Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Economics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-20-2009, 11:08 AM   #1 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
You do not live in a market (capitalist) economy

There is no such thing as a purely market economy. It doesn't exist, and it never has. It probably never will.

The U.S. is as purely capitalistic as China is purely communist. Have a closer look-see, and you will soon realize that both economies are technically mixed economies.

If you live in North America, Europe, or, yes, even China, you are living in a mixed economy.

Below are common elements of such:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Elements of a mixed economy

The elements of a mixed economy typically include a variety of freedoms:
  • to possess means of production (farms, factories, stores, etc.)
  • to participate in managerial decisions (cooperative and participatory economics)
  • to travel (needed to transport all the items in commerce, to make deals in person, for workers and owners to go to where needed)
  • to buy (items for personal use, for resale; buy whole enterprises to make the organization that creates wealth a form of wealth itself)
  • to sell (same as buy)
  • to hire (to create organizations that create wealth)
  • to fire (to maintain organizations that create wealth)
  • to organize (private enterprise for profit, labor unions, workers' and professional associations, non-profit groups, religions, etc.)
  • to communicate (free speech, newspapers, books, advertisements, make deals, create business partners, create markets)
  • to protest peacefully (marches, petitions, sue the government, make laws friendly to profit making and workers alike, remove pointless inefficiencies to maximize wealth creation)

with tax-funded, subsidized, or state-owned factors of production, infrastructure, and services:
  • libraries and other information services
  • roads and other transportation services
  • schools and other education services
  • hospitals and other health services
  • banks and other financial services
  • telephone, mail and other communication services
  • electricity and other energy services (eg oil, gas)
  • water systems for drinking, agriculture, and waste disposal
  • subsidies to agriculture and other businesses
  • government-granted monopolies to otherwise private businesses
  • legal assistance

and providing some autonomy over personal finances but including involuntary spending and investments such as transfer payments and other cash benefits such as:
  • welfare for the poor
  • social security for the aged and infirm
  • government subsidies to business
  • mandatory insurance (example: automobile)

and restricted by various laws, regulations:
  • environmental regulation (example: toxins in land, water, air)
  • labor regulation including minimum wage laws
  • consumer regulation (example: product safety)
  • antitrust laws
  • intellectual property laws
  • incorporation laws
  • protectionism
  • import and export controls, such as tariffs and quotas

and taxes and fees written or enforced with manipulation of the economy in mind.
Of course, not all mixed economies are the same. The U.S. is closer to a market economy, and China is closer to a command economy, but each have mixed in elements to stabilize certain features. In the case of the U.S., socialist programs and strategies were implemented as a means to provide for the basic welfare of its citizens and to influence the business cycle. In the case of China, capitalist strategies have blown open their global competitiveness and has advanced their technological development. However, the U.S. tends to value autonomy over offering benefits, and China has problems with individual freedoms. This is what sets them apart.

What aspects of mixed-market economies do you value? If there is much that you don't like, I'd like to know what you do like. If there is much you hold valuable, then tell me what you don't.

In my view, I tend to like most aspects of mixed economies as listed above. I credit these elements for Canada's relatively good mixture of stability, competitiveness, and fairness, even in light of the "Great Recession." The only thing I would take issue with is disproportionate spending or government regulation where it doesn't make sense or isn't in the best interests of the parties involved. The decisions must uphold a standard of decency, rather than unreasonable restrictiveness.

Canada hasn't always done well in this respect, but generally we've done better than many. For example, we need to fix problems with our nationalized health care, we have issues of brain drain, and businesses tend to think our taxes are too high. On the positive side, we do fairly well to support small business in a globalized economy, our banks are adequately regulated, and our laws are generally viewed as fair. I think we have a decent balance of freedom, law, social support, and regulation, which are the hallmarks of a successful mixed economy.

What do you think?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 06-20-2009 at 11:17 AM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-20-2009, 12:26 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I think that the realities of the US economy are convenient for free market proponents.

They get to be in the position of imploring everyone to "let the market handle it," and then when the market fails, as it sometimes does, they always have the out of "well, it's not the market's fault, it's government interference that's to blame."

