I am told that supply side thinking fails.
I am told that the free market fails.
I have seen directed economies fail.
So what works? Or is it just a matter of who is raping whom at the moment and nothing can be done?
Printable View
I am told that supply side thinking fails.
I am told that the free market fails.
I have seen directed economies fail.
So what works? Or is it just a matter of who is raping whom at the moment and nothing can be done?
China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I don't really know that much about it yet, abstract academic theory least of all. I've been browsing Noam Chomsky and contemporary socialist (or quasi-) sources like Current Affairs and Jacobin for the past year, and linked sources through them. People aren't kidding when they say that socialist ideology is probably the most highly elaborated ideology in extent. The best course of action to advance my knowledge might be to find and talk to local socialists face to face. Conveniently for the sake of my local political involvement, many of them likely double as community activists.
My impression now is that if the far left had to agree on one thing, it would be: radical subsidiary democracy, everything, everywhere. Government, civics, industry, family...
This civilization would involve a comprehensive cultural reeducation of humanity, and probably a dismantling of nations and private markets and even (fixed or involuntary) hierarchy. It would have to do this while increasing its capacity to tackle global issues relating to climate, resource management, and space exploitation (use a different term). I'm not sure what it could take to reach this point, or what steps would be absolutely necessary or testamentary. I'm sure thinkers have ventured answers here and there, ones that I'm unaware of to assess. It is possible to argue contrarily from human nature. It is also a fair point that appeals to "human nature" fail to account for our ignorance of the bounds of human nature(s). On the other hand, I suspect that whatever human nature is, it will become obsolete soon.
The modern left's vision is probably brand-new territory for the species. We really have tried everything else. We haven't tried the cyberdystopian libertarian/fascist syndicrat vision, but it is what we're aiming for by inertia today. I feel like all the other conservative or libertarian worlds just look like modernized variants of historical societies. The average Democrat's ideal of welfare state capitalism is unstable, since capitalism and its oligarchy are more resilient than any particular configuration of state. The New Deal was the high tide, and reproducing it woudln't resolve the world's ills; to try would be a waste of initiative.
The bottom line: I do not believe that socialists can attain their ends - how far short they fall, I can't say. I partially agree that these ends are good or worthwhile. I am convinced that most right-wing values and projects are ruinous, depraved, and worth opposing.
It would be a real coup to engineer some kind of Big Tent Marxism, coöpting morally-aligned conservatives to work beside them and help refine the ideology. Another challenge is absorbing the broader left ("liberals") and the minimally political. Count this pessimistic statist in. March to the edge of the 100 Acre Woods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2wneBVssPc
https://i.imgur.com/weUku37.jpg
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
That's like what my cat does, except she says "for food" at the end.
Concerning the question, I don't believe an entire new system is needed. Capitalism can work with strong government oversight. We need separation of corporations and state.
state capitalism that succeeds in not falling into corporatism?
How can you maintain this oversight, if it's always been inadequate? Where does it come from? Do we continue to live just as we have for the past generation? How, and is it desirable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Like contemporary Russia and China. But it also applies to mid-century social democracies - which is our genealogy. Where are we now? It's the norm for the modern state, charged with managing at least the contours of production and enterprise, including the investment of public funds toward private (or personal) profit. State capitalism may just be inextricable from oligarchy, whether the ruler is a corporate board, a dictator, or a vetted bureaucrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
One point: It's off the mark to consider socialism as straightforwardly a state ownership and control of, or intervention in, economic functions or institutions. If this were a proper definition, we would have to consider history as evincing an overwhelmingly socialist model for millenia, up to the modern era. But Louis XIV was no socialist. I now realize that state ownership is always merely a means to an end, democratic communal determination. (I would have known this had I done the assigned reading in the Communist Manifesto way back when.) It has been hard to swallow for someone whose instincts run towards top-down paternalistic statism, but it looks like for socialism to truly ever succeed you can't have any trace of capitalism remaining in either the culture or the economy. Capitalism will always beat socialism where given a chance, like rock beats scissors.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a sci-fi story from the 1970s that follows a prosperous Galactic Socialist Federation where, oh no! Some of the backwater colonies have degenerated into late-stage capitalism and are ruthlessly sweeping across systems in a tide of military and economic imperialism.
At least I'm never wrong to be pessimistic. :shrug:
Most of the criticism for state oversight comes from the fact that it is very susceptible to corruption, and strong state oversight always ends up in considerable cronyism, siphoning of budgets from public projects and other issues.
You can have whatever system you want, so long as you have proper oversight to make sure that the system works as its supposed to work. Some systems are easier to implement than others, usually those that function naturally with minimal guidance. Capitalism is favorable in this respect, but there is always some jacka** that wants more for less. The key is to apply just enough pressure to make sure that corruption stays down. The best way to do this is to decentralize oversight as much as possible and make sure to pay those in charge very well. It's easy to bribe one guy. It's simply not feasible to bribe everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Absolutely. In my "bubble" of Pharmaceutical Medicine in the UK when we promote we are all constantly scared of the PMCPA and their powers to award fines, force recall of material (massive cost and loss of face) or just pop in for an audit - £15k a time, at least three and the company is practically paralyzed in the meantime. There are no"rules" just guidelines. Meaning if the PMCPA think you have done something wrong, you have. The only appeal is a Review Board who will triple the fine if they don't agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Compare that to the ICO. Utterly toothless who seem to do as little as possible and state they want to work with the offender which appears to be sending an email over with their thoughts and that's about it.
Finance appears to have a situation where not only is the money they have enough to bribe people in all sorts of ways, but also the complexity of what they do is extreme. Oh, and the processes are done to the standard of Criminal Law which as for funsies it also crosses borders makes getting anyone guilty of anything next to impossible.
I believe that if all industries had the same method of oversight as Pharma does in the UK, there would be a lot less corruption since the risk : reward would look very different.
~:smoking:
Finding a perfect system is impossible, because it doesn't exist. Human error and human nature will always be a factor, in any system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I don't know how to achieve strong government oversight, but then again, I'm pretty sure our ancestors a several centuries ago couldn't have imagined separation of church and state.
One of the problem in the west is that media can be used to redirect people's anger, and that media is ultimately only responsible to its owners. It should be their job to point out toxic influence of corporations in most western countries, but as media is owned by corporations , that's not going to work.
