Check any country that has taken on neoliberal ideologies...it's a mixture of your free market fantasies, with corrupt governments. They have either failed (Argentina (which was once your dream country), Chile, etc.) or are in the process of failure (America, Great Britain, etc.)...yet libertarians keep blaming the governments. Have you ever stopped to think that a market system just doesn't work?
Probably as often as you've stopped to think that perhaps it is the government that is causing it. You talked about "corrupt governments". I'm not aware of any other kind, so I find your phrase redundant.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Check the Forbes 500 list...or better yet, in the context of America check out the 400 richest people in this country. Of the richest 400 people in america over 380 are WHITE, about 15-18 would identify as some sort of Asian descent, and 1 black person (Oprah Winfrey) is on the list...no other ethnicities are represented on the list.
You really think this is going to change if we move to a system that privileges the free market? You have to be kidding me if you actually think that moving to a system that is built in the vision of predominantly White people would benefit the many? What I mean is that if White people have a 380+ to 1 head start on owning EVERYTHING is this country how could that possibly be a good thing to do if we are looking for a better system for all?
Secondly, if you want to call counting numbers and putting it into context as racism then I think you vastly undervalue what that term means. Racism would be using a belief that we are genetically different because of the difference in melanin in our skin (which as ludicrous as arguing people with blue eyes are better at basketball and those with brown have the brains) to create an elaborate system of power and privilege....in other words if we actually implemented a system which privileges the free market (that, as I have demonstrated, white people predominantly benefit from) then THAT would be a form of racism.
The best part is libertarians would overlook the context from which their free market system would come from and blame the individual for not making it. It's one of the most vicious and ludicrous ideas in modern economic times, yet somehow it resonates with the people despite the fact that it's fucking a majority of us over...as Toby Miller once wrote "The American People Cannot be Trusted".
P.S. You also left out sexist, and sexualist as well since I pointed out that white, straight, men were the very rich. I could also demonstrate why those two arguments would be equally ludicrous but it would be redundant given my above argument.
You obviously have a problem with certain policies. What does a person's sex, race, or sexual orientation have to do with anything? For every person on that Forbes list who fits your description, you will find 500,000 who have wildly varied degrees of socio-economic status, influence, and ideology. Your statement is just flat-out bigoted.
I would suggest you focus your anger on what policies you would like to see changed in your country and community and support leaders who agree. That was the original point of this thread. Creating a face in your mind to blame things on is massively unproductive.
You obviously have a problem with certain policies. What does a person's sex, race, or sexual orientation have to do with anything? For every person on that Forbes list who fits your description, you will find 500,000 who have wildly varied degrees of socio-economic status, influence, and ideology. Your statement is just flat-out bigoted.
I would suggest you focus your anger on what policies you would like to see changed in your country and community and support leaders who agree. That was the original point of this thread. Creating a face in your mind to blame things on is massively unproductive.
While a libertarian would choose to believe that race, sex, sexual orientation, or class has nothing to do with an individual's achievement it definitely has a HUGE impact on opportunity...absolutely HUGE. I used the Forbes list as a key indicator of the results of a system that is quickly taking up libertarian free market policies.
Please demonstrate to me how using an example and simply counting their "race" (which is an entirely social construct) and then pointing out that there is a massive preponderance of one "race" on the list when taken into comparison with other "races" is racist? Clearly there have to be socio-economic reasons why one "race" can thrive in this system, and no others can, right? Or are you suggesting that white people are just unbelievably good at working the free market system, and that all the other "races' in America are idiots?
I'm not creating a face to blame, but rather pointing to the fact that a particular social identity seems to always come out on top in this country. Yes there are as many ways of being and thinking in this society as there are people, but when you live in a society that privileges money, don't you think that the people with the money have the most power? Moreover, if those people are overwhelmingly white, won't we be living in a society dominated by their values, principles, and ways of being? Everything that we buy, sell, watch, eat, build, use as energy, listen to as music, is very likely to be owned by a white person. As such, do we not have a society then drastically a/effected by rich white people's values, needs, and ideologies?
Wouldn't this then provide a better reason than genetics for why white people dominate the Forbes list? Is there any reason to believe it would change if we further fell onto the free market sword? Like I said before racism would be creating a system of power and privilege that overwhelmingly allows one "race" to dominate society, like free market capitalism in conjunction with a devastating social history, simply pointing this out is not racism...it's just not.
Before I took the time to really try to understand it, yes. I used to think government was the answer. Now I'm convinced it's not.
But, like communism, free market capitalism has never worked (again see: Argentina). Libertarian's often claim that communism never works because government is corrupt, but fail to see that free market capitalism is necessarily corrupts as well. Not b/c of government but because the people who have the power (corporate CEOs) are overwhelmingly assholes. Moreover, free market capitalism always has an endgame. If you must always strive for profit, which necessarily means exploiting labor, doesn't profit have to stop at one point if no taxes on the rich do not exist? On top of that when you suggest that people with money are being punished for being successful, aren't you making a huge assumption that they earned where they got in the first place?
But, like communism, free market capitalism has never worked (again see: Argentina). Libertarian's often claim that communism never works because government is corrupt, but fail to see that free market capitalism is necessarily corrupts as well. Not b/c of government but because the people who have the power (corporate CEOs) are overwhelmingly assholes. Moreover, free market capitalism always has an endgame. If you must always strive for profit, which necessarily means exploiting labor, doesn't profit have to stop at one point if no taxes on the rich do not exist? On top of that when you suggest that people with money are being punished for being successful, aren't you making a huge assumption that they earned where they got in the first place?
