The Current Crisis

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Khethil

No system (political or economic) will ever work like we think it should, elements of human behavior (read: greed, corruption, abuse) prevent it. A couple of you have hit on the real question, much like the comparison with that of cutting off a finger instead of your arm. Which ideology hurts more?

There's a theory that even in this hugely-flawed system there needs to have - at regular intervals - some balance brought, even if that can only be achieved partially and imperfectly. I think it's time for a change, I think it's time to swing the disgusting pendulum that our country has been on in the other direction; in the hopes of mitigating the over-stayed republicans of the past. Imperfectly stated, traditional views of conservative economics say "less government, less regulation, give incentive to big business (to spur growth) and let 'em run with it". Traditional views of liberal economics scream, "tax breaks to the little guy, help the poor and in-need, regulate the greed with laws, tax penalties and legislation". What I'm saying is that; Between these two grossly imperfect philosophies - those two selections on our current menu - there exists the possibility of some vague sense of balance, as long as one philosophy isn't allowed to pervade, dominate and overrun the country for too long. There are as many potential problems with this are there are cats in my neighborhood; granted, but as we look for imperfect solutions to a joke-of-a-system, sometimes - I believe - the best we can do is mitigate the damage, bandage the wound, take our best shot given the constructs in which we're working.

As far as the candidates themselves (and who might do better): I think it's beyond dispute that we tend to blame or praise the president more than is realistically deserved. And yes, although I think we're getting far too close to having an "Emperor", there are numerous other elements (governmental) that hurt or help. One note here, I've always liked McCain and I've cheered for him before much in the past. I think him to be a man of integrity and thoughtfulness. Truth be told: There are benefits to be had by electing either; so much so, that for the first time in ages I'm considering not voting (wait, forgot about Palin; oh... my... god).

I have a real disgust for capitalism, but capitalism has one major advantage: It relies on greed to keep its wheels turning - and we're so VERY good at greed, aren't we? That's also its downfall (ref: the current economic crisis). Greed run amuck and unchecked (read: via whatever legislative reigns can be brought to bear) does this from time to time. I read another article the other day about how the FBI divisions that keeps tabs on unethical and/or criminal elements of trade and banking, despite their gross cutbacks caused by "smaller government", has been enthusiastically warning the administration since 2004 about "dangerous loan practices in the housing sector" yet the administration would not allow it to be pursued (ref: let business run with it! mindset). Between this and fraudulent institutions like ACORN this was a road we were bound to travel.

Great, now we're here. Ugh. I'm just glad I sold my house back in 2005 when I did. These are just my opinions and I could be wrong....

Thanks

Neither of the views you express are responsible for the problems we have, or if they are responsible, they are so because they are both a representation of the greater problem: the opinion that government can manage a dynamic, emergent, and chaotically complex system. The best analogy to this thinking would be to imagine if the government began to think that it was capable of managing the entire North American ecosystem, from the migration of caribou to the evolution of moths.

Also, you do realize that the greatest harness for greed is competition for a informed and vigilant consumer, that greed materializes to the greatest extent when competition is limited and controlled by a government that is inherently responsive to its cronies? It doesn't matter what system you run, government will always favor one side to the other, and government's inherent indemnity renders the downtrodden side to be without any decent recourse.

[Joe]

I wont lie and say that I even have a slight grasp on the problems that led to our situation, but after doing some research I will confidently say that it is pretty clear that hyperinflation and the deals between our government and the federal reserve, are a clear example of where we should be focusing our efforts. Atleast in my opinion that would be a useful place to start.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Neither of the views you express are responsible for the problems we have...

What I say isn't meant to be an all-inclusive summary of why things are the way they are. The potential causal factors I present are just that; part of the potential and parcel to a way of visualizing the situation. The complex nature of economics, human nature and governmental involvement preclude any "quick summaries of blame". I should think this self evident.

Regarding the rest of your reply, very good points and all pertinent.

Thanks

[Didymos Thomas]

"Sure we haven't really had a government that has tried to uphold the principles of free market capitalism, but they have all failed." This is what your post amounts to, and it is a blatant cop-out.

You gon to speak of straw men, how ironic. My post essentially says two things: 1) no government is capable of upholding pure laissez faire capitalism and 2) the principles upon which laissez faire capitalism are based have been shown to be faulty when employed as economic policy.

That's no straw man, MFtP.

But I am through with arguments that capitalism is bad that revolve entirely on the corruption and incompetence of government. If you cannot come up with a problem with capitalism that isn't accountable to government, perhaps it is time to accept the free market solution!

Capitalism is driven by pure greed. Boom.

[BrightNoon]

You speak of ideals, yours being capitalism. That's fine, but your ideal has failed. Sure, never has pure capitalism existed, but the principles upon which the system is founded have been tested and have failed. And the point is this: no ideal is ever reached, however close. So, to speak of ideal capitalism and actually advocate economic policy based on this ideal is folly. Not only have the principles failed in application, but the ideal, even if it could work, is impossible to reach.

So your argument is that, because an ideal cannot be reached, no ideals should be held. Pragmatism is yet an ideal, however much you would like to deny it; all actions have a goal, which is the ideal. In the case of your view, the ideal is the greatest prosperity/happyness of the greatest number of people, or something of the like, is it not? If you beleive that capitalism has failed, that is because you have evaluated its performance by your own ideal; indeed, it has not been equally beneifial to all and has ensured the existance of classes and of the poor. However, it is also responsible for the wealth of the U.S. that you would like to redistribute; Historically, America has grown strong under small government and laizze faire economics and has declined, since about the middle of the 20th century, after the imposition of elaborate social systems, higher taxation, larger government, etc.

Let's get past these silly idealistic notions of the economy. Capitalism, ideally, is freedom, and in practice is consumerist slavery. It's time we take whatever works for the most people as possible, and be ready to react to economic crisis rather than pretend that they are natural. Economy is the result of human society and is, therefore, not natural. We invent it, we have control. Let's do something.

You have a great deal of faith in the abilities of government, espeially in a demoratially eleted government, which tends to be filled with panderers, idiots and demogogues. When I say that periodic economic declines are 'natural' I mean that they reflect the reality of the world: the amount of resources, the tendenies of people toward spending or saving, the structure and efficieny of the apparatus of production. To assume that the government an impose a reality of their own is idiotic idealistic; to assume that the government could regulate the elaborate machinery in such a way as to actually allow it to function as it must, with regard to physical realities, and meet obligations for 'social justice', etc, is extremely optomistic. Partial regulation only hampers the natural processes without improving them; a really comprehensive regulation would be akin to a fully comprehensive and accurate weather forecast for a decade. The fact that our government is elected, with regular changes in personel and principles make this practical difficulty all but an impossibility. Your assumption that government can 'solve' economic problems is really more idealistic than 'pure capitalism'; you want to change human nature, I want to allow it to run its course.

Cutting taxes for corporations is hardly the answer. These are the people responsible for the modern cancer epidemic, not to mention a host of other atrocities.

Firstly, making economi poliy based on moral judegments is always foolish; those fundementalist christians who consult their pastors for stock tips come to mind. Secondly, no one forces anyone to buy tobacco products. Blaming corperations for the problems caused by the voluntary use of their products is absurd. Of course, there was a period in whih the corperations lied about the effects of tobacco, but that day is long gone. We all know what the effects are and many still smoke and chew: results of this are their problem, self-induced.

A corporation should not be a person, but that's the modern corporation. The 14th Amendment, passed to protect freed slaves, was invoked nearly three hundred times before the Supreme Court after it's passage, and prior to the turn of the century. In that time, less than twenty of the cases involved African Americans, the rest involved the use of the 14th Amendment to expand the prowess of corporations.

How was the 14th amendment used to empower corperations?

Notice something. After the Civil War, African Americans became significant political players in the south. Thirty years later blacks could hardly even vote in the south; meanwhile, corporations enjoyed the liberty intended for freed slaves. Instead of giving liberty to free slaves, the courts gave that liberty to corporations and stole it from African Americans. This occurred due to the lobbying of corporate attorneys.

The freedom blacks enjoyed just after the civil war ended abruptly because reconstruction ended and the justifiably angry southerners regained control of their governments. They changed voting laws and terrorized blacks; I don't see what corperations could have had to do with this.

Also, Khetil
1) no government is capable of upholding pure laissez faire capitalism and 2) the principles upon which laissez faire capitalism are based have been shown to be faulty when employed as economic policy.

Those two statements clearly contradict each other. If the ideal of pure capitalism is impossible to achieve in practice, how can that ideal have demonstrably failed? Your first statement is, however, probably true, considering the tendeny of the masses toward paternalism throughout history. The second depends on what you mean by 'faulty'; I would not call a system that has allowed for industrialization, increased consumer choices, higher efficieny and a higher standard of living faulty.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

First I want to apologize if I come off as a little abrasive in this thread, but when you defend capitalism and the free market, you undoubtedly run into some of the most vacuous liberal elitism you can imagine.

Even if I can tell who is and isn't an obnoxious jerk, I sometimes treat all disagreement in the same manner. Any harsh language I employ should be interpreted as an indication of past arguments I have encountered and not yours.

And if I come off as hypocritical, at least I preach a good game, even if I don't practice it.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You gon to speak of straw men, how ironic. My post essentially says two things: 1) no government is capable of upholding pure laissez faire capitalism and 2) the principles upon which laissez faire capitalism are based have been shown to be faulty when employed as economic policy.

That's no straw man, MFtP.

I was quite aware of what statements you were trying to support, but you used examples that no laissez faire capitalist would come close to calling capitalism. If you want to prove the the downfalls of the free market, please provide arguments that actually counter the arguments of its proponents.

While most free market supporters will support corporations (I am a little torn on them, I think they are natural but not at the current level), very, very few of them will support corporate personhood and the limited tort liability they enjoy. I would say that these properties of corporations are examples of government violating capitalistic and free market principles.

As a free market anarchist and a capitalist ("post-capitalist" is likely the better term) I have absolutely no reason to even address any argument that includes references to government misuse of the 14th amendment or any other unfair government legislation.

This was the point of my mini-diatribe: I justify corporations and big business if and when they offer the best service, but I cannot do so without my opponent attacking these corporations for things that I would never support in the first place.

And how are your two points not mutually exclusive? Either government can uphold the tenets of the free market, or we cannot say that free market policy has been tried and failed.

Capitalism is driven by pure greed. Boom.

The market merely represents the values that are systematic to the aggregate economy. Capitalism cannot generate greed, it is merely present in our society and therefore will be present in any system that you wish to propose.

What capitalism does provide is the measures for a person to be independent enough to protect themselves from the greed of another. See what I said about government's inherent indemnity to Khetil. To compete in a market, every individual must be responsive to the wants of the other actors in a market and therefore must temper their greed and wants to meet the greed and wants of the other side. When there is no competition, when there is regulation and other barriers to competition, those in a position of economic or political power have indemnity and can act without concern for the repercussions brought on by unsatisfied or hurt customers.

All economic matters, all economic policies will be driven by self-interest if self-interest is the common undercurrent of society, be it socialism, capitalism, communism, primitivism, whatever. Likewise, if self-interest is not a common undercurrent, capitalism will reflect the altruism through booming charity markets.

Free market capitalism is driven by whatever drives market actors, it is governed inherently, however, by the competition and balance of desires of these same market actors. This will be true of any other market system (as any of the ism's I mentioned earlier can exist on the market, depending on the values of the participants). Any pull away from a market system becomes governed by an external source that will likely be ungoverned itself.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

So your argument is that, because an ideal cannot be reached, no ideals should be held. Pragmatism is yet an ideal, however much you would like to deny it; all actions have a goal, which is the ideal. In the case of your view, the ideal is the greatest prosperity/happyness of the greatest number of people, or something of the like, is it not? If you beleive that capitalism has failed, that is because you have evaluated its performance by your own ideal; indeed, it has not been equally beneifial to all and has ensured the existance of classes and of the poor. However, it is also responsible for the wealth of the U.S. that you would like to redistribute; Historically, America has grown strong under small government and laizze faire economics and has declined, since about the middle of the 20th century, after the imposition of elaborate social systems, higher taxation, larger government, etc.

I just want to point out that the factors that have rendered this enormous privilege gap is documented in the historical record and can be traced to government intervention in markets, private property, and the free exchange of goods and labor.

[Joe]

You all have brilliant views about what are the problems and how they could be fixed. But I haven't seen anyone talk specifically about the option of control locally that would be discussed and acted through local participation. I see some of you unknowingly condemning Big government control over money, so why not talk about putting control back to the people. Take it far in other direction, where the most important decisions are decided with little means and even taking in peoples participation that you believe don't have the qualifications to make theses decisions.

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I just want to point out that the factors that have rendered this enormous privilege gap is documented in the historical record and can be traced to government intervention in markets, private property, and the free exchange of goods and labor.

I agree. I was only trying, in the interest of fairness, to admit that capitalism has periods of decline and does tend to cause the concentration of wealth, to some extent, in the hands of a few. Of course, the fact that there is a disparity in wealth says nothing of the general prosperity, which is greatest with the free market: i.e. poverty is relative. Today in the U.S., e.g., the 'poor' own new televisions, cell phones, cars, etc. My point was to disown the view, much lampooned, of the free-marketer, who blindly clings to his dogma, claiming that it somehow provides permement and uninterupted prosperity. There are disturbanes, bubbles, etc, but the general trend is up.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Joe

You all have brilliant views about what are the problems and how they could be fixed. But I haven't seen anyone talk specifically about the option of control locally that would be discussed and acted through local participation. I see some of you unknowingly condemning Big government control over money, so why not talk about putting control back to the people. Take it far in other direction, where the most important decisions are decided with little means and even taking in peoples participation that you believe don't have the qualifications to make theses decisions.

I certainly know of my condemnation of big government. I am an agorist.

As for your question, there must be a little more context, as I am certainly not prepared to model an entire society around drastic decentralization.

If you wish to know my view money, I believe it should be privatized as well, and will likely be done so electronically (like debit cards) through private banks. In fact, any institution that wished to issue currency could do so. Instead of a runaway institution that can pretty much steal at will through the inflationary introduction of new money, a private institution that must compete for the quality of their money must consider the actions that their money issuance has on their dollars. If we had competitive currency, the US dollar would not be held, it would simply collapse in value until nobody cared about it. Under the current situation, all Americans are doomed to have the dollars they hold to consistently lose value.

Because of this, I really like the idea of community banks or even national credit unions that are owned by like minded individuals that issue their own currency. In this way I am very similar to a mutualist, I just don't buy much of their justifications and predictions for what a natural free market economy may look.