Lobbying should be made illegal. Politicians should come under more scrutiny about the source of their money, not just whether they payed taxes or not. Funding political campaigns should be illegal. The state should provide all possible candidates with a fixed amount of funds that they are able to spend on campaigns. Trying to influence a politician should be akin to trying to bribe officials and should come with heavy fines and possible jail time.
Making lobbying illegal merely means that other forms of non-lobbying are used. And funding political campaigns the USA as Super-PACs effortlessly got around that road block and now have almost no oversight. But yes, having a bigger audit office with more powers is probably always good.
In every job trying to influence people is what we do. And generally we all know when it is "good" influence or "bad" influence but codifying for all situations is nigh on impossible: presenting data to Politicians is good - who knows, they might learn something about the Sciences - but of course this also influences them given their normal ground state of universal ignorance. Hence an effective Audit Office with sufficient powers and autonomy is required.
The problem is - who does it report to? In the UK I'd say the Monarch to keep it out of the hands of Politicians, but elsewhere would reporting into the President really be a good idea? Just when it would need to be strongest is when such a system would be weakest. Perhaps a direct report into the most senior Law court in the land is the best approach.
~:smoking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnejUWRam-0Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Since this is a site about war games, I'll post the obvious. An economic model that keeps your homeland out of the dustbin of history is what works. I suppose that would be "Darwinian Economics". A nation with an economic model that is less than optimal would adapt less well to its environmental threats, i.e. competing nations' economies, and become extinct. The free market economy of the U.S. became a directed economy under central authority during WW II to survive. Agrarian Tsarist Russia of 1914 would not have survived as well as industrialized Stalinist Russia of 1941 did. Both Japan and Germany enjoy a better economy today from peaceful expansion than they ever had under autocratic domination. On a grand scale, governments fiddle with free enterprise and central planning to reach some Goldilocks zone where enough wealth is generated to pay for social, environmental and industrial expansion. Depending on the type of government, the livelihood of the citizens is encouraged to achieve this or they are simply enslaved either by regulation or literally. Total capitalism or total socialism requires total autocracy, so (mostly) free nations are left with an economic stew of competing models. Free market capitalism has the best feedback loop. If your friend saw a movie that sucked, most likely you will spend your money on a different movie. Under total central planning, everyone must watch all the movies whether they suck or not, because they have a deep moral lesson and the masses must be indoctrinated...blah, blah blah. What works is some form of capitalism so that we don't produce biplanes with jet engines and a mix of central planning authority so that the jets we do make follow safety, environmental and buyer-beware regulations.
I just looked for "modern communist music" on Youtube and it's not promising....
Much better to promote via association:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMAk3HgjjvE
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Yeah, I stick to the classics.
There exists the suggestion that corporations "as persons" be held accountable to criminal law, possibly including the death penalty. One problem is that the individuals involved still have the opportunity to scatter and continue their bad behavior elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
If corporations were democratically built and controlled by the whole body of their workers, each individual would have a clearer liability and a corporate criminal penalty would impinge on the whole body responsible. If the offense was a small conspiracy concealed from oversight, then normal criminal statutes can also still apply (whereas the contemporary centralized structure gives executives the dodge that someone below them must have been at fault).
And I wonder just how British pharmaceuticals compare to others in "corruption". If they're big enough, then can't limited fines be accounted for as but one more operating cost, as long as the profits of rule-breaking exceed the costs? That seems to be the case across industries and countries. Cost-benefit analysis is supposed to estimate the costs and the benefits separately for each affected party, not just the corporation; forcing the inclusion of negative externalities on environment and society seems like a worthy approach.
Maybe not perfect, but what if it has a 'baked-in' tendency?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Lobbying: you need a system to allow people to voice their concerns and desires. Right now this is channeled through lobbying and advocacy groups, many of which aren't all that rich. And they're specialized, while it's difficult for any one person to have a clear position on all the possible issues. That could be separated into two difficulties then, but they're equally important. How would, for example, the government hear about the importance of various environmental issues beyond at best a popular mandate not to Saruman everything?
Influence: there would be absolutely no recourse or contact with politicians once they have been elected? I'm not sure eliminating communication between the elected and the electorate is a good idea. Rather than trying to seal off the leadership from the public, maybe putting more of the public in leadership and oversight roles...
It's actually correct, I think, to say that economic and political forms as a rule are determined not by individuals but by physical factors like geography and technology (and you may add culture, though calling it physical is tendentious). In short, the economic system of any one time and place tends towards the one that is most effective or productive given other constraints. So agrarian feudalism works with one set of the variables, venture commercial oligarchy in another, and so on - an unstable equilibrium, since the variables are always shifting. Achieving socialism (which doesn't have to mean Leninist central planning) would somehow require breaking with history, if socialism doesn't turn out to simply be the natural outcome of other political, economic, social and technological trends into the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Miles
Yeah, but in that example, who's winning? It's in almost everyone best interest to protect the environment, while in the interest of only handful of people to scale back protective measures. It should be a non issue, and yet it is a huge one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Not that I disagree that there should be a system for people to voice their concerns, it's just that lobbying (especially payed) isn't achieving that. Even if we disregard the money, lobbying is really about yelling the strongest. A good cause and wide support is absolutely optional.
I didn't mean literally any. It was a tie in to throwing money at politicians to make your problems go away. I was just throwing ideas out there.Quote:
Influence: there would be absolutely no recourse or contact with politicians once they have been elected? I'm not sure eliminating communication between the elected and the electorate is a good idea. Rather than trying to seal off the leadership from the public, maybe putting more of the public in leadership and oversight roles...
But considering what is practical and achievable, first and foremost -
Payed lobbying should be made illegal.
Campaign donations should be illegal - all receive the same amount for campaign. What you don't spend you have to give back. No loopholes a la Super PACs. In theory you could allow some donations, but it has to come from a person, not corporation and would be capped at a really small amount.
Politicians should be forced to be more transparent with their money.
There should be serious legal and financial consequences to breaking any of those rules.
That way, politicians won't be beholden to corporate interests before they even take office, and when they do, it would be harder and much more risky to go that route.
In the future, our robot overlords will decide for us.
