Its all speculation. I have a couple of theories....
Rob, are you familiar with the collected works of John Maynard Keynes?
Cursory knowledge of either schools (Maxism-Socialism/Keynesian-NeoKeynesian theory) would reveal two things: a) that you are using the term Socialism improperly in applying it Obama and; b) that Obama's fiscal policy is very ostensibly interventionist; obviously, interventionist does not equate to Socialist, as they are entirely separate political and economic idioms.
No, I wasn't familiar with Keynes works until you wrote this.
couldn't one argue that nationalizing key industries and redistributing income are steps toward Socialism, whether or not they also meet the Keynesian criteria? To me, Keynesian economics falls in line with several Socialist tenets, including the state administration of means of production, distribution of goods, and creation of an egalitarian society...
Essentially, but strictly as a function of market regulation, and not what is popularly (I will address that below) considered, "Socialist Intentions". While some of his theories were empirically disproved - though, later reinvigorated by the NeoKeynesian school - Keynes saw the intricate relationship between total employment and real wages as a market detriment (as employment increased, real wages proportionately decrease - Inflation); in order to counter inflation, he felt Government spending through Social Welfare Programs was necessary as an intervening step in the economy. This fits Obama's intentions to a 'T'.
First, let me address the overlay between Keynesian economics and Socialism, and then proceed to deliberately hash-out the true form of the term Socialism.
I find this interesting. I've been reading up on Keynes quite a bit since you wrote this.
Obviously you're very well read on the intricacies of Socialism. However, if Socialism is not the word for what I have been attempting to describe.
Interesting read. Thanks for the comments Mullet. I learn a lot from you.
Define your operative term here: Control. I would say acts of regulation, which every modern nation-state carries out to a certain extent, are not control. 'Free Markets' are essentially non-existent, and this is partially due to the influence of Mr.Keynes.
Oi!
As you know, Mr. Friedman (Milton) provided rigorous counter-balance! To my mind, one of the most productive (and prolific) epochs in the history of economic science was the famous Monetarist-Keynesian debate that followed the Samuelsonian Neo-Classical Synthesis. The subsequent Neo-Keynesians and Neo-Classicals, and the Nobel Prizes they share between them, bear testimony to the intellectual depth of that encounter.
I'll acknowledge that Free Markets are non-existent in today's society. However, regulators do have the power to manipulate and therefore control the economy. Look at the FDA, they have dragged their feet on getting foreign competitor's drugs approved in order for US companies who provide large dollars to them a similar drug out first. Government economic intervention and regulation opens more opportunities for corruption than would ever be available in a free market.
I would disagree. I true Free Market is predicated upon absolute opportunity; of course, this applies to both corruption and benevolent economic behavior. Regulation is predicated upon controlled opportunity to avoid market saturation, corruption and so forth. History would most definitely disagree with your position - examples ranging from Rocka., Empire to Microsoft - though I may have confused your point.
I believe that is because you are viewing them from a surface level perspective, so to speak; Keynes' economic postulate is a form of Capitalism but, simply not Laissez-Faire Capitalism. As I said the means and relations of production are still dictated by private entities, while the mode (the most important distinguishing feature of Socialism) is still Capitalist.
Do you have any idea why post-viability abortions are performed? Do you know what viability itself implies? Are you aware why post-viability abortions are Constitutionally protected? And, finally, do you know why Obama - or any other politician, for that matter - supports post-viability abortions? (if you do not know the answer to the first question, you do not know this).
Monopolies are not a negative in and of themselves. I assume you are talking about coersive monopolies, when you refer to monopolies. If that is the case then I most definitely disagree with you're interpretation of history:
I don't really understand you're saying there's the potential for corruption in a Laissez-Faire economy more than interventionist policies, especially in a democratic system. You have the potential for companies to pay off government officials....IF they are involved in the economy. If they are not, that potential is gone.
.While I agree with you that some of the means and relations of production are still dictated by private entities, you certainly recognize that the flipside of that statement is that some of the means and relations of production are dictated by the government. Based upon that, I don't think its a stretch to say that Keynesinist Economics is a hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism.
These are fine points Rob, but both history and the original pundits of Laissez-Faire Capitalism (Smith, Ricardo and so on) would disagree with all that you have said!Monopolies are not a negative in and of themselves. I assume you are talking about coersive monopolies, when you refer to monopolies. If that is the case then I most definitely disagree with you're interpretation of history:
Rockerfeller gave the consumer the cheapest prices imaginable by combining oil exploration, refining, delivery and service into one operation. His competitors often aimed to have their business bought out because he would hire them and give them increased income.
