@Mr Fight the Power,
Quote: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.
Laissez faire policy is partly responsible for the accumulation of wealth in the US, but this wealth has gone almost exclusively to those who were already wealthy. America has managed to grown stronger under regimes that both grow and shrink the government. However, laissez faire policy has been unable to function for the benefit of anyone, including the wealthy, in times of financial crisis. Larger government and regulation was needed to bring the nation out of the Great Depression. America's decline is not due to social programs, higher taxation or higher government. Instead, we have declined because of massive defense spending just as Ike warned.
Quote:You example demonstrates how having an ideal can be beneficial. Your distinction between goal and ideal is arbitrary; a goal, as you have used it, is just an end which is not the final end. Pursuing is the operative word; ideals can not generally be reached. I wish to pursue the ideal of the free market; you, the ideal of utilitarianism. In other words, I want to act so as to make the market more free, while you want to act so as to give the most people the greatest prosperity. Both are ideals. Action without an ideal has no purpose, by definition.
Again, you make some strange claims regarding ideals. Action without an ideal
can have a purpose; my previous example illustrates this fact. The distinction between goal and ideal is hardly arbitrary as a difference does exist, even if the goal is influenced by an ideal.
In any case, I have not derrided ideals at all. Instead, I have suggested that we not ignore reality for the sake of an ideal.
Quote:As I said, your ideal is utilitarianism, unless you are suggesting that your plan is to simply act, in no particular manner, and hope that general prosperity is the result. Otherwise, you have a goal, an ideal.
My ideal is not utilitarianism. Utilitarianism allows for all sorts of abuse of individual liberties.
Quote:Cutting taxes has nothing to do with the free market. Low taxes are generally preferable to high though. You mistake Reaganomics for laizee faire economics.
First, I criticize both Reaganomics and laissez faire. Second, laissez faire does call for low taxes, and for taxes to be lowered and eliminated whenever possible. Taxes are type of government regulation.
Quote:How, if you don't mind?
The economics of pure capitalism do not hold up. I made this point with MFtP if you'd like to follow that line of thought.
Quote:That is what you and most socialistic, would-be directors of the economy fail to understand; capitalism does not favor anyone; everyone has exactly the same rights and responsibilities under the law. Supply side is a misnomer: as if production is favored over consumption. Keynesian economics is absurd and could not be less functional or distant from laizze faire. How you are comparing their principles I don't know. Freedom is the ideal, not the advantage of one group over another. It is natural that some will be more successful than others; we are not all equally talented or equally lucky.
You're invocation of social Darwinism is, well, a bit scary to be honest with you. Not to mention the fact that social Darwinism has been ridiculed to death. Literally.
Actually, capitalism does favor some people. Capitalism favors those who have more capital, who have greater resources.
Keynesian economics is hardly absurd; Keynesian economics was the replacement for laissez faire, and managed to bring the US out of the Great Depression.
I'm comparing their principles the same way economists compare. By looking at the formulas and looking at the empirical data. Both Keynsian economics and laissez faire are flawed. Laissez faire was an economic progress, so was the development of Keynesian economics, but more developments will come and already Keynesian economics is on the way out. That's natural, this happens in all sciences, not just economics.
Quote:When was supply side economics tested? During the Reagan demonstration I suppose? Was there not at that time an SEC, a Fannie Mae, a Freddie Mac, Welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.? That was not laizze faire, not even close. The principles were in no way tested and proven faulty because they never existed at all at that time. Anytime before the First World War, however, would be a fine example of those principles at work.
Even prior to the Great War, the nation was not laissez faire. But I tell you what, I'll take you up on the offer. Prior to the Great War, big business used government troops and police to kill and brutalize striking workers. Fine example, indeed.
In any case, supply side has been tested. In a pure form? No, I've already stated that much. Doesn't mean that supply side has not been tested at all. Again, Say's Law has long been discredited.
Quote:Actually, I don't think anyone really denies the logic that demand is dependent upon supply. That an individual can only demand utility to the amount he or she produces is a pretty basic accepted truth.
With that said, I understand that there are many, many critics of Say's Law, and I am prepared to defend Say's contributions (note that the abundance of economic theory built on Say's Law means that what some consider to be the work of JB Say is actually the work of someone else) at length. What I need to know is whether you are saying that Say is incorrect because you have found flaws in what he proposed, or are you saying that Say is incorrect because you have heard others say it.
I'm saying Say's Law is flawed for the same reason I say evolution is true. Consensus among experts. If you want to defend Say's Law, don't waste your time here. Instead, publish a paper and shock the world of economics. Who knows, maybe they'll give you the Nobel Prize.
Quote:I don't think corporate personhood would be respected without government intervention, but corporate form of ownership and liability would be an successful business model without government intervention.
That's the thing, though: either we give corporations personhood or we have corporations strictly controlled by the government, created for a very particular purpose and limited to that role by the government.
Those are the two models of the corporation. I'm not aware of any other model, though there may very well be a way to reorganize corporations so that they are neither regulated by government and so that they also lack personhood.
Quote:Ugh. This could go on forever until you understand where I am coming from.
When I say best service, I mean provide the best utility to the consumer at the lowest cost.
I also oppose aggression in all forms, except in securing compensation for past unjust aggression. To imply that I would support a system that allows for someone to kill people in order to produce a coat is another strawman and is insulting.
With that said, if by "side product" you refer to externalities, I will recognize that argument, but I need more to offer any sort of counter.
I do understand, maybe that's the problem. My economic thoughts were almost identical to yours a few years ago, though probably not quite as well developed. As my thoughts developed I noticed the deep flaws that I am now explaning to you.
Right, best service, most utility, lowest cost. And right, you oppose aggresion. So, instead of best service, did you mean the best service with the stipulation that said service does not cause harm to another person? If you mean bottom line best service, this means best service even if people are harmed in the process.
Besides, I think this will go on all day; too many topics at once.
Oh, and I do not mean just externalities, though those would be included. I also mean harm done to those involved in the economic transaction - the worker and consumer included.
Quote:So far you have made a vague statement about something resembling externalities, brought up corporate ownership, and stated that Say's Law is wrong, but you have have offered up nothing for me to counter. Is the free market perfect? No, but I am not a utopian.
Hey, there we go, the free market has flaws! Wasn't so tough, was it?
Quote:I explained in some detail why, for your statement to be a relevant attack on capitalism, capitalism must generate greed. Greed is present in any system, and greed will fuel any economic system.
So if I were to take greed as a particular failure of capitalism, I must assume that capitalism generates greed.
Greed is present in any system, yes. But capitalism depends upon greed. Economies can be arranged such that they do not depend upon greed. That's a failure of capitalism and other systems, their reliance upon greed. We've made greed the fuel for our economy, rather than making need the fuel of our economy.
However, I would also argue that capitalism does at least promote greed. Because greed is the fuel required for economic success, greed becomes an increasingly valuable asset. Thus greed is promoted by the system.
