Which is more important to the US? - Page 2

Bereta_Eder · May 14, 2002, 18:22

Mind you, I'm not sure. I said AFAIK. There was propably heavy state interference in the economy (but it definitely remained capitalistic - in the broad sense)

David Floyd · May 14, 2002, 18:24

Just so we're yet again clear, the US government does not and really never has supported true capitalism, with the exception of a few individuals.

I'll refrain from calling the Soviet Union communist if you don't say capitalism when you mean something else

Imran Siddiqui · May 14, 2002, 18:24

I'm American, and I say capitalism. Democracy without economic freedom, really isn't truly freedom.

Wraith · May 14, 2002, 19:38

A couple points.

First, and this gets mentioned all the time, but never seems to stick, but the US is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic. There's an important difference in there. The people who founded the nation did not want democracy, so I really can't say that it's at all important to the country.

Secondly...

--"many americans seem to believe that capitalism equals freedom."

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic system compatible with individual freedom. The rest fail by their own definitions.

Wraith
Keeping freedom safe from democracy

Akka · May 15, 2002, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Wraith
Laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic system compatible with individual freedom. The rest fail by their own definitions.

I don't want to be offensive, but this is utterly stupid.
It's exactly like saying "anarchy is the only political system compatible with individual freedom".

David Floyd · May 15, 2002, 13:34

Actually, laissez faire is the only system compatible with individual freedom because all the others limit freedom in some way.

Akka · May 15, 2002, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually, laissez faire is the only system compatible with individual freedom because all the others limit freedom in some way.

Yes, anti-murder law limit my freedom to kill too. So anarchy is the only system that does not limit my freedom.

Time to grow up, pals, "freedom" is not "doing everything you want". It's a little more complicated and less childish than that.

Saint Marcus · May 15, 2002, 13:38

Quote:

Actually, laissez faire is the only system compatible with individual freedom because all the others limit freedom in some way.

same with anarachy in politics (as akka said)

Bereta_Eder · May 15, 2002, 13:41

economic freedom is not personal freedom.

in a laissez faire economy the worker might end up with 1 dollar salary because that is what 100% free markets could dictate at that period.

a man with a 1 dollar salary is not free.

socialist economy and state intervention guarantess minum wage and thus guarantess personal freedom.

so laissez faire economy equals slavery to whatever the big capital dictates.

David Floyd · May 15, 2002, 13:42

Quote:

Yes, anti-murder law limit my freedom to kill too. So anarchy is the only system that does not limit my freedom.

Being able to murder someone is not an exercise of individual rights - rights do not extend to violating the natural rights of another.

David Floyd · May 15, 2002, 13:50

Quote:

a man with a 1 dollar salary is not free.

Of course he is, if he voluntarily agreed to work for that amount.

TCO · May 15, 2002, 13:53

democracy. But given that, we will still choose capitalism over socialism.

Bereta_Eder · May 15, 2002, 13:55

he wouldn't have a choice.

David Floyd · May 15, 2002, 13:56

Quote:

democracy. But given that, we will still choose capitalism over socialism.

You mean a mixed economy, ie the current form of "capitalism", right?

David Floyd · May 15, 2002, 13:56

Quote:

he wouldn't have a choice.

Ah, but in a true laissez faire system there he would - no one forces him to take that particular job.

Bereta_Eder · May 15, 2002, 14:00

if there is no job other than that then he doesn't have a choice
if he is in construction and constrcution poays 1 dollar a month then he has to take it and be a slave in a free economy

David Floyd · May 15, 2002, 14:04

Quote:

if there is no job other than that then he doesn't have a choice

Why would you assume there is only one type of job (manual labor) available? That makes absolutely no sense. And why would a construction company pay only 1 dollar a month? Sooner or later a new company would come along offering $2, to attract more workers, and so on - that's the beauty of the free market.

Further, even some uneducated guy still has choice - he can, for example, join the military. But he shoulda found a way to get an education, that would certainly give him more choices. He certainly isn't a slave, though.

Bereta_Eder · May 15, 2002, 14:13

another construction company will not offer 2 dolalrs in a free market because that would raise costs and cut earnings.

also it doesn't have to because it does not need to attract workers. workers will be forced to work there to make a living.

so the company has to be made to not take people on slave wages - socialism.

also if all contsruction workers go to the military then the military will soon stop having free slots and so the problem returns.

David Floyd · May 15, 2002, 14:35

Quote:

also it doesn't have to because it does not need to attract workers. workers will be forced to work there to make a living.

You still don't understand. There is more than one construction company. There is not an unlimited pool of construction workers. Therefore, in order to get the workers you need, you have to make it worth their while. Sure, you might argue that every company could just pay $1, but that in practice makes no sense, because the limited pool of labor would have no reason to work for your company over another. If you have no workers, you make no profit. Therefore, you raise wages to $2 to attract workers.
Everyone else hears about this, and now they stand to lose potential workers. Therefore, they go up to $2.50. This goes on until an equilibrium is met between available workers and still-in-business construction companies.
Then, you run into the problem of retaining workers. Let's say a worker at Company A gets a job offer from Company B, because Company B sees that he is a good worker, has learned quickly, whatever. But Company A sees this too, and offers him a raise in order to stay - sure, they could just let him go and find someone else, but it's expensive to train people who won't do as good of a job at first anyway.
You see, it's not as simple as Marx makes it out to be - what I just stated is a simple example, and is by definition how a free market works.

David Floyd · May 15, 2002, 14:36

You still haven't addressed the point that unskilled labor is not the only type of employment available - it all depends on education, entrepreneurship, etc.

Bereta_Eder · May 15, 2002, 14:38

you will always have workers since people are prepared to submit for 1 dollar wage and starve but stay alive than not to work and die.

so the pool is unlimited. that is why there is a government that is supposed to regulate.

David Floyd · May 15, 2002, 14:38

Oh, and one more point - if companies will only want to pay people $1, or whatever, why is it that most companies offre above the minimum wage in the US? I got hired in my first job, for example, for 40% above minimum wage, and by the time I left I was making double minimum wage. This was working in a simple retail job that required no education, and I started at 16.

David Floyd · May 15, 2002, 14:40

Quote:

you will always have workers since people are prepared to submit for 1 dollar wage and starve but stay alive than not work die.

Wrong. Sure, people might rather work for starvation wages than die, but you aren't addressing the points that there is a limited pool of workers in each field. Educated people won't want construction jobs, uneducated people can't be teachers, etc. You are making a theoretical argument that doesn't work in practice.

Akka · May 15, 2002, 14:41

The dream of a free market that would reach a fair equilibrium is just that : a dream.
We could see that in the awful work conditions in the XIXth century for the workers.
Just like anarchy, free market lead only to the rule of the strong and oppression of the weaks, it's just that it's money rather than physical strenght that counts.

David Floyd · May 15, 2002, 14:45

Quote:

The dream of a free market that would reach a fair equilibrium is just that : a dream.
We could see that in the awful work conditions in the XIXth century for the workers.

Did a true free market exist in that time period? Of course not.

The Emperor Fabulous · May 15, 2002, 14:49

Domestically, Democracy.
Internationally 1st World, Democracy.
Internationally 3rd World, Capitalism.

Akka · May 15, 2002, 14:52

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Did a true free market exist in that time period? Of course not.

And which were the limitations ?
Nearly absent. This time was much more free capitalistic than today. We saw the results.

Imran Siddiqui · May 15, 2002, 14:57

Quote:

Nearly absent. This time was much more free capitalistic than today. We saw the results.

These times were no way near to free-market lassez-faire capitalism. The freedom of entry was restricted and the government was HEAVILY involved in helping some businesses succeed.

Akka · May 15, 2002, 15:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Nearly absent. This time was much more free capitalistic than today. We saw the results.

These times were no way near to free-market lassez-faire capitalism. The freedom of entry was restricted and the government was HEAVILY involved in helping some businesses succeed.

There was no minimal wages, no regulation on security, no regulation on ages nor number of hours worked, no taxes for social security...

Well, you can shut your eyes and say that capitalism and lack of regulation will make a wonderful world autoregulated, after all it's no more stupid than the utopian ideas of Marx. Just the opposite utopia.

kolpo · May 15, 2002, 15:02

100-150 years ago was most of Europe much more laisse faire then it is now(there was no social security, not many labor laws, labor unions wheren't allowed or had not power). In that time was the income differnce between rich and poor much bigger then it is now, even much bigger then in the medivial feudal times!

All those economic theories are just theories nothing more, Sweden violated quite all of them(high taxes, much government interference in economy, high minium wages) and they ended up as one of the riches and best countries on earth. It's all stupid theory! Instead look to the really, the reallity that laisse faire capitalism is dead! That everyone decide to move to human capitalism instead. Even the right in the west is no longer as much agaisnts social security and public eductaion as it was 10 years ago(Bush even want to give money to church charity that would be 20 years ago unimaginable for a republicain), both communism and pure capitalism have lost the cold war, only human capitalism remained.

Btw, there is a mathematical proof(forgot name of it) that proofed that the base of Adam Smith his theories "you are best for the others and yourself if you only strive for your own selfish needs" is incorrect. The correct version is: You are best for yourself and the others if you strive for what is best for you and the others(perfect example of this are virtual cartels).