The neoliberal right has managed to get a lock on the language and media of democracy, framing the interests of the few as the natural consequence of freedom and democracy. In the UK, politics can be divided into pre-Thatcher and post-Thatcher because of this, her greatest legacy. Great in terms of influence, rather than great in terms of benefiting the country. Any attempt to address this should recognise this. The third way attempted to use this language to convey social democratic government. In the UK, mostly due to Iraq, there has been a reaction against this and a retreat back to pre-Thatcher socialist language. But as the Labour leadership's stance on Brexit shows, I'm not sure that language can adequately formulate a modern approach to modern problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
On the success of economic approaches: the answer is obviously a mixed economy, as different approaches work best for different environments. My preference is to support local suppliers as much as possible, if only to reduce fuel usage. One added benefit is that small businesses are less apt to stow away their profits overseas, which means a greater part of their economy can be effectively taxed.
If UK affiliate Pharma companies get in enough trouble, there is a track record of the entire senior management team getting sacked and replaced. Not parachuted out. Not paid off. But booted en masse. That sort of thing helps ensure senior interest on doing the right thing if only to keep their own career. If you keep breaking the rules, the PMCPA passes you over to the MHRA and there the pain really starts. They can send people to jail for jeopardizing patient safety, and even take away the Market Authority of a drug, or force companies to supply it to everyone for free. And the agencies talk - if the MHRA is not happy expect the EMA and especially the FDA to also take an interest enter the billion dollar fines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I think that in the USA things are significantly different since there is no NHS and power is a lot more with Doctors. In the UK a company could be frozen out of the entire market for one or all of their drugs in essence for ever if that was decided. In the USA I don't think that this is possible - and there is so much more money in the system and more ways of bribing the players that they probably do in more cases accept the risk.
I don't for one minute think that those in the Industry are more honest or "nice" they just know that problems are generally quickly detected, and that fines are in essence infinite.
~:smoking:
And industrialized France didn't survive. Surviving can be explained by more than the type of economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Miles
Their is no direct mechanism for the removal of an entire top management team in such a fashion here in the USA. It would take an action/series of actions that were so morally or financially scandalous that stockholders demanded a special meeting of the board/shareholders and forced the resignations or firing of that top management team. Even then, unless the specific "we owe you nothing because of X condition" clauses in their contracts were triggered, they would receive whatever severance payments had be contracted.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
France used its industry to build the obsolete Maginot Line. Their economy was wasted producing something that was useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
It was expensive, and arguably other military preparation might have been better, but the Maginot line did, as intended, channel German effort Northward forcing them to face the low countries first and allow time for allied armies to position themselves to advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Miles
The French screwed the pooch on their evaluation of the Ardennes, but the Maginot fulfilled its strategic purpose.
So the USSR in 1941 used its industry satisfactorily producing top notch military equipment and creating effective defense infrastructure? Why then did the Soviet troops roll back for a copule of years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Miles
Problems at the top. The Soviet military were effective even in the early years at mauling the German military. Unfortunately issues with command and strategy meant they lost strategically even whilst inflicting Pyrrhic losses on the Germans. Once these were ironed out, the Soviets, with similar levels of losses as earlier (barring the kessels), consistently made strategic gains whilst avoiding irretrievable strategic disasters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I don't completely agree. In 1941 Soviet prisoners of war numbered hundred of thousands which can't be explained by poor command only. We won't speculate on the reluctance of many people to fight for the country whose internal policy was suppressive. But poor weaponry is one more factor to be considered as responsible for the situation at the fronts. The best Soviet tanks T-34 weren't numerous, same true about the planes, most infantry were armed with Mosin rifles surviving from WWI and earlier, why, the Soviet army even had cavalry troops. The Phyrric losses Germans started to have at the and of autumn of 1941, but even so Germans were capable of a major offensive in 1942 which was checked at Stalingrad, again in late autumn. Thus it took the USSR about two years to furnish the troops with adequate arms which yielded results at Kursk and later. In 1941 the fruits of industrialization were deplorable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You are worried about systems when you should be worried about issues.
Don't systems cause issues and aren't issues fixed by changing the system? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Russian small arms were adequate in all categories (the moisin was no worse than the Gewehrs used by the Germans. Russian SMGs and LMGs, and crew MGs were of comparable performance -- though doctrinally the Germans deployed them more frequently and more organically at the section/platoon level). Russian tanks in 1941, aside from the fairly new/rare t-34 and KV series, were inferior to those fielded by the Axis, but only marginally (The BT-7 and T-28 and T-26 tanks were not notably outgunned by the PZ IIs. early Pz IIIs, and Czech tanks that formed the bulk of the Heer and SS tank forces, though German repair and recovery doctrine was better). Russian mortars were as good or more so than their German counterparts. Artillery was about on par.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Training and doctrine lagged significantly more. Also, as noted by others, the Soviet command structure had been gutted and the absence of Tsuchevsky alone kept the Russians in the infantry/cavalry tank doctrine far too long. That was still influencing things n 1941, even though the purge was years past. The only really outdated equipment class was air forces, wherein the Russians did NOT have enough of their modern designs in the field putting them at a qualitative disadvantage as well as doctrinal disadvantage.
The Sovs also had way too much of their armor and air forces forward deployed for a proper defense in depth (some argue that a Soviet 1942 attack was being prepared and caught too much too far forward). Stalin and the high command were strategically surprised by the assault -- Stalin had been lulled. It was the blitzkrieg's ability to punch holes in the Soviet formations and attack logistic and command nodes that left the relatively inflexible Soviet military of 1941 in such a bad way. Many of them fought bravely, sometimes even launching charges with fixed bayonets and no bullets because supplies had been cut off so thoroughly.
Design wise Russian equipment was indeed up to par and even good, in some cases captured russian weaponry was employed by german units, the problem was that for a while the methods of production in the soviet union was hit and miss meaning they were prone to defects.
Of course the main factor of german sucess was stalins inability to see germany coming meaning the majority of russia's professional soldiers were caught literally half a world away from the front in 1941.
I would say reluctance to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The unpreparedness only really affects the first few weeks. After the initial victories the Soviets were able to attempt proper defense against the Germans but met with failure. The Germans had just had 2 years of practical experience which they applied ruthlessly. Morale was high, low level initiative was high, and the tactics and forces available were right for the initial attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The eventual Soviet victory wasn't so much anything to do with their economic system or industrialization but in that they simply learned how to fight modern war. Defense in depth, deception operations, the massive use of simple but extremely effective anti-tank mines and anti-tank guns as well as the proper use of armor in achieving and exploiting breakthroughs. All the while they wore down the German armies which became poorer and poorer in quality and quantity throughout the war despite the influx of 'Wunderwaffen'
+ Soviet commanders didn't shy away from burying the enemy under piles of their soldiers bodies. For example, when Kyiv was stormed in 1943 they coscripted locals en masse and goaded them before the regular troops even without giving them arms or uniform. It was a story of the so-called black infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
http://kpi.ua/en/node/7617
B. Sokolov, a Russian scholar, writes: “It was thought that “the black infantry” would only wear the Germans out and force them to spend their ammunition stock, enabling the new units to make the adversary retreat from the positions occupied.” (B.V. Sokolov. The Unknown Zhukov: an Unretouched Portrait in the Mirror of the Epoch. – Minsk: Rodiola-plus, 2000) .