Market reforms are not the same as free markets. Also it seems to me that you may be confusing corporatism in the US with free market capitalism.
But, like communism, free market capitalism has never worked (again see: Argentina). Libertarian's often claim that communism never works because government is corrupt, but fail to see that free market capitalism is necessarily corrupts as well. Not b/c of government but because the people who have the power (corporate CEOs) are overwhelmingly assholes. Moreover, free market capitalism always has an endgame. If you must always strive for profit, which necessarily means exploiting labor, doesn't profit have to stop at one point if no taxes on the rich do not exist? On top of that when you suggest that people with money are being punished for being successful, aren't you making a huge assumption that they earned where they got in the first place?
^^^^^^
also, are there ANY examples of where the 'free market' caused actual competition much less a drop in prices for the consumer?? seems like things end up monopolized w/ huge price increases
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
also, are there ANY examples of where the 'free market' caused actual competition much less a drop in prices for the consumer?? seems like things end up monopolized w/ huge price increases
Market reforms are not the same as free markets. Also it seems to me that you may be confusing corporatism in the US with free market capitalism.
corporatism is the result of taking on some of the elements of free market capitalism then, as you and I would agree on, the people in power use it to their advantage...which isn't good either. But again, look at Argentina, they were the country to really take on free market neoliberal capitalism and it didn't work out to well.
While a libertarian would choose to believe that race, sex, sexual orientation, or class has nothing to do with an individual's achievement it definitely has a HUGE impact on opportunity...absolutely HUGE. I used the Forbes list as a key indicator of the results of a system that is quickly taking up libertarian free market policies.
Please demonstrate to me how using an example and simply counting their "race" (which is an entirely social construct) and then pointing out that there is a massive preponderance of one "race" on the list when taken into comparison with other "races" is racist? Clearly there have to be socio-economic reasons why one "race" can thrive in this system, and no others can, right? Or are you suggesting that white people are just unbelievably good at working the free market system, and that all the other "races' in America are idiots?
I'm not creating a face to blame, but rather pointing to the fact that a particular social identity seems to always come out on top in this country. Yes there are as many ways of being and thinking in this society as there are people, but when you live in a society that privileges money, don't you think that the people with the money have the most power? Moreover, if those people are overwhelmingly white, won't we be living in a society dominated by their values, principles, and ways of being? Everything that we buy, sell, watch, eat, build, use as energy, listen to as music, is very likely to be owned by a white person. As such, do we not have a society then drastically a/effected by rich white people's values, needs, and ideologies?
Wouldn't this then provide a better reason than genetics for why white people dominate the Forbes list? Is there any reason to believe it would change if we further fell onto the free market sword? Like I said before racism would be creating a system of power and privilege that overwhelmingly allows one "race" to dominate society, like free market capitalism in conjunction with a devastating social history, simply pointing this out is not racism...it's just not.
The one thing that you're not taking into account is how recently we still had brutal race relations. We're only 50 years out from Brown v. Board of Ed. Each year we make progress, but change doesn't happen overnight. I guarantee you that your beloved list looks more representative than it did 20 years ago and will more so 20 years from now. Unless we want to be cynical for the sake of being cynical.
You just complained for four paragraphs. What about solutions? Again, just bitching about straight white guys comes across as bigoted. Tell me about leaders and ideologies you support and why. It's a much more civil and productive conversation.
The one thing that you're not taking into account is how recently we still had brutal race relations. We're only 50 years out from Brown v. Board of Ed. Each year we make progress, but change doesn't happen overnight. I guarantee you that your beloved list looks more representative than it did 20 years ago and will more so 20 years from now. Unless we want to be cynical for the sake of being cynical.
You just complained for four paragraphs. What about solutions? Again, just bitching about straight white guys comes across as bigoted. Tell me about leaders and ideologies you support and why. It's a much more civil and productive conversation.
I don't love the Forbes list...it's just kind of an instructive tool, and important to remember. I suppose 382-18 is more representative than 400-0...but it's 382 white people 17 asian (crass) people and 1 black person (oprah). Anyway the people who have proferred political ideologies that I can get behind are Stuart Hall, Lawrence Grossberg, Henry Giroux, Susan Giroux, Peter McLaren, Norman Denzin, Michael Giardina, bell hooks, Judith Butler, Joe Kincheloe....I think the most prescriptive of those would be Grossberg in his book "Caught in the Crossfire". Let me take another look at it and I'll get back to you.
As for being bigoted toward rich white straight men, if that's what you believe then fine. I guess my point is that we have to recognize their dominance over American society, and that other identities, ideas, and values need to be considered be it poor white straight men, or rich gay black women. At present that's not the case, b/c most of the money and power in this country is controlled by the people that I spent 4 paragraphs complaining about.
Our Mission
The mission of the Campaign for Liberty is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.
Strategy
The Campaign for Liberty will carry out its mission through the following activities:
1. Promoting candidates for public office who share our commitment to freedom.
2. Gaining a foothold in political life at every level of government by expanding our precinct leader program.
3. Educating the electorate and lobbying against harmful or unconstitutional legislation.
4. Encouraging the formation of discussion groups and book clubs at the local level to help people learn more about our ideas.
5. Establishing a speakers bureau to give presentations around the country about the great principles we champion.
6. Developing materials for homeschooling families, to help them educate their children in history, sound economics, and related fields.