Even if he attempted to engage in "price gouging" which I take issue that he ever did, Standard Oil, energy in the early twentieth century was not a climate where one form of energy had a dominant market hold. Going under the *assumption* that Standard Oil was the only competitor in the market place....if Standard Oil overcharged for heating oil, people would use coal and wood. If Standard Oil overcharged for car oil, people would have used carriages. Keep in mind this is approximately 1890-1910 when Standard dominated the market.
Just like other anti-trust action in history, competitors worked through congress, greasing their wheels with plenty of cash in order to create the illusion of a Standard Oil coercive monopoly. Only the anti-industrial liberals of then and now and revisionist historians have given Standard Oil a bad name.
On the other hand, coercive monopolies in the United States do exist, and always because the one true monopoly, the government, who has a monopoly on the use of force in business dealings. Examples of this are in the railroad, like I mentioned before, telephone companies, electric companies and the Postal Service. There are hundreds of other examples available.
I don't really understand you're saying there's the potential for corruption in a Laissez-Faire economy more than interventionist policies, especially in a democratic system. You have the potential for companies to pay off government officials....IF they are involved in the economy. If they are not, that potential is gone.
The monopoly thing I've gone over.
Inflation can occur no matter how much intervention happens. The problem with interventionilism is that you also have to deal with the law of unintended consequences, which one bad intervening program can bring down a market (Fannie/Freddie).
I realize your intent was not to debate the merits of Laissez Faire vs Keynsinnism, but I can't let my free market baby get bashed without a response
While I agree with you that some of the means and relations of production are still dictated by private entities, you certainly recognize that the flipside of that statement is that some of the means and relations of production are dictated by the government. Based upon that, I don't think its a stretch to say that Keynesinist Economics is a hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism.
Do you think its possible to have a gradual slide into a Socialist society? Or must it occur as a revolution as Marx envisioned?
The key question is whose version of history. If you read North Korean or Venezulan history books, the US is the root of all evil. If you read liberal textbooks (almost every public high school one is) industry and greed are the root of all evil.
Agreed.
I disagree. To understand why you have to make a distinction between a monopoly and a coercive monopoly.
Therein, you are assuming that aspirations equate to rationality, when, in fact, they do not; corporate entities do not always act rationally (see: The Irrationality of Rationality; George Ritzer's Elaboration of Weber). Simply because a certain entity may strive for something, does not mean that thing is aggregately beneficial for them, or the market as a whole.
Partially because the polls are broken up and adjusted to match a theoretical distribution of voters based on registrations. On average, the split is roughly 39% dem, 33% republican 28% independent or some slide around like that. So their polling is structured that way, with that many respondents of each party.
I don't think monopolies are beneficial or harmful to a free market economy. Keep in mind, everything I say is going under a free market, laissez faire assumption, aka the markets natural state. Any presence of a mixed economy changes the very nature of the discussion.
I'm not overly familiar with the food market of the United States, but one thing I can tell you is that it is anything but a free market. Beginning with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, Federal Government has taken an active role in the food market and its distribution as well as paying subsidies to farmers to NOT produce food. This has continued until present day.
Obviously, what is good for a consumer price wise may not be in a consumer's best interest. I'll most readily concede that point. However, it does provide the consumer with the product that supply and demand dictates they want. People want fast food now. People want a prepackaged meal that is only the same and takes a couple of minutes to have in your hand. Its not healthy for them, but its what they want.
You are correct, just as people do not always behave rationally, companies do not always behave rationally. However, just as the most rational people often excel in business and life, the most rational companies will often excel in the free market.
.Its not a fatal mistake.
You're right, Capitalism, is not by its nature purely monopolies, but there can be monopolies in capitalism without undermining the system.
Obama's main argument for partial birth abortion is the health of the mother, but it has been said by many doctors that if the baby can be pulled feet first enough for scissors to entered into the babies cranium, the mother's health would not worsen by finishing the birthing process.
Unfortunately, though, such a thing is a logical abstraction and does not equate with reality. All my comments are geared towards reality!