Such an attitude towards compatriots, especially new recruits, was astonishing even to the Germans, who called soldiers like those “Beutesoldaten” (“trophy soldiers”).
From “The Diary” by O. Dovzhenko, entry for November 28, 1943: “Today V. Shklovs’kyi told me that a lot of liberated citizens conscripted in Ukraine were dying in combat. They are called black coats or something. They go to war in their home clothes, without any training, just like the soldiers from penal units. They are thought to be guilty. “A general was looking at them in battle and crying,” Victor told me.”
A similar story is told by Anatoliy Dimarov, an author: “When the village was liberated, all men aged between 16 and 60 – everyone with arms and legs, no matter if they were blind or deaf – got drafted. We were “armed”, that is, given half a brick each, and told to “go atone for your faults with your blood,” as we had been in the occupied territory. They must’ve meant we should’ve been throwing bricks, so that the Germans might think those were shells! 500 of us got sent on the ice of the impoundment… only 15 came out! And ten thousand of such unarmed guys got killed outside Izjum!”
I don't think that anyone on this website would argue that the Soviets were anything but brutal in their use of personnel during what they labeled (quite cynically really) the Great Patriotic War.
Vis-à-vis this thread theme, that attitude towards persons is, to me, all part and parcel of why the Soviet version of the directed economy did not work. The expenditure of human capital was barbaric, but the "human" was often missing from those directed economies in search of the "worker's paradise."
@ Gilrandir
I don't deny the brutality of the Soviet Army in the slightest or its continued use of very primitive barbaric methods. That doesn't however undermine the fact that they were fully incorporating the tenets of modern warfare by the mid-point of the war. They didn't surround and destroy 6th Army at Stalingrad through pure human waves, they didn't manage to hold on at Kursk by pure chance.
The Germans still had better units at that point and were experts at flexible defense (see von Manstein's Operations post-Stalingrad). The Red Army however was undeniably a new and potent mix of all the elements of modern war. Sheer numbers has a lot to do with it but as time went on the Germans lost any real tactical edge, the Soviet formations became smarter and more experienced while the Germans slowly lost the professional edge they enjoined in the earlier years on the Eastern Front.
FYI it's due to the excesses of the Soviets that my family moved from Upper Austria in the soviet occupied zone to Innsbruck after the war to to mention the number of great uncles that died on the Eastern front.
I agree, it always seems that the socialist and fascist elements forsake the humanist importance of the individuals rights and values and instead only value the order of the collective.Quote:
Vis-à-vis this thread theme, that attitude towards persons is, to me, all part and parcel of why the Soviet version of the directed economy did not work. The expenditure of human capital was barbaric, but the "human" was often missing from those directed economies in search of the "worker's paradise."
On the other-side though the anarcho-liberals and libertarians never have a way to effectively deal with the tragedy of the commons either. I another thread I know I referenced my 'anarchist' roommates and my example of their failure to take care of our 'communal property' such as the dorm bathroom and kitchen. These were my favorite examples in outlining how their proposed society would fail without assigned responsibility and some sort of division of labor.
Personally I find the ebb and flow between soft State-Capitalism and Corporationism as likely the most tolerable forms for economic systems. The pendulums swings each way through time and then through popular initiatives or protest generally results in restrain and the pendulum going the other way too. I look at the Robber Baron Capitalists of the 19th Century and then the entrance of Trust-Busting Teddy Roosevelt. Then the boom of the 20s and the crash leading to the New Deal and the pendulum has kept swinging back and forth since and will likely do so in the future.
It's not a perfect system by any means and is best met by regulations of both government and private enterprises but so far it seems to lift the average of society the most upwards for standard of living though the limits of the excess and poverty leave a bit to be desired to say the least.
It was better in every conceivable way, but useless in the hands of officers with single digit IQs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
But how unintelligent were they really?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Soviet literacy rates were excellent for the era, virtually all officers were literate.
Soviet basic education was solid on all the basics of science and math, and few officers got that status without schooling and those commissioned on the field had to learn it to move up ranks.
Soviet Russia's national pastime was chess, a game associated with calculation and planning.
Soviet tactical doctrine sucked, but they learned quickly -- giving the Germans great difficulties within a year of the invasion.
A Soviet invented deep penetration warfare -- and might have had the Sov's nearly on par with the Germans doctrinally if he hadn't made Stalin look bad in the Polish war and earned his eventual death thereby.
I'm not inclined to ding their officer corps.
NOW, STAVKA giving so much power to the commissars and forbidding tactical withdrawals and the like...some stupidity there.
STAVKA issuing orders that prisoners of war (their own once recaptured) were to be treated in a fashion similar to criminals...some stupidity there.
STAVKA cashiering or shooting officers for losing regardless of circumstance....definite stupidity there.
I think you may be pointing your disdain in the wrong direction.
It is the bolded that I was trying to prove. All this WWI debate started when a sentence like "industrialized economy of the USSR helped it survive in 1941" was used. So it is the date that I've been arguing against.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Only one of the pastimes. More often one could see seniors playing dominoes in the yard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
What does the Soviet army in WW2 have to do with economic policy?
It all started with this:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Miles
There was no hope for the thread the moment WW2 was mentioned.
With pain in our hearts we inform everyone that Thread has died after a brief and sudden disease called WW2 derailment, that developed into a most severe case of Soviet Performance. Rest in peace, Thread, and know that you are not alone.
So let's make it official: any reference to WWII and Bible should be considered a felony and the person bringing them into discussion should be suspended from discussion on September 1 (for WWII) and for seven days (for Bible).
