General Ecomomic Theory

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Should the government regulate the means of production? Or is private enterprise most productive? Would you rather live in a socialistic or capitalistic nation?

[juliod]

Should the government regulate the means of production?

Regulate? Obviously. An unregulated market will be extremely unstable. A political system based on this will almost instantly become an oligarchy or worse. Regulation of commerce is one of the constitutional duties of Congress. Ignored, of course, like all the rest.

Or is private enterprise most productive?

Yes, but only if vigorously regulated. Otherwise anti-competative forces will dominate.

Would you rather live in a socialistic or capitalistic nation?

Obviosly a mix of both.


DanZ

[ST88]

Should the government regulate the means of production? Or is private enterprise most productive? Would you rather live in a socialistic or capitalistic nation?

Private enterprise is very productive, but it's not particularly good at providing a means for everyone in a society to survive & thrive, only those who are able to exploit the system effectively. If the government cares enough about everyone in its purvue to make sure they at least survive, some amount of socialist structure is necessary. I'm a free-marketeer, but I recognize that the Bottom Line is not the only thing that makes a society successful &/or desirable. My desire would be to live in a capitalist society that has socialist elements rather than in a socialist society that has capitalist elements. Hey! Here I am!

Where is the religion in this question?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Hmm, I was hoping some hard-core capitalists would reply.

Regulate? Obviously. An unregulated market will be extremely unstable. A political system based on this will almost instantly become an oligarchy or worse. Regulation of commerce is one of the constitutional duties of Congress. Ignored, of course, like all the rest.

But of course, one of the central tenents of capitalist thought is the fear of unruly government interference. Many people swear by this in their rejection of socialism, often pointing to past anarchys as an example. Curiously, they would rather face exploitation at the hands of their fellow citizens than vest a little power in an outside force.


I am very discontented at our current system. "Very discontented" is quite an understatement of course, but I am much too tired at the moment to use a more assertive adjective. Looking at the economy I often forget that I live in a (supossedly) civilized nation. I just wonder how long it will take people to realize that we have reverted to feudalism.

Past hints of democracy have wared off. Now the rich control the country. 95% of the victors in the last election spent more money on their campaign than their opponent. These days one can pay his way into office. The class gap is now at it's largest point in the nations history, and continues to widen at an alarming rate. Meanwhile, 13% of the nation lies below poverty level, living of the scraps from the upper class' table (and often less than that, figuratively speaking).

I would like to see, at the very least, vast re-distributionist policies employed. In my eyes a loose Communism might be ideal, although I suspect I will be crucified for the mere mention of it.

What do you guys think?

[juliod]

I was hoping some hard-core capitalists would reply.

Conservatives are pretty thin on the ground around here. And since Al's gone, religious conservatives doubly so.

one of the central tenents of capitalist thought is the fear of unruly government interference.

I think we've lost the distinction between capitalism and plutocracy. Capitalism has always been happy with regulation. It levels the playing field and avoids giving advantage to the "cheaters".

The class gap is now at it's largest point in the nations history, and continues to widen at an alarming rate.

Yes, and that always leads to communist revolutions.

I would like to see, at the very least, vast re-distributionist policies employed.

I don't think anything nearly so dramatic is needed. A slight shift in the tax structure would reverse the trends. But of course the rich have direct control over the political process.

One of the main problems I see is that the working class is actively opposed to it's own interests. Members of this class actually support the greedy desires of the rich over the needs of their own families and communities. The rich have been working on this for my entire life. It seems to have paid off extremely well for them.

DanZ

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Capitalism has always been happy with regulation. It levels the playing field and avoids giving advantage to the "cheaters".

Okay, maybe I am just biased due to the American brand of "capitalism" I am constantly subjected to, but from what I can see, if there is one thing capitalism does not do, it is leveling the playing field. Those with no capital to invest will NEVER prosper. If you are born poor, you remain poor... very few exeptions. The "cheaters" recieve all the advantages- in fact, "cheating" (e.g. exploiting the masses) is one of the few ways to succeed in a capitalist society.

However, re-distributionist policies (as I mentioned earlier) CAN level the playing field. Look at South Korea and Tiawan. Both were dirt poor before the United States began pouring in billions of dollars in aid. This jump-started the economy, and allowed a successful market to take root. Both are now thriving nations.

I suspect America's 256 billionaires alone have enough money between themselves to do this to the entire continent of Africa.

Yes, and that always leads to communist revolutions.

Good, let's get one going.

I don't think anything nearly so dramatic is needed. A slight shift in the tax structure would reverse the trends. But of course the rich have direct control over the political process.

Actually, I don't think my proposal was near rash enough, come to think of it. I want to abolish the entire upper class- at least until all impoverished people the world over have access to the basic needs of survival. That's really not so unreasonable, is it?

One of the main problems I see is that the working class is actively opposed to it's own interests. Members of this class actually support the greedy desires of the rich over the needs of their own families and communities. The rich have been working on this for my entire life. It seems to have paid off extremely well for them.

Exactly, it's absolutely rediculous. All the Republican party need do is thump a Bible here and there, and they get the entire nation to fund their feudalistic agenda.


This isn't any fun. We really need more conservatives. I think we should put some pro-gun advertisments on our Google listing.

[mrmufin]

Should the government regulate the means of production?

Generally speaking, no.

For the most part, private enterprise delivers goods and services in a much more cost-effective, efficient manner than governments. Private enterprise is typically driven by the objective of making money, and that seems to be a pretty effective means of motivation. If I know that my great idea(s) can make me wealthy, I don't want to be denied the opportunity to reap reward for my efforts.

Or is private enterprise most productive?

Generally speaking, yes.

However, there are institutions and enterprises wherein the pursuit of wealth may not serve society most effectively. Education, justice, national defense, and health care are prime examples. All members of society are benefitted by being educated, healthy, well-defended, and having access to an impartial system of jurisprudence. The tricky part is striking a balance between the collective interests of society and the selfish interests of private enterprise because this means--at least to an extent--quantifying and placing a dollar value on the "public good."

Would you rather live in a socialistic or capitalistic nation?

I want to live in a society where the opportunities for wealth offered by capitalism are prevelant, but the "safety net" offered by socialism still exists.

Hmm, I was hoping some hard-core capitalists would reply.

Well, if it's any consolation, I used to be much more of a hard-core capitalist than I am currently. So what factors are causing me to reevaluate my position on capitalism? For one, my out-of-pocket costs for health care insurance and services have skyrocketed over the past few years. Does that mean that governments can offer such services better? Well, I'm not convinced that that's the case, either.

The application of eminent domain over the past ten or fifteen years offers enough evidence to suggest that even judges can be bought to the benefit of whores like Donald Trump and Steve Wynne. (I'm seriously biting back on my terminology here as I ponder eminent domain. The words I'm inclined to use to describe some of those players would get me banned from these forums, I'm sure. Some things just burn me up.)

Though I have a distrust of capitalism when it comes to meeting certain societal objectives, my distrust of government probably runs a bit deeper--particularly with the politicians here in the USofA. At least I'm man enough to admit that I really don't know what the best answers are.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Bugmaster]

Socialism is more than mere governmental regulation; under Socialism, the government owns all means of production; it is illegal for private individuals to do so.

Do I think that some government regulation is required in order to maintain a healthy economy ? Yes (especially for trustbusting purposes). Does that make me a socialist ? No.

[MagusYanam]

Socialism is more than mere governmental regulation; under Socialism, the government owns all means of production; it is illegal for private individuals to do so.

Do I think that some government regulation is required in order to maintain a healthy economy ? Yes (especially for trustbusting purposes). Does that make me a socialist ? No.

Hmm... as a moderate socialist, I may be obliged to point out that we don't believe the government per se owns all the means of production under our ideal model, but that the means of production are managed democratically by the participants and the public. For example, I would cite the CPB and the BBC as being 'socialist' news media corporations, since their funding comes from the public and they are managed on public terms.

You are right to point out, however, that simply adding regulations does not amount to socialism. You're simply adding boundary conditions for the system to organise itself independently.

Or is private enterprise most productive?

Generally speaking, yes.

However, there are institutions and enterprises wherein the pursuit of wealth may not serve society most effectively. Education, justice, national defense, and health care are prime examples. All members of society are benefitted by being educated, healthy, well-defended, and having access to an impartial system of jurisprudence. The tricky part is striking a balance between the collective interests of society and the selfish interests of private enterprise because this means--at least to an extent--quantifying and placing a dollar value on the "public good."

Don't forget, in addition to education, the justice system, the defence system and health care, police and fire services and mass transit should also be managed socialistically. Otherwise you end up with Rent-A-Cop being more common than real cop and more air polluton than you know what to do with (these are two of the problems I see as most pressing especially in the United States). I'd like to see us take a few leaves from the books of Europe, Canada, Japan and Singapore with relation to public services.

However, the consumer goods industry is perhaps better off staying private. But with boundary conditions (especially environmental and personnel-related). For just one example, GM should be obliged to provide for vocational training for workers it lays off to find work elsewhere, so you don't have towns like Flint (in my state) where you have generations of people who only know how to do an assembly-line job and are not allowed that.

Ideally, GM and other big corporations would be managed by a democratic system in which the workers, the managers and the shareholders all stay informed on company policy and vote to determine company policy. But I think that, realistically, would be asking a little much of them.

[mrmufin]

For just one example, GM should be obliged to provide for vocational training for workers it lays off to find work elsewhere, so you don't have towns like Flint (in my state) where you have generations of people who only know how to do an assembly-line job and are not allowed that.

I'm not entirely sold on that type of obligation. Would an ideal corporation offer outplacement services and assistance to its displaced workers? Sure. Would an ideal corporation behave like a good citizen by respecting both its rights and responsibilities to the public? No dispute there. Should GM and other corporations learn from the past? You bet. I think that employees should learn, too, and maybe take some personal initiative to better themselves. Employees should pay attention to the sales figures, keep an eye on the marketplace and accept some individual responsibility for their futures.

Ideally, GM and other big corporations would be managed by a democratic system in which the workers, the managers and the shareholders all stay informed on company policy and vote to determine company policy. But I think that, realistically, would be asking a little much of them.

Too much, indeed. GM can not unilaterally determine demand for its products, advances in technology, competitors' policy, etc. Unless folks are compelled to buy GM products, the company must accept that its future--and therefore the future of its employees--is contingent on sales and lots of companies build cars.

Your earlier mention of CPB and BBC are fine examples of "socialist corporate" models. As much as I respect both organizations--and we watch a LOT of PBS here at the mufin residence--I'm glad we have other channels, too.

Regards,
mrmufin