Exactly my point! Such a horrid outcome has manifested itself in spite of governmental regulations. Do you honestly feel this situation would be better (i.e., higher quality goods) if the Government were not intervening? Do you also know that Tyson Foods - one of the largest food distribution networks and key supplier to McDonald's - was found guilty of not cleaning their slaughtering devices? Also, they were found guilty of keeping their warehouses at unusually low temperatures to avoid manual clean-up labour! In a Free Market this situation has the potential to be vastly exacerbated.
So, Rob, what if all Government regulations cease, and McDonald's is allowed to dictate the food-chain further? This would be a Free Market, but is that beneficial? Your answer will be inexorably linked with what you feel the purpose of an economy is.
Rationality implies purposeful behaviour; purposeful behavior does not always necessarily lead to success; therefore, rational behavior does not always lead to success. Simply, timing plays as big, or bigger role, in successful businesses than does rationality. I would colloquially call timing, "luck".
.I don't follow Ritzer's critique of rationality. It doesn't make sense to me. He wasn't in wiki either. It sounds to me like he is similar to the philosophers that critique reason and rationality....I hate those guys
Aggregately they are not in a static-state, but they can temporarily stagnate the market which, in your favorite terms, can have long-lasting unintended consequences. I feel you are missing a key postulate here: Unusually low prices, for sustained periods of time, can have aggregately depressive effects on the economy! (I will let you hash out why).
See above and gracias!
It depends on whom you listening to, in simplest terms. Further, post-viable is a debatable chronology. The baby is terminated because viability is such a broad, encompassing term; after partial-abortion, the baby has a very low probability of survival. Viable simply means that it may viably survive in the immediate post-operative sense.
I think the issue is the definition of the "health" of the mother vs "risk of loss of life" of the mother. Virtually every womans health is at risk during pregnancy, the case can be made that the weight gain alone is a health risk. However if the baby has reached a point where it can survive without an incubator, I can't think of any reason to allow an abortion rather than a cesarean delivery and put the child up for adoption. If the definition used in the partial birth abortions only called for it when the mothers life was at imminent risk I think most prolifers would be ok with it.
So lets just kill the baby because viability is too broad, just to make sure?
By that line of reasoning, the United States would never declared its independence! Logical abstraction is the foundation for any new system of government or economics. Would Karl Marx's theories ever exist with logical abstraction.
Yes, I do. In a mature free market, a company's integrity and reputation is paramount. Who's to say that a watchdog company who's sole purpose is to inspect quality standards, such as a consumer reports type entity would not exist if the government did not regulate goods.
I disagree that the situation would be exacerbated in the least. When there is government regulation, it is a cat and mouse game that often leads to bribery and other misdeeds. Without government regulation, the company's integrity leads to consumer trust. Once they lose that they lose the consumer. With government regulating, people have the faulty assumption that government will do its job, which it is notoriously bad at.
I'd love to!
McDonald's can try to do that, but consumers dictate the food chain. To deny that is risking your livelihood.
To me, asking what the purpose of the economy is, is like asking, "what is the meaning of life?" The economy should exist for its own sake, just as living should be the meaning of life.
You can call successful businesses and successful people lucky, or you can call them people who were bold and intelligent enough to take and make opportunities. Its semantics. Its funny though, some people are a hell of a lot more skilled at being lucky.
Interesting. I think you may be making an error attributing the phenomenon to capitalism. It stinks of blaming the economy on "8 years of Bush's failed economic policy". Makes sense at first glance but not when you look at what actually started the process.
I disagree with your use of the phrase unintended consequences. In a true free market, there is no external influence trying to manipulate the market...i.e. no intentions, so there can't be unintended consequences, just cause and effect.
So if oil was cheap for a long period of time, would depress the economy?
In fact, it is quite the opposite. Marx, for example, specifically geared his work to a strict economism because the apathy of logical systems. Any governmental system is necessarily alogical - that is to say, they are developed pragmatically, in manners that reflect real-world events at certain, specific socio-historical periods; it is only through this lack of logical abstractions that one's theory may concretely affect the environment around them. In this respect, I think you may have understood my comments as towards logical abstractions.
Ah, but I never implied that Governmental Intervention should be the foundation of any economic system - such is not even the manner in which Marx's Socialism would ideally operate. I merely suggested Government intervention is a necessary component for fair competition, and, primarily, the safety of the citizens which are contained within that environment.