And for discussing WW2-era Bibles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Life-long expulsion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Some interesting ground floor points from an article about university admissions:
[N.b. Elsewhere this has been taken to argue that leftists believe that neither "equality of opportunity" nor "equality of outcome" are either desirable or achievable. The old Marxian maxim "From each...to each..." is considered the best standard]Quote:
There is no fair way to create a meritocracy. This is because the notion of “merit” is itself loaded with unfair premises. People will always have differing life histories, capacities, and opportunities, and so any assumption that those who “rise to the top” of a competition have superior deservingness will be false. That doesn’t mean that everyone is equally qualified to be a surgeon or a structural engineer or a social worker, or that there should be no evaluations to make sure the people who have certain jobs can do them. Instead, it means that we can never conclude that people got those qualifications did so because they “earned” it more than others, and we should be skeptical of any idea of a “fair competition.”
Quote:
For the left, that’s important because it leads us to the conclusion that while some people may be better suited to certain jobs, the fact that they are better suited does not mean they deserve more compensation or social prestige than everybody else. Egalitarians don’t believe everybody should be the same, we believe that nobody is worth more than anyone else. That’s why we don’t just support having the “equal opportunity” to win a competition and get more than other people, we believe that life shouldn’t be competitive and that, to the extent people are measured, it should be against their own abilities rather than other people’s. (“From each according to his ability…”)
I can't help but feel purely ambivalent.Quote:
This is one of the differences between liberalism and leftism: liberalism argues for the least bad of several bad options, while leftism insists on having a better set of options.
How do I Mention everybody without looking gauche?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The leftist view on things isn't all that stupid, it's just that they want things too fast, there is nothing wrong with the logic of it
Other than that bit about it being contrary to demonstrated human nature throughout recorded history. Perhaps our nature is changing/will change. Absent that the radiant future is no more likely of success than Canute's commands to the tide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It's at times like these when you seem most confounding and frustrating to interpretation, Fragony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The one essential problem (obversely, also a boon) with socialism is that it isn't really a system of government, or a policy platform, but a set of values. To make a comprehensive socialism real almost feels like trying to generate a black hole, and then keep it stable indefinitely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The Keynesian answer has always been paternalistic technocratic managerialism, and I would argue this approach has produced some of the best results of the past century that we enjoy today. Unfortunately, it loses its luster by the day. No one really likes statism anymore; it's plumped for partisan ends, sure, but it's too polarized by chauvinisms to be respected.
So what's for us but aspiration or the "dirty wall"? And you should think about it. Radicalism certainly can't get anywhere salutary without a loyal opposition.
Extremist liberal democracy has done for socialism. Statism is not democratic in its execution, statism can be implemented that is democratic, but no-one wants to take part, and liberalism celebrates the religion of individualism. And popular culture playing to liberal democracy encourages anti-intellectualism. The age-old wisdom, everything in moderation, is no longer listened to. I'll do whatever I can to live up to the ideals of socialism, but I've accepted that society will no longer listen to these arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Addendum: the above also means opposition is no longer accepted as loyal.
Great questions Seamus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Supply side economics is simply Neoliberalism. It is corporatism where government pick the winners and losers. Just exactly what we have had for decades, to one degree or another. It is Mercantilism with a new name.
Free market is something that has been in short supply for well over a century. Its chief criticism is over production. This cry comes mainly from large producers being out competed by startups and upstarts. The key opposition to the concept is its lack of government control and regulation. Most people have been convinced that they are too incompetent to decide for themselves what is a good product or service. People today have never had economic liberty to be participants and producers in the economy. They can see no further than consumerism. The modern mind set is of employment by a producer rather than being a fully productive contributor in the economy. Government and Corporate propaganda have taking all confidence from them and they fear what that freedom would bring.
Directed economies all fail eventually. What emerges out of the chaos is always a free market until government moves in to set limits, pick the winners and losers and start the process over again.
None are perfect. There are always winners and losers. But of them all the free market is the most natural way of establishing trade and custom. It should be the one where people are most able to make a living but it does depend on one’s wits.
Neoliberalism is definitely distinct from mercantilism. Mercantilism serves the wealth of the state, but neoliberalism serves the wealth of the market - state and consumer both for the market: "dictatorship of the shareholder". From national economic and political oligarchies to a transnational economic (so by extension political) oligarchy. One has affinity to central control, the other to soup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Why do you think individual consumers are more competent to evaluate products than the producers who create them or the purveyors who market them?
What's the difference in "freedom" if winners and losers emerge without state backing, as opposed to with state backing? It's all government. That's exactly what a "free market" looks like if you prioritize government (e.g. republican) function from maintaining the public good to effervescing private commerce on the largest possible scale. Large organizations and wealthy individuals (self-aggrandizingly "job creators" and "innovators")will certainly seek to dominate at the expense of the common weal - why is it acceptable for these not even to be nominally accountable to something? Why does Property need a despot?
All economies fail - because societies collapse. Be careful about how you use "directed" economy, as all economies beyond happenstance itinerant exchange rely on some organization.
See Brexit for an example of an unregulated free market. You have two sides competing for consumers (votes). They offer directly competing products in a zero sum contest within a finite period. There is no regulation whatsoever on the products each side offers. Once the consumer has made their choice and paid their money, the winner is under no obligation to provide what they'd advertised, because there is no regulation governing what they'd promised and what they will deliver. And they are free to use whatever advertising they want to say what they want, again without regulation on their accuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
From what I've read on the development of regulatory standards for food and medicine, I wouldn't want any kind of rollback on regulations. China is the result when you have lax regulatory standards.
Building on Pannonian's point, regulation is part of a series of checks and balances between capital and labor. Like with government itself, to maintain it requires eternal vigilance. I don't see how unregulated markets are a solution to our imperfect life just as I don't see how anarchy is a solution to our imperfect politics.
Sorry for the wall of text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
As far as I can determine the difference between Neoliberalism and Mercantilism in practice is that Mercantilism regulates businesses for the benefit of the state while Neoliberalism regulates business for the benefit of the politicians and their friends.
The Oligarchy exists because government decides economic winners and losers. The business interests write the laws and regulations and pass them off to their friends in government.
Government intervention in the economy has never worked. It has distorted the market, again selected winners and losers and robbed those at the lower end of the economic scale through inflation. Keynesianism is at the heart of this. Its goal is gradual inflation and the elimination of deflation. This assures those higher up the economic scale keep what they have and can build upon it while eliminating the benefits of saving or storing wealth.
A free market is not consumer vs. producer. A free market is the free exchange of goods and services. Both parties are participants. Each offer something the other wants and they arrive at a contractual agreement to make an exchange. If either party is dissatisfied then no exchange occurs. If one uses sharp practices or their item fails to live up to expectations they will eventually suffer the consequences.