7. Featuring written as well as video commentaries on the news and issues of the day.
8. Additional efforts as time and resources allow.
Over the next few months we will be developing our program, organizing a team, and announcing new and exciting projects. Join now to get all of the latest updates and news!
Statement of Principles
Americans inherit from their ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom and resistance to oppression. Our country has long been admired by the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity – a light shining in the darkness of tyranny.
But many Americans today are frustrated. The political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all. For all their talk of “change,” neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way. Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt. Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy. Neither wants to make the reductions in government that our crushing debt burden demands. Neither talks about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the world. Our country is going bankrupt, and none of these sensible proposals are even on the table.
This destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political life for many years. Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.
That is why the Campaign for Liberty was established: to highlight the neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinsert them into the American political conversation.
The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty stands for, since the very least we can demand of our government is fidelity to its own governing document. Claims that our Constitution was meant to be a “living document” that judges may interpret as they please are fraudulent, incompatible with republican government, and without foundation in the constitutional text or the thinking of the Framers. Thomas Jefferson spoke of binding our rulers down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and we are proud to follow in his distinguished lineage.
With our Founding Fathers, we also believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy. Inspired by the old Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, we are convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with 700 military bases around the world, troops in 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national defense and bankrupting our country.
We believe that the free market, reviled by people who do not understand it, is the most just and humane economic system and the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known.
We believe with Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and F.A. Hayek that central banking distorts economic decisionmaking and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks’ interference with interest rates sets the stage for economic downturns. And the central bank’s ability to create money out of thin air transfers wealth from the most vulnerable to those with political pull, since it is the latter who receive the new money before the price increases it brings in its wake have yet occurred. For economic and moral reasons, therefore, we join the great twentieth-century economists in opposing the Federal Reserve System, which has reduced the value of the dollar by 95 percent since it began in 1913.
We oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress. We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution.
We oppose the transfer of American sovereignty to supranational organizations in which the American people possess no elected representatives. Such compromises of our country’s independence run counter to the principles of the American Revolution, which was fought on behalf of self-government and local control. Most of these organizations have a terrible track record even on their own terms: how much poverty have the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actually alleviated, for example? The peoples of the world can interact with each other just fine in the absence of bureaucratic intermediaries that undermine their sovereignty.
We believe that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well, all of which are historic rights that our civilization has cherished from time immemorial.
Our stances on other issues can be deduced from these general principles.
Our country is ailing. That is the bad news. The good news is that the remedy is so simple and attractive: a return to the principles our Founders taught us. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty, sound money, and a noninterventionist foreign policy constitute the foundation of the Campaign for Liberty.
Will you join us?
Joined and donated already. For those of you out there who have not read it yet I highly recommend Paul's latest book "The Revolution". An amazing read. Even if you don't agree with Ron Paul's stances on certain issues you can't help but realize that the man is on the mark when it comes to the abuses carried out by our government. I for one am glad that Paul has taken his presidential campaign and turned it into a movement. Unlike other candidates who just spout off about change he is actually someone who is willing to enact change in this country.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
also, are there ANY examples of where the 'free market' caused actual competition much less a drop in prices for the consumer?? seems like things end up monopolized w/ huge price increases
LOL...been to a farmer's market lately? The very fact that you ask this question shows a complete and utter lack of economic understanding, Kabong. You should read.
LOL...been to a farmer's market lately? The very fact that you ask this question shows a complete and utter lack of economic understanding, Kabong. You should read.
I would suggest these books too, but Smith and Keynes definitely have their critics (including myself). Smith, Keynes, Hume, etc all laid the groundwork for today's economic policies but there are big problems with all three...
Adam Smith, aside from being alive over THREE FREAKIN CENTURIES ago (which should make his work as irrelevant as 18th century medicine, such as using leeches to recycle someone's blood), would have been appalled by today's economic structure. Especially the fact that corporations rule the business world. Smith was very critical of corporations and how they are discouraging to the members of the corporation, he was critical of the productivity of a corporation and the distribution of its profits.
Also, did Keynes or Hume or Smith or whomever, talk about an equitable distribution of wealth in a capitalist society? Did they talk about the negative externalities in a free market and in regards to free trade? These are really the two biggest problems of Capitalism as we know it, and none of these books address these problems.
Also, Keynes' theories could be directly blamed for the huge deficit the USA is running right now. He was the biggest advocate of deficit spending theory. Keynesian economics also are being blamed for the current state of stagflation in the U.S.
So, while these guys have laid the framework for where we are today, they also inspired an economy which is broken. An economy that has failed the majority of the people in this world.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
except for the indivdual liberty of a womans decision on personal medical decisions...
This is one of the issue where I don't see eye to eye with Ron Paul, but I do agree with him that the issue is a state's right issue and should be decided upon on a state by state basis.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I would suggest these books too, but Smith and Keynes definitely have their critics (including myself). Smith, Keynes, Hume, etc all laid the groundwork for today's economic policies but there are big problems with all three...
Adam Smith, aside from being alive over THREE FREAKIN CENTURIES ago (which should make his work as irrelevant as 18th century medicine, such as using leeches to recycle someone's blood), would have been appalled by today's economic structure. Especially the fact that corporations rule the business world. Smith was very critical of corporations and how they are discouraging to the members of the corporation, he was critical of the productivity of a corporation and the distribution of its profits.
