Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
And if you ever take the time to understand what I write you would know my view is the murky middle or hybrid systems and solutions are generally the most problematic, but that no one system or ideology is perfect.
|
I know this was addressed to roachboy, but this is something that we can discuss because it's clear what your position is and there is no factual problems with your statement.
However, I think your view is difficult to accept. Are you saying that either communism or
laissez-faire is less problematic than established, long-term, stable, mixed economies? Would you suggest it's less problematic to have a command economy vs. a system that incorporates social spending programs amongst market economy elements? You would suggest that the days of the robber barons were less problematic than today? Should Canada, for example, move away from its problematic mixed economic system and move towards the business-oriented nanny-state (albeit otherwise largely unregulated) model adopted by 19th century America?
I know you have extreme positions when it comes to economics. However, I fail to see why a place like Canada should adopt an extreme position such as yours.
Any problem that arises anyplace, whether it be the U.S., Germany, or Greece, isn't likely a problem with mixed economies themselves. I doubt the core problem is that these economies aren't
laissez-faire. I doubt the core problem is that these economies aren't command economies. I surely don't want to see any real-life experiments conducted to find out. There are too many real-life failures and indications to look back on to already know.
---------- Post added at 11:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
A single person stranded on an island can have what I consider "wealth". This person's wealth can be increased without consumption. I measure wealth by living standards, not by a measurement of fiat money. With that as a basis, extending the concepts to communities, nations and the world the same principles apply.
|
Partaking in increased living standards is considered consumption, ace. Otherwise, it's merely kept "in inventory" and no one's living standards increase.
Quote:
|
I thought I also made clear that real wealth creation can certainly lead to increased consumption, but that the real wealth creation occurs first. Do you insist on taking the position that consumption or demand drives real wealth creation? If so, give examples in history when this has been true.
|
If "real wealth creation" = "increased profits via increased efficiency or productivity vis-à-vis the application of new technologies whether product-, service-, or idea-based," then yes.
History is replete with examples.
In order to make use of new technologies to increase profits, you must consume them. Otherwise you don't use them.
ace, if you don't consume something, you don't benefit from it. You can't get something from nothing.