What you fail to see is economic liberty. When government decides who may be a producer and who must remain a consumer it is not freedom. Each person participating has something to offer. Be that goods, services, or labour. Under the current system most of us are limited by government control of the the market place. There are many hoops to jump through if you want to offer goods or services so you are primarily left with labour. This creates a situation where your contribution is of limited. Rather than the market deciding whether your contribution is worthwhile the government has made exclusions.
You have limited your self to the current paradigm. You don’t see your self outside the current set of controls place upon you.
What makes it the business of government how an economy works? Their picking of winners and losers is cronyism. Governments have different mandates. Few if any are actually concerned with the wellbeing of the population. More so what they can extract without causing rebellion. Government’s stated purpose in the U.S. was the protection of the rights of the citizenry. That is not their wellbeing or happiness.
Government can claim a mandate for regulating corporations as they are a creation of the state. There is no such mandate for individuals. Regulations skew and retard competition which assures that those with the most means retain their positions regardless of the quality of their work. In the U.S. regulation began at the request of large corporations who were being out competed and such regulatory practices continue to this day.
Regulated Economies collapse, unregulated ones re-aline to meet conditions. If there were a glut in one sector you would have to adjust your product or move into another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Brexit is not an example of unregulated free market. It is an example of buying a pig in a poke. Had you bought a defective product you would have recourse in court. Buying the word of politicians leaves you with little recourse short of open rebellion, which is about the only thing that would get their attention.
Products that are unsatisfactory don't get bought or re-bought. Those which cause real harm have legal recourse, and always have.
The division between Capital and Labour is part of the regulatory construct. Think of what you might produce or what service you could provide to earn a living if there were no limitations placed on you. It is a question of skills and knowledge to provide what others would exchange for. In the last 60 years or so we have moved from a country where most people were self employed to one where most people are employed by a corporation or government. Intellectual property has shifted from individuals who created it to the corporations who employe them via government regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
What exactly is the advantage of deflation over inflation?
You appear to be saying that if Johnny Doe saves 200 bucks in his trailer and they increase in value over time, it somehow advantages him compared to Sir John Doe who has stashed away 20 million in the cellar of his mansion that increase in value at the same percentage every year and also owns shares in several corporations that increase in value even more. Why?
Regarding the need for legislation, how does the market account for environmental problems for example? Most peoples' economic (and other) interests are short-term and do not take into account mid-term or long-term planning. We're not too different from Dodos who like the excitement of the jump but do not take into consideration the end result of the fall. Regulation is a means to force us onto a more sustainable path.
Legislation is not one thing: tariffs are generally "bad" but ensuring quality of goods is "good" - we might not even think about the quality of the food we eat in the West since it is all in global, historic perspectives so high. This is equally thanks to legislation, not the free market which unchecked tends towards massive conglomerates with sufficient power to distort the entire economy.
Hell, even educating the masses beyond the need to work in the factories is evidence of the good side of regulation.
~:smoking:
Over time economies fluctuate. Deflation is falling prices on goods and services brought on by over supply. Inflation means the medium of exchange is lessening in value and takes more to buy the same item. If you had money put away it’s value steady decreases in buying power and that discourages savings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If Johnny Doe has his savings in a box or even a bank the value of it falls over time because of central banks management of the money supply. Sir John on the other hand may own the bank or get a loan from his bank (which created the money by lending it) His money is at full value when he gets it but worth less as he pays it back. If he has other investments, that cushions his wealth or makes him more. Johnny on the other hand has to spend more for what he needs while his money has lost in value.
As to regulation: If it is a good idea, why must people be forced into it? Wouldn’t they naturally take it upon themselves to do like wise and protect what they have? Farmers don’t put salt on their fields to make them unusable. If people can agree that something needs preserved or looked after can they not care for it? Does it have to be government which intervenes and prohibits anyone from doing anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Actually regulation is what leads to conglomerates. There positions are protected by regulation by not allowing others into the market place. If someone can provide higher quality at a better price they win. Only government can provide the security for the large firms to exist without smaller competitors taking away part of their market. Simply look at history. The more government has regulated the fewer the people providing the products or services. If people found their product the best they could be on top for a while but someone else is always going to try. The conglomerates are the ones who scream about over production. If it is not limited then how are we to profit. John D. Rockefeller said it all when he said "Competition is a Sin".
It makes little difference whether it is food or any other product. Regulation bars entry to the market from the lower end. No one is going to by rotten produce. People will always seek the best value for the money. If a product is harmful there has always been legal recourse (except where government regulation forbids it). Isn't there something like an ugly vegetable movement in the UK? Where the produce is not up to visual standards but perfectly usable all the same.
People's food contained lead, chromium, mercury, and so on and so forth. Medicines were massively improved when they had to, k'know, work rather than contain poison. In most of these cases the average consumer can't tell the difference and the only ones who can are the regulators who have adequate labs. Be that dodgy food, dodgy drugs, "cut and shut" cars, flammable skyscraper covering panels... the list is almost literally endless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Regulation doesn't form monopolies or conglomerates - it prevents them under competition regulations: competitors find it easier to work together as a cartel to control the market. Which is banned under anti-competition regulations. Newcomers to the market are driven out of business by the existing companies either by selling at a loss until the competition dies (illegal under anti-dumping regulators), are protected by their IP (protected under Patent regulations) or just destroy their business (protected under the law... regulations).
~:smoking:
Because as a rule, people have limited intelligence, limited insight and place their own gain over that of others - including their future selves. Hence why there is a regulation to drive a car to reduce bystanders getting killed and car insurance for a system of recompense should a collision occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Everyone might think that the environment should be protected. But clearly there was not the interest in doing so that the living hell of the 1800s didn't occur; in many parts of the world where there are few regulations we would have to take people choose to live in a war torn wasteland since otherwise they'd all spontaneously become Switzerland... except for the mass exodus of people to countries that are massively regulated when surely the opposite should be true.
~:smoking:
This seems to me a totally wrong picture of reality. We are not just a bunch of individuals on equal terms, and every economic actor tries to impose their own government and their own power. Concentrated capital has the advantage regardless. While it's true that concentrated capital could not maintain itself without state enforcement of property rights, most economic activity we know today would not be possible in the first place without extensive and continuous state intervention. Your picture of economy could only even theoretically apply to one actor finding some root vegetables and trading them to another actor who found some berries, while wandering the virgin landscape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Why should I submit to the controls of plutocrats? What makes them more virtuous than the public virtue of institutions?