Do you consider the works of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Marx, Galileo or Diophantus invalid because they wrote "freakin centuries ago"? Just because some things in the past were wrong does not make everything done in the past wrong.
Certainly Adam Smith would have large problems with the way our present world conducts business. Smith was largely critical and skeptical of corporations -- just as anyone should be. Smith understood the dangers of the free market, but he wasn't stupid enough to trade in those dangers for their convenient and corrupt alternatives.
Also, did Keynes or Hume or Smith or whomever, talk about an equitable distribution of wealth in a capitalist society? Did they talk about the negative externalities in a free market and in regards to free trade? These are really the two biggest problems of Capitalism as we know it, and none of these books address these problems.
Keynes was very critical of such issues and Smith certainly touched on them. However, I also posted a third book that discusses it in large part.
Also, Keynes' theories could be directly blamed for the huge deficit the USA is running right now. He was the biggest advocate of deficit spending theory. Keynesian economics also are being blamed for the current state of stagflation in the U.S.
This is a very fair criticism. I'm no fans of Keynes. His work, however, has shaped the economic policies of most Western governments and is highly relevant. Furthermore, from a purely economic perspective, it is very solid.
So, while these guys have laid the framework for where we are today, they also inspired an economy which is broken. An economy that has failed the majority of the people in this world.
To suggest that work of even our best economists has inspired either imperfect or sub-par economies is certainly debatable. To say that the economies are "broken", however, is laughable. Western economies that have embraced the works of Smith, Keynes, and many others, have typically enjoyed tremendous success whereas economies that have eschewed their ideas are typically dismal. This does not prove that capitalism or neoliberalism is beyond criticism. However, it does make the blanket statements about "broken economies" and the questions about "competition and low prices" look downright foolish.
Do you consider the works of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Marx, Galileo or Diophantus invalid because they wrote "freakin centuries ago"? Just because some things in the past were wrong does not make everything done in the past wrong.
I never said his work wasn't valid, just that his theories are very old and don't take into account some of today's realities that either didn't exist in the 18th century or he couldn't predict or both. In fact, I pointed out that Adam Smith's work laid the framework for modern day industrialised economies. Same goes with Plato, Aristotle, et al in regards to laying the framework for a multitiude of physical and social sciences... But our armies don't use trebuchets and our chemists know that we have more than five elements in the periodic table. We have advanced and so should economic theory.
Certainly Adam Smith would have large problems with the way our present world conducts business. Smith was largely critical and skeptical of corporations -- just as anyone should be. Smith understood the dangers of the free market, but he wasn't stupid enough to trade in those dangers for their convenient and corrupt alternatives.
You are implying that the free market isn't "convenient and corrupt," and I would have to disagree with that. Corruption doesn't have to exist within our government, the government can outsource it for a price.
Keynes was very critical of such issues and Smith certainly touched on them. However, I also posted a third book that discusses it in large part.
I don't remember Adam Smith ever talking about an equitable distribution of the wealth. He is a big advocate of Laissez faire policies... I don't recall anything in the Wealth of Nations that talks about this... And sorry I haven't read the third book.
This is a very fair criticism. I'm no fans of Keynes. His work, however, has shaped the economic policies of most Western governments and is highly relevant. Furthermore, from a purely economic perspective, it is very solid.
It is very solid in that it provides bedrock principles that we adhere to today. While his policies have increased the general welfare of the public, it has also encourage an ungodly trade deficit that has put at risk the well-being of this country. His policies caused the current state of stagflation. We've hit a dead end of Keynesian "consumerism." So yes, it is relevant to the way economies are run today, but that doesn't make it the most sound economic advice for our FUTURE.
To suggest that work of even our best economists has inspired either imperfect or sub-par economies is certainly debatable. To say that the economies are "broken", however, is laughable. Western economies that have embraced the works of Smith, Keynes, and many others, have typically enjoyed tremendous success whereas economies that have eschewed their ideas are typically dismal. This does not prove that capitalism or neoliberalism is beyond criticism. However, it does make the blanket statements about "broken economies" and the questions about "competition and low prices" look downright foolish.
Sure, we had a great run. Industrialized economies have ruled the world for over 300 years now. Because of the flaws with Keynesian, Adam Smith, David Hume, et al, theories the system is now broke. It isn't their fault, they couldn't have predicted what the ramifications would be 300 or 100 years down the road. The consumeristic utopia couldn't last forever. We've drained the earth of it's resources, forgot to account for negative externalities to trade, and have a monetary policy that is allowing other governments to bankrupt us. I'm not saying that we need a totally different alternative, just that changes need to be made to our current policies.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
I never said his work wasn't valid, just that his theories are very old and don't take into account some of today's realities that either didn't exist in the 18th century or he couldn't predict or both. In fact, I pointed out that Adam Smith's work laid the framework for modern day industrialised economies. Same goes with Plato, Aristotle, et al in regards to laying the framework for a multitiude of physical and social sciences... But our armies don't use trebuchets and our chemists know that we have more than five elements in the periodic table. We have advanced and so should economic theory.
Fair enough. Do you have specific "modern" additions you'd like to add to economic theory?
You are implying that the free market isn't "convenient and corrupt," and I would have to disagree with that. Corruption doesn't have to exist within our government, the government can outsource it for a price.
The free market is certainly not convenient, which is why the world refuses time and time again to operate by its principles. In a free market, you have no guarantees vis a vis your welfare beyond your own abilities. Most find that far less than convenient.