Come now Rob, surely you do not believe this. For a moment, cast aside your partisanship and consider this pragmatically and objectively. I am not suggesting you embrace Socialism, but to insinuate that a company who - in the face of health regulations - consistently produces detrimental, low quality goods, would be more beneficial in a Free Market is a dissonant statement; dissonant with reality, in fact.
I see your reasoning, but it is unfortunately incomplete. Herein, you have assumed that upon the failing of Company X, a new company, Company Y will absolve its place in the market, avoiding the mistakes which failed the competitor. This, unfortunately, is not the case. As well, your last sentence succinctly disproved your entire commentary on Monopolies!
Once again Rob, I fail to believe that this is your position. It is so divergent from even common sense (this is not an insult) that it is hard for me to digest. Obviously, these misdeeds are carried out shielded from Public Opinion. Tyson Foods, Enron and so forth do not publish these actions for that exact reason. It would seem you are insinuating a certain transparency in respects to elite-level fiscal dealings when, as reality and history suggest to us, is not the case. It is only after a company commits such acts that they lose credibility; however, even then, such might not occur: In the Tyson Foods example (unwittingly, you most likely consume their food product) they requested, and were granted, a suppression order so this information never reached the widespread media.
You feel this to be a true statement? Are you aware that McDonald's causally effects which agricultural products you may be at which prices? I am afraid, Rob, such is the danger of monopolies. Unfortunately, you dictate very little of what you eat. For example, McDonald's consumes 1/4 - yes 25% - of U.S., Domestic Potatoe production; fluctuations in their supply and demand intricately affect what YOU pay at the grocery store. As chilling as a reality as that may be, you do not dictate the food chain in any major way; as chilling as it may be, your tenets of the Free Market fail miserably in the face of reality. As I suggested earlier, I think investigation the Globalization of the Agricultural Market will be an illuminating experience for you!
Ah, as Steven Colbert would comically say, you are in the group of individuals who view the Economy quite like Christian Science; yet, merely, that Capital is in the place of God. Unfortunately, there is purpose to everything, Rob. You may be missing it here, though!
No, no error. From first glance, you misinterpreted both the purpose of the link, and its contents. No blame being placed, merely expounding that rationality taken to a certain point becomes irrational: The constant mechanization and compartmentalization of labour becomes irrational and counterproductive. It would seem, unfortunately, that you are separating - as you did above with the Christian Science Economy equating - the humanistic element from the Economy.
No, the Free Market is necessarily equipped with intentions, or no corporate entities would exist. These intentions can have vastly reverberating unintended consequences. This, once again, is reiterated by history: One need look no further than the Internet-driven Market Downturn of the early 2000's.
Goods need to be of a certain value in order to dictate the intricate relationship between goods and wages. Wages are merely arbitrary without good prices - i.e., Real Wages are relative and proportionate to the cost of living. If prices are unnaturally low due to monopolization, moneys lose their value through artificial inflation. I thought that was basic economics?
I'm lost on the entire term of logical abstraction. I assumed by logical abstraction you meant a theoretical model.
Actually you did! Look at the exchange below. I said that a laissez faire market with no government intervention should be the basis of our conversation. You said it didn't exist and your comments were geared to reality, implying that government intervention was the baseline. The conversation is below:
Theres no partisanship involved here. I became a Republican well after I adopted these beliefs and understandings. I was registered as a libertarian for 8 years. I joined the Republican party not because I particularly believe in the party, but because I am so adamantly against the platform of the Democratic party. I truly believe they are a scourge to our nation and represent the worst our country has to offer.
Not so. Compare it to the nanny state idea. When individuals get handouts they lose motivation and personal responsibility. There's no reason that same ideal can't apply to businesses.
Because government is incompetent and can't regulate effectively. If its on the business to not kill the customers(which believe it or not is a bad business model) they won't, or customers will go elsewhere.
Actually, if we're saying the free market is the natural state of the economy, the person arguing intervention should be forced to justify his position.
Why not?
No it doesn't. You're taking my arguments out of context. Every company in the market competes against every other company. If there is an opening, a company will find it and take it.
What you're not factoring in, is that in a free market, with vigilant consumers and stiff competition, wouldn't the transparent company be the one you want to spend your hard earned money on? Its certainly a selling point to me when you open your chicken farm to the public and let me inspect how you make my food for myself.
Yes. Again, you're not factoring in that regulation is already in place. Think about it. Knowing that you have a regulatory agency watching your every move, would that encourage transparency in your operations?
