I ask questions and if they open the door by asking me a question now I can start a dialogue. Most of the time people stop there. They don't really care to hear good arguments. They would rather have straw man arguments.
The few times I have met an open communist I have enjoyed the conversation because I asked all the questions. Found some common ground. And usually their definitions are way different so if I had not asked questions we would be talking past one another.
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
~ Proverbs 18:2
reply
Supposedly, there was a conversation between Mises and some communist philosopher where they realized by the end that they believed very similar things once they sorted through their linguistic differences and let each other add the caveats and nuances they each believed to be important.
reply
I suspect that this is much more true than people realize. Our positions are a lot closer than it's often perceived, simply because of the words we use, and what topics we choose to prioritize talking about.
reply
It doesn't take too many tweaks to get from "From each according to their ability. To each according to their need." to specialization and consumer sovereignty.
Yeah, but if they're claiming this is "free market capitalism", I doubt a constructive conversation will be had.
reply
reply
Libertarians and socialists have common cause against the parasitic rentseeking crony capitalists who undermine free markets and misuse fiat money debt issuance to inflate asset prices.
The problem is corporate sponsorship has corrupted politics.
The Clintons were owned by Goldman Sachs.
And so people have become disillusioned by these corrupt politics many have given up and become disillusioned.
A revolution of sorts is required to remove the corporate sponsorship and return true democracy and a political leadership who can put the best interests of the nation and its people before the dictates of wealthy sponsors.
reply
The socialist rhetoric is so powerful, even in blatant presence of evidence of the exact contrary, that sometimes I have genuinely questioned me if it's us the ones who are wrong, and people actually deserve to be enslaved and pay the price of their utter idiocy. Socialism proved that there's one and only one thing that truly matters: rhetoric. Everything else comes second, at any cost, as history has lavishly proved: no matter the price, no matter the size of the tragedy, no matter how consistent the failure, how blatant the reality... people will hold to it for dear life....
... I mean... it's really our fault at this point, Platon made this very clear a millenia ago with his allegory of the shadows in the cave... we are the delusional ones here pretending we can go against that fundamental human nature... perhaps, despite being doomed to failure, socialism is actually que only system that can govern men, even if it will not serve men...
reply
Socialism doesn't seem to be the answer.
I wonder if you have thoughts on why capitalism becomes crony capitalism? In the examples in the original post, I'd ask, do you like the result of these types of industries? Do you think they generally benefit the public?
Perhaps this is the best we can expect?
reply
I answered this a little in your other comment. I may add that we can expect as much as people's culture shifts from tribalism. Otherwise, any trace of capitalism is nearly accidental, and even then it works so well than when it's fully ignored.
reply
Is there a reason capitalism gets captured? Is there a fundamental flaw with it?
Do you have an example of a country today that has actual 'capitalism' the way you define it? Take away what all your 'communist' friends say, use your own definition when answering the question.
I assume you make the same argument that socialists make, that there is no actual example of socialism that was allowed to function as they define it. Well, we don't live in a fairy tale utopia where socialism/capitalism works as your socialist friends (or you) wish it did.
reply
Utopian ideals of capitalism, socialism, libertarianism, etc will never fully exist. That seems to be a given and acknowledged by everyone, regardless of ideology. My simple working definition of capitalism here would be a free market coupled with a respect for private property and personal freedoms. The idea that the US has lived under capitalism at any point in the last hundred years is ridiculous. The government has its thumb on the scale of every market, owns almost all of the infrastructure, and picks its winners in every industry.
reply
Allow me to intervene.
My theory is that there's no flaw in capitalism in itself as a scheme, but on people's intuition and conception of reality. People conceive reality from the fixed pie point of view, and intuitively think that for anything to work properly someone should command it. It's perhaps an inheritance from our most primitive upbringings, when those simple concepts where the absolute truth in an unproductive, uncohesioned society.
About "it's not true capitalism", it doesn't compare at all with the "it wasn't true socialism". We say "it isn't true capitalism" when you don't have that many companies to choose from. Socialists say "it wasn't true socialism" when tragedies are measured with no less than 8 digits on any parameter (deats, destruction, loss of capital, etc). The virtue of capitalism is that even when it's not "true capitalism", it's the highest standard of living on earth. When it's not "true socialism", there's no standard, no living, no earth.
reply
The simple but hard to accept truth is the best economy and societal outcome result from a careful combination of good government and free markets.
Only government has the mandate power and incentive to direct capital toward projects that will have long time horizons before they deliver positive results.
Only government has the ability to plan strategic development of resources which are required by free markets but often not sufficiently supplied by free markets.
Only a government has the mandate and power to build military and diplomatic power to project in the nations best interests.
Only a government has the power to restrict rentseeking cartel and monopolies from developing and from preventing foreign interests from acquiring capture and control of strategic supply chains...for example rare earths refining.
USA is deluded in its myths about free enterprise- USA has become as the OP points out an example of crony capitalism.
China with its mixed economy planned and directed by the CCP politburo composing of engineers has beaten the west capitalism at its own game precisely by providing the ideal conditions for free enterprise to thrive.
Try gaining too much market dominance in China and see what happens to you - ask Jack Ma.
In contrast every US president for the last 50 years at least has been owned by corporate sponsors and is beholden to them, not the wider interests of the nation and people.
reply
careful combination of good government and free markets.