Futhermore, free markets are no more corrupt than free speech. Certainly one can use markets or speech to corrupt or in corrupt ways, but their natures do not guarantee that eventuality.
I don't remember Adam Smith ever talking about an equitable distribution of the wealth. He is a big advocate of Laissez faire policies... I don't recall anything in the Wealth of Nations that talks about this... And sorry I haven't read the third book.
Smith discussed equitable distributions of wealth in all his work, including "Wealth of Nations" and "Theory of Moral Sentiments". Laissez faire policies ensure better than anything else an equitable distribution. I think, however, you mean "equal distribution" or "fair distribution" or some other loaded term.
It is very solid in that it provides bedrock principles that we adhere to today. While his policies have increased the general welfare of the public, it has also encourage an ungodly trade deficit that has put at risk the well-being of this country. His policies caused the current state of stagflation. We've hit a dead end of Keynesian "consumerism." So yes, it is relevant to the way economies are run today, but that doesn't make it the most sound economic advice for our FUTURE.
I'm not saying it does make for "sound economic advice for our FUTURE", in and of itself. It does, however, contribute greatly to the base of economic theory and, without understanding that, you'll have no hope of crafting sound economic policy for the future.
Sure, we had a great run. Industrialized economies have ruled the world for over 300 years now. Because of the flaws with Keynesian, Adam Smith, David Hume, et al, theories the system is now broke. It isn't their fault, they couldn't have predicted what the ramifications would be 300 or 100 years down the road. The consumeristic utopia couldn't last forever. We've drained the earth of it's resources, forgot to account for negative externalities to trade, and have a monetary policy that is allowing other governments to bankrupt us. I'm not saying that we need a totally different alternative, just that changes need to be made to our current policies.
How is the system "broke"? Please explain it to me using the precise meaning of that word -- that it's failures will ensure economic collapse. You claim that we have "drained the earth of it's resources" which is absolutely ridiculous. We've barely even touched the earth's total resources. Certainly a fair criticism of consumerism is that it has and can have very negative environmental consequences, but these silly absolutes you're creating have no basis in reality.
Fair enough. Do you have specific "modern" additions you'd like to add to economic theory?
I recognize the aforementioned problems with capitalism, but I don't have the time to theorize solutions. I have my own solutions to policy decisions, but I don't pretend to know enough about economics to add my own theories. Do you?
The free market is certainly not convenient, which is why the world refuses time and time again to operate by its principles. In a free market, you have no guarantees vis a vis your welfare beyond your own abilities. Most find that far less than convenient.
Futhermore, free markets are no more corrupt than free speech. Certainly one can use markets or speech to corrupt or in corrupt ways, but their natures do not guarantee that eventuality.
An economy with a GDP of X trillions of dollars is a different beast than any numbers of persons with free speech... I don't really get this analogy.
Smith discussed equitable distributions of wealth in all his work, including "Wealth of Nations" and "Theory of Moral Sentiments". Laissez faire policies ensure better than anything else an equitable distribution. I think, however, you mean "equal distribution" or "fair distribution" or some other loaded term.
No, I mean what I say. Equitable. Can you direct me to some of Smith's work that addressed this problem? Because I can't find it...
I'm not saying it does make for "sound economic advice for our FUTURE", in and of itself. It does, however, contribute greatly to the base of economic theory and, without understanding that, you'll have no hope of crafting sound economic policy for the future.
Agreed, so we should look to others (meaning other than the authors of the books you cited) for the future economic theory?
How is the system "broke"? Please explain it to me using the precise meaning of that word -- that it's failures will ensure economic collapse. You claim that we have "drained the earth of it's resources" which is absolutely ridiculous. We've barely even touched the earth's total resources. Certainly a fair criticism of consumerism is that it has and can have very negative environmental consequences, but these silly absolutes you're creating have no basis in reality.
Regardless, what "changes" are you advocating?
How is the system broke? A few hundred people in this country hold half of the nation's wealth. People are starving across the world. Wars are fought for our economic prosperity, but in the name of "freedom" or to stop "terrorism." People work for corporations, instead of for themselves, and have no choice. We are all slaves to our current economic and political system. Of course this will all collapse with time, unless you think we have achieved utopia and could not advance to a higher state?
We haven't drained the earth of it's resources...??? Do you not believe peak oil is rapidly approaching? Do you not read about water rights issues in Southwest USA? I thought it was fairly evident that this glutony could not continue.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
How does a Laissez faire system provide an equitable distribution of wealth?
It doesn't. Gradually, more and more businesses combine to control production and prices for the benefit of the owners. Thus, competition—a basic tenet of the laissez-faire system—is eliminated. The trend of any free market system will always be towards monopolies, and thus a greater inequality of distribution.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
I recognize the aforementioned problems with capitalism, but I don't have the time to theorize solutions. I have my own solutions to policy decisions, but I don't pretend to know enough about economics to add my own theories. Do you?
You pretend to know enough about economics to strongly criticize some of its greatest minds. Yet you do so in such a vague manner that I wonder how much you know to begin with.
I am certainly not an economist by trade, nor would I suggest that either of us can or should add to the great economic lexicon. However, I would suggest that if one believes that classical economics is "outdated", then one should be able to point to its deficiencies vis a vis "modern reality".
An economy with a GDP of X trillions of dollars is a different beast than any numbers of persons with free speech... I don't really get this analogy.