So you're saying that every company is inherently motivated to cut costs at the detriment to the consumer? Wouldn't you say that harming your customer base is bad?
Do you blame this on a capitalist model or a model of government intervention? I certainly blame it on the latter.
I disagree for the reasons above.
Don't you think that the fact that McDonald's pays millions in lobbying fees to a government who regulates farming may have *something* to do with this?
The potential corruption in a system with government intervention dwarfs any free market corruption scheme.
I disagree. I understand that most people believe in government regulation. I don't. I think it is a tool for corruption and ceding individual liberties. I can quantify why I believe everything I believe about the free market and explain those beliefs in an understandable manner. Thats alone should dissipate any notions that I have a "faith-like" belief in the free market.
Word. I'm lost on this. :ntome:
I don't buy this. Think of it like an ant farm, yes an ant can make a tunnel collapse, but the only way you can screw up the whole farm is for an outsider to shake it up.
Again, this is hinging on the theory that a monopoly in an industry is independent from the rest of the market. If you acknowledge that even a company who has a "monopoly" is still competing with
Never took it! I was a history major! Is it that obvious! :rofl:I thought that was basic economics?
Again, possibly some definitions are necessary to clear up some of the muddled confusion.
par⋅ti⋅san [pahr-tuh-zuhn, -suhn; Brit. pahr-tuh-zan]
Most definitely so! Here is an example for you:
Again, this assumes a transparency of information which barely exists now, and surely would not exist in a Free Market. So we are clear, a Free Market denotes a complete lack of governmental regulation; both in respects to health and fiscal policy. So (say) Company X is making a product that may kill people ten years from now, would they reveal that? If you apply your own logic, they of course will not! This destroy their credibility and sales. Again, logical determinations come into play here: You posit the corporate entity as a thing wishing to maximize its profits as the primary goal even in a regulated market, but then, contradictorily, assume the cessation of this goal in an unregulated market? How so?
Once again, you are denying the antecedent which is a logical fallacy. Your reasoning is incomplete, and you have merely denied my initial antecedent (Government Intervention) without replacing it with a plausible replacement. You have not yet answered this question:
Again, a misunderstanding afoot, so let me clarify what 'Denying the Antecedent' means:
Essentially you are positing if there is Governmental Regulation (p), then there will be Market Failures (q). Following, you are attempting to say if there is no Governmental Regulation (~p) then there will be no Market Failure (~q). Why is this logically invalid? Because there are a myriad of other situations within the which the market can and does fail, aside from Governmental Regulations. In this sense, it is not like your counterexample whatsoever. So, I say again, you have replaced my antecedent without a plausible explanation, and therefore (objectively and formally) your logic is invalid.
You are a history major, so this should be short task for you! Why does the Market keep repeating the same perpetual failures?
.
Now, I have bolded what you have misunderstood, and italicized what you were exactly right about. However, keeping in mind, this is a Monopoly Theorem specific to your intended use of the word: A uni-industrial Monopoly. As recent history shows, multi-industry monopolization does pay, and is an aspiration of most TNCs.
I am factoring in exactly that, but you are overlooking a few key points in this debate! Modern consumers are uninformed, Rob; this is not a posit, but a reality. Herein, your concept of a Pure Free Market fails miserably, as I have said previously. The belief that the Market will regulate itself (untrue, as the regulation would necessarily come from the microscopic level) fundamentally assumes Perfect Competition (the utter and total complete opposite of Monopolies, which is why they are a detriment to a Free Market) and informed consumers.
I think you may have misunderstood again, as you did not provide a plausible basis for your assumption. Rob, answer this basic question:
Again, do you feel McDonald's is not aware of the detriment their food poses? I am sure, as this is a reality, you do not. Therefore, I ask you again, why would this situation change in a lack of regulation?
Unfortunately, this may be your most antithetical example! How many times have ingredients been found to be underdosed? How many times have companies been revealed to be putting steroids in natural products? How many companies out there combine three to four methylated steroids and are sold at mainstream outlets? Creating a product to be sold over-the-counter comes equipped with the assumption that people will harm themselves using your product (a 17 year old destroying his natural hormone cycle, for example).
I blame it on a wide range of cultural, geographic and socio-economic factors; none of which can be succinctly and causally linked to either government or the Capitalist model.
