The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.

China isn't a good example on how things should be, they're on the down trend of a 30 year boom and when the correct becomes full swing, you're going to see a 180 on peoples opinions of China's illegitimate construction boom.

Norway or Switzerland. That's what we should have been modeled after (and in the ladder case stayed the course)

America used to be great nation before it was hijacked by the Federal Reserve.

Does anyone else find it funny how someone is posting about the evils of capitalism while posting on a board dedicated to a purely capitalist industry that caters to the needs and desires as any of the 'animal spirits' theories put out there?

Funny video. Would like to correct the one part though, Hayek didn't believe in laissez-faire. He believed government had a role in the economy through the rule of law, as opposed with arbitary central-planning. So, for example, Hayek agreed with anti-trust laws but not the nationalization of a market. He often talks in "The Road to Serfdom" about government's purpose being to aid competition, not to remove it.

Quite. Laissez faire only really works in a realm of small producers making goods and providing services that others could easily provide, ironically being best suited for the proto-capitalist era in which the concept of the Invisible Hand was originally designed, before the scale of industry made the production of non-agricultural products (or at least the ownership of means of production) quite impossible for anyone but the super-rich or those who had their backing. Things like industrial cartels or monopolies are natural in a laissez-faire setup, because if no laws were set to govern the conduct of businesses (aside from basic no stealing no killing laws, etc), the natural end-game for some industries is for one player to win completely, or for the multiple players in an oligopoly to realize that they could dictate the terms of their industry with impugnity if they decided to work together (with no real incentive to backstab the other cartel members in a competitive fashion, because you're just in absolute hog heaven once you're carteled up).

Yes, the laissez-faire proponents argue that there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, however. They say all monopolies have some sort of origin with government intervention, and if a natural monopoly does occur it is only for a short period of time. 

http://mises.org/daily/5266/

I'm unsure with which group I agree with. I'd have to read more history to conclude who is more right. Nevertheless, like Hayek, I don't believe government should ever do anything to inhibit a market's progress and competitiveness (such as the nationalization of it.) 

Crony Capitalism exists where 1% of the world's population owns 80% of the world's wealth and assets. 99% must fight for the remaining 20%, around half of the world's population lives in dire poverty on less than $2 per day. Feudalism of the past is very similar to Capitalism: the lucky rich minority hold the majority of the wealth and the poor majority live on next to nothing. Monopolies do exist under Crony Capitalism the system that exists in the world. Laissez faire theory preaches the need for less corruption, more competition and no natural monopolies, sounds great in theory but does not work in practice.

Laissez-faire only seems to work in an anarchic society from what I've observed. Otherwise, as long as there is a centralization of power there will be control over an economy, and consequently laisse-faire does not exist. That's why one only notices Anarcho-Capitalists promoting laissez-faire. 

It's a pretty simple thing. In regards to commerce only a few kinds of laws should be made.

1) Laws that prevent companies from lying. So the consumer buys what it is told. (That said, this should rely to direct lies.

2) Laws that force companies to be transparent. Informed choices are what drive the free market and prevent collapse.

3) Environmental Laws that damage the health of areas. This could just be solved by lawsuits if you have a good enough court system.

4) Basic workers rights laws. (Though probably only in 1st world countries in a lot of cases. Child labor laws in developing countries usually only have the after effect or, a lot more starving children.



The problem is, we've got TOO MUCH other kinds of laws. That makes it a lot different from capitalism. Different laws that coerce the growth and creation of some things at the expense of others.

These laws are the reason for the majority of the economic problems we face today, because they distort production away from what people really want, often to benefit politicians favorite goals.


Any laws, regulations of taxes should at worst be net neutral among equals. An equal sized Solar Company should be taxed the same a an Appliance company a Fast Food Company and a Car Company.


Tax rates should be at least equal on the big companies compared to the small. Preferably it should be progressive, so big companies pay more... AND face more regulations. As small companies are the biggest drivers of capitalism.


The only reason people think Capitalism doesn't work, is because capitalism has been set up to fail due to a bunch of socialist and crony capitalist laws on top of it.

Which are the same thing, since socialism more or less is the influencing of industry by the government. It's just whenever something goes bad, nobody wants to label i that way, because it went bad.

It is not only comonly accepted, it is scientifically accepted.

The only people who teach it otherwise are mostly central and southern american schools for propaganda reasons.

North and South america had different major continental cores.  Also different continental plates.

The little isthmus that connects North and South america was created by volcanic activity and isn't considered anything major or relevent in Geology.

The scientifically accepted consensus is that North And South America are individual continents.  (And Europe and Asia are one continent Eurasia.  That's a case where what's commonly accepted doesn't agree with sceince.)

This is true in both Geology and Geometry.

Essentially you have all sciences AND what is commonly accepted against you.