Speech is a capacity. In a free market, one's labor becomes a similar capacity. Those capacities can both be used for good, evil, and everything in between.
No, I mean what I say. Equitable. Can you direct me to some of Smith's work that addressed this problem? Because I can't find it...
I already did. Read "Wealth of Nations" and "Theory of Moral Sentiments".
Agreed, so we should look to others (meaning other than the authors of the books you cited) for the future economic theory?
Absolutely! Those three individuals are not the be all end all of economics.
How is the system broke? A few hundred people in this country hold half of the nation's wealth. People are starving across the world.
This is a false link you're building with half-facts. First, people were starving across the world long before "a few hundred people held half of the nation's wealth". Secondly, "a few hundred people" don't hold half of the nation's wealth. Three million of the richest people in this country hold 38% of its total wealth.
Wars are fought for our economic prosperity, but in the name of "freedom" or to stop "terrorism."
LOL...wars are not fought "for our economic prosperity". Wars are fought for fears and stupidity. Wars, inherently destructive acts, are the antithesis to economic prosperty.
People work for corporations, instead of for themselves, and have no choice.
People choose to work for corporations, instead of for themselves. Not everyone can work for themselves, nor should they. An economy full of one-person entrepeneurs would be a disaster.
We are all slaves to our current economic and political system.
You are a slave to the degree that you are forced to labor against your will.
Of course this will all collapse with time, unless you think we have achieved utopia and could not advance to a higher state?
"Advancing to a higher state" does not imply collapse. We will almost certainly reach a "higher state" at some point in the future. The certainty of collapse, however, seems pretty slight.
We haven't drained the earth of it's resources...??? Do you not believe peak oil is rapidly approaching?
Um....oil represents a very small part of the "the earth's resources".
Do you not read about water rights issues in Southwest USA? I thought it was fairly evident that this glutony could not continue.
"Fairly evident" from what? There's plenty of oil to guide the West through a long transition to alternatives. Furthermore, you could put a person in every square foot of this planet and still have plenty of water. Distribution problems and failures of technology are not the same as "draining the earth of its resources".
It doesn't. Gradually, more and more businesses combine to control production and prices for the benefit of the owners. Thus, competition—a basic tenet of the laissez-faire system—is eliminated. The trend of any free market system will always be towards monopolies, and thus a greater inequality of distribution.
This is absolutely wrong. There is no dominant trend in free market systems towards monopolies.
Natural monopolies certainly can be created in a free market system. However, they don't have to nor are they necessarily permanent.
Regardless, if you don't like monopolies, it seems pretty stupid to then advocate for the state, whose very definition and existence implies monopoly.
Please provide me your definition of "equitable" before I even bother to answer this question.
lol I don't think he means that everybody gets the same slice of pie. We're not communists here. (I don't think anyway)
Anyways, equitable is a subjective term. I mean, how can you precisely define this term other then using the word "fair" ... Is that how you would define it?
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
lol I don't think he means that everybody gets the same slice of pie. We're not communists here. (I don't think anyway)
Anyways, equitable is a subjective term. I mean, how can you precisely define this term other then using the word "fair" ... Is that how you would define it?
for it to be fair, those doing the most work should get the biggest slice of the pie yeah?
Comments
Probably as often as you've stopped to think that perhaps it is the government that is causing it. You talked about "corrupt governments". I'm not aware of any other kind, so I find your phrase redundant.
Before I took the time to really try to understand it, yes. I used to think government was the answer. Now I'm convinced it's not.
You obviously have a problem with certain policies. What does a person's sex, race, or sexual orientation have to do with anything? For every person on that Forbes list who fits your description, you will find 500,000 who have wildly varied degrees of socio-economic status, influence, and ideology. Your statement is just flat-out bigoted.
I would suggest you focus your anger on what policies you would like to see changed in your country and community and support leaders who agree. That was the original point of this thread. Creating a face in your mind to blame things on is massively unproductive.
Please demonstrate to me how using an example and simply counting their "race" (which is an entirely social construct) and then pointing out that there is a massive preponderance of one "race" on the list when taken into comparison with other "races" is racist? Clearly there have to be socio-economic reasons why one "race" can thrive in this system, and no others can, right? Or are you suggesting that white people are just unbelievably good at working the free market system, and that all the other "races' in America are idiots?
I'm not creating a face to blame, but rather pointing to the fact that a particular social identity seems to always come out on top in this country. Yes there are as many ways of being and thinking in this society as there are people, but when you live in a society that privileges money, don't you think that the people with the money have the most power? Moreover, if those people are overwhelmingly white, won't we be living in a society dominated by their values, principles, and ways of being? Everything that we buy, sell, watch, eat, build, use as energy, listen to as music, is very likely to be owned by a white person. As such, do we not have a society then drastically a/effected by rich white people's values, needs, and ideologies?
Wouldn't this then provide a better reason than genetics for why white people dominate the Forbes list? Is there any reason to believe it would change if we further fell onto the free market sword? Like I said before racism would be creating a system of power and privilege that overwhelmingly allows one "race" to dominate society, like free market capitalism in conjunction with a devastating social history, simply pointing this out is not racism...it's just not.
Market reforms are not the same as free markets. Also it seems to me that you may be confusing corporatism in the US with free market capitalism.
