Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
If capitalism is simply defined has people having the right to own and control property and laissez-faire capitalism is allowing people to have that right without any involvement from government, that is not what I support. I support a free market based economy with the rights of property ownership. Government has a role, there is a need for structure, law, law enforcement, regulation, taxation, dispute resolution, protecting the market (police, fire) etc. If this is what you call "mixed", I support "mixed". However, it has been my assumption that your view of "mixed" goes far beyond what I describe here. In fact my interpretation of "mixed" is a hybrid system designed to be both communal and private concurrently. It will do neither well.
Quote:
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.
|
I think in terms of net benefits. If everyone equally benefited you have "nothingness" in the context of what you call "mixed". In your "mixed" economy, someone has to have a net cost for others to have a net benefit - or some form of wealth re-distribution based on social engineering rather that real social costs. For example I have no problem with a government selling the "peoples" drilling rights, and the proceeds being distributed to the "people". I do have a problem with government giving away the "peoples" property for political reasons, social engineering reasons, etc, to benefit a selected few.
Quote:
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.
|
Efficiency is rewarded, inefficiency is punished in a free market.
Again, in the US it was "Jim Crow" labor laws that perpetuated segregation in the South - labor law has not always been in the best interests of society or the common good. In a true free market efficient labor will be rewarded. those who employ efficient labor will be rewarded. And again the legalized institution of segregation in the South prevented generations of Americans
from an education that would have allowed them to develop "efficient" employable skills. The real problem was government, not the market. A free market would have solved these problems much sooner if it had the opportunity. I believe this is applicable to many of our current problems as well, that it is government that slows progress and innovation.
Quote:
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?
|
I fully agree that the US has had a plentiful amount of resources that has supported excessive social spending. That time is coming to an end. We have to start to make some hard choices. Canada sits in a more fortunate situation than the US. In the next 100 years, I expect Canada in terms of economic growth to do better than the US, assuming Canada manages its resources properly.
Quote:
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?
|
Labor can be equal, capital can be equal....
Sure you can increase labor and capital, etc. However, with a brilliant idea, like crop rotation you can....
How many examples do you need to understand the point? Do you really not see it?