By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Long Live Pure Capitalism- rant!

mai on 16 March 2011
HappySqurriel said:

The government has a role in a capitalistic economy, but that role is mostly to act as a referee to ensure that abusive and dangerous practices are limited/eliminated and that all individuals have equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, the vast expansion of the government into the economy actually increases the abusive and dangerous practices, and often creates artificial and arbitrary barriers that limits some groups opportunity.

State-driven and more or less free market economic measures are merely tools that might or might not help is certain situations (e.g. F.D.Roosevelt's New Deal), while you seem to describe them as absolutely 'good' or 'bad' in any given situation. Shovel is good for digging, pickaxe for mining.



Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 16 March 2011
badgenome said:
highwaystar101 said:
badgenome said:

Who the fuck is Alan Smith?

Central Midfielder for Newcastle United. He's not known for his work in economics though; not like the guy who's on the £20 note here in England, wassisname?

Alan Rickman?

Exactly!



badgenome on 16 March 2011
Mr Khan said:

Right. If we go back to unadulterated cowboy capitalism, then people will finally realize that's what they never wanted all along, and hopefully the lesson will stick another hundred years

Hasn't worked for communism. No matter how many millions it kills, there's always some asshole who thinks it can still work.



MrT-Tar on 16 March 2011

the freer the market, the freer the people my arse

The 'Nightwatchman State' you envisage would be volatile as hell, divisive and almost back to the Victorian and Edwardian eras in terns of social inequalities.  There is no doubt in my mind that the U.Ks trend rate of economic growth would be lower, due to their not being much in the way of supply side policies, state education leading to an untrained and occupationally immobile workforce and the NHS, which will lead to increased absenteeism due to illness and ultimately death, further reducing the workforce.  I even doubt how much Aggregate Demand will increase due to massive tax cuts for the rich, as though who are on the 50% income tax rate tend to have a rather low marginal propensity to consome.

My views are somewhere between social democracy and neo-revisionism/3rd way socialism, so I am bound to disagree a lot with you view




zgamer5 on 16 March 2011

man is born free but is chained by society.

im sure you love those chains.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

Around the Network
adjlka on 16 March 2011

Sounds like a good idea. (it will at least give those Caddilac driving welfare Queens their comeuppance)



HappySqurriel on 16 March 2011
mai said:
HappySqurriel said:

The government has a role in a capitalistic economy, but that role is mostly to act as a referee to ensure that abusive and dangerous practices are limited/eliminated and that all individuals have equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, the vast expansion of the government into the economy actually increases the abusive and dangerous practices, and often creates artificial and arbitrary barriers that limits some groups opportunity.

State-driven and more or less free market economic measures are merely tools that might or might not help is certain situations (e.g. F.D.Roosevelt's New Deal), while you seem to describe them as absolutely 'good' or 'bad' in any given situation. Shovel is good for digging, pickaxe for mining.

In reality, the vast majority of state intervention in the economy is like hooking up generators to the wheels of a car to create energy to power the car. In other words, they are not "tools" that could ever work because you have to make several incorrect assumptions in your model to argue their viability.



hongkongfuey^2 on 16 March 2011

I like this thread! 

People would be outraged if the governments got rid of welfare and minimum wage but would quickly realize everything would work itself out and our country would be stronger. 



numonex on 16 March 2011

Sell off all public schools and sell off all public hospitals. Private enterprises and free market capitalism can deliver education and health to those who can afford to pay out of their own pocket. Why should tax payers dollars subsidise losers? 

Education and health should be both voluntary and fully privatised. People who can not afford education will be uneducated and can be easily exploited by capitalists. Uneducated, unskilled workers can be paid lower wages. 

No more corporate bailouts and economic stimulus packages that only go towards feeding the ruling classes. Allow the hip hop free markets to adjust and the debt to be de-leveraged. Big banks and Big corporations should be allowed to fail. Why should tax payers dollars pay towards rescuing the greedy incompetent rich elites who mismanaged the economy? Propping up inefficient big corporations is inefficient. A free market is supposed to be efficient and free from government intervention. 



mai on 17 March 2011

HappySqurriel said:

In reality, the vast majority of state intervention in the economy is like hooking up generators to the wheels of a car to create energy to power the car. In other words, they are not "tools" that could ever work because you have to make several incorrect assumptions in your model to argue their viability.

So what's your opinion on New Deal? Was the economic program failed? If not, this an argument against your point. And could you please give an example of economy free of state intervention, say, in last 50 years.