^^^^^^
also, are there ANY examples of where the 'free market' caused actual competition much less a drop in prices for the consumer?? seems like things end up monopolized w/ huge price increases
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
The one thing that you're not taking into account is how recently we still had brutal race relations. We're only 50 years out from Brown v. Board of Ed. Each year we make progress, but change doesn't happen overnight. I guarantee you that your beloved list looks more representative than it did 20 years ago and will more so 20 years from now. Unless we want to be cynical for the sake of being cynical.
You just complained for four paragraphs. What about solutions? Again, just bitching about straight white guys comes across as bigoted. Tell me about leaders and ideologies you support and why. It's a much more civil and productive conversation.
As for being bigoted toward rich white straight men, if that's what you believe then fine. I guess my point is that we have to recognize their dominance over American society, and that other identities, ideas, and values need to be considered be it poor white straight men, or rich gay black women. At present that's not the case, b/c most of the money and power in this country is controlled by the people that I spent 4 paragraphs complaining about.
Joined and donated already. For those of you out there who have not read it yet I highly recommend Paul's latest book "The Revolution". An amazing read. Even if you don't agree with Ron Paul's stances on certain issues you can't help but realize that the man is on the mark when it comes to the abuses carried out by our government. I for one am glad that Paul has taken his presidential campaign and turned it into a movement. Unlike other candidates who just spout off about change he is actually someone who is willing to enact change in this country.
LOL...been to a farmer's market lately? The very fact that you ask this question shows a complete and utter lack of economic understanding, Kabong. You should read.
http://www.amazon.com/End-Poverty-Economic-Possibilities-Time/dp/0143036580/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213624297&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Employment-Interest-Money/dp/1573921394/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213624334&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Bantam-Classics/dp/0553585975/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213624348&sr=8-1
I would suggest these books too, but Smith and Keynes definitely have their critics (including myself). Smith, Keynes, Hume, etc all laid the groundwork for today's economic policies but there are big problems with all three...
Adam Smith, aside from being alive over THREE FREAKIN CENTURIES ago (which should make his work as irrelevant as 18th century medicine, such as using leeches to recycle someone's blood), would have been appalled by today's economic structure. Especially the fact that corporations rule the business world. Smith was very critical of corporations and how they are discouraging to the members of the corporation, he was critical of the productivity of a corporation and the distribution of its profits.
Also, did Keynes or Hume or Smith or whomever, talk about an equitable distribution of wealth in a capitalist society? Did they talk about the negative externalities in a free market and in regards to free trade? These are really the two biggest problems of Capitalism as we know it, and none of these books address these problems.
Also, Keynes' theories could be directly blamed for the huge deficit the USA is running right now. He was the biggest advocate of deficit spending theory. Keynesian economics also are being blamed for the current state of stagflation in the U.S.
So, while these guys have laid the framework for where we are today, they also inspired an economy which is broken. An economy that has failed the majority of the people in this world.
except for the indivdual liberty of a womans decision on personal medical decisions...
This is a good critique -- one I would agree with wholeheartedly.
This is one of the issue where I don't see eye to eye with Ron Paul, but I do agree with him that the issue is a state's right issue and should be decided upon on a state by state basis.
Do you consider the works of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Marx, Galileo or Diophantus invalid because they wrote "freakin centuries ago"? Just because some things in the past were wrong does not make everything done in the past wrong.
Certainly Adam Smith would have large problems with the way our present world conducts business. Smith was largely critical and skeptical of corporations -- just as anyone should be. Smith understood the dangers of the free market, but he wasn't stupid enough to trade in those dangers for their convenient and corrupt alternatives.
Keynes was very critical of such issues and Smith certainly touched on them. However, I also posted a third book that discusses it in large part.
This is a very fair criticism. I'm no fans of Keynes. His work, however, has shaped the economic policies of most Western governments and is highly relevant. Furthermore, from a purely economic perspective, it is very solid.
To suggest that work of even our best economists has inspired either imperfect or sub-par economies is certainly debatable. To say that the economies are "broken", however, is laughable. Western economies that have embraced the works of Smith, Keynes, and many others, have typically enjoyed tremendous success whereas economies that have eschewed their ideas are typically dismal. This does not prove that capitalism or neoliberalism is beyond criticism. However, it does make the blanket statements about "broken economies" and the questions about "competition and low prices" look downright foolish.
I never said his work wasn't valid, just that his theories are very old and don't take into account some of today's realities that either didn't exist in the 18th century or he couldn't predict or both. In fact, I pointed out that Adam Smith's work laid the framework for modern day industrialised economies. Same goes with Plato, Aristotle, et al in regards to laying the framework for a multitiude of physical and social sciences... But our armies don't use trebuchets and our chemists know that we have more than five elements in the periodic table. We have advanced and so should economic theory.
You are implying that the free market isn't "convenient and corrupt," and I would have to disagree with that. Corruption doesn't have to exist within our government, the government can outsource it for a price.
I don't remember Adam Smith ever talking about an equitable distribution of the wealth. He is a big advocate of Laissez faire policies... I don't recall anything in the Wealth of Nations that talks about this... And sorry I haven't read the third book.
It is very solid in that it provides bedrock principles that we adhere to today. While his policies have increased the general welfare of the public, it has also encourage an ungodly trade deficit that has put at risk the well-being of this country. His policies caused the current state of stagflation. We've hit a dead end of Keynesian "consumerism." So yes, it is relevant to the way economies are run today, but that doesn't make it the most sound economic advice for our FUTURE.