In other words, the fundamentals of their perspective have the "advantage" of being untestable.
filtherton is offline  
Old 06-20-2009, 02:48 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
eribrav's Avatar
 
Location: upstate NY
I'd argue that the US has devolved to the worst system possible:

Wealthy individuals and institutions have been taking massive, foolish risks, attempting to make obscene riches.
The taxpayer certainly isn't included in these plans and isn't going to share in the gains if any occur.
When they fail, the taxpayer gets left holding the bag.
So we have capitalism when it comes to making huge riches, but socialism when the "big guns" falter and need to be propped up.
eribrav is offline  
Old 06-21-2009, 06:36 AM   #4 (permalink)
Nothing
 
tisonlyi's Avatar
 
Meh, i didn't like that.
__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--
tisonlyi is offline  
Old 06-21-2009, 08:10 AM   #5 (permalink)
Psycho
 
william's Avatar
 
People will not like me for saying this, but the U.S. hurt itself by being greedy. "Made in the U.S.A." used to mean something. So what is "Made in the U.S.A." today? Practically everthing that consumers buy is produced outside of the U.S.A.. Why? Cost. And greed. Companies outsource. People buy outsourced products. The majority don't have a choice. In the 1950's, a family could own a home and live on the fathers income (not to say anything against equal opportunity) while the mother stayed home. That is not possible today. The dynamics of our economy no longer let that happen.
william is offline  
Old 06-21-2009, 11:55 AM   #6 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by william View Post
People will not like me for saying this, but the U.S. hurt itself by being greedy. "Made in the U.S.A." used to mean something. So what is "Made in the U.S.A." today? Practically everthing that consumers buy is produced outside of the U.S.A.. Why? Cost. And greed. Companies outsource. People buy outsourced products. The majority don't have a choice.
They didn't really have a choice. If companies didn't shift manufacturing of certain things overseas to save on labour cost, the imported products would outsell the American products. You'd have TVs selling for half the price as "Made in U.S.A." TVs. The consumer would choose, more often than not, the TV at half the price. Quality is a consideration, but not all products made in Asia are garbage. The consumer has the ultimate choice. In many ways, they chose the cheaper products, which is why we're here. Thank Wal-mart for rolling back the prices as well.

Quote:
In the 1950's, a family could own a home and live on the fathers income (not to say anything against equal opportunity) while the mother stayed home. That is not possible today. The dynamics of our economy no longer let that happen.
The average home size is now twice what it was in the 1950s. Plus back then they only had ...maybe...one television, one car, and maybe one or two radios. A phone, maybe two. No computers, no other electronics. They repaired their clothes instead of buying new ones every season. They cooked at home from scratch. Maybe it's time to live like that once again.

It is possible. People still do it.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-21-2009, 12:01 PM   #7 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
the idea that the united states has been anything like a "free market" fantasy at any point since world war 2 is laughable.

"free marketeers" have used this ideology to advance the interests of the patronage network they serve and disadvantage political opponents who serve different patronage networks.
it worked for a while as a marketing tool and now it really doesn't. at some point, a different language will probably get fabricated by these same political operatives who will then try to advance the interest of the patronage networks for which they stand once again.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-21-2009, 12:11 PM   #8 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy View Post
the idea that the united states has been anything like a "free market" fantasy at any point since world war 2 is laughable
The closest thing the U.S. ever had to a free market was the laissez-faire circus of the 19th century. You know, the robber barons of oil, steel, railroad, and finance. The era of unfair business practices, abuse of labour, and ridiculous amassing of wealth held in very few hands. But, even then, it wasn't a purely free market. High tariffs were implemented to protect these businessmen...I mean, companies.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 06-22-2009 at 06:52 AM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-21-2009, 05:36 PM   #9 (permalink)
Nothing
 
tisonlyi's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
The closest thing the U.S. ever had to a free market was the laissez-faire circus of the 19th century. You know, they robber barons of oil, steel, railroad, and finance. The era of unfair business practices, abuse of labour, and ridiculous amassing of wealth held in very few hands. But, even then, it wasn't a purely free market. High tariffs were implemented to protect these businessmen...I mean, companies.
So there was a free market in those areas for precisely how many years? 1? 2? 5? 10?

Those oligarchs certainly rose up very quickly.
__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--
tisonlyi is offline  
Old 06-21-2009, 05:53 PM   #10 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
I think that the realities of the US economy are convenient for free market proponents.

