The Current Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

That's no straw man, MFtP.

Capitalism is driven by pure greed. Boom.

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

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

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

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

Those two statements clearly contradict each other...

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

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

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

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

Mutualists argue that most of the economic problems associated with capitalism each amount to a violation of the cost principle, or as Josiah Warren interchangeably said, "Cost the limit of price." It was inspired by the labor theory of value, popularized, though not invented, by Adam Smith in 1776 - Proudhon mentions Smith as an inspiration. The labor theory of value holds that the actual price of a thing (or the "true cost") is the amount of labor that was undertaken to produce it.
- Wikapedia

This seems prudent to the constant printing of money and the falling value of the dollar.

Thanks for the link Mr. Ftp, I admit i have no strong stance when it comes to economics because its always been presented in such a selfish way. I'm willing to learn different idea's though. It'll come slow because I'm not to interested in the idea of money and its structure in society. But since it is indeed important and I'm getting older, i guess there is some responsibility in analyzing the subject.

The basic topic of this sort of libertarianism is the moral primacy of self-ownership and self-determination. It builds from there. If you would like, I could probably put together some good introductory reading, although it would be biased towards my own position I am sure.

Government spending in the United States currently equals more than forty percent of national income, i.e., the sum of all wages and salaries and profits and interest earned in the country. This is without counting any of the massive off-budget spending such as that on account of the government enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nor does it count any of the recent spending on assorted "bailouts." What this means is that substantially more than forty dollars of every one hundred dollars of output are appropriated by the government against the will of the individual citizens who produce that output. The money and the goods involved are turned over to the government only because the individual citizens wish to stay out of jail. Their freedom to dispose of their own incomes and output is thus violated on a colossal scale. In contrast, under laissez-faire capitalism, government spending would be on such a modest scale that a mere revenue tariff might be sufficient to support it. The corporate and individual income taxes, inheritance and capital gains taxes, and social security and Medicare taxes would not exist.

There are presently fifteen federal cabinet departments, nine of which exist for the very purpose of respectively interfering with housing, transportation, healthcare, education, energy, mining, agriculture, labor, and commerce, and virtually all of which nowadays routinely ride roughshod over one or more important aspects of the economic freedom of the individual. Under laissez-faire capitalism, eleven of the fifteen cabinet departments would cease to exist and only the departments of justice, defense, state, and treasury would remain. Within those departments, moreover, further reductions would be made, such as the abolition of the IRS in the Treasury Department and the Antitrust Division in the Department of Justice.

The economic interference of today's cabinet departments is reinforced and amplified by more than one hundred federal agencies and commissions, the most well known of which include, besides the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the FBI and CIA, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA. Under laissez-faire capitalism, all such agencies and commissions would be done away with, with the exception of the FBI, which would be reduced to the legitimate functions of counterespionage and combating crimes against person or property that take place across state lines.

To complete this catalog of government interference and its trampling of any vestige of laissez faire, as of the end of 2007, the last full year for which data are available, the Federal Register contained fully seventy-three thousand pages of detailed government regulations. This is an increase of more than ten thousand pages since 1978, the very years during which our system, according to one of The New York Times articles quoted above, has been "tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules." Under laissez-faire capitalism, there would be no Federal Register. The activities of the remaining government departments and their subdivisions would be controlled exclusively by duly enacted legislation, not the rule-making of unelected government officials.

And, of course, to all of this must be added the further massive apparatus of laws, departments, agencies, and regulations at the state and local level. Under laissez-faire capitalism, these too for the most part would be completely abolished and what remained would reflect the same kind of radical reductions in the size and scope of government activity as those carried out on the federal level.

The economic interference of today's cabinet departments is reinforced and amplified by more than one hundred federal agencies and commissions, the most well known of which include, besides the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the FBI and CIA, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA. Under laissez-faire capitalism, all such agencies and commissions would be done away with, with the exception of the FBI, which would be reduced to the legitimate functions of counterespionage and combating crimes against person or property that take place across state lines.

It seems to me Bush put his own selfish needs in front of the american people then panicked and made a huge mess of our financial system by bailing out these compnies that are doing the people great harm.

It seems to me Bush put his own selfish needs in front of the american people then panicked and made a huge mess of our financial system by bailing out these compnies that are doing the people great harm.

So your argument is that, because an ideal cannot be reached, no ideals should be held.

Pragmatism is yet an ideal, however much you would like to deny it; all actions have a goal, which is the ideal.

In the case of your view, the ideal is the greatest prosperity/happyness of the greatest number of people, or something of the like, is it not?

If you beleive that capitalism has failed, that is because you have evaluated its performance by your own ideal; indeed, it has not been equally beneifial to all and has ensured the existance of classes and of the poor. However, it is also responsible for the wealth of the U.S. that you would like to redistribute; Historically, America has grown strong under small government and laizze faire economics and has declined, since about the middle of the 20th century, after the imposition of elaborate social systems, higher taxation, larger government, etc.

You have a great deal of faith in the abilities of government, espeially in a demoratially eleted government, which tends to be filled with panderers, idiots and demogogues.

When I say that periodic economic declines are 'natural' I mean that they reflect the reality of the world: the amount of resources, the tendenies of people toward spending or saving, the structure and efficieny of the apparatus of production.

To assume that the government an impose a reality of their own is idiotic idealistic; to assume that the government could regulate the elaborate machinery in such a way as to actually allow it to function as it must, with regard to physical realities, and meet obligations for 'social justice', etc, is extremely optomistic.

Partial regulation only hampers the natural processes without improving them; a really comprehensive regulation would be akin to a fully comprehensive and accurate weather forecast for a decade. The fact that our government is elected, with regular changes in personel and principles make this practical difficulty all but an impossibility. Your assumption that government can 'solve' economic problems is really more idealistic than 'pure capitalism'; you want to change human nature, I want to allow it to run its course.

Firstly, making economi poliy based on moral judegments is always foolish; those fundementalist christians who consult their pastors for stock tips come to mind.

Secondly, no one forces anyone to buy tobacco products. Blaming corperations for the problems caused by the voluntary use of their products is absurd. Of course, there was a period in whih the corperations lied about the effects of tobacco, but that day is long gone. We all know what the effects are and many still smoke and chew: results of this are their problem, self-induced.

How was the 14th amendment used to empower corperations?

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

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

If you want to prove the the downfalls of the free market, please provide arguments that actually counter the arguments of its proponents.

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

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

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

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