Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Yes. Tax policy should be directly related to real costs to society. Government has a role in measuring those costs and collecting payment through tax policy, including tariffs. When government goes beyond that and goes beyond doing what they do best (i.e. - national defense), there is a net harm or cost to society in my view.
Capitalism is not laissez-faire. Laissez-faire in my view is anarchy. Captialism is a system with a structure.
|
However,
laissez-faire is a form of capitalism. What you seem to support is a form of mixed-market economy, albeit one rather close to libertarianism or
laissez-faire.
Quote:
|
Mixed economies will favor the few at the expense of the many.
|
This is a biased statement. It really depends on what you mean by "favour." There are very few people (if any) who don't benefit from the elements of mixed economies. I can't think of anyone.
Quote:
|
Free market capitalism favors efficiency at the expense of the inefficient. With that said, I do support social programs for children, the elderly and the disabled. From a morality point of view, I guess I am not a true purist, however, the mixed systems as you discuss them go far beyond that.
|
Efficiency isn't inherent in a free market. As an example, the market is dictated by holders of capital, who are often emotional rather than purely rational. The other side of that is the challenge of information flows with regard to speculation. From a business perspective (which is what I think you are referring to), I suppose a free market means that businesses either succeed or fail, without any government intervention. However, I would argue that efficiency in this respect isn't an ideal as far as organizing societies is concerned. Take labour laws, for example.
Quote:
Yes. Government was used to allow favoritism and protection. Using railroads as an example, what was the true value of the land used by the railroad barrons compared to the price they actually paid? Why were they allowed to exploit land usage? Government policy is the answer, the free market had no voice. At the time government thought they were doing good by granting land rights, they were, however, they did not get the real true value of the land in exchange. That is just one example.
[...]
Yes. The military. When the US used its military to protect corporate interests, as it had done in the past on occasion, those costs where incurred by everyone, but benefited a few. For example the US Civil war was fought for a few reasons, one being the institution of slavery and its relationship with the cotton industry in the South. If not for the cotton industry the war would not have been fought and slavery would have ended sooner as it had in many European nations and Canada - no wars on the issue - no single big industry to protect.
|
In the end, you are referring to a turbulent market that was shifting into the modern mixed economic system we're now familiar with. It's hardly a good example of mixed economy.
Quote:
|
I know, the Canadian economy is diverse. However, the economy without the oil/mineral resources is not sustainable - hence the "one thing they have". That is what will save Canada's ability to continue their social spending. Perhaps my point is too subtle, I can't say it any clearer.
|
The same goes for the U.S. and a number of other nations. If the U.S. didn't have it's natural resources, it would hardly be sustainable. What's your point? The overall issue is a balance between taxation and spending for the purposes of stabilizing an economy from the ground up. What are you getting at?
Quote:
|
If it takes me 100 hours to do X, but I can reduce that time to 50 hours. I now have 50 hours to either do nothing leisure (no profit involved) or use that time to do more work (profit involved). Either way, the quality of life improved, standard of living improved.
|
But how did you manage to reduce that time? You're leaving out a lot of essential information. Did you buy more equipment? Did you outsource office administration duties to India? Did you take a course to update your skills? Did you bring in a consultant? Cutting your time in half is an astounding achievement. How did you do it?
Quote:
|
I don't have the words to make my points clearer. I really don't know what more to say. From my point of view, you are taking very simple statements and concepts and distorting them, even if it is by a small amount, to be argumentative.
|
I'm not distorting them. I'm applying them to basic economic principles. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to understand how your position fits in the real world.
Quote:
|
For example I thought I made clear that creating wealth and generating profits are different - or that it is not clear what is meant by "profit" when you use the term. There are financial profits as measured by fiat currency and there are general profits as measured by personal well being. I don't know which you refer to, but I tried to explain that in my view there is a difference.
|
To me, you are trying to separate something away from its essential source. How do you reasonably increase well being outside of the "supply/demand v. profit" model? If you aren't referring to "life's simple pleasures" or Buddhist asceticism, I don't know what you're referring to. I've asked this more than once: how does one increase one's standard of living without consuming something? Give me an example.
Quote:
|
At this point in the discussion two things are clear. One of us is correct and one either wrong or not understanding the other, or two, neither of us will be moved by any point made by the other. Stalemate. All I am doing is re-stating my views in different ways.
|
And all I'm doing is trying to find out where your views fit into the real world. Most of what I've written about in the last several posts isn't based on my views.