They get to be in the position of imploring everyone to "let the market handle it," and then when the market fails, as it sometimes does, they always have the out of "well, it's not the market's fault, it's government interference that's to blame."

In other words, the fundamentals of their perspective have the "advantage" of being untestable.
I could not have said it better myself!
rlbond86 is offline  
Old 06-21-2009, 07:33 PM   #11 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by tisonlyi View Post
So there was a free market in those areas for precisely how many years? 1? 2? 5? 10?

Those oligarchs certainly rose up very quickly.
I don't know the history in detail, but as more people became eligible to vote, more pressure was placed on the government to intervene in the market. Some early issues (and ones that tie back to the 19th century) were the demand for laws on child labour and workplace safety. Gradually over time, labour rights and, eventually, labour laws placed further restrictions on what we would otherwise call a completely free market.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 06:21 AM   #12 (permalink)
Nothing
 
tisonlyi's Avatar
 
I'd say that as soon as one of the robber barons rose to the point of anti-competitive advantage, then the 'free' market is dead at that point.
__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--
tisonlyi is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 06:43 AM   #13 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
The problem of anti-competition was certainly a big part of it. While these unregulated giants of industry benefited from the protection of tariffs, they continued to dominate their realm of business to the extent that new entrants were virtually an impossibility. I can only assume that pressure was exerted on government to do something, as I'm sure that there were many who were repeatedly frustrated by their inability to enter the market.

When that much wealth is concentrated in so few hands—to an extent that makes our current situation of wealth distribution look tolerable—the question of fairness becomes a prominent topic of what is best for society as a whole. A lack of competition hurts both consumers and workers.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 10-25-2009, 09:09 AM   #14 (permalink)
Somnabulist
 
guy44's Avatar
 
Location: corner of No and Where
Of course we've never really had a super-pure "free market." That has never and cannot ever exist. It's a theoretical construct.

Besides, functioning markets will always need government intervention for certain services, like monopoly-busting, providing rule of law, and providing for pure public (and sometimes quasi-public) goods. And that's just the minimum government intervention required.
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"
guy44 is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 05:37 AM   #15 (permalink)
Sober
 
GreyWolf's Avatar
 
Location: Eastern Canada
I have some difficulty with the definitions used in the OP. There seems to be some confusion between the system of government and the economic system. Although the two are inextricably inter-related, the economic system is not theoretically dependent on the form of government. Communism need not be a dictatorship or oligarchy, but almost universally is. Socialism and capitalism are both viable market regimes under almost any form of government.

The OP implicitly assumes a sharp delineation of government areas of expenditure and market oversight in a free market that I think is really artificial and mostly a matter of any particular author's opinion. In the strictly classical sense of a free market, even the laissez-faire attitude of the 19th century didn't make it. Parts of the market may have been free, but regulation was already rearing it's not-so-ugly head.

There's never been a truly free market since the days of government, and given the need to maintain some semblance of order for the good of society, there never will be. As for capitalism, I think it completely failed as a philosophy when Madison Ave reached the point that it could convince people that a Cadillac was better than exactly the same functional & feature-laden vehicle with the name Pontiac on it, simply because it was a Cadillac. That simply shouldn't happen under capitalism, in theory.
__________________
The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.
GreyWolf is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 08:11 PM   #16 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyWolf View Post
I have some difficulty with the definitions used in the OP. There seems to be some confusion between the system of government and the economic system. Although the two are inextricably inter-related, the economic system is not theoretically dependent on the form of government. Communism need not be a dictatorship or oligarchy, but almost universally is. Socialism and capitalism are both viable market regimes under almost any form of government.
Communism is, in the least, a form of economic dictatorship/oligarchy. Its structure is based on a centralized control over all or most factors of production and the related decisions concerning them. With communism, the power over capital remains in the hands of governing bodies. With capitalism, it remains in the hands of individuals...well, at least those fortunate enough to obtain it.

At least with socialism, individuals are usually left to own and operate a certain proportion of the production.

I can't see how a governing body that controls the factors of production can be anything other than authoritarian.

I don't think you can easily democratize communism. I think the closest we get is social democracy or democratic socialism. "Pure (stateless) communism" is a bit of a pipe dream.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
 

Tags
capitalist, economy, live, market

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:32 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360