Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
|
Okay, so does this mean that you do support at least a modicum of regulation, taxation, tariffs, etc.? If you do, then you don't support true free-market capitalism, which more or less relies on
laissez-faire. For the record, there is no practical application of free-market capitalism on a large scale, though people have tried it in studies, labs, and computer simulations.
Quote:
|
Yes, assuming equal leadership under both systems.
|
So what would you rather, the lack of problems under communism and socialism or the problems of managing a mixed economy?
Quote:
|
No. I think the robber baron system grew from a "mixed" economy.
|
How so? Are you referring to the nanny-state protectionism they benefited from? Because other than that, there wasn't much else going on that would be considered significant mixed-economy contributors to the robber barons. Is there something I'm missing?
Quote:
|
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. Are you, perhaps, also referring to incorporation laws that limited the liability of individuals in business?
|
I've corrected you on this before. You call our wealth in natural resources "the one thing we have" when our economy is far more dependent on services and manufacturing. You know, the U.S. has a shitload of natural resources as well. How's that working out for you?
Quote:
|
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.
|
So to do so, we should become some form of
laissez-faire economy? I don't see how this is relevant.
Quote:
|
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".
|
Then don't call it the creation of real wealth. You can't create wealth without some kind of profit. The difference between the time, work, and/or money spend to get something versus the amount that you got is considered either profit or a loss. There are various ways to measure this, but there you have it.
Quote:
|
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.
|
It's not necessarily the most common motivator overall, but if you want to create wealth, you necessarily must earn profits. That's how you get more than what you already have. If you don't get more than you already have, you don't earn a profit. If you end up with less than what you have, it's called a loss. Are we talking about wealth or something else?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Experiences are considered consumption. While there are many that are basically free (though probably not really), many are sold in the form of vacations, concerts, tours, fireworks displays, art galleries, etc. To benefit from something, you must consume it: this includes taking the time and energy to go to something, see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, taste it, etc.
The access to and the time spent on the beach (Do you own it? Does the city? Is it maintained?) is considered a kind of consumption. Also aesthetic "benefits" are a different matter, but many of them are monetized and so you have consumption there as well. We don't need to go to extremes. When I refer to "benefits," I refer to benefits obtained from products and services.
Quote:
|
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?
|
You are still consuming the product. You can borrow a book from the library, read it, and then return it. This makes you a consumer of the library. The library itself is a consumer of the publisher. This makes you an indirect consumer of the publisher. Even if you pick up a magazine at a bookstore and read it, you've consumed it even if you don't pay for it. That is often the problem with intellectual property.
---------- Post added at 12:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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!  |
My point is that it doesn't matter how awesome an idea is, if no one wants it or needs it, then it's a failure. It's only when an idea is "consumed" that is succeeds.