Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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?
|
I don't consider free market capitalism to be laissez-faire. Perhaps the difference is very subtle, but in a capitalist system I do see a role for government. Other than than what you state is pretty close to what I believe.
Quote:
|
Would you suggest it's less problematic to have a command economy vs. a system that incorporates social spending programs amongst market economy elements?
|
Yes, assuming equal leadership under both systems.
Quote:
|
You would suggest that the days of the robber barons were less problematic than today?
|
No. I think the robber baron system grew from a "mixed" economy.
Quote:
|
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 think Canada's destiny is on track with a nation like Greece. The one think that Canada has, and we discussed this in another thread, is the vast untapped wealth in natural resources. If these resources are monetized Canada can prolong social spending. What I consider "nanny states" are destine to fail in time.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Canada has enough wealth per capita that they can afford much higher levels of inefficiency as compared to many other nations. But, even with that wealth i ask why be wasteful with it? Canada could focus on leveraging that wealth and make the world a better place buy, dare I say, creating real wealth on a global scale. The US did it, perhaps it is Canada's turn to lead a global increase in living standards.
Quote:
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.
|
I don't correlate the creation of real wealth with profits. As you pointed out the person who created the printing press did not profit from it, another way to say it I guess is that the world profited from it, but that is a different definition of the term, "profit". There can be different motivators of the creation of real wealth outside of profit, previously I gave the example of Peter Carver and his work with the peanut, his motivation was not personal profit. Personally I do think the profit motive is the most common motivation and perhaps the most efficient motivation for wealth creation.
Quote:
|
ace, if you don't consume something, you don't benefit from it. You can't get something from nothing.
|
Interesting statement. At the risk of being told....whatever...I give an example. I benefit from looking at a beautiful woman walking along the beach as the sun sets, I don't consume her, the beach, or the sun set. You are in the publishing business, I can benefit from reading written words on paper, and not consume the words or the paper, I don't even need to purchase the book. Is this too "metaphysical" or however you would put it?
---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
It isn't just a problem with fiat currency. Tying currency to a finite resource effectively places a cap on the amount of wealth a currency can represent. Shit, even if we're talking a barter-based economy - having something of value to trade with no demand is functionally equivalent to having nothing at all. Illiquid assets are pretty much worthless for anything but prettying up a balance sheet.
|
That is why true wealth has to be measured in living standards. I know living standards are open to broad and inconsistent definitions, however, look at something like available leisure time we can begin to see patterns in terms of real wealth that has nothing to do with exchanging assets using money or other means. Just taking some numbers without research if in 1900 the average US adult citizen had an average of 8 hours of leisure time per week and in 2000 the average is 40, you can argue that living standards increased. Then ask the question, what was at the root of that increase? what you will consistently find is innovation, innovation from people who created what I call real wealth.
Quote:
|
You're right that capital investors are driven by math. One reason these folks haven't invested in more jobs is because they've done the math and demand isn't there to justify hiring more people to produce more produce. All this nonsense about political uncertainty is bullshit. Political uncertainty always exists.
|
Don't take my word for it, talk to any successful business person and ask - do you wait for demand and then respond? Or, do you create demand, do you anticipate demand.
In business you have to make the case for your product, you have to sell. It is government style thinking that assumes the opposite.
Quote:
|
Right, and if after the printing press was created there continued to be no demand for books, then we wouldn't be talking about printing presses. If after the record player was invented there continued to be no demand for record players, then we wouldn't be talking about record players. If after PCs were invented there continued to be no demand for PCs, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. You get the point. In each instance, it wasn't the creation of a new product that instantiated wealth, it was the demand for that product, along with an adequate market to allow for the exchange of that product for money.
|
You either misinterpret what I write, or I am not any good at communicating my thoughts - I am not sure which is true at this point. But, I agree at some point there has to be demand and there has to be consumption. The real question, is what comes first. Solving the economic puzzle requires knowing the answer to this question.
---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
This is along the lines of the thought that popped up in my head this afternoon.
A brilliant idea that never generates any demand isn't merely worthless; it's considered a failure.
|
By definition the idea is not brilliant base on what you guys present.
Either that or by your definition of "brilliant" you simply mean it is new and unique, not suggesting it meets a broader need or solves a broader problem. Perhaps every personal thought I have is "brilliant", since my personal thoughts are unique to me - thanks for the compliment!
---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:48 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
it's not obvious that there are alternative discourses available to a lot of people to help with the coherent consideration of alternatives. and that is a tragedy that, sadly, we are all living through.
|
I am curious, do you think a poster like DC knows that you think he is a neo-liberal?