Exactly! You are confusing me, as you seem to be on the precipice of making the logical assumption, and then turning backwards out of partisanship. McDonald's does EXACTLY that to AVOID regulations! So, in turn, why would they spontaneously clean up their act - so to speak - if regulations are not there?! They are necessarily avoiding regulations rob - i.e., trying to perpetuate themselves in as free of Market as possible!
I have never once denied this is a possibility. I merely feeling I am illuminating to you that the Free Market is completely imperfect, and presents more harm than an Interventionist Market - that is, the Lesser of Two Evils.
Here is another example for you:
You have qualified your beliefs in what you feel to be rationale, but that has since proved to be irrational and an invalid argumentative form; you do so in the face of empirical evidence and rationale which suggests otherwise and; finally, have not responded to logical hypotheticals. I would very bluntly say you have a faith-like belief in the Free Market. You expounded this very clearly when you said the Market exists 'in-itself'. It, in fact, does not: It is comprised of individual agents and conglomerated individual agents, and so to say the Market does anything 'itself' - without prefacing this with the adjunct understanding that the Market is comprised of individuals, and this creates action - is faith-like.
I know!
A few things fundamentally flawed here:
See explanation of Wiki above.
Yes and no! You have a very ostensible passion to learn, and even more ostensible adherence to Free Market Capitalism. Unfortunately, you have some fundamental misunderstandings of the relevant terminology, which are leading to even more fundamental misunderstandings of their implications!
strangely enough I stop.
Would you if you could get $5000 by running the light? I think so.
Agreed. I feel like I just finished French 101 and I'm trying to talk to Charles de Gaulle!
OK, I think that's what I originally interpreted it to mean, but my ignorance of Marx's work is what created the confusion. However, I don't feel envisioning the free market is a big jump in logical abstractions because some periods in US history have been closer to reaching the free market ideal than others.
Agreed.
I think ANY intervention will have a butterfly effect/unintended consequences on the economy, both in the psychologically and fiscally. Minimal government interference may as well be any amount government interference as it creates the illusion that a market cannot function without interference. That being said, I think the less government intervention the better as it limits the amount of fcking up the gov't can do.
I don't see my belief in free market economics to be blinding my logic, if that's what you're implying. I accept that there is government intervention. I believe the less the better.
The fundamental flaw in your logic is that me going through the stop sign is me IGNORING a regulation. Regulations provide an excuse for companies to not think about the ramifications of their actions. Instead of thinking, what will happen to our repeat business if this product is imperfect, the great creative minds of industry ask, what can we do to make this product pass inspection?
What you're not factoring in is a mutually beneficial relationship with the consumer is often more profitable than taking advantage of the consumer.
I don't believe the market can FAIL without government intervention. There can be setbacks, but I they will always self correct unless external influences interrupt the process.
Government Intervention.
Based upon that definition, I don't believe monopolies exist in a free market, only in an interventionist economy, and due to the fact that there is intervention in the economy.
My point is that intervention is what makes consumers uninformed, just as welfare makes poor people stay poor.
Intervention breeds intervention, as government breeds more government.
As a competitive advantage.
I understand what you are driving at. Why do some supplement companies provide lab tests when they're not mandated to? To build consumer trust.
There's no regulation that says McDonald's has to sell salads, diet coke, and carrots. But they do.
Agreed. Let the buyer beware. I've never had a cause for concern dealing with Nutraplanet, Designer Supplements and several other board sponsors. There are NO regulations in place forcing these company's to have strong customer service and high quality products, but they do. They know they are appealing to educated, informed consumers who won't settle for second rate products in a competitive supplement market. Yes, there are bad companies. Yes, there are good companies. I like the lack of regulation in the supplement industry. It lets me decide what is best as a consumer and stay loyal to the company's that have my best interest at heart.
I blame it on government.
You are twisting what I said. McDonald's pays to have a market advantage, not just to skirt regulation. Government intervention robs the consumer of the equality of the free market I spoke about earlier.
I feel the opposite. Free Market is the only moral choice.
The free market model hinges on fundamental laws being enforced, such as murder, theft,and the sanctity of a contract. If these are not enforced there will be anarchy. I think your example does not mirror the reality of regulatory enforcement, which is often based on arbitrary codes and standards that vary from inspector to inspector.