You see it as good if as many people as possible can have access to competition against one another (though I disagree that this would even be a consequence of your economy, or that the quality of work is a strong segregating factor). Others don't see the value in competition as a social principle.Quote:
Government can claim a mandate for regulating corporations as they are a creation of the state. There is no such mandate for individuals. Regulations skew and retard competition which assures that those with the most means retain their positions regardless of the quality of their work. In the U.S. regulation began at the request of large corporations who were being out competed and such regulatory practices continue to this day.
What reason is there to believe that collapse of economies is anything like a function of regulation? Isn't it equivocation to define one thing as "collapse" and the other as "realignment" if in practice they look the same?Quote:
Regulated Economies collapse, unregulated ones re-aline to meet conditions. If there were a glut in one sector you would have to adjust your product or move into another.
Any product can be unsatisfactory in one way or another, we may still buy them. Consumers only superficially optimize purchases. Legal recourse is a function of the state, a function that unsurprisingly companies are unsatisfied with. As far as winners or losers, there are very rarely any losers among big players in this aspect.Quote:
Products that are unsatisfactory don't get bought or re-bought. Those which cause real harm have legal recourse, and always have.
What's the real difference now? That some services are credentialed and more difficult to access than on a whim? And most people were not self-employed, they were not employed in this sense at all - they were subsistence farmers. Intellectual property has always been a part of the regulatory construct, by the way.Quote:
The division between Capital and Labour is part of the regulatory construct. Think of what you might produce or what service you could provide to earn a living if there were no limitations placed on you. It is a question of skills and knowledge to provide what others would exchange for. In the last 60 years or so we have moved from a country where most people were self employed to one where most people are employed by a corporation or government. Intellectual property has shifted from individuals who created it to the corporations who employe them via government regulation.
Hold on now. This is our Republican ideal.Quote:
What makes it the business of government how an economy works? Their picking of winners and losers is cronyism. Governments have different mandates. Few if any are actually concerned with the wellbeing of the population. More so what they can extract without causing rebellion. Government’s stated purpose in the U.S. was the protection of the rights of the citizenry. That is not their wellbeing or happiness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution Preamble
Notably, however, when the Confederate States of America made their own Constitution almost word-for-word a copy of the original, they chose to excise the Common Welfare clause. Of course the Mises Institute finds this praiseworthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution Art. I S. 8 Cl. 1
Quote:
In an attempt to prevent the Confederate Congress from protecting industry the framers add to Article I Section 8(1).
The Congress shall have power – To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.[12]
The phrase "general Welfare" was dropped from the Confederate Clause as well.
That's misguided. People don't have the knowledge or discipline to protect what they have. Farmers across civilizations have routinely driven themselves into starvation through lack of understanding of the interaction of ecological and agricultural processes. They died, some lived, those multiplied, back to step one. The only complaint against government regulation here is, particularly with democratic governments, a lack of discipline to be maximally effective. But it's still more effective than in absence of intervention. Regulation for public safety and wellbeing has routinely achieved its goals and reduced externalities for the general population. The alternative is a reversion to carrying capacity dynamics.Quote:
As to regulation: If it is a good idea, why must people be forced into it? Wouldn’t they naturally take it upon themselves to do like wise and protect what they have? Farmers don’t put salt on their fields to make them unusable. If people can agree that something needs preserved or looked after can they not care for it? Does it have to be government which intervenes and prohibits anyone from doing anything?
Certainly not true. If the state does not provide the government, large firms would provide it for themselves. Why would it matter to me how quickly one large firm is replaced by another?Quote:
If someone can provide higher quality at a better price they win. Only government can provide the security for the large firms to exist without smaller competitors taking away part of their market.
'By force of arms and the honor of the duel ritual, any valiant knight may seize the throne for himself!' Truly a worthy system.
Altogether we differ in preference over the massive encumbrances of real markets governed by shifting oligarchies versus the minor encumbrances and massive securities of even a bureaucratic oligarchy (at worst). I consider laissez faire economics to be more or less analogous to a warlord-centric consolidation of aristocratic power in another time, just with suits and ledgers rather than mail and sword.
Would you like the old days when pharmacists were whoever set themselves up as such? Or would you like pharmacists to be suitably educated and qualified? The former will eventually go out of business when customers see their products don't work and are harmful. But isn't it better to have regulations prevent the free market trial and error in the first place? Lack of enforced regulations led to the Chinese middle class to shop in Hong Kong, Australia, anywhere that wasn't mainland China. Before the consequences of the free market made itself felt, hundreds of Chinese children died because they were fed adulterated milk formula. Hong Kong didn't put the regulations in place because the free market demanded so. They were put in place because the UK had already undergone its pre-regulatory period, knew that regulations were good, and imported them wholesale. So Hong Kong never had to go through the process of dead babies to get to the regulatory stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Sometimes I just want to despair. Do I sound stupid or are you just not capable of answering a simple question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I asked you about the benefit of deflation for the small man and you explain to me what inflation and deflation are. That's not what I asked because I already know what they are.
The rich man benefits from falling prices as much or more than the poor man does, so that is surely not an answer to my question.
I know I sound angry but that's because this happens relatively often, don't take it personal.
As for regulation, no, they don't, and yes, they have to be forced. We have soil degradation all over the world, so farmers are actually making their soil unusable in the long term right now. Why do they do it? Because they don't notice it yet and they have plenty of short-term benefits that incentivize this behavior. The incentives aren't changed because those who could do that also benefit from it right now and may just think the next generation can deal with it once it becomes an unavoidable problem. The people who think the soil needs to be preserved and looked after right now before people start to actually starve from the effects of the misuse cannot do that because it's not their soil and they aren't allowed to.
Humanity as a whole is not very good at cooperating for long-term benefits if and when this runs counter to advantages that can be gained in the context of short-term competition. Using regulation to force the behavior that is beneficial in the long term is sometimes the only option. See all the regulation to make the air cleaner, the markets didn't do jack about that, just look at China. The government in China let the markets handle it for a long time and the result was smog and sickness everywhere and now they're introducing legislation...
VW and others cheated with the diesel cars because the market incentivized this instead of actually making them cleaner.
Interesting that you chose automobiles as an example. Operators licences became required for the purpose of revenue. Safety standards came much later. It has always been a crime to inflict bodily harm to others, even if it was negligent.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I agree that people have limited foresight. But once they become aware of a problem that could negatively impact them will they not most usually act in their own best interest? Why is it that force and coercion is the only means of accomplishment?