There's no such combination. Any attempt in that direction do not only exacerbates the problem: it's the very cause of the problem in the first place.
reply
Every wealthy empire in history evidences otherwise.
The British Empire via the East India Company could only force trade upon China because of its superior navy and cannons. They demanded Hong Kong and established the banking that enabled the Opium Trade and exploitation of China and the subsequent incursions by multiple western nations as well as Japan...all enabled by governments and their military power projection supporting their merchants.
The capital markets of the Netherlands enabled global trade and wealth for the Dutch.
The Spanish and Portuguese royalty sponsored conquest and exploitation of Latin America.
The US Petrodollar has only been operative due to US pledge to provide military defense and market and USTs to oil producing OPEC nations. US hegemony picked up the British Empires hegemony after WW2 with the same Jewish bankers in shadows operating the monetary networks that have run parallel to the military for hundreds of years.
Each empire declines as a new more proficient combination of merchants and government power projection is developed by a competing nation state.
China has won the trade war while USA carries a chronic trade and fiscal deficit that nobody sees as ever being repaid.
Trump is held hostage by China - 'if you want our refined rare earths essential to your military and manufacturing sponsors then bend the knee Donald!'
Wealth never endures without the framework of government providing the best conditions for its merchants and history tells this over and over and over again back to Roman times and before to King Solomon!
Learn from history or be condemned to repeat it.
reply
Every wealthy empire in history evidences otherwise.
No. Not in the slightest. Every single empire in history is an evidence of the exact opposite you're saying.
You are stuck in the cartoonish introductory version of history you might have learned in elementary school and have never read any actual source beyond that.
Learn from history or be condemned to repeat it.
reply
Please demonstrate you are capable of engaging in fact based reasoned debate rather than unsupported assertions.
Otherwise you are just an arrogant ideolog who makes baseless assertions and attacks those who disagree but cannot back your assertions with reason.
I have given numerous historical examples to support my reasoning.
You have not.
Nothing constructive can come from your approach.
You neither support your own assertions nor refute mine with any facts or reasoning.
reply
I did gave a fact based assertion: your assumptions and assertions are false. Hence all I could say about them: no.
The British Empire via the East India Company could only force trade upon China because of its superior navy and cannons.
Plunder of one empire over the other. Not "wealth production". Not "societal outcome". Absolute Zero Game, aka Plunder.
They demanded Hong Kong and established the banking that enabled the Opium Trade and exploitation of China
Plunder of one empire over the other. Not "wealth production". Not "societal outcome". Absolute Zero Game, aka Plunder.
The capital markets of the Netherlands enabled global trade and wealth for the Dutch.
An excellent example of free markets doing their job without government intervention. Not at all your point.
The Spanish and Portuguese royalty sponsored conquest and exploitation of Latin America.
Plunder of one empire over the other. Not "wealth production". Not "societal outcome". Absolute Zero Game, aka Plunder.
Not a single one of your examples sustain your point. What you want me to say? All than can be said about your argument is just: no. In fact through your examples you have proved yourself wrong. And you don't realize. That makes the debate impossible to be constructive, you will not acknowledge reality even when you yourself repeat it. No debate is possible. Hence the only answer I can give you: just, no.
reply
I'm enjoying your responses, but I'm pretty sure you're talking to a CCP chatbot
1- The Opium Trade was not profitable for British and other nations traders who engaged in the trade??? Really? OMG! Please! Get real! FFS!
And the export of tea and porcelain from China that the Opium Trade enabled was not profitable for the British and other traders who were able to do this as a result of the British Empires military force? Really?
Not sure what drugs you are on but they are definitely clouding your thinking.
2- ' "The capital markets of the Netherlands enabled global trade and wealth for the Dutch."
An excellent example of free markets doing their job without government intervention. '
Wrong- it was only with the support of the Dutch government and the consistent ability to make and enforce contracts within the Dutch jurisdiction that the prosperous global trading ventures undertaken by the Dutch merchants were made possible. Capital markets cannot function well without rule of law and property rights provided by consistent governance.
The Dutch government provided the legal framework for free enterprise to prosper. If you knew the history you would understand that at the same time the Spanish royalty would repeatedly renege upon financial undertakings with those providing finance for expeditions of conquest and trade and due to the inconsistency and weakness and corruption within the Spanish government capital supply dried up as investors preferred the superior legal framework provided by the Dutch.
3- As long as it lasted the Spanish plunder of Latin Americas definitely provided significant wealth and societal prosperity for Spain.
It could be argued this is no more plunder than the removal of the Iranian government in the 1950s via the CIA establishing a Shah who would allow US and British exploitation of Iranian oil. This combination of state use of force and private enterprise developed over the following years to create the petrodollar global monetary hegemony and extraordinary privilege of the USD and thus derived and sustained the most wealthy empire in human history...USA.
Free trade is a cute slogan mostly touted by hypocrits who practice nothing of the sort.
To the extent that free trade can exist it must have the context of a legal system that protects and enforces property rights.
The fact people get this very simple but fundamental fact exactly backwards distresses me deeply.
I was wondering why the US is almost in the yellow zone, but then I saw Heritage has scored the US a
0 for fiscal health.That's kind of insane if the UK scores a
19.0 and France has a 30.0, while for both these countries issuing more debt has far further reaching consequences than for the US.reply