Sure, we had a great run. Industrialized economies have ruled the world for over 300 years now. Because of the flaws with Keynesian, Adam Smith, David Hume, et al, theories the system is now broke. It isn't their fault, they couldn't have predicted what the ramifications would be 300 or 100 years down the road. The consumeristic utopia couldn't last forever. We've drained the earth of it's resources, forgot to account for negative externalities to trade, and have a monetary policy that is allowing other governments to bankrupt us. I'm not saying that we need a totally different alternative, just that changes need to be made to our current policies.
Fair enough. Do you have specific "modern" additions you'd like to add to economic theory?
The free market is certainly not convenient, which is why the world refuses time and time again to operate by its principles. In a free market, you have no guarantees vis a vis your welfare beyond your own abilities. Most find that far less than convenient.
Futhermore, free markets are no more corrupt than free speech. Certainly one can use markets or speech to corrupt or in corrupt ways, but their natures do not guarantee that eventuality.
Smith discussed equitable distributions of wealth in all his work, including "Wealth of Nations" and "Theory of Moral Sentiments". Laissez faire policies ensure better than anything else an equitable distribution. I think, however, you mean "equal distribution" or "fair distribution" or some other loaded term.
I'm not saying it does make for "sound economic advice for our FUTURE", in and of itself. It does, however, contribute greatly to the base of economic theory and, without understanding that, you'll have no hope of crafting sound economic policy for the future.
How is the system "broke"? Please explain it to me using the precise meaning of that word -- that it's failures will ensure economic collapse. You claim that we have "drained the earth of it's resources" which is absolutely ridiculous. We've barely even touched the earth's total resources. Certainly a fair criticism of consumerism is that it has and can have very negative environmental consequences, but these silly absolutes you're creating have no basis in reality.
Regardless, what "changes" are you advocating?
I recognize the aforementioned problems with capitalism, but I don't have the time to theorize solutions. I have my own solutions to policy decisions, but I don't pretend to know enough about economics to add my own theories. Do you?
An economy with a GDP of X trillions of dollars is a different beast than any numbers of persons with free speech... I don't really get this analogy.
No, I mean what I say. Equitable. Can you direct me to some of Smith's work that addressed this problem? Because I can't find it...
Agreed, so we should look to others (meaning other than the authors of the books you cited) for the future economic theory?
How is the system broke? A few hundred people in this country hold half of the nation's wealth. People are starving across the world. Wars are fought for our economic prosperity, but in the name of "freedom" or to stop "terrorism." People work for corporations, instead of for themselves, and have no choice. We are all slaves to our current economic and political system. Of course this will all collapse with time, unless you think we have achieved utopia and could not advance to a higher state?
We haven't drained the earth of it's resources...??? Do you not believe peak oil is rapidly approaching? Do you not read about water rights issues in Southwest USA? I thought it was fairly evident that this glutony could not continue.
How does a Laissez faire system provide an equitable distribution of wealth?
It doesn't. Gradually, more and more businesses combine to control production and prices for the benefit of the owners. Thus, competition—a basic tenet of the laissez-faire system—is eliminated. The trend of any free market system will always be towards monopolies, and thus a greater inequality of distribution.
You pretend to know enough about economics to strongly criticize some of its greatest minds. Yet you do so in such a vague manner that I wonder how much you know to begin with.
I am certainly not an economist by trade, nor would I suggest that either of us can or should add to the great economic lexicon. However, I would suggest that if one believes that classical economics is "outdated", then one should be able to point to its deficiencies vis a vis "modern reality".
Speech is a capacity. In a free market, one's labor becomes a similar capacity. Those capacities can both be used for good, evil, and everything in between.
I already did. Read "Wealth of Nations" and "Theory of Moral Sentiments".
Absolutely! Those three individuals are not the be all end all of economics.
This is a false link you're building with half-facts. First, people were starving across the world long before "a few hundred people held half of the nation's wealth". Secondly, "a few hundred people" don't hold half of the nation's wealth. Three million of the richest people in this country hold 38% of its total wealth.
LOL...wars are not fought "for our economic prosperity". Wars are fought for fears and stupidity. Wars, inherently destructive acts, are the antithesis to economic prosperty.
People choose to work for corporations, instead of for themselves. Not everyone can work for themselves, nor should they. An economy full of one-person entrepeneurs would be a disaster.
You are a slave to the degree that you are forced to labor against your will.
"Advancing to a higher state" does not imply collapse. We will almost certainly reach a "higher state" at some point in the future. The certainty of collapse, however, seems pretty slight.
Um....oil represents a very small part of the "the earth's resources".
"Fairly evident" from what? There's plenty of oil to guide the West through a long transition to alternatives. Furthermore, you could put a person in every square foot of this planet and still have plenty of water. Distribution problems and failures of technology are not the same as "draining the earth of its resources".
This is absolutely wrong. There is no dominant trend in free market systems towards monopolies.
Natural monopolies certainly can be created in a free market system. However, they don't have to nor are they necessarily permanent.
Regardless, if you don't like monopolies, it seems pretty stupid to then advocate for the state, whose very definition and existence implies monopoly.
Please provide me your definition of "equitable" before I even bother to answer this question.
Is the government a "for profit" entity like a business? If so, I have A LOT to learn about government!!!
lol I don't think he means that everybody gets the same slice of pie. We're not communists here. (I don't think anyway)
Anyways, equitable is a subjective term. I mean, how can you precisely define this term other then using the word "fair" ... Is that how you would define it?