Do you think the free market worked in the case of the Chinese milk formula? Or do you think things could have been done better than the free market allowed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Yet I imagine you'd agree that the licences have been amended over the years to protect, not to garner money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
The world is so full of examples where people have not acted on their own interest in even the short, let alone long term. Such as the examples Husar gave.
Force and coercion are used since they work and the small amount of force that is required - little more usually than a nudge since the regulations are taken by many to be the natural state of being - is much better than the anarchy of everyone working out things by themselves. You would seriously let teenagers learn everything themselves by trial and error??!?
~:smoking:
I suppose I misunderstood the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Those with large investment stand to lose more in a deflationary cycle. Their goods are worth less and they are on the hook for money that is increasing in value. This is naturally those with more means than a simple labourer who couldn’t afford to invest until he had more money to work with. The labourer may lose his job when his employer can’t afford to pay him but the employer may lose his company if he cannot find a better place in the economy.
I hope that’s clear. If not, try again.
As to regulation, Germany’s recovery after the war was an almost unregulated economy and one of the quickest in history, simply because of it.
As to the rest, what is the structure of the Chinese economy? It isn’t fully capitalist or fully communist. There is an emerging super rich and a peasant class. Do the peasants own their land or work it for the government? Do you blame the workers or the owners? I have no clear idea.
Are you somehow under the impression that they listen to their elders and do otherwise than learn that way? Inveterate optimist you.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
From work experience, to internships and summer / holiday jobs they are having to follow the rules. Most if not all will have signed contracts and have maximum hours they are able to work. Small children used as chimney sweeps is no long something that can be undertaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
~:smoking:
Thanks for the answer. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
The problem is if investment is not profitable, then nobody invests and your economy is outcompeted by others because it lacks specialization and trade, which are more efficient. As you say, the employer may lose, or give up, the company, and just rely on his net worth in money that increases in value anyway. However, then you get to some kind of self-sufficiency model, which is heavily outcompeted by pooled resources in an economy with inflation. How do you want to keep a non-competitive model stable in a world where many people feel the need to outcompete their peers and may reject their model to follow the other one and outcompete you?
Germany's recovery after the war was also benefitted a lot by the Marshall Plan, which was in effect because the USA were competing with the Soviet Union and needed stable allies in Europe for fear of losing even more influence in Europe. The USSR also didn't manage to outcompete the capitalist model in the end. That's not to say I like the economy as it is, but any alternative model has to have some kind of incentives over capitalist ones because I'm aware that many other people are perfectly fine with competing about that carrot of becoming rich being held in front of them and I don't think that is going to change over night.
I'm blaming everyone, or "the system", maybe just "humanity" and some of its basic instincts. Take the basic example of a super market. You go there with 10 € and you can choose between two packages of 20 tasty, unhealthy sausages in plastic packaging and one package of ten healthy vegan sausages wrapped in bio-degradable packaging. Let's assume you are aware that the former may make you sick in the long term and you will basically eat their packaging material the next time you buy fish or other seafood in the form of microplastic, and you also know that the second choice will not have these disadvantages, but it tastes worse and you will only be able to eat one of them every fourth day due to the lower number you get for your money. Which option will most people take? What do you think? And is it logically the better choice in the long term?
In other cases one may actually want to take the healthy option, but every super market in a sensible range around ones home only offers the type of food in plastic packaging in the first place... How does one get the market to offer the alternative in the first place? Take clothing made of hemp instead of cotton for example. It's better in almost every way, but rarely available and a simple T-Shirt costs 90€ when you find one online... If that is the market optimizing itself for the customer....well, I just don't buy it.
Long-term would be keeping diffrerence in income as small as possible, everybody would benefit from that. Problem is that top-down solutions never work, they have never had. A more intrusive government has never been a good idea, you simply can't give that overhead too much control without losing a lot. I like the libertarian take on things but there are no solutions
Aren't corporations organized top-down?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Monty I sorry but your quote of the General Welfare clause is utter ignorance.
I don’t blame you but your educators. You should demand a refund.
What the General Welfare was referring to was All in common, or all alike. That no act should be for the benefit of a select group or state but for the good of all alike.
You obviously are not familiar with James Madison’s address to congress over the Cod Fisheries Act, else you would know that he berated them for doing what 20th and 21st century government has done.
Another word there that may through you is Regulate. To the founding generation it meant To keep Regular or Well Supplied.
As to the Interstate Commerce clause and Marshal’s decision to give it the broadest interpretation possible, there were absolutely no constitutional grounds to base that upon and it was flatly ignored until the 20th century.
With that out of the way you will note that there is no authority for the federal government to intervene in any way. They are even expressly forbidden to tax anything produced in any of the states.
While you may find the free market strange it was the way of doing business in the US until about 1933. Around the same time but a little later I believe some anonymous court clerk inserted into a finding by the Supreme Court that economic liberty was no longer seen as an individual right and was not for further review. Rather insidious in my opinion.
As I said before it was the industrialists cries of Over Production, and a goodly bit of money, that brought about the first regulatory moves. There was a great deal of admiration of what the Fascist governments in Europe had accomplished and they sought to emulate it, to a degree.
The Regulatory State in the US did not begin until 1946 IIRC. That took several decades to have a serious impact.
There are some moves afoot in some states to push back against some of the regulation, though I don’t have a catalogue of them or what they are about.
If you are in dire fear of competition I suppose you also fear meritocracy, innovation, and anything else out of the box. Sorry if you think freedom is scary.
The large majority. However, there are some that have created their hierarchy more organically, developing greater structure as needed rather than imposing it from the outset. After time, it all morphs to top down bureaucracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Up to them, I like being independant. I can choose not to work somewhere but I can't avoid the government and that is what leftist people want control ofQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Try to produce cars or food for 7 billion people using only independents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I'm an independent. But I freely admit that my sole role is to provide temporary assistance to bigger companies to do what they do. I do well out of it and they get to sort a temporary situation. But I have no strategy beyond helping the others.
~:smoking:
I'm not saying independents are bad or useless, you just can't advertise niche solutions as a solution for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
That's like the old idea that everybody can be rich in capitalism. To that I can only say that everybody was once a millionaire in Italy, but they couldn't afford more houses than the average German or Englishman.
That's not my trade Hus I sell arts and antiques.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar