Art Only Thrives In Capitalist Countries
Maaxx
socialists.
inko...@wongfaye.com
This is not true. Art thrived in socialist countries as it was
subsidized by the local governments- they were on the gov't payroll- no
need to drive taxis or flip burgers. And most artists were capitalist
in their hearts. But they had to toe the gov't line. Paint all kinds of
commie propaganda. In the US you can paint anything you want but it is
the market that dictates what you will sell.
Check this out:
http://images.google.com/images?q=soviet+art&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
And in China i think artists are still on gov't payroll.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=chinese+propaganda&btnG=Search
Governments paid for all the above to full- time employed artists.
But it sucks to have to praise the gov't system that you do not like.
Most artists were paid to do that and I guess they had to feed their
families so they went along with it.
Thur
"Maaxx" <ma...@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:oevu09vk1e4g$.dlg@sec12-astroblaster.pepsi.com...
> Funny how art only thrives in capitalist countries, yet most artists are
> socialists.
Depends upon how you define "thrives".
If you mean rewards flow to the popular artist,
that is the one who is best marketed, then yes.
What are you saying exactly, and how does it
tie in with praise for capitalism?
Is it Capitalism which has the deciding influence
on Western Art, or is it the precious flower of
individual freedom, which survives in spite of
Capitalism?
--
Thur
r...@tamboli.com
your mouth and eating with the right."
Ray Fischer
>Funny how art only thrives in capitalist countries, yet most artists are
>socialists.
Funny how art "thrives" yet many of the world's great artists were always poor.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
George Graham
where certain artists, 'chosen' by 'friends' were put on the register of
some Art Colleges, allegedly to teach budding youngsters, but spent most of
their time doing their own work, whilst being paid by the state as
lecturers.
Strange thing was, from their subsequent writings, it seems most were rabid
socialists and are now insistant the State has no place in art. A bit like
pulling up the ladder etc.
George
Mr Clarke
> socialists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
Noumenon
> yet most artists are socialists.
And ART does not thrive in aforementioned countries,
mostly _art market_ does.
Commercial boundaries and true art are not friendly.
(Of course, Quality is _the_ factor, not quantity.)
Stressful necessity to _commercially fit_ and to survive
usually wears out any creative spirit and turns an artist
into a mercenary artisan replicating his early successful
works for ever or cooking half-arse pot-boilers...
--
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
Peter H.M. Brooks
expect. Having arrived you can see why they wouldn't want any
competition from younger people.
Most people who survive on state hand outs of one sort or another are
pinkos. It makes sense, they want to preserve their hand-outs. It's just
a matter of pure, undiluted greed - or self-interest, if you wish to be
kind.
--
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said ina rather scornful tojne, 'it
means just what I choose it so mean - neither more nor less' - Alice in
Wonderland, Lewis Carrol
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Thur
"Noumenon" <ArtE...@Concentric.Net> wrote in message
news:426F1DB6...@Concentric.Net...
While I accept that commercial considerations alone are
not the at the fount of creativity, we must acknowledge
that art is made for a demand, and not for self pleasure
alone.
We have to filter out from the mass of kitsch made only
with commerce in mind, the gems of art, which contain both
an individual expression of the artist and an outreaching
language or narrative that includes an audience.
--
Thur
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Funny how art only thrives in capitalist countries, yet most artists are
> socialists.
Because most artists believe the substance of art is fantasy, that
art manipulates fantasy, even creates a universe according to their
art.
Unwilling to give up that Powower, they become too chicken to
distinguish their observations from their fantasies -- because
observation abrades fantasy.
(Eh? No, fantasy only has the power to abolish observation
entirely.)
Thus, they become the first victims -- and proselytes -- of the
/professional/ fantasy-sellers: priests.
(Some priests call themselves "lawyers," some "senators," some
"Ronald McDonald," some "NBC," etc.)
Priests are successful to the extent they agree with the /audience/
about the /audience's/ fantasies. If they don't, their collecion
plates come back empty of nickels, "votes," Soldiers of the Jihad,
etc.
It's why the list of Poets Laureate has been so routinely crummy.
The Laureate is the little boy who gets to wear the Barbie-Doll Hat
and the paycheck for telling the king the stories the king wants to
hear about the king -- esp. his Powower and Goodness.
And the king is the little boy who owns everybody he thinks he sees
because he thinks he sees them.
I.e., a socialist (communist, Commonwealther, Nazi, Democrat, etc).
As to art's thriving on capitalism, the power of compassion (not
pity, which is its incompetent reflection) needs to be experienced to
be appreciated.
That, and priests exist to make capitalists feel Guilt for the
Blasphemy of being able to pay priests. ("Blasphemy." A priest's
Powowers are so Holy, so Super, and so Powowerful, that they must be
Protected from Certain Words.) So you've got your grant thingies and
your ceiling commission thingies and your Foundation thingies and
your Pledge Drive thingies, etc.
And long lines of socialists lining up at those troughs with their
Degrees in Liberal Arts in one hand and their gifted sweat in the
other.
N.B.: If you think a priest is a little boy in a Robe (collar, Hat,
etc.), you've already lost. A priest (in any society, however
primitive or putatively advanced) is one who gets a salary (of some
sort) and a title (of some sort) to alter the nature of the universe,
but esp. its laws, by making a noise with his mouth. I.e., a
Designated Artist (Laureate, f. "laurels," i.e., Hat). I.e., a Type
IV psychopath. They run to about 3% of the population anywhere, and
are not always recognised by the Clothes (Hat).
But you /can/ always recognise when they're lying.
You can see their lips move.
___________
P.S.: I have just subscribed to us.arts.poetry after years on
rec.arts.poems and alt.arts.poetry.comments.
I found the question on the uap list.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, shit detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Maaxx" <ma...@xrs.net> wrote in message
> news:oevu09vk1e4g$.dlg@sec12-astroblaster.pepsi.com...
> > Funny how art only thrives in capitalist countries, yet most artists are
> > socialists.
>
> Depends upon how you define "thrives".
> If you mean rewards flow to the popular artist,
> that is the one who is best marketed, then yes.
C: "...that is the one who best agrees with his market," yes.
>
> What are you saying exactly, and how does it
> tie in with praise for capitalism?
Praise for capitalism would be sitting to the dinner table and
thanking Daddy and Mommy for the food.
Socialism would be sitting to the dinner table and sucking Jesus'
(or Al-Lah's, or Amida's) Prick right in Daddy's fac...
Oh.
>
> Is it Capitalism which has the deciding influence
> on Western Art, or is it the precious flower of
> individual freedom, which survives in spite of
> Capitalism?
The Precious Flower of Individual Freedom thrives in the individual
sword arm, the individual trigger finger, the individual language,
which are strictly capitalist (i.e., "you gets what you pays for").
So do all the arts praising it.
(Contrapositive: you ever watch a committee try to move a single
#2 pencil? Hilarious; six or more stomachs and no brain...)
Observe that a socialist, before he is anything else, is one who is
demanding Equal Rights to other men's lives, fortunes, and honors.
I.e., a congenital, possibly professional, dependent.
Thus, he can /never/ praise the Precious Flower of Individual
Freedom or the soil in which it grows (capitalism); he can /only/
whine about not-having the Precious Flower of Individual Freedom
because he's trying to grow it in a trough his buddies keep sucking
dry.
>
> --
> Thur
scul...@tfb.com
what the artist expresses is controlled by the state-- and those that
don't get work from the state are equally controled in their expression
by the state.
Art does thrive in capitalist democracies, but most of the artists here
in the states mistake THRiVE for EARN.
There are probably more working artists here in the States than
anywhere else in the world, but Lots of EARNERS are not really accepted
or recognized as artists by the fine art elite...
There are the artists working in the gift and low end statuary fields,
designing bric-a-brac; artists in the media doing all the graphic
embelishment for papers, magazines, television shows etc; artists in
the cinema doing everything from costume and production design to
special effects and glass mattes; artists in the industrial sector
designing cars and cell phones, blenders and baby strollers; artists
who make and market their own gretting cards, dinnerware, furniture,
stained glass, etc; Popular artists like Kincaid and Wyland who have
marketing machines to distribute their work appealing to the average
folks;
And there are the artists struggling to get recognition in the fine art
world, and those in the fine art world whose work has become
fashionable among the fine art elite, as well as those that get museum
recognition and gallery exposure, but never manage to make much money
at it.
However- when artists become socialist is when they start to think that
they should be able to earn their living doing whatever they feel like
doing.
This is a self absorbed and infantile perspective.
NO ONE earns a living doing whatever they want- they earn a living by
doing something that OTHER people want. That's the very definition of
an economy.
Jackson Pollack did a lot of paintings before he made the spaltter
paintings he became famous for- and for the rest of his career he made
splatter paintings because that was all the fine art world wanted from
him.
However- by 'thrive' I would mean that the artists in the capitalist
west are free to do whatever they like. You can hold a regular job and
do your art in your spare time, and no one will tell you what you can
or can't do. Artists here have the freedom and the economic
opportunities to fund their own work, make whatever they like, post it
on the internet for the world to see, put it on their lawn or look
around for a gallery or museum that will display it for them.
If you want foks to pay you for your art then accept that they have a
right to WANT what they buy.
If you want the freedom to make what you want, go ahead and DO it; you
might be lucky and find an eager market for what you express.
But, in exercising your freedom of expression, be prepared to accept
freedom from sales as well.
christopher
GaryR52
Well said, Chris. To that I'll add that all economies are capitalist
economies, in that, all depend upon the free exchange of capital, which can
be defined as not only currency (money), but credit, labor, goods and
services. In other words, capitalism is nothing more than market economics.
In fact, the very term "capitalism" didn't exist until Karl Marx coined the
term in his tome, "Das Kapital." He needed a "villian" to contrast his
"socialism" against and, since Socialism is basically a denial of market
forces which depends upon the envy of the "downtrodden" for its existence
and proliferation, the antithesis of socialism was the free market itself.
Marx dubbed the free market "capitalism" and the label has stuck ever since.
It is used by both its supporters and its detractors, often without any real
understanding of the origin and meaning of the term.
Suffice to say that all economies are market economies. The difference
between a socialist economy and a "capitalist" one is only a matter of the
extent to which market forces are either regulated by government or denied
altogether. Since no nation could exist for very long with an economy that
flatly denies free markets, all "socialist" economies have, increasingly,
had to move in the direction of acknowledging free market forces and
allowing them to operate with fewer restrictions. This has happened in the
former Soviet Union, China, and to a lesser extent in other socialist and
communist countries. In Western Europe, the infusion of democratic ideals
into socialism (called, oddly enough, Democratic Socialism) is the brand
practiced. Basically, the free market is allowed to operate, but with more
restrictions placed upon it than in the United States, where the market is
more free to operate than anywhere on earth.But, make no mistake about it,
in the sense that all nations have a market economy and a market economy is
really what "capitalism" is, then all nations are practicing "capitalism."
It's not just semantics, it's a matter of market functioning.
There is nowhere on earth where any government prevents the free market from
functioning and, indeed, no government could do so, even if it wanted to. In
the former Soviet Union, black markets sprang up to fulfill needs that
government policy had curtailed. So it goes in all economies, wherever there
is any governmental restriction of intervention in the operation of the free
market. The so-called "drug war" is nothing more than government's feeble
attempt to squelch a black market for narcotics - a market that was created
by making the sale and distribution of certain drugs illegal. Any time
government intervenes economically, the market responds by adapting to the
new situation.
Furthermore, all markets function automatically and are self-regulating when
left alone by government. The market functions only because of the
interactions of human beings with each other. In fact, as Austrian economist
Ludwig Von Mises once said, economics is nothing more than the sum of all
human interaction. Disecting the market even further, it is evident that
everyone is a trader, a consumer and a producer, all at the same time. The
market functions because we are each trying to better our circumstances by
getting what we need and do so by exchanging for it something that someone
else needs.
The market is driven by pure self-interest, then. By each person pursuing
his or her own self-interest, everyone, as a whole, is benefitted. The $2.29
you spent this morning at Walmart for a gallon of milk became part of
someone's paycheck, or part of the tax dollars Walmart will pump back into
the local economy, which will build new roads, pay teacher's salaries, and
so on.
Literally everything we do every day of our lives indirectly benefits
others. We don't think about it, so we don't realize it. This leads to a
situation in which it is very easy for most of us to take the functioning of
the market completely for granted. It is in such an intellectual vacuum that
the seeds of socialism are sewn. If enough people can be persuaded that the
world owes them a living, you can manipulate them in various ways by
promising a utopian society in which everyone has equality of results,
regardless of whether they've worked to acheive those results. You can dupe
people into believing that government is the font from which all goodness
flows and that a larger government is necessary for the "public good."
I'm oversimplfying a complex range of manipulations, but it is to illustrate
how socialism gained a foothold in the world and morphed itself into
communism, Nazi fascism and all its other various forms. By appealing to the
envy people feel for those who have more than they do (the "rich"), you can
manipulate their minds and create a society of puppets to serve your needs
and agenda. This is what Lenin did. This is what Stalin did. This is what
Hitler and Mussolini and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro all did.
Socialism is nothing more than a means of controlling the market by
pretending the market doesn't exist and by denying the very thing that makes
it work: freedom. It is a means of redirecting the product of labor to the
dictator's own benefit, all the while convincing the public they are better
off serving the common good. It is a selfless society in which the
individual has no value and purpose other than to serve the needs of the
many. Contrast this with a free market economy, in which the individual is
free to pursue his or her own interests as he or she sees fit and, in doing
so, indirectly benefits the many, whether he intended to do so or not. In
fact, the individual in a free market can only benefit others as he pursues
his own interests. Of course, one can harm others by pursuing his own
interests, as well, but, on balance, we each do more good in the world than
we do bad.
This all stems from Marx's incorrect assumptions about human nature. Marx
believed that we are all motivated by altruism, by the desire to benefit our
fellow man - or that we should be so motivated. In fact, we are each
motivated to pursue our own self-interest because we are an individuated
species. In other words, I can't be you and look out for your interests as
effectively as I can look out for my own, and vice-versa. You aren't me and
I'm not you. However, even though we all live our lives as solitary
entities, we must interact with each other in order to survive. It is this
interaction that creates wealth and distributes it throughout the economy.
The socialist ideal is to confiscate wealth from those who have it and
redistribute it to those who have less. This is the favorite method of
socialists for bringing about "equality." However, the "equality" they are
creating is an artificial equality. It is a forced equality that depends
upon taking wealth from producers and giving it to others who haven't earned
it.
The fallacy of this scheme would be revealed shortly if put to the ultimate
test. If we confiscated all the world's wealth and then equally divided it
between every man, woman and child on earth, within a year we'd be back to
where we are now. Why? Because no two individuals possess the same ambition,
the same drive, the same intelligence, the same knowledge or the same
abilities. In short, we are NOT equal at all. It is this inherent inequity
that causes some to do better in life than others.
Those who envy the acheivers want to believe that the acheivers have amassed
their fortunes by some sort of treachery or deceit. It makes the
"downtrodden" feel better to believe that they are better people than the
evil, greedy ones who have all the money. It is this envy that every
socialist dictator in history has exploited to his own advantage.
Gary
<scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
news:1118340371.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
scul...@tfb.com
definition of capitalism.
I agree that all societies are market societies, however capitalism-
as we mean the term today, is not equivalent to the "market" economy.
I would argue that Marx meant Captialism to mean UNRESTRICTED and
UNREGULATED free market economy, and the legal and class structures
that it must lead to. The term itself refers to the concept that
CAPITAL- ( and those that gots it) have ultimate control over
everything the society does.
At the time he was writing, America and much of the British Empire
practiced a totally unrestricted free market.
As happens in any unregulated totally free market, weath rapidly
accrued in the hands of a very few individuals and the common folk were
reduced to a condition of constant work and constant debt, with ever
narrowing options as their share of the wealth declined. ( sound
familiar?)
I have, also, to state that the ideas of communism and socialism were
not invented as the evil enemy, they were born out of the idea that
capitalism was UNFAIR-was raping national resources for the benefit of
a tiny ruling class and at the expense of the average citizen and
making life in general for most folks unbearble,- and that something
had to be done.
Capitalism at the time of Marx was not a very good thing. read Dickens.
The ultimate result of the communist movement was the recognition in
the US of worker's rights and, after the stock market crash, the
adoption of a great many regulations on western capitalism.
Just the anti-trust act itself is a huge step away from free markets
and toward regulated free markets, i.e. free markets with ground rules.
I see this as a truely good thing. Modern Regulated Capitalism is what
made the US the superpower it is and brought up the standard of living
we now enjoy.
The theory of totally free markets is inherently flawed and it doesn't
help that the folks who stand to benefit the most from deregualtion
happen to own the media who explain it to the citizenry.
The perfect example of flawed free markets is the false idea that
competition drives prices down.
Competition is not what drives down prices- what drives down prices is
the consumer's abilty to DEFER purchasing. That is, if no one is buying
cars, someone will eventually try lowering their price to stimulate
sales. It is the LACK of sales that drives down prices. This is why
cars that are popular will have inflated pricing.
However, as the de-regualtion of electricity markets revealed to the
shock of California- when the customer can NOT defer purchasing, the
result is price fixing.
If you HAVE to have electricity, like California does, all the
suppliers can raise their prices as high as they choose.
As a resident of California, I can tell you that 40 billion dollars
bilked out of the state HURT.
Here's the thing- Unregulated free markets are just as dangerous an
idea as communism because they are based upon an unrealistic image of
human behavoir.
Unregulated free markets will allow US jobs to be outsourced faster
than the slow growing economy can employ the folks laid off.
Now, jobs HAVE to be outsourced, but the rate at which they are
outsourced is critical. If it happens faster than the growth of newer
jobs here at home... eventually it will catch up with us- Corporations
will have lots of cheap products to sell to American consumers who have
no income with which to consume. When those sales start to fail, the
factories full of cheap foreign labor will fail.
The whole economic structure could collapse, but CEO's stock options
and cash awards are based upon quartely reports not quarter century
reports, so there is nothing but regulation to stop it.
All models show that totally unrestricted captialism is not self
moderating- it booms and busts, like populations, like the early stock
market, like ancient civilizations.
The idea that only those with ability deserve to thrive is cruel and
anti-social. And wrong. Bill Gate's chidlren will be movers and shakers
without having earned an honest dollar all their live. Getting the job
of corporate CEO is often more a matter of family connections than of
merit.
Hollywood stars are more likely to have gotten their break thru family
than because they have "it".
As always, self interest and family connections have as much to do with
advancement as ambition and abitlity. This is EXACTLY how the European
aristocracy came into being. And royal histories have very few shining
examples of competency.
Human beings are not solitary. We have a Society that is comprised of
all kind of folks ranging all the way from the gifted and ambitious to
the helpless and insane.
Bill Gates could not be so rich if most Americans could not afford
computers- even those with far less ambition than he. However- personal
avarice ( which is a human trait ) is short sighted and he will send
ALL of his IT jobs to India if it improves his bottom line with no
regard for the consequences to the rest of the econonomic and social
fabric.
People are greedy and self centered, Stockholders are not concerned
with overall economic health, they want dividends for their own pocket.
It is foolhardy to think such a system is capable of self regulating.
The danger of unregualted markets is simple- when the have-nots
outnumber the haves by a sufficient number, the have nots will simply
KILL the haves as has happened all through history. Or, the whole
shebag will collapse and we get to start over from scratch, again.
My attitude toward economics is just like the founding father's
attitude toward freedom.
As much freedom as is prudent, with the recognition that power corrupts
and a system of checks and balances to keep things in line.
This is why we have the Fed- to manipulate interest rates as a THROTTLE
on free market forces.
This is why the founding fathers made iot the federal government's
primary job to REGULATE interstate and foreign commerce.
I am all for freedom, but I don't trust avarice and ambition alone to
result in progress.
i think the US captialism of the 1970s and 80s would be unrecognizable
to Marx as capitalism.
I have to say Free markets, yeah! But free the same way I am free as a
citizen- under the regulation of the law.
christopher
GaryR52
> UNREGULATED free market economy, and the legal and class structures
> that it must lead to. The term itself refers to the concept that
> CAPITAL- ( and those that gots it) have ultimate control over
> everything the society does.
> At the time he was writing, America and much of the British Empire
> practiced a totally unrestricted free market.
Sounds like the socialist's typical response. A free market isn't a free
market if it's regulated. But, even in Marx's time, no economy was without
regulation, to some degree. Afterall, governments coin money and set its
value and did so in 19th century Germany. There were regulations on all
sorts of business transactions in Marx's time. The idea that capitalism is
some rampant beast that has to be chained to keep it from doing harm is a
socialist myth. It is pure Marxism.
> As happens in any unregulated totally free market, weath rapidly
> accrued in the hands of a very few individuals and the common folk were
> reduced to a condition of constant work and constant debt, with ever
> narrowing options as their share of the wealth declined. ( sound
> familiar?)
Everyone is engaged in "constant work" even today. The hours are just
shorter, that's all. We all work for a living and that is the way life is.
While it is true that some have amassed wealth, it is also true that they
have no more control over the entire economy than I do. This is certainly so
today more than ever. You seem to have the mindset that wealth is a crime
and, therefore, anyone who acheives wealth has somehow taken it from someone
else or "enslaved" others to get it. This betrays an ignorance of how
markets work, as well as human nature.
>
> I have, also, to state that the ideas of communism and socialism were
> not invented as the evil enemy, they were born out of the idea that
> capitalism was UNFAIR-was raping national resources for the benefit of
> a tiny ruling class and at the expense of the average citizen and
> making life in general for most folks unbearble,- and that something
> had to be done.
> Capitalism at the time of Marx was not a very good thing. read Dickens.
Oh, capitalism is UNFAIR. Yep, you're a socialist, alright. So-called
"capitalism" is nothing more than the process of everyday life on earth, my
friend. The market is nothing more than the sum of all human interaction. It
is everyone getting what they need and want and, in so doing, assuring that
everyone else does, also. Without the wealthy, there'd be no capital for the
creation of industry and employment. Oh, but, you're a socialist and
probably believe employment is a form of slavery, don't you? How else would
you suggest we all earn a living, then? Or do you expect a benevolent
government to hand that to you out of money confiscated from the wealthy?
Well, what do you know! There they are again, the wealthy. They are
necessary whether you're working for them or stealing their money from them
via government "entitlements."