I'm not saying they always would. I'm saying its often in their best interest to. Do you really think Rolex would stop making quality watches in suddenly there were no regulations on watches? If you want to buy a Bolex you get what you pay for.
I disagree. I believe in the free market not on faith but on an understanding that it is the only moral and sane economic system.
I don't think the metaphor is any less relevant.
....
Agreed. I don't know all the terms. I wish I had a better background in economics.
oh then i'd blow thru it, as it would cover the ticket. For whatever reason, i'm really anal about stopsigns + stoplights.
Rather than quote you verbatim, I will merely address the most pertinent aspects. I choose to do this, because, simply, you have not answered a few fundamental questions I have posited. It seems we may be at a stalemate.
How does that answer my question? I was gearing my question towards the negative sense, and you merely positively affirmed an alternative - that is, I asked why they would stop doing something negative, and you provided a current positive as an answer. Again, this is not valid. Simply because they supply 'healthy' food options, does not mean they cease selling the most detrimental ones. Further, their health food options are as high-calorie as their unhealthy options, so I feel your argument lost weight there.
Could you elaborate (in a technical sense) what you mean here? Or, in other words, how do you reach this conclusion?
Of course it does, when viewed from the intended Macroscopic perspective! Consider the example again, with each student being a massive conglomerate, and the 'teacher' being the collective regulatory forces of the market.
Exactly. So, this was my twofold point:
Only if their reputation in the market would be marred enough to cause them as much or more loss of money by being caught playing shenanigans. I still frequently stop at spots where there is no risk, just from morality's sake. but if there was a light that was just a reminder but wasn't attached to regulation i would likely ignore it most of the time. So (although irrelevant to the conversation) for me its more about the rule being there rather than fear of enforcement. for speed on the other hand I drive to avoid enforcement which means knowing where its ok to drive faster.
No, all you said was pertinent, I thought.
Yes, it mostly just takes the right sort of collusion amongst (generally) men or women nearing retirement, who want to pad their retirement account and not truly care about the state of the company once they are gone. However at any sizeable enough company there is generally enough spread of duties and accounting and planning internally that its hard if not impossible for this to happen without dissenters. Other than the tobacco and alchohol industries of course.
I agree. I'll try to answer all your points as succinctly as possible.
I don't necessarily think its a logical leap. Intervention economics has a fatalistic viewpoint in the logical conclusion of capitalism. This viewpoint makes intervention the logical answer to hardship in the economy. Intervention is then necessarily the lynch pin that holds the economy together. Maybe basis is not the word, but it is the lynchpin for that for the economic theory.
I'm not sure I'm following the metaphor.
The goal doesn't change. The goal is to maximize profits in either system. Currently there are responsible and irresponsible companies, even with regulations. However, there is less incentive to be a responsible company, when the government is assuring the consumer that all companies meet a minimal standard. When that is the case, it makes more sense to just optimize production.
Neither of us can prove to the other that one system is better than the other. As you pointed out, the free market is a logical abstraction while the mixed economy is a reality.
I brought up the health food to show that they are responding to the consumer.
In a free market economy everyone is on a level playing field, interacting as equals. The only way anyone can get a competitive advantage is by providing a better and/or cheaper product. Monopolies may occur, but the coercive element is not there.
Anti trust in itself is a tool to preferentially favor companies. Labor laws and government sponsored unionization causes inequality between companies and workers.
What's disturbing about that metaphor is that the companies are seen as immature 'children' while government force is seen as the mature 'teacher'.
It is not, though. Nor is it Fatalist; it is a Realist position. It embraces the perpetual failures of a Pure Capitalist Market, and seeks to avoid them with intermittent regulation. How you continue to make this jump from the definition of Intervention, to primary economic MO, is beyond me.
To a point, yes. But as Easy alluded to before, without regulation, individuals or corporate entities reaching the precipice of their business cycle would be essentially free to commit irreparable damage.
How so, though? It continues to strike me - rightfully or wrongfully - that you are making logical leaps without any technical support! If the mode of production in Modern-Day is still primarily Capitalist (though mixed), then the primary goal is to produce the highest quality products possible. It would seem you are insinuating that regulation removes some of this motivation, but such is not logical.
Again, you have ascribed an assumption to me I am not making! This is becoming an unwelcome trend on your behalf!
And I am asking you why; a question, unfortunately, you have not really answered in any true way.
.
Rob, again, read further into what an Interventionist Economy is. I have failed miserably in relaying it to you, and that is unfortunate. It is a very far thing from what you assume. This debate is hinging upon a misunderstanding of key terms, and what those terms imply. You and I are just pretending to communicate at this point, as you do not know what an Interventionist Economy is.
Please, explain to me how Labor Laws are inequitable for the business? This is where true partisanship comes into play! I can concede some issues readily to you, but can you not see what labor laws are implemented? You see preventing 14-year olds from working 16 hour shifts as an unfair competitive advantage more than anything else?
This may come as a shock, but businesses operate on the same principle. That is, unless you are aware of a business of clairvoyants that I am not!
Again you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an Inteventionist Economy implies. Rather than us wasting more time, you are welcome to research this point on your own, and hopefully reinvigorate this debate when we are communicating properly.
not sure if you are familiar with his story of why he turned berkshire hathaway from a textile mill into a holding company. But it was because they had spare ability to invest in new equipment available to increase efficiency and he felt the return (other than keeping the doors open) would be minimally better as the competition was doing the same. So instead he began investing in other companies
Perpetual failures of a pure capitalist is a fatalistic view of a capitalist economy. You are specifically saying the market failures without government intervention. This specifically is the crux of all our disagreements. I think the market survives without outside influence.
Irreparable damage = fatalistic view. Again you're saying the market can't survive on its own. I think it can.
You're not understanding my point. I'm saying that when there is government regulation, the government is implicitly guaranteeing a minimal quality in goods. Without their intervention it falls on the company and the company's reputation to guarantee the quality of their goods.
This is where I interpreted you to be saying that:
Maybe I misinterpreted what you said, but it sounded top me like you were saying that if a company wanted to maximize profits why would it implement internal health regulations and instead not spend more on labour and machinery.
As is product quality. If Coke tastes good, people will buy more.
McDonald's is a way for you to pick the battlefield in order to put a negative spin on Capitalism. What's wrong with Subway or Starbucks? Why is McDonald's the lone representative of capitalism. That's like me saying that Fannie Mae is the lone representative of intervention government.
I understand why you think that, but I compare this to the fatalism that I mentioned before. I don't think the market left to its own devices poses the threat you say it does.
You've explained it to me...
Are you saying government interference is NOT force? Are you saying that in anti-trust litigation abuses are not possible?
Look at the Big 3, unions have run them into the ground. Minimum Wage is ineffective and can be detrimental workers and businesses. Anti-trust is a scam perpetuated on the American people.
You got the hot button issue. Personally I'd rather see a 14 year old work than starve or get a handout. I wanted a to get a job at 14, but was not allowed to get one. Obviously this wouldn't have been a 16 hour job, but it would have been by choice, just as the child in the example above would be working by choice, with parents looking out for their best interest.
Not true. Congresspeople are voted in by popularity, not competence. Successful businesses often are successful because they have their best people in their most important positions. Yes, you can cite how some CEOs conned there company's out of money after the bailout, but by and large, CEOs are selected purely out of the ability to make the company money.
I think you and I fundamentally disagree about whether Interventionalism....on any level, is a positive or negative.
Interventionist Economy implies government intervention...correct?
Great points. The Irrationality of Rationality is well summated by the bolded portion of your commentary. As Ritzer himself would suggest, the defining characteristic of the current epoch of Globalization (aside from its continuing veracity) is the infinite, hollow-nature of corporate entities - that is, their complete ubiquitousness only exists because of a lack of easily definable identity: They are everything, everywhere, at every time, so to speak. This mode of production is characteristic of the current-brand of mixed-market Capitalism, and is as much to blame as any government intervention; in fact, I would suggest it is the scale and ubiquitousness of the current corporate entity which allows them to mitigate governmental regulations (health, labor, environment) in order to perpetuate the chasm in both income and skill: Highly developed, highly educated, and highly skilled workers which dictate the direction of business, and low developed, low educated, and low skilled workers 'driving the gears', so to speak. Such has been the corporate model for some time, and for this reason I brought up McDonald's!
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Obama, McCain missing from some ballots | Politics | 0 | |
|
Obama flicks off Clinton and McCain | Politics | 45 | |
|
|
McCain, Obama, and 'the Change We Need' | Politics | 21 | |
|
|
Obama mocks McCain's call to fire SEC chairman | Politics | 87 | |
|
Obama vs. McCain - A Clear Choice | Politics | 0 |