As I said, Marx coined the term "capitalism." No such concept existed until
then. What Marx referred to as "capitalism" was nothing more than the normal
functionings of commerce. This occurred everywhere and there was NO
ALTERNATIVE. That's where you socialists go wrong. You assume that socialism
presents an alternative to the merket economy, but the fact is that
socialism is simply a denial of the market economy. It is an attempt to
ignore the fact that without a market economy, there simply isn't ANY
economy whatsoever. No so-called socialist country is devoid of a market
economy. No socialist country has EVER been without a market economy. No
socialist country CAN ever be without a market economy because there is no
such thing as a society in which there is no trade, no commerce and no
production and that is exactly what elimininating so-called "capitalism"
would necessarily have to entail. You've been sold a dream, a myth that
people can somehow produce everything they need and that everyone will get a
fair and equitable share in the produce of everyone else's labor and that
all this can happen regardless of people's inherent individual differences
and goals. The fact is, the most efficient means of distributing wealth is a
free marketplace in which goods, services and money can flow freely without
impediment. This does not occur in a regulated economy. Regulation places
artificial constraints on human activity and, thus, creates all sorts of
problems that wouldn't (couldn't) exist in a truly free market.
>
> The ultimate result of the communist movement was the recognition in
> the US of worker's rights and, after the stock market crash, the
> adoption of a great many regulations on western capitalism.
Well, you're right that the welfare statism imposed by the FDR
administration was communist inspired. I've been saying this for years. Glad
to see a socialist finally admit it.
>
> Just the anti-trust act itself is a huge step away from free markets
> and toward regulated free markets, i.e. free markets with ground rules.
The end of monopolism was a good thing, yes. However, the regulation imposed
has grown ever more stringent and has invaded every corner of the market, to
the extent that it stifles competition to an even greater extent than the
trusts ever did.
>
> I see this as a truely good thing. Modern Regulated Capitalism is what
> made the US the superpower it is and brought up the standard of living
> we now enjoy.
Bullshit! It is the productivity, ingenuity and industriousness of American
workers and American businesses, each pursuing their own interests, that has
shaped the nation we live in. Regulation doesn't create wealth; it restricts
it. Government doesn't create wealth, it confiscates and redistributes it.
Don't believe me? Go to your nearest seat of goverment, at any level, and
see if you can find the loading docks where the products made by government
are shipped from. There are none because government doesn't create anything,
it only controls the activities of human beings. In a socialist country, it
controls them even more. Dispute this? Read up on the history of the Soviet
Union.
>
> The theory of totally free markets is inherently flawed and it doesn't
> help that the folks who stand to benefit the most from deregualtion
> happen to own the media who explain it to the citizenry.
Nonsense. First of all, there has never been a totally free market because
in every society that has existed there has always been government and
government always seeks to control commerce and derive its sustenance from
it via taxation. As long as this situation continues to exist (and it will
continue), there can be no totally free market anywhere. As for the rest of
this inane comment, it's pure socialist conspiracy mongering. The media is
an industry and, like any other, is a marketplace in which providers of
information compete against each other for advertising dollars. It is not a
monolithic entity owned or controlled by any one interest.
>
> The perfect example of flawed free markets is the false idea that
> competition drives prices down.
Here, you are completely wrong. Where there is no competition (i.e., in a
monopolistic scenario), prices are set at whatever level the controlling
party wants to set them at. You should know this; you were just talking
about the greatness of the Anti-Trust Act, remember? The Anti-Trust Act
forced the trusts to divest their holdings and to COMPETE with other
businesses in their respective industries on an even basis (or so we're
told, anyway). And what happened as a result? The price of the goods and
services the trusts were providing DROPPED in repsonse to INCREASED
COMPETITION from smaller businesses. But, let's not dwell too much on this
example because it doesn't illustrate what I'm talking about as well as some
others do. A better example is what happened in the market for computers.
Formerly, PCs were too expensive for the average person to afford and that
was because only a handful of companies were producing them. Once there were
many companies in the market, all competing for market share, the price of
computers went down. You see, competition fuels innovation and forces
companies to become more efficient. It also encourages this new thing called
"price competition." Maybe you've heard of it? Take the gas "wars" that used
to be common when every main intersection had a service station on every
corner. One station would drop its prices and begin pulling in more market
share, so the station on the opposite corner would lower its prices even
more and draw business away from its competitor, and so on. The beneficiary?
The consumer. Of course, the businesses made more money, also, by selling an
increased volume of gasoline. This price competition exists in every
industry, throughout the economy and it is one of the chief reasons why
prices in any industry decline. In the oil business, currently the price is
very high because the arab oil cartel OPEC keeps the price of oil
artificially high. If OPEC didn't exist and oil producers were allowed to
freely compete again, we'd see a dramatic decline in gasoline prices. I
could go on and on with examples to illustrate how competition benefits
everyone by making goods and services better and cheaper, but, you've
already had your mind warped and won't beleive anything I tell you because
it doesn't fit the preconceived notions you've been taught to believe.
>
> Competition is not what drives down prices- what drives down prices is
> the consumer's abilty to DEFER purchasing. That is, if no one is buying
> cars, someone will eventually try lowering their price to stimulate
> sales. It is the LACK of sales that drives down prices. This is why
> cars that are popular will have inflated pricing.
You're only partially correct. Yes, supply and demand certainly does affect
prices. However, as I just explained, it isn't the only factor that
influences prices. Your assumption that it is a lack of sales isn't quite
right, either. It is a lack of DEMAND that will prompt a business to lower
its prices in the hopes of increasing sales. Deferment of payment (or
credit, as its called) allows the consumer to purchase things he can't
otherwise pay for, thus increasing his financial leverage. However, most car
dealers, to continue with your example, offer credit to their customers and
they make additional income by doing so. In fact, they make more money from
the interest on the loans than they do on each car sold. However,
competition is what drives auto dealers to lower their prices periodically
(it's called a "sale") in order to capture, temporarily, a larger share of
the total market. The principle of using a sale to draw in additional
business that one wouldn't get otherwise is an old practice and a very
effective way of not only raising profits, but of moving out slower selling
merchandise.
>
> However, as the de-regualtion of electricity markets revealed to the
> shock of California- when the customer can NOT defer purchasing, the
> result is price fixing.
> If you HAVE to have electricity, like California does, all the
> suppliers can raise their prices as high as they choose.
> As a resident of California, I can tell you that 40 billion dollars
> bilked out of the state HURT.
Well, there you go. The effects of monopolism, NOT competition. Utilities
are not privately held and are heavily regulated. They also don't have to
compete and practice monopoly pricing. This is exactly the situation you've
been telling me is better than a free market.
>
>
> Here's the thing- Unregulated free markets are just as dangerous an
> idea as communism because they are based upon an unrealistic image of
> human behavoir.
B.S.! As I said earlier (and it apparently didn't sink in), human beings are
motivated by their own personal interest, not altruism. A communist state is
the embodiment of the attempt to force altruism as the motivation for human
behavior. An unregulated economy is ONLY possible when there is individual
economic liberty and private property. Otherwise, there is no incentive for
anyone to do anything. The only incentive a communist regime can use is fear
and force. In an unregulated economy, all individuals are free to do and be
whatever they want to do and be. In a communist state, people are selected
for occupations based upon their talents and abilities and are forced into
training for these occupations, whether they want to be a balerina or a
nuclear physicist or not. This is exactly what happened for decades in the
former Soviet Union. The only thing that is dangerous is the idea that
freedom is dangerous.
>
> Unregulated free markets will allow US jobs to be outsourced faster
> than the slow growing economy can employ the folks laid off.
> Now, jobs HAVE to be outsourced, but the rate at which they are
> outsourced is critical. If it happens faster than the growth of newer
> jobs here at home... eventually it will catch up with us- Corporations
> will have lots of cheap products to sell to American consumers who have
> no income with which to consume. When those sales start to fail, the
> factories full of cheap foreign labor will fail.
> The whole economic structure could collapse, but CEO's stock options
> and cash awards are based upon quartely reports not quarter century
> reports, so there is nothing but regulation to stop it.
Not true at all. It is governmental meddling in the economy (remember
NAFTA?) that has forced companies to outsource to foreign countries. If we
had a truly free market, there'd be no need to do so. It is primarily
because the price of labor is cheaper overseas that any company outsources
its production. But, it has ALWAYS been the case that other countries had
lower wages than in the United States, so if it is soley the price of
foreign labor that is driving the exportation of jobs, then why has
outsourcing only recently been used (historically speaking)? It is because
there are other factors involved, such as governmental regulations that
force the costs of doing business up artificially by imposing new taxes and
other financial burdens upon U.S. industry. Again, it is not competition,
but regulation that is the root of all evil.
>
> All models show that totally unrestricted captialism is not self
> moderating- it booms and busts, like populations, like the early stock
> market, like ancient civilizations.
All models? Who's models are we talking about? In the first place, as I said
above, there is no totally unrestricted "capitalism" anywhere in the world.
There never has been and never will be because of the presence of government
in all societies. Furthermore, it is the intervention of government in the
marketplace tha causes the boom and bust cycles we have witnessed in recent
history. Note that, in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the
frequency and severity of these cycles has increased dramatically, as
compared with the record of such cycles during the previous two centuries.
This is due to the simple fact that government meddling in the marketplace
has increased dramatically during the last century or so. It is government's
removal of the gold standard as an intrinsic underpinning of our currency,
for one of many, many things. Another is the rise of the welfare state, with
the FDR administration. Another was the creation of the central banking
system and the Federal Reserve. There are many, many other factors that have
come into being in the last century that, in combination, produce many
exacerbations throughout the economy.
>
> The idea that only those with ability deserve to thrive is cruel and
> anti-social. And wrong. Bill Gate's chidlren will be movers and shakers
> without having earned an honest dollar all their live. Getting the job
> of corporate CEO is often more a matter of family connections than of
> merit.
> Hollywood stars are more likely to have gotten their break thru family
> than because they have "it".
It has nothing whatsoever to do with who "deserves" what. One's station in
life isn't determined by what is "fair." Inherited wealth is a natural
outgrowth of the fact that the wealthy have offspring just like the rest of
us do. But, inherited wealth alone doesn't guarantee one will have a
prominent position in the world. There are many examples of those who
inherited wealth and wound up squandering their legacy. There are plenty who
inherited wealth and privilege, only to lose it through their own stupid or
illegal behavior. Bill Gates' children may or may not become movers and
shakers, dependent upon what they, themselves do with their lives. In my own
family history, I can cite examples of wealthy men whose children wound up
as anything but wealthy and powerful. Inherited wealth does not guarantee a
superior position in life. It's what you DO with it that does. How do I
know? Because I've been the recipient of not one, but two modest
inheritances while in my forties, one from my father and one from my
grandmother. In each case, the money is all gone, lost in a business venture
the first time, and squandered by my now ex-wife in the second. Had I made
better descisions about its use, I could be much better off than I am today.
Again, it isn't te money, it's what you do with it that counts. Money is
just a tool, but a very powerful one. It can be used for good or ill and it
can be acquired and lost in a heartbeat. But, one thing it is not is the
"root of all evil." If anything, it is what makes the world function.
>
> As always, self interest and family connections have as much to do with
> advancement as ambition and abitlity. This is EXACTLY how the European
> aristocracy came into being. And royal histories have very few shining
> examples of competency.
Well, certainly self-interest does. Family connections are fine, too - if
you have any. Yes, the aristocracy of Europe certainly gained from pursuing
their self-interest and no secret that they had ambition, either. But, what
is your point? That, because the decadent of aristocrats of European history
were often rapacious scoundrels and despots that somehow self-interest (the
driving force of the world's economy), ambition and ability are evil? As
with money, self-interest, ambition and ability are, in and of themselves,
only means to an end. Also like money, they can serve for good or ill
purposes. To condemn these qualities because they can be used for evil is
shortsighted and stupid. It is also ridiculous to assume that because evil
people benefit from such qualities that anyone else who does so is similarly
evil.
>
>
> Human beings are not solitary. We have a Society that is comprised of
> all kind of folks ranging all the way from the gifted and ambitious to
> the helpless and insane.
Do you see what I see? Can you smell what I smell? Do you hear what I hear?
Can you taste, feel or think what I taste, feel and think? Of course you
can't. Not any more than I can do likewise. This is what I referred to by
our being "individuated." Society is comprised of discreet individuals and
each of us is unique. We are solitary, in that, we are born alone, we die
alone and in between no one can know our hopes, fears, dreams and thoughts
unless we not only choose to share them with others, but are capable of
doing so. The very fact that you didn't understand what I meant the first
time you read it only supports this.
>
> Bill Gates could not be so rich if most Americans could not afford
> computers- even those with far less ambition than he. However- personal
> avarice ( which is a human trait ) is short sighted and he will send
> ALL of his IT jobs to India if it improves his bottom line with no
> regard for the consequences to the rest of the econonomic and social
> fabric.
Back to knocking Bill Gates again. Yes, exactly! Bill Gates made his fortune
in software and if there had been no computers to use that software with, no
one would ever have known who Bill Gates is. True. Also, utterly obvious and
meaningless. I doubt very much that Mr. Gates is sending anyone to India -
or anywhere else outside the U.S. - anytime soon. The fact is, IT jobs are
among the best paying jobs there are and he will, as a result, always have a
ready supply of new talent to choose from right there in the Redmond area.
That's because people in the IT business will flock there (as they have done
so) to work for Microsoft, the company that can pay them some of the highest
salaries in the IT industry. People are coming HERE from India to work
there, in fact! Why should they work for less in India?
>
> People are greedy and self centered, Stockholders are not concerned
> with overall economic health, they want dividends for their own pocket.
Yep, self-interest at work. Gee, isn't it so horrendous? It sounds to me
like you have the chief attribute that creates all socialists: ENVY. If
you're feeling left out because you don't have what someone else does, then
quit your whining and sniveling and make your own opportunity.
>
> It is foolhardy to think such a system is capable of self regulating.
Well, we'll never know for sure because government is always there with its
hand out, screwing things up.
>
> The danger of unregualted markets is simple- when the have-nots
> outnumber the haves by a sufficient number, the have nots will simply
> KILL the haves as has happened all through history. Or, the whole
> shebag will collapse and we get to start over from scratch, again.
The "have-nots?!" LOL. Jeez, you've used ALL the old socialist cliches in
the same diatribe! Don't you know the accepted P.C. term is now "the
underclass?" Yes, isn't that the socialist way? If you can't get what you
want by applying your own native skills and talents through peaceful means,
then resort to theft and murder, instead. I think this is what most of you
would do, too. You are nothing more than spineless trash who think the world
owes you either a living or an apology because you screwed up and couldn't
get what you wanted out of life. Too fucking bad!
>
>
>
> My attitude toward economics is just like the founding father's
> attitude toward freedom.
> As much freedom as is prudent, with the recognition that power corrupts
> and a system of checks and balances to keep things in line.
Ummm....no, it isn't. The founders of our nation never subscribed to the
idiotic notion that the world owed them something just because they existed.
Freedom, as the founders expressed many times, is something that is not
granted by the state; it is a condition of life; it is a condition that must
exist for life to have any meaning at all. Included in that is economic
freedom, for, without the ability to decide what one does with the fruits of
his own labor, there is no real freedom. Therein lies REAL power. Agreed on
the necessity for checks and balances, however, the founders didn't
establish any for the regulation of commerce, aside from reserving the right
of the government to coin money and have a monopoly upon mail service. Other
than that, they thought everyone should be free to pursue whatever he wanted
to without restriction, so long as he didn't violate the rights of others in
the process. The checks and balances the founders create were to keep the
government from becoming a dictatorship, not to regulate private commerce.
But then, you socialists always have had trouble distinguishing between
government and private enterprise, preferring to have the government run
everything.
>
> This is why we have the Fed- to manipulate interest rates as a THROTTLE
> on free market forces.
> This is why the founding fathers made iot the federal government's
> primary job to REGULATE interstate and foreign commerce.
And look where it got us. Alan Greenspunk single-handedly killed the longest
sustained boom economy in world history by raising interest rates during
1999 and 2000 to "cool" an "overheated" economy. This resulted in the
collapse of the tech sector, which, in turn, lead to millions of downsized
IT workers, which, in turn, lead to millions more downsized workers in other
industries. Then, when the stupid bastard realized that we had been plunged
into a recession, he started lowering rates to compensate, but it was too
little and way too late. Add to that the arab terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, which plunged the airlines and the travel industry into the
deepest low point in their history, and you have the reason why we've been
climbing out of a recession for the last four years.
The founders of our nation did no such thing. They empowered the government
to raise taxes and to impose tariffs on foreign goods, but this was almost
negligible in contrast to the level of regulation imposed on the economy by
government today. In Jefferson's time, the early pioneers never had any
indictation of the government's existence out on the frontier. Government
was very small and had little impact on the life of the average American,
right up to the end of the 19th century. It has more impact on a person's
life today than ever.
>
> I am all for freedom, but I don't trust avarice and ambition alone to
> result in progress.
Well, that's the smartest thing you've said, yet. No, ambition and pursuing
one's self-interest alone are not sufficient to result in progress. It takes
this combined with talent, resourcefulness, knowledge, discipline, hard work
and a bit of luck. Too bad you socialists don't believe in those qualities,
either. You'd just as soon kill all the wealthy people and take their money,
right?
>
> i think the US captialism of the 1970s and 80s would be unrecognizable
> to Marx as capitalism.
That may very well be. I think he'd marvel at the extent to which his
socialist ideas are in use today. He'd certainly see it in the welfare
state, as well as in the various layers of governmental bureaucracy that
stifle competition and business, in general.
>
> I have to say Free markets, yeah! But free the same way I am free as a
> citizen- under the regulation of the law.
Well, Chris, we already have that, thanks to folks like you who don't
believe in allowing people to do what they want to with their own money.
Gary
scul...@tfb.com
>The idea that capitalism is
> some rampant beast that has to be chained to keep it from doing harm is a
> socialist myth. It is pure Marxism.
I am not a Marxist- I am a capitalist, albeit one capable of seeing the
system honestly rather than with blind devotion.
To characterize any suggestion that 19th century Capitalism created
social problems as "pure marxism" is jingoistic.
It is possible to analyze various social ideologies honestly and
impartially, without demonizing them.
Finding some faults in Capitalism is not, in itself, Marxist, anymore
so than finding faults with Catholicism makes one an athiest.
>
> Everyone is engaged in "constant work" even today. The hours are just
> shorter, that's all.
Read that again...
There are still 24 full hours in the day.
Putting in 40 hour weeks with two week's paid vacation per year and
health and retirement benefits to support your family is far different
than the 70 hour week most factory workers put in during the 1890s with
no benefits, no paid vacation, no health insurance and the company not
even taking respnsibilty for industrial accidents- not to mention your
wife and your two oldest children having to work at factory jobs as
well because your 70 hours of labor couldn't pay the bills.
When I say "constant" work I mean every waking hour.
If the hours today are shorter- then we are not working constantly- we
have leisure. In Marx's time, only wealthy industrialists and the
aristocracy had leisure.
Besides, if Marx coined the term, allow him to define it.
> While it is true that some have amassed wealth, it is also true that they
> have no more control over the entire economy than I do.
You honestly think Bill Gates has no more control over the economy than
you ? You think the governemt bailed out Chrysler because its failure
would have the same impact on the economy as your own personal
bankruptcy? I don't see Uncle Sam coming to the debt relief of any of
us working stiffs- in fact, they just took away our bankruptcy
protection. But the wealthy and the corporations got their bankruptcy
protection extended.
Why do you think that is? Could it be that the wealthy have more clout
in getting laws in their favor passed than you or I?
When the CEO of Ford Motor Co. shuts a few factories, putting thousands
out of work, so he can offshore the jobs and make a little extra money
for the handful of major stockholders, you honestly think this has no
more effect on the economy than the decisions you make?
That is astonishingly naive.
Bill Gates got nailed for anti-trust violations going back 15 years-
Yet, unlike AT&T, he did not have his company broken up and received
virtually no punishment whatsoever.
How do you think you would be treated for embezzeling just a little
money from your company? And why, do you suppose, would there be such a
discrepancy? Could it have to do with the fact that 90% of this
nation's computers depend on Bill Gates to run properly? Could it be
the money he contributes and the lobbying he pays for?
Why didn't Bill get the same treatment as AT&T? What has changed in the
US since then? A republican controlled congress perhaps?`
Could it possibly be that, as corporations have purchased all the media
outlets, the powerful few are exerting more control over how our
government is run? Over what the people know?
If a few corporations control all media, then on what basis are the
voters expressing their choice when their very awareness of an issue is
being manipulated?
> You seem to have the mindset that wealth is a crime
> and, therefore, anyone who acheives wealth has somehow taken it from someone
> else or "enslaved" others to get it. This betrays an ignorance of how
> markets work, as well as human nature.
I do not think wealth is a crime-
I am, In fact, totally in favor of Captitalism as the only system that
actually harnesses individual self interest to drive the economy
forward.
However, I am not blind to its dangers either.
In truth, few people achieve really great wealth without committing
some kind of crime on a regular basis. The most common in today's world
being various schemes of insider trading.
While Enron and other recent high profile cases have resulted in
arrests, the penalties are a tiny fraction of the wealth accrued. After
serving their 16 months in white collar lockdown they retire to
Barbados to enjoy the money they bilked out of their own empolyees by
selling them stock that they knew would be worthless within months.
The folks who get caught get caught because they are stupid, greedy or
both.The vast majority of stock market maniupulations go unpunished.
The Internet bubble burst and left in its wake thousands of internet
millionaires who knew full well that they had no business model that
would make money even before they issued their IPOs.
That money that they enjoy came from somewhere- it came from other
people in return for nothing of value. That is criminal.
When the failure of businesses results in personal wealth for the
owners of the business- something underhanded is going on, and it
happens all the time.
The entire problem with Capitalism is the very tendency for money to
become power.
And let me make one thing very clear- I do not really claim that Bill
Gates has Power over the economy. What he does have is an EFFECT on it.
An effect far greater than you or I.
Why this is bad is that none of the wealthy really undertsand the
economy enough to exercise control over it- its too complex and too
vast. BUT what they DO affects it. And they are not conscious of the
effect they have.
They act in their own, short term self interest, and they do not really
undertsand nor care what the long term effects will be on the overall
system.
This is dangerous. It is like allowing gasoline companies to control
the speed of your car. The faster you go, the more fuel you burn, the
better for them. Your safety would not be their primary inetrest.
> Oh, capitalism is UNFAIR. Yep, you're a socialist, alright. So-called
> "capitalism" is nothing more than the process of everyday life on earth, my
> friend.
Stop calling me a socialist. I am not. Just read my other posts
regarding art markets and such to discover how much I am not a
socialist.
I agree that Capitalism is more evolutionary than other systems-I like
it because it works and gets the job done. I would not replace it.
But neither would I allow it to run unattended anymore than I would a
lawn mower.
You say I don't undertsand human nature. You are wrong. It seems i
understand it a good deal better than you.
Left unrestrained, Pure Captialism would rapidly result in the
concentration of ALL wealth in the hands of a few individuals. Ask any
economist.
Wealth buys influence on governments to make laws more conducive to the
wealthy's goals.
>The market is nothing more than the sum of all human interaction.
Wrong. The market is the sum of all human COMMERCE. Cradling my child
in my arms is a human interaction that has nothing to do with the
market. Making art does not involve the market- only selling it does.
There is nothing in Capitalsim that says everyone gets what they need
and want.
Yes we all undertsand that a population that can afford to buy things
helps the economy work- but that knowledge does not affect the CEO's
descison to send production offshore. HIS golden parachute and stock
options are keyed to THIS year's profit. To hell with the econmic
downturn 2 years from now. The offshoring CEO is, in fact, BANKING on
the belief that most of his companie's customers will still have jobs.
It disregards that if he is doing it, perhaps every CEO is doing it.
Here is what you are missing. Capitalism works because it is similar to
a natural system- rewarding individual effort.
You imagine that to mean it is self regulating- but natural system are
not always self regulating in a way that is moderate. Often, the
natural interaction of forces results in catastrophic events.
Natural systems can collapse. Extinctions can happen even without an
asteroid. When random events result in huge rainfall- deer populations
boom- and when rainfall returns to normal, populations CRASH.
Variations in rainfall from year to year are NORMAL, so deer
porpulations boom and bust.
This is why the Government actively tries to control the market- when
the government did nothing to control the market, the market revealed
that its Natural behavior was boom and bust.
That's not an economy- that's a rollercoater ride.
> probably believe employment is a form of slavery, don't you? How else would
> you suggest we all earn a living, then? Or do you expect a benevolent
> government to hand that to you out of money confiscated from the wealthy?
No, work is wondeful and necessary, but I do not think the wealthy
should get away with robbing millions thru a stock scam that leaves a
thousand retirees destitute when joe down the street gets put away for
20 years for stealling 40 bucks from one guy at a gas station.
I think if a CEO steals a thousand times more, he should serve a
thousand times more. And all his or her assets be seized. World wide.
> As I said, Marx coined the term "capitalism." No such concept existed until
> then. What Marx referred to as "capitalism" was nothing more than the normal
> functionings of commerce. This occurred everywhere and there was NO
> ALTERNATIVE. That's where you socialists go wrong.
Again, not a socialist. Don't like it- never did.
> >
> > The ultimate result of the communist movement was the recognition in
> > the US of worker's rights and, after the stock market crash, the
> > adoption of a great many regulations on western capitalism.
>
> Well, you're right that the welfare statism imposed by the FDR
> administration was communist inspired. I've been saying this for years. Glad
> to see a socialist finally admit it.
Actually- welfare was not a creation of FDR. I have always thought
welfare was a stupid idea.
and, while I think unionized labor was an important step in forcing
corporations and the government to place controls on the robber baron
form of capitalism that thrived in the early 1900s- I think the
ultimate result of unions is the mediocritizing of individual effort.
The welfare state you decry was in effect during the most prosperous
period of growth in American history.
This period of relative economic stability was due entirely to the
government passing laws to regulate and inspect and constrain the
actions of a free market.
Without State work programs, the interstate highway system would never
have been built- and this single government, non-profit, public works
project was responsible for tripling the GNP.
The interstates were not built by capital investment- they were a
socialist-style government jobs program.
But they are an example of how Captialism benefits from some level of
socialistic re-distribution of wealth. West Virginia did not pay
enough in taxes to pay for its sections of interstate, but money
diverted from other state's taxes to build them was well spent because
W.Va's roads helped increase the commerce of all the state's the roads
pass thru.
> >
> > Just the anti-trust act itself is a huge step away from free markets
> > and toward regulated free markets, i.e. free markets with ground rules.
>
> The end of monopolism was a good thing, yes. However, the regulation imposed
> has grown ever more stringent and has invaded every corner of the market, to
> the extent that it stifles competition to an even greater extent than the
> trusts ever did.
Nonsense- the current political climate has brought about the lowest
level of regulation in the last 40 years. Here in California we
recently got to experience the joy of the republican deregualtion of
the electricity markets when ENRON raped us for 40 billion dollars.
De-regulation of media has allowed all the major media outlets to be
held by just a few corporations-
Bill gates doesn't encourage competition and neither does any other
corporation.
the truth is, regulation serves two functions- it protects the consumer
and the economy and the climate from corporate abuse- and it promotes
competition thru preventing monopolies and industrywide price fixing
schemes.
Both of which arise and flourish in any genuinely free capitalist
market.
>
>
>
> >
> > I see this as a truely good thing. Modern Regulated Capitalism is what
> > made the US the superpower it is and brought up the standard of living
> > we now enjoy.
>
> Bullshit! It is the productivity, ingenuity and industriousness of American
> workers and American businesses, each pursuing their own interests, that has
> shaped the nation we live in.
You don't know what you are talking about. You parrot the typical one
sided republican party line.
People the world over are captialist- you said- its everywhere, you
said.
America is properous because of its people are more industrious?
Bullshit. We have done well because of our natural resources, system of
governement and its regulations.
The ingenuity and industriousness of Americans is protected by PATENTS
and COPYRIGHTS- those are regualtions on free markets. The federal
govenrment was created for only two reasons- to provide a common
defense and to regulate interstate commerce.
The ability of people and companies to engage in commerce nationwide is
the result of railroads built on RE-DISTRIBUTED lands that the
government took and gave to corporations- the socialist Jobs program of
the intertsate highway system- again, a re-distribution of wealth, and
the governement re-distribution of wealth into the development of the
internet.
The government re-distributes the wealth of natural resources into
private hands all the time.
My taxes have been re-distributed into the hands of Lockheed and Bell
labs and countless others to provide for the national defense-
The money the government re-directed into cyclotrons and research
grants resulted directly in the electronics and information industry
that dominates our economy today.
SO- the vast majority of government redsitribution of wealth is to the
benefit of capitalist concerns.
Most of it intended to grow the economy- which is not a free market but
a manipulated market.
Take the estate tax issue. Accumulated wealth does not help the
economy- only wealth spent does.
Rebulicans paint it as an unfair tax, but It is ridiculous to think
that its bad for the economy for the government to take some taxes from
a dead industrialist who has amassed vast personal wealth, so that it
can spur the economy in sectors that are hurting.
look- don't get me wrong- Capitalist democracy, as we currently
practise it, is undoubtedly the very best system people have yet come
up with. I champion it.
But the way we practise it is thru the manipulation and regulation of a
limited quasi-free market.
The re-distribution of wealth republicans decry benefits the capitalist
corporations every bit as much as the citizenry, if not more.
Capitalism is a powerful engine- but it can become a runaway train if
not kept in control.
And, ulitmately- why is does any government allow captialism to thrive?
Captitalism is allowed to the precise extent that it serves the people.
While the corporate goal may be profit, the purpose of industry is to
provide livelihood to the citizenry, and in any way that it fails that
purpose, it must be curbed.
You fail to recognize that the ultimate free market is the market of
ideas.
When the people press their government to regulate industry, it is
because that industry has failed to serve them, failed to regulate
itself, and the citizens of a democracy have the right to exercise
their collective control over it.
If, as you say, the market is just the sum of human interaction... then
the regulation of industry and the government's voter driven social
programs are just another aspect of the market.
You should be fine with it.
Billy Hiebert
--
Billy Hiebert (510)654-7488
HIEBERT SCULPTURE WORKS
Small Part Injection Molding
http://www.hieberts.com
GaryR52
> system honestly rather than with blind devotion.
> To characterize any suggestion that 19th century Capitalism created
> social problems as "pure marxism" is jingoistic.
> It is possible to analyze various social ideologies honestly and
> impartially, without demonizing them.
> Finding some faults in Capitalism is not, in itself, Marxist, anymore
> so than finding faults with Catholicism makes one an athiest.
I believe I did acknowledge the flaws, however, as I also pointed out, those
flaws have been attributable to mostly to the effects of governmental
intervention in the economy. If left to function without regulation, the
market would function to the benefit of all concerned. Of course, since no
such condition has ever historically existed, this is a theoretical
statement and I acknowledge that, also. However, Marxism is theoretical, as
well, and, in practice, has always devolved into either despotic
totalitarianism or democratic socialism, neither of which is what Marx
intended.
I said the idea that "capitalism" is something that needs to be regulated is
"pure Marxism" because, until Marx said so, no one had ever used the term
"capitalism" before. He created the term in order to have something to
contrast his "socialism" against and the only thing there to contrast with
was the market economy of 19th century Germany, in particular, but market
economy in general, as well. There is nothing at all "jingoistic" about
asserting that Marx's views were "pure Marxism."
> Read that again...
> There are still 24 full hours in the day.
> Putting in 40 hour weeks with two week's paid vacation per year and
> health and retirement benefits to support your family is far different
> than the 70 hour week most factory workers put in during the 1890s with
> no benefits, no paid vacation, no health insurance and the company not
> even taking respnsibilty for industrial accidents- not to mention your
> wife and your two oldest children having to work at factory jobs as
> well because your 70 hours of labor couldn't pay the bills.
While it is true that people worked longer hours than we do today, it is
also true that, at the time, factory wages were much higher than what could
have been earned in an earlier period of agrarian commerce in which people
worked largely on farms and worked from sunrise to sunset doing so. So,
while you may look at 19th century work and see people working themselves to
death, the truth is that the industrial revoloution caused a marked
improvement in the standard of living and that has continued to improve ever
since, as technology has, little by little, freed people from hours of
drudgery. If you're going to use historical examples, please put them within
the context of the times they occurred in. The fact is, life has steadily
been improving for centuries and, relative to past conditions, people
generally acknowledged they were better off than their ancestors at every
point in history.
>
> When I say "constant" work I mean every waking hour.
> If the hours today are shorter- then we are not working constantly- we
> have leisure. In Marx's time, only wealthy industrialists and the
> aristocracy had leisure.
> Besides, if Marx coined the term, allow him to define it.
Well, you're the one who used the word "constant" and it is an absurdity to
say that anyone has ever worked 24 hours per day without leisure. Also, the
statement that only the wealthy had leisure in Marx's time is simply not
true. In the slower pace of what was still largely an agrarian society,
those who lived on farms had hours of leisure each day. Making comparisons
to our current living standards is senseless because, as I said, the entire
history of mankind has been one of constant improvement in the standard of
living. Naturally, then, people worked harder and longer then than now, but,
compared to their ancestors, they lived better. This was only made possible
by the indsutrial revolution, which made it possible for a much larger
population to not only exist, but to become more prosperous than ever
before.
> You honestly think Bill Gates has no more control over the economy than
> you ?
No, I don't. The economy isn't controlled by any particular interest and
even the combined efforts of the world's governments and businesses to
control it has always proved futile. The market is self-regulating, if left
alone, and any meddling only forces it to do things it wouldn't otherwise
do. Bill Gates, even as (arguably) the world's richest man, has no power at
all over the economy as a whole anymore than any other individual does and
that is what I meant. Certainly, Mr. Gates can affect greater changes in a
small portion of the economy than I can, but he is powerless to have any
real or lasting effect on inflation, job migration, or any of the other
several exacerbations that occur as the result of governmental meddling. If
the entire U.S. government, which has far greater resources to wield than
Gates has, can't resolve these problems (and, in fact, by attempting to do
so, only causes them to worsen), then it is sheer folly to say that Gates
has any control over the economy.
You think the governemt bailed out Chrysler because its failure
> would have the same impact on the economy as your own personal
> bankruptcy? I don't see Uncle Sam coming to the debt relief of any of
> us working stiffs- in fact, they just took away our bankruptcy
> protection. But the wealthy and the corporations got their bankruptcy
> protection extended.
> Why do you think that is? Could it be that the wealthy have more clout
> in getting laws in their favor passed than you or I?
> When the CEO of Ford Motor Co. shuts a few factories, putting thousands
> out of work, so he can offshore the jobs and make a little extra money
> for the handful of major stockholders, you honestly think this has no
> more effect on the economy than the decisions you make?
> That is astonishingly naive.
The bailout of the Chrysler Corporation was, at the time, reasoned to be
necessary (arguably so) because, as one of (at the time) only three
remaining auto manufacturers with multiple product lines, Chrysler was a
large part of the automtive industry and its demise would have obliterated
thousands of jobs, removed millions of dollars of tax revenues (one of the
chief reasons government had for intervening) and would have certainly
caused a significant effect on the economy. However, the effect would have
been temporary, albeit long lasting, and the economy would have continued to
function without the Chrysler Corporation and would have rebounded in its
absence. The glood and doom scenario that, somehow, the demise of this one
company, even as large as it was, would ruin the world is a sublime fiction
that the Chrysler Corporation wanted everyone to believe, of course.
Surely, the effects of major corporations on the economy are quite larger
than any effect you or I cause to it as individuals. I didn't say anything
to the contrary. Your supposition was that a handful of business interests
are somehow "controlling" the global economy and I'm simply stating that
this is not only false, but impossible. No one corporation or group of
corporations has that much power to influence the global economy and, even
if they did, the effects would be temporary, at best and probably would wind
up being hurtful to their interests in the long run, anyway. Look at the
example of the 19th century. The so-called "robber barons" attempted to
control the markets for steel, coal, etc. and look where it ultimately got
them. Some of those interests no longer exist and the survivors are
struggling to remain survivors in an increasingly competitive global market.
It is sheer folly to suggest that anyone can control the economy. The entire
might and resources of the world's largest and wealthiest nations combined
cannot fully control the global economy. If they could, we wouldn't have the
economic dislocations we have and everything would be run to the liking of
most people. Such a world is fantasy and always will be.
> Bill Gates got nailed for anti-trust violations going back 15 years-
> Yet, unlike AT&T, he did not have his company broken up and received
> virtually no punishment whatsoever.
> How do you think you would be treated for embezzeling just a little
> money from your company? And why, do you suppose, would there be such a
> discrepancy? Could it have to do with the fact that 90% of this
> nation's computers depend on Bill Gates to run properly? Could it be
> the money he contributes and the lobbying he pays for?
> Why didn't Bill get the same treatment as AT&T? What has changed in the
> US since then? A republican controlled congress perhaps?`
> Could it possibly be that, as corporations have purchased all the media
> outlets, the powerful few are exerting more control over how our
> government is run? Over what the people know?
Bigger penalties for bigger crimes. ATT&T's scope of operations covered
literally the entire nation, from coast to coast. Everyone uses the
telephone, even those who are too poor to own their phone. Not everyone uses
computers, however, and, of those who do, not all use PCs, thus, the market
effects of Bill Gates (ultimately ineffective) attempts to control the
market for software were not nearly as far reaching or as potentially
devastating as ATT&T's monopoly of the nation's telephone network. That is
part of why Gates got a lesser sentence. To be sure, though, it is simply
incorrect to say that he wasn't punished at all. Microsoft suffered
considerable losses as a result of Gates' conviction.
Your wild speculations about the media being controlled by government or
vice-versa are simply unfounded and, quite frankly, my 15 year old neice has
a better understanding of how the world works than you do. As I stated
earlier, no one interest controls the media. The media is not some
monolithic entity, it is a very large group of independent networks and
companies in several industries (TV broadcasting, cable TV, radio, print,
etc.) and none has any controlling interest over the entire market for
information as a whole. George Souros' attempts to create a socialist
network to "combat" conservatism has ultimately failed, despite his great
wealth, power and influence. The Fox News Channel, despite having the lion's
share of the cable news market, doesn't dominate the dissemination of
information any more than any other news network can. It has competitors
with very different viewpoints and that is a result of competition in the
marketplace, both for ratings and ideas. While the FCC wields a great deal
of control over the networks, it does not have unbridled powers to do so and
is bound by the Constitutional protections of the First Ammendment. So,
where is this "control over how the government is run?"
> If a few corporations control all media, then on what basis are the
> voters expressing their choice when their very awareness of an issue is
> being manipulated?
See the above. In a marketplace in which ideals are free to compete, as they
are here in the U.S., no one is being told what to think. I'm registered as
an Independent and I vote as I please, or not at all, if that pleases me. As
for my awareness of the issues, I use a number of news sources to stay
informed and, you know what? I get a balanced view of the world on most
issues because there are competing ideas that are allowed free expression by
anyone who wishes to speak out. No one is stifling the flow of information
so that I get only one viewpoint. I am fully aware of many viewpoints that
are in direct competition with each other at all times. That is only
possible in a (relatively) free market. Try to get that in Iran.
> I do not think wealth is a crime-
Then why do speak about it as though it is?
> I am, In fact, totally in favor of Captitalism as the only system that
> actually harnesses individual self interest to drive the economy
> forward.
So far, everything you've said has revealed the opposite viewpoint; i.e.,
that "capitalism" is inherently flawed, is unjust and inequitable and that
socialism is better. You don't seem to be a capitalist at all.
> However, I am not blind to its dangers either.
In that statement your ignorance of the subject is revealed. The danger lies
not in allowing the market to function as it would normally do so without
intervention. The danger lies in perverting the market by thwarting its
processes in the name of "fairness," which always results despotism, at
worst, or benign stagnation, at best.
> In truth, few people achieve really great wealth without committing
> some kind of crime on a regular basis. The most common in today's world
> being various schemes of insider trading.
> While Enron and other recent high profile cases have resulted in
> arrests, the penalties are a tiny fraction of the wealth accrued. After
> serving their 16 months in white collar lockdown they retire to
> Barbados to enjoy the money they bilked out of their own empolyees by
> selling them stock that they knew would be worthless within months.
> The folks who get caught get caught because they are stupid, greedy or
> both.The vast majority of stock market maniupulations go unpunished.
> The Internet bubble burst and left in its wake thousands of internet
> millionaires who knew full well that they had no business model that
> would make money even before they issued their IPOs.
> That money that they enjoy came from somewhere- it came from other
> people in return for nothing of value. That is criminal.
Your view that wealth is the result of criminal activity further brands you
as a socialist, not a capitalist. You are, in fact, an anti-capitalist. The
vast majority of the world's wealth is created by people quietly pursuing
their own interests honestly, peacefully and without harm to others. The
vast majority of wealthy individuals know and understand, from experience,
that the best way to gain and maintain wealth is by providing goods and
services that people want and offering them at prices people will pay. There
is no crime or coersion in that. As for the bursting of the so-called
internet bubble, it was a direct result of Alan Greenspan's meddling in the
economy. When he increased interest rates several times in late 1999 through
early 2000, it had the effect of drying up venture capital and it was
venture capital that was keeping the dotcoms afloat. Indeed, it was venture
capital that made the dotcoms possible, in the first place. Once the rug was
pulled out from under the tech sector, it collapsed, dragging the rest of
the economy down with it. The terorrist attacks of 9/11 made things even
worse by seriously crippling the airlines and the travel/hospitality
industry, which, four years later are still in a struggle to regain the
position they had pre-9/11. Pure governmental meddling was at the root of
the recession, however, which was already in full swing by 9/11. Now that
idiot Greenspan is trying to do the same thing again at a time when we're
just beginning to get back to some semblance of normality (but, still, far
from where we were pre-9/11). This moron just doesn't seem to learn, nor
does he have the foggiest idea what he's doing. Inflation is not rising
prices in a few discreet markets. Rising prices are a SYMPTOM of inflation
and inflation (which, by the way, is verbal shorthand for inflation of the
money supply and credit) is still at a low not seen since the sixties. Only
government controls the supply of currency and, through the Fed, controls
interest rates and, in turn, the expansion or contraction of credit. In
short, inflation is created by government meddling in the market.
> When the failure of businesses results in personal wealth for the
> owners of the business- something underhanded is going on, and it
> happens all the time.
Well it does seem to be happening more frequently, but the truth is that, on
the whole, it is a rare occurrence. The vast majority of businesses are not
run this way and, if they were, it would be far more rampant than the
handful of such cases we've seen in recent years.
> The entire problem with Capitalism is the very tendency for money to
> become power.
Here, again, you betray your anti-capitalist mentality. Yes, money is a
powerful tool, without which the world would cease to function. Money is,
however, only a tool and, as I explained earlier, it can be used for good or
ill, dependent soley upon the intentions of its user. Evil intentions tend
to produce evil results, but even then, many are benefitted, indirectly, in
the process. Even if there was someone out there who intended to
deliberately do evil in the use of his money, everytime he spent some of it,
he'd be contributing to the welfare of society as a whole and to the welfare
of the particular individuals who are "downstream" of all his transactions.
Money is the lifeblood of the world's economy and it flows to and through
all of us like blood through your veins. That's not a problem, that's life.
> And let me make one thing very clear- I do not really claim that Bill
> Gates has Power over the economy. What he does have is an EFFECT on it.
> An effect far greater than you or I.
> Why this is bad is that none of the wealthy really undertsand the
> economy enough to exercise control over it- its too complex and too
> vast. BUT what they DO affects it. And they are not conscious of the
> effect they have.
> They act in their own, short term self interest, and they do not really
> undertsand nor care what the long term effects will be on the overall
> system.
Sure, he has an effect, as we all do. His is merely greater because he's
wielding billions of dollars at once. But his effect on the overall economy
as whole is no more significant in the course of human events than any other
billionaire's. In fact, there are others who have a far greater effect on
world affairs than Bill.Gates could ever dream of and many of them are
people who make far less than Gates does. George Bush is a case in point.
Mere wealth alone doesn't gaurantee anyone any significant control over the
world's economy. This is why so many wealthy men seek political power. It is
a way to gain much more control than they could ever have by simply being
captains of business and industry. But, even so, IF they succeed in ever
getting into a position of power (remember, we have free elections here),
they quickly find their power is limited by the checks and balances that
have limited every administration in history. So, while power may often
corrupt and while it may often corrupt absolutely, it isn't easily attained
or kept and it is always limited.
>This is dangerous. It is like allowing gasoline companies to control
> the speed of your car. The faster you go, the more fuel you burn, the
> better for them. Your safety would not be their primary inetrest.
Ummm..."gasoline" companies (I believe we call those oil companies) dont'
control the speed of anyone's car. The speed an engine will run at in
relation to its fuel consumption is directly related to its design, which
is, in turn, limited by the laws of physics. Oil companies don't design
automotive engines, they only supply the fuel that will be burned by them.
Gasoline, in any formulation, will only burn so fast and with so many
pollutants. The laws of physics can't be exceeded. Actually, sustained
travel at higher speeds is more fuel efficient than stop-and-go driving,
which is why fuel efficiency improves at highway speeds. Also, while it's
true that automobiles have become increasingly faster over the decades since
the internal combustion engine was invented, it is due to the demand of
consumers, not some plot by the oil industry to gain more profits. It's a
fact that people like to drive cars that perform well and this fact is
reflected by the number of people buying and driving high performance cars.
In fact, it's really getting a little ridiculous to see TV commercials for
Cadillacs which are produced to appeal to younger drivers who want a fast
car. In my youth, a Cadillac was an old man's car and, later, a
"pimpmobile." If I want high performance at the same price level, I'll buy a
sportscar (actually, I already have one).
> Stop calling me a socialist. I am not. Just read my other posts
> regarding art markets and such to discover how much I am not a
> socialist.
Like I said, if it sounds like a socialist, thinks like a socialist and
behaves like a socialist, it's probably a socialist. I call them as I see
them and I'm rarely wrong about this. Everything you have said, so far, is
what socialists believe and say about free market "capitalism." If you don't
want people to think you're a socialist, you're going to have to learn how
the world works and accept it as it is, rather than whining and sniveling
that money is evil and work is slavery.
> I agree that Capitalism is more evolutionary than other systems-I like
> it because it works and gets the job done. I would not replace it.
> But neither would I allow it to run unattended anymore than I would a
> lawn mower.
Here, again, you betray your ignorance of the subject. "Capitalism" is not a
"system." It is nothing more than everyday human interaction. Period. It
existed long before Marx was ever born and he was the one who coined the
term "capitalism." The market economy and its functioning is not an "ism."
It is not a "system." It is not a form of government (as so many ignorant
folks seem to believe it is). It is simply the natural processes of human
interaction that arise whenever and wherever people are living and working
together. This has existed for thousands of years, ever since civilization
began and it will endure as long as there are still any two human beings
left to trade with each other. It is not something that we can "allow" to
run unattended. It is not a thing. It is a natural process and, despite our
best attempts to control it, it is our interactions with each other tat will
determine how and to what extent it functions. All attempts to legislate
economics have been abysmal failures.
> You say I don't undertsand human nature. You are wrong. It seems i
> understand it a good deal better than you.
> Left unrestrained, Pure Captialism would rapidly result in the
> concentration of ALL wealth in the hands of a few individuals. Ask any
> economist.
> Wealth buys influence on governments to make laws more conducive to the
> wealthy's goals.
Absolute nonsense, and further evidence that you ARE a socialist (if you
liberals hate the label so much, then why do you subscribe to a socialist
viewpoint?). In an unfettered economy, everyone is free to rise to the full
extent of his or her ability. It is only in a regulated economy that
widespread corruption occurs. The former Soviet Union is a prime example.
Communism only created an undeground economy, or black market, that the
Russia Mafia was all too eager to satisfy. When you legislate people's
behavior, you force them to behave "illegally" in order to survive and
prosper. In a truly free market, this doesn't exist because the givernment
is not meddling in the lives of individuals and they are free to trade with
each other as they see fit. In your mindset, any form of trade consists of
somone cheating or robbing someone else. The fact is that most people get
what they want by behaving fairly and honestly and every truly successful
businessman will tell you that this is the best way to amass a fortune;
i.e., by providing what people want at an attractive price and by offering
value for the money. That is the way to build a large fortune and keep it
and that is how most large fortunes are made. To be sure, there are
criminals and despots who take what they want, but these people seldom
remain in power for very long without being overthrown, assasinated or
jailed for their crimes. Of course, you want to believe that ALL wealthy
people are of this ilk so you can feel justfied in hating the wealthy. At
the root of your hatred for them, though, is the same envy that has
propelled every socialist.
> Wrong. The market is the sum of all human COMMERCE. Cradling my child
> in my arms is a human interaction that has nothing to do with the
> market. Making art does not involve the market- only selling it does.
Wrong again. When you cradle your child in your arms, what are you doing?
You're telling that child he/she is loved and cared for and that he/she can
expect to grow up safe and healthy. You are, by your actions, helping to
educate the child about some aspect of life, whether you intended any such
thing or not. No, it isn't an economic transaction, per se, but a simple act
such as cradling a child in your arms is part of parenting and it is your
parenting that will mold the person your child will become. To borrow a line
from Russell Crowe, "everything we do in life echoes in eternity." As for
making art, did you BUY the materials you used to make it? Then, in the
course of making your art, you have paid part of someone's salary, part of
the taxes the merchant will pay to the governement, and the money they, in
turn spend will benefit others who will benefit others and so on, ad
infinitum. If someone watched you make the art, they may be inspired to make
some of their own, in which case, they'll need to be art supplies and the
chain of events cascades from yet another person's transactions. Or, you may
be so good at it that you discourage another artist from even trying to
become a professional artist, so he quits making art and thus, stops buying
art supplies and his contribution to the arts and the market that supports
the arts is withdrawn. For every action, there is a cascade of others that
follows from it. Money needn't change hands in order for human activity to
have ecomonic consequences.
> There is nothing in Capitalsim that says everyone gets what they need
> and want.
> Yes we all undertsand that a population that can afford to buy things
> helps the economy work- but that knowledge does not affect the CEO's
> descison to send production offshore. HIS golden parachute and stock
> options are keyed to THIS year's profit. To hell with the econmic
> downturn 2 years from now. The offshoring CEO is, in fact, BANKING on
> the belief that most of his companie's customers will still have jobs.
> It disregards that if he is doing it, perhaps every CEO is doing it.
Correct, there is no gaurantee that anyone will ever get want they want at
all times, nor can there be. If you expected otherwise, no wonder you're so
unhappy with the way life is. As for your myopic vision of how CEOs think,
do you really believe that the captains of business and industry are so
shallow and shortsighted as to not consider the consequences of their own
actions, as well as how it affects not only their own future, but the future
of humankind? Again, my 15 year old neice understands the world better than
you do.
> Here is what you are missing. Capitalism works because it is similar to
> a natural system- rewarding individual effort.
> You imagine that to mean it is self regulating- but natural system are
> not always self regulating in a way that is moderate. Often, the
> natural interaction of forces results in catastrophic events.
> Natural systems can collapse. Extinctions can happen even without an
> asteroid. When random events result in huge rainfall- deer populations
> boom- and when rainfall returns to normal, populations CRASH.
> Variations in rainfall from year to year are NORMAL, so deer
> porpulations boom and bust.
It IS a natural "system." Furthermore, you are wrong in saying that natural
systems don't moderate themselves. While nature can certainly behave in the
extreme, such cycles are relatively short lived and the natural order is
always once again restored without any intervention on the part of man.
Indeed, it is often such intervention that causes natural systems to go
awry, to begin with. This is as true of the market as it is of nature. The
more government attempts to meddle in the economy, the worse it gets.
> This is why the Government actively tries to control the market- when
> the government did nothing to control the market, the market revealed
> that its Natural behavior was boom and bust.
> That's not an economy- that's a rollercoater ride.
First of all, there has never been a period in recorded history in which
there was a truly free market. As I said earlier, wherever an economy
arises, government is there and government always seeks to control economic
activity because this is how a government sustains itself. Thus, no one has
ever seen what would result in the event the market was left totally
unregulated for any length of time. As for boom and bust cycles, these are
mostly the result of government's intervention. Normal fluctations of supply
and demand do occur, but in an unregulated economy we would very likely
never see the sort of large market swings that occur in our heavily
regulated economy. Read some books on free market economics and learn
something.
No, work is wondeful and necessary, but I do not think the wealthy
> should get away with robbing millions thru a stock scam that leaves a
> thousand retirees destitute when joe down the street gets put away for
> 20 years for stealling 40 bucks from one guy at a gas station.
Well, I don't think the wealthy should "get away with robbing millions thru
a stock scam that leaves a
> thousand retirees destitute when joe down the street gets put away for
> 20 years for stealling 40 bucks from one guy at a gas station," either,
> however, where is this occurring? I have heard of maybe three or four such
> instances in the last 50 years. Yes, there are bad people in the world who
> do bad things, but their actions are not representative of "the wealthy."
> You, again, are painting all wealthy individuals with the same broad brush
> and the result is that it makes you seem ignorant and childish. If you
> wish to convince me that you know anything at all about economics, then
> try sticking to the facts as they are instead of speaking from your own
> emotions. It is very obvious you hate the wealthy, as all liberals do, and
> that, like all liberals, you blame them for the world's ills. However,
> reality simply isn't so.
>
> I think if a CEO steals a thousand times more, he should serve a
> thousand times more. And all his or her assets be seized. World wide.
Agreed. But why only CEOs? Shouldn't appropriate justice be meted out to
those poor street punks who would shoot a young mother through the head at
an ATM, in full view of her children? This actually happened in St. Louis in
1994, by the way. It is people like this, far more than the leaders of
businesses, who make life dangerous and unpleasant for us all, yet I seldom
see liberals say anything about people like this, except that we should give
them more of our tax dollars to "help" them.
> Again, not a socialist. Don't like it- never did.
Again, you ARE a socialist, whether you realize it or not, whether you like
the label or not. It is not a label you can choose to use or not use. It is
a label that describes a particular viewpoint and you have repeatedly
demonstrated that this IS your viewpoint. Your own ignorance of what
socialism is prevents you from seeing this very obvious fact. I label people
who believe as you do "socialists" because of your views, not because I'm
trying to insult you. In fact, if you really do believe everything you've
said, so far, then you should be comfortable with the label, not insulted by
it. There are many who proudly call themselves socialists because they know
that's what they are and they see nothing wrong with it. It makes no
difference whether I agree with them or not, their viewpoint is still that
of a socialist. I call myself an "independent," and have, at times, referred
to myself as a "libertarian," because my views reflect a philosophy that is
described by those labels. I do tend to get offended, though, when someone
calls me a "conservative" or assumes I'm a Republican, because, although I
agree with a large part of what conservative Republicans believe, I do part
company with them on significant issues, such as religion, abortion, stem
cell research, foreign policy and even a few economic issues. These
differences set me apart from conservative Republicans and, indeed, many of
them have labled ME a "socialist," so I understand your resentment of the
label. However, it is a label that fits you like a glove.
> Actually- welfare was not a creation of FDR. I have always thought
> welfare was a stupid idea.
> and, while I think unionized labor was an important step in forcing
> corporations and the government to place controls on the robber baron
> form of capitalism that thrived in the early 1900s- I think the
> ultimate result of unions is the mediocritizing of individual effort.
Actually, prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt's administrations, there was no
welfare system at all. It was he who started the Social Security
Administration and many other welfare programs that, collectively, are often
described as "the welfare state." Unionism was only of benefit to those who
belonged to a union, not the public at large and the unions were not a
government entity, either. The term "welfare state" is applied, usually, to
institutionalized schemes of wealth redistribution.
>
> The welfare state you decry was in effect during the most prosperous
> period of growth in American history.
> This period of relative economic stability was due entirely to the
> government passing laws to regulate and inspect and constrain the
> actions of a free market.
This is simply not true. The welfare state arose as a direct response to the
Great Depression - one of the worst economic catastrophes in American
history. It was started during a time in which we were at war and the
economy was NOT booming during WWII. The economy, in fact, took years to
rebound from the effects of the war and the real boom didn't come until the
fifties. I know the fifties well because my parents and I LIVED through
them.
> Without State work programs, the interstate highway system would never
> have been built- and this single government, non-profit, public works
> project was responsible for tripling the GNP.
> The interstates were not built by capital investment- they were a
> socialist-style government jobs program.
> But they are an example of how Captialism benefits from some level of
> socialistic re-distribution of wealth. West Virginia did not pay
> enough in taxes to pay for its sections of interstate, but money
> diverted from other state's taxes to build them was well spent because
> W.Va's roads helped increase the commerce of all the state's the roads
> pass thru.
The actual design and construction wasn't done by government workers, but,
for the most part, by private contractors. I know this very well because my
father was a civil engineer and his specialty was the design of some of
those very same highways and bridges during the fifties. He, like most of
the people involved, worked for private employers. The government's chief
contribution was in choosing and hiring the private contractors and awarding
the construction contracts to them. The government, again, does not produce
anything, it only levies taxes and distributes the money. Even your state
and county highway departments are dependent, in large part, on civilian
contractors to get the job done. Even the space program, run by NASA,
wouldn't have been possible without the contributions of a myriad of private
contractors, such as Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas and IBM, to name
but a few. The myth that all good flows from government is a favorite with
socialists. It is their chief means of justifying the expansion of
government power.
>> > Just the anti-trust act itself is a huge step away from free markets
>> > and toward regulated free markets, i.e. free markets with ground rules.
Boy, I'll say it's a huge step away from free markets! Thank you!
> Nonsense- the current political climate has brought about the lowest
> level of regulation in the last 40 years. Here in California we
> recently got to experience the joy of the republican deregualtion of
> the electricity markets when ENRON raped us for 40 billion dollars.
> De-regulation of media has allowed all the major media outlets to be
> held by just a few corporations-
Nonsense. Amercan businesses now have far more regulations than they've shed
in the name of deregulation. Only a few select industries have seen any
deregulation at all and while the Enron affair is certainly an abominable
abuse, it is by no means represenative of how most corporations have behaved
in the wake of deregulation. For the most part, deregulation works and works
very well. It frees up capital for expansion that provides new jobs and
pumps new tax revenues into the economy. The impetus for creating
deregulation in the first place was the virtual strangelhold government had
placed on the economy by the seventies. I know because, again, I lived
through the period, as an adult, and I was one libertarian who very much
applauded and encouraged deregulation. It wasn't deregulation itself that
created California's woes, it was the corrupt actions of a handful of
assholes at Enron. Again, you're painting all of corporate America with the
same broad brush.
>
> Bill gates doesn't encourage competition and neither does any other
> corporation.
Maybe Bill doesn't, personally, (I tend to believe otherwise, though) but it
is simply absurd to suggest this is the way all corporate leaders think or
behave. Where is your evidence? Again, you're speaking from your own envy of
the rich.
> the truth is, regulation serves two functions- it protects the consumer
> and the economy and the climate from corporate abuse- and it promotes
> competition thru preventing monopolies and industrywide price fixing
> schemes.
> Both of which arise and flourish in any genuinely free capitalist
> market.
The protection of the consumer is always the excuse for government meddling
in the economy, however, the truuth is that government, itself does far more
harm to the public than corporations do. Corporations don't deprive people
of their civil liberties, nor do they confiscate money they haven't earned
and give it to people who don't work. Corporations don't start wars in which
individual lives are destroyed Corporations don't monopolize control of the
airwaves, airspace, or infrastructure. Corporations don't maintain fiat
control of our currency and credit, nor do they control the flow of our
first class mail. I could on and on with the differences between the private
and public sectors, but I think you get the idea...I hope.
> You don't know what you are talking about. You parrot the typical one
> sided republican party line.
See what I mean about being erroneously assumed to be a Republican? Liberals
(and Republicans, too) always assume there are only two viewpoints in
politics: left and right, Democrat and Republican. The fact is, the full
spectrum of political ideology is much broader and much more rich and
complex than that.
> People the world over are captialist- you said- its everywhere, you
> said.
> America is properous because of its people are more industrious?
> Bullshit. We have done well because of our natural resources, system of
> governement and its regulations.
Again, you are wrong. No one does anything in this life without motivation
and it is economic freedom that propels the advancement of civilization, not
its restriction.
> The ingenuity and industriousness of Americans is protected by PATENTS
> and COPYRIGHTS- those are regualtions on free markets. The federal
> govenrment was created for only two reasons- to provide a common
> defense and to regulate interstate commerce.
> The ability of people and companies to engage in commerce nationwide is
> the result of railroads built on RE-DISTRIBUTED lands that the
> government took and gave to corporations- the socialist Jobs program of
> the intertsate highway system- again, a re-distribution of wealth, and
> the governement re-distribution of wealth into the development of the
> internet.
Yes, patents and copyrights are examples of regulation, however, they are
regulations that were ASKED FOR by the owners and creators of intellectual
and other properties. The chief legitimate roles of government are to
protect the people from foreign invaders, to protect the people from crime
and violence, to aribrate disputes and, among these functions is the
responsibility for protecting property rights and serving as an arbiter in
the case of violations of these rights. It is quite common for businesses of
all types to lobby or petition the government for regulations that favor
their interests. As a creator of intellectual property, myself, I am glad
such regulation exists to protect me from having my works stolen.
The regulation of interstate commerce was not a reason for the government's
creation, it was an outgrowth of its other legitimate functions. In fact, at
the time of the American Revolution, there were no states, as such, only the
thirteen former British colonies. It is true that our founders acted to stop
the chaos that had ensued from the Articles of Confederation, which
empowered each state to coin its own money, for example, and this was
generally a good idea.
The railroads were built on lands granted by the federal government, yes. No
challenge to that fact, or the fact that the internet was a creature of the
U.S. Deaprtment of Defense (sorry, Mr. Gore). It is also true that our
infrastrusture has arisen out of government programs. However, the
government itself didn't create any of these facilities, it only taxed the
public to pay private contractors for their construction. Would these have
existed without government intervention? Maybe, if the need was great enough
and there was a montary incentive for doing it. Otherwise, probably not. But
then, the same can be said of the pyramids. Nothing new about it.
> The government re-distributes the wealth of natural resources into
> private hands all the time.
> My taxes have been re-distributed into the hands of Lockheed and Bell
> labs and countless others to provide for the national defense-
> The money the government re-directed into cyclotrons and research
> grants resulted directly in the electronics and information industry
> that dominates our economy today.
Right, and Lockeed and Bell have been instrumental in creating the hardware
for the U.S. space program, which, in turn, has resulted in the creation of
new technologies that are making it possible for people to live longer,
healthier lives and so on. Any action preciptates a cascade of benefits that
flows throughout society, whether the original act was a "good" one or not.
>
> SO- the vast majority of government redsitribution of wealth is to the
> benefit of capitalist concerns.
> Most of it intended to grow the economy- which is not a free market but
> a manipulated market.
It is to the benefit of everyone, actually, and we are all "capitalist
concerns," as we are all involved directly in the operation of the economy.
Agreed that tyhe market is manipulated and not free. You're finally
beginning to catch on.
> Take the estate tax issue. Accumulated wealth does not help the
> economy- only wealth spent does.
> Rebulicans paint it as an unfair tax, but It is ridiculous to think
> that its bad for the economy for the government to take some taxes from
> a dead industrialist who has amassed vast personal wealth, so that it
> can spur the economy in sectors that are hurting.
By "accumulated wealth," I take it you mean the "stockpiling" of wealth in
the accounts of wealthy individuals and corporations? If so, then you are
wrong once again. Where do you think those people and corporations are
putting their money? In a mattress? No. They are INVESTING that money. What
is an "investment?" It is the providing of capital to businesses, through a
broker or exchange, with the expectation of being rewarded for doing so with
profits made from the use of that investment capital. When anyone invests,
whether it be in stocks, bonds, government bonds or commodities, they are
lending money to business and government. This allows businesses to not only
continue to function, but to expand, providing new jobs and new products and
services that benefit all of us. It helps government to fund the social
welfare programs and infrastructure you value so much. Without investment,
America would be a nation of farmers, still plowing their tiny fields with
mules and wooden plows.
If that "dead industrialist" left his wealth to his heirs, then it is
certainly wrong for government to seize it or any part of it. You really ARE
a socialist and a hardcore one, at that! If we left you in power, you'd
confiscate every dollar you could in the name of the "public good."
> look- don't get me wrong- Capitalist democracy, as we currently
> practise it, is undoubtedly the very best system people have yet come
> up with. I champion it.
You do no such thing! You have done nothing but rail against it in paragraph
after paragraph of very anticapitalist rhetoric.
> But the way we practise it is thru the manipulation and regulation of a
> limited quasi-free market.
> The re-distribution of wealth republicans decry benefits the capitalist
> corporations every bit as much as the citizenry, if not more.
That is true. That IS the way it being practiced. You really are catching
on. Unfortunately, that is NOT what I am advocating at all.
>
> Capitalism is a powerful engine- but it can become a runaway train if
> not kept in control.
More of the same anti-capitalist rhetoric.
>
> And, ulitmately- why is does any government allow captialism to thrive?
> Captitalism is allowed to the precise extent that it serves the people.
> While the corporate goal may be profit, the purpose of industry is to
> provide livelihood to the citizenry, and in any way that it fails that
> purpose, it must be curbed.
Oh, you REALLY revealed your ignorance here! "Capitalism," for the hundreth
time, is just Marx's label for everyday commerce. This commerce doesn't
exists because the governement ALLOWS it to exist, it exists because it is
the natural order of society and would exist with or without government. The
reverse, however, is not true. Government cannot exist without capital
markets to tax.
>
> You fail to recognize that the ultimate free market is the market of
> ideas.
> When the people press their government to regulate industry, it is
> because that industry has failed to serve them, failed to regulate
> itself, and the citizens of a democracy have the right to exercise
> their collective control over it.
You're catching on. Yes, the free market for ideas is a part of the free
market and perhaps its most important part. However, you missed the boat
entirely when you then went back to advocating regulation. Don't you see the
inherent contradiction in that? Regulation is the antithesis of freedom, not
the guarantor of it.
> If, as you say, the market is just the sum of human interaction... then
> the regulation of industry and the government's voter driven social
> programs are just another aspect of the market.
Indeed, the government IS a part of the market, as is everyone. That doesn't
excuse it's meddling in the market, though. It only confirms what I said
before, that a truly free market has never existed in all of recorded
history because of the intrusion of government into it.
> You should be fine with it.
To some extent, and in some ways, I am. Governement does serve legitmate and
necessary functions and it is to the good of all that it does so. However,
that said, I beleive that Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said, "That
government that